The goal is getting one good whistle-blower and one good federal judge together, through one solid, well-argued case.

Updated twice.

Reader comment on previous post re: clinical trial documents are just props in a theatrical production; clinical investigators are fooled performers and in the fooled audience; playwright and director is DOD

If Brook's case is based on the erroneous assumption that she was working on a real clinical trial, but it wasn't a real clinical trial, and by your citations, it didn't have to be a real clinical trial, I don't understand how her lawsuit could possibly prevail.

My reply:

I don't think it can prevail, if she and her legal team stick to their original arguments without taking into account the Oct. 4, 2022 disclosure, by the US Government, that the US Government was not just in on, but actively directed, the planned and executed fraud and mass murder campaigns.

I realized that in May when I first read Pfizer's April 22, 2022 Motion to Dismiss.

• May 25, 2022 - Pfizer’s Motion to Dismiss the Brook Jackson, federal contracting fraud, clinical trial fraud, whistleblower case.

• May 26, 2022 - Implications of 10 USC 2371b, the federal contracting provision cited by Pfizer

My point now is that the Government's Oct. 4, 2022 disclosure opens a litigation path to adding an 18 USC 2333 claim, converting Jackson's False Claims Act case to a criminal terrorism case prosecuted by a private civilian — because federal, state and county prosecutors have been refusing to look at the evidence and bring charges for the last two years, — adding the US Government and many of its elected and appointed agents as defendants, and exposing the whole criminal conspiracy so that it can be judicially stopped and the executive/administrative, DOD, HHS and legislative branch perpetrators can be held to account.

It all depends on one whistle-blowing plaintiff finding one federal judge with integrity and faith.

Maybe that plaintiff is Brook Jackson and maybe that judge is Judge Truncale.

Maybe it's not time yet, and there's another plaintiff and another judge waiting to be brought together through the right case. I don't know.

That's the goal as I understand it right now: getting that one plaintiff and that one judge together, through a good case, well-argued.

As quickly as possible.

---

Update

Reader follow-up question:

But doesn't 18 USC 2333 apply only to "an injury arising from an act of international terrorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act"?

My reply:

Yes, and that’s why I also advocate for including Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury and Attorney General as named defendants when the right case comes along.

Those individuals should be charged on a count of breach of duty and related civil counts, for their failure to properly designate the DOD, HHS and Department of Homeland Security as foreign terrorist organizations.

Legal horror movie pitch: The World According to Darp

Mendenhall commented:

Liability seems to be limited to those "designated as a foreign terrorist organization."

My reply, revised/expanded:

One possibility re: "foreign terrorist organization" — Include among named US government defendants the Secretary of State, Treasury Secretary and Attorney General, for breach of duty to properly designate US government/HHS/DOD as a foreign terrorist organization.

When combined with the NIH/NIAID/US-AID/EcoHealth/ PREDICT/ DARPA/Joseph Murphy reports and an affidavit from Francis A. Boyle, the following piece of evidence from the Federal Register will be useful in making that argument:

2021/11/17 - “HHS Interim Final Rule - Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins — Addition of SARS–CoV/SARS–CoV–2 Chimeric Viruses Resulting From Any Deliberate Manipulation of SARS–CoV–2 To Incorporate Nucleic Acids Coding for SARS–CoV Virulence Factors to the HHS List of Select Agents and Toxins.” 86 Federal Register 64075.

Translation: On Nov. 17, 2021, US Government officials within HHS added chimeric, lab-weaponized SARS-CoV-2 to the list of agents that “have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety” under 42 CFR 73.3.

This act can and should be argued to a federal judge as part of the pre-crime and post-crime coverup campaign, which goes to constructive knowledge, criminal intent, malice, and reckless disregard for human life.

The regulatory maneuver was an attempt to block accountability by reclassifying illegal bioweapons use as legally indistinguishable from pandemics, to block federal and international civil and criminal cases brought under the theory that SARS-CoV-2 and the lethal injections are bioweapons whose development, release, manufacture and use are prohibited crimes and not a communicable disease outbreak followed by a governmental pandemic response program.

If classified as a bioweapon, the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (international) and public health emergency (federal) legal frameworks would be nullified, instead bringing to bear federal and international laws prohibiting chemical and biological weapons.

In other words, Brook Jackson’s case — if the US Government is joined as a defendant and a 18 USC 2333 claim is added — can be used to force the US Government to take one of two positions in response to overwhelming evidence that identifiable US Government officials have orchestrated and committed mass murder using bioweapons developed by the US Government:

1. Mass murder using bioweapons is the official policy of the US Government, and the people who planned it and are carrying it out were and remain fully authorized to do so.

2. Mass murder using bioweapons is prohibited under US and international law, and the people implementing the programs are rogue elements who are not authorized by the US Government, and therefore can and should be removed from power, charged, tried, convicted and punished.

---

Update 2

Reader comment:

Pretty ingenious! The only thing I don't understand is designating "the DOD, HHS and Department of Homeland Security as foreign terrorist organizations". How can they be "foreign" if they are parts of our government? Or, in other words, is there more to the definition/meaning of "foreign" than meets the eye?

My reply:

Infiltration of US government by WHO-WEF-UN-BIS-aligned individuals, engaged in treason.

Azar, Becerra, and other cabinet secretaries, plus Congress and US presidents and many federal judges, are demonstrably doing the bidding of the World Health Organization, under the terms of the 2005 International Health Regulations, including by suspending US sovereignty, US Constitution, and all federal laws that conflict with the world governance structures WHO/WEF/UN/BIS are working to impose on every country’s population.

The overthrow by internal, foreign enemies took place on Jan. 27, 2020 and has been maintained since.

---

The Ascension, by Giotto di Bondone.