Sunday, September 24, 2023

On sovereign immunity. Re-post: Dual-use government officials of concern.

 

On sovereign immunity. Re-post: Dual-use government officials of concern.

Related to CHD case Estate of George Watts Jr. v. Lloyd Austin, Secretary of US Department of Defense.

Orientation for new readers.

First posted Jan. 16, 2023.

Sept. 19, 2023 Notes

I’m reading the US Government’s Motion to Dismiss Estate of George Watts Jr. v. Lloyd Austin in his official capacity as Secretary of the US Department of Defense and the plaintiffs’ reply in opposition.

I am not related to the Watts family. I had no direct input into the legal strategies chosen for the George Watts case and first learned of the case after it was filed.

I write about cases using publicly-available case documents. I haven’t yet written publicly about the Watts v. Austin case, because I wanted to wait until the Motion to Dismiss was filed. In some interviews over the summer, I briefly discussed it, and my view that it has some strengths but also some serious weaknesses.

Watts v. Austin was filed May 31, 2023 by Attorney Ray Flores, funded by Children’s Health Defense (CHD). The Motion to Dismiss was filed Sept. 1, 2023, and the plaintiff estate filed a reply Sept. 15, 2023.

The first defense argued by SecDef Austin’s Department of Justice lawyers, is that the US District Court has no jurisdiction, because claims against government officials are barred by sovereign immunity, and

“Plaintiff does not identify any applicable waiver of sovereign immunity but instead argues that sovereign immunity is unconstitutional. Those arguments are unsupported by the text of the Constitution and case law.”

Legal strategies that could be considered — by CHD attorneys for this case and by other attorneys who may file similar cases in the future — include filing an amended complaint identifying defendant Lloyd Austin in his personal capacity; adding as co-defendant, also in his personal capacity, Operation Warp Speed Chief Operating Officer, Army General Gustave Perna; and requesting that federal judges nullify the PREP Act in its entirety to the extent that the Department of Justice and Department of Defense hold the position that the PREP Act authorizes sovereign rulers to poison and kill subjects while enjoying the privileges of sovereign immunity.

Reasoning for this approach is outlined below.

The nutshell version: Austin and Perna have engaged in intentional poisoning and mass murder in their personal capacities, because a legitimate sovereign ruler automatically forfeits his sovereignty and reverts to personal or outlaw status the moment he acts against the true good of his subjects.

Rulers poison and kill their subjects for purposes other than the welfare of the subjects.

To the extent rulers claim that they poison and kill subjects for the subjects’ own good, the rulers are lying.

Jan. 16, 2023 - Dual-use government officials of concern

I think prosecution of the American Covid-19 war criminals — starting with Robert Kadlec, Alex Azar, Marion Gruber and Denise Hinton and moving on from there, as outlined Oct. 12, 2022 — will be more effective if those criminal cases are filed against the perpetrators in their personal capacities, as false impersonators or foreign imposters acting outside the bounds of legitimate government authority, rather than in their official capacities as US government agents acting within the authorized scope of their duties.

That PDF draft addresses the defendants in both their official and personal capacities. I wrote it in October, before reaching the conclusions I’m writing about now.

The US Government is making war on its own people covertly, through the conversion of the chemical and biological warfare program into the public health emergency medical countermeasures program, and is working in collaboration with globalist institutions and other national governments around the world, to make war on all people.

The central bank globalists running the worldwide program — one main battlefront is currently the World Health Organization — want to kill as many of us as possible, as quickly and with as much plausible deniability as possible.

They also want to depose as many national, sovereign governments as possible, as quickly and with as much plausible deniability as possible, in order to install the one-world government, presented as a solution to the civil, political, financial and economic chaos and dysfunctionality they themselves have brought into being.

So legal strategies need to walk a fine line between holding the war criminals to account and also protecting each country’s sovereign government institutions, so that the small-but-growing remnants of non-criminal government officials can work with informed popular support to rebuild legitimacy, economic stability and public trust.

Sometimes I get asked to look at legal pleadings people are thinking about filing, or have already filed, and offer my views on them.

As I’ve said and written repeatedly, I think every legal civil and criminal strategy that people are interested in preparing and filing should be tried.

Last fall I helped set up two self-help websites to support people interested in filing cases:

I find arguments that there is “only one way,” “only two paths,” a “best way,” or ways that should “never” be tried, or some “easy” way to attack the Monster, or some strategy “must” get good results and other strategies that “can never” get good results, to be counterproductive.

There are as many ways to attack the Monster as there are people willing to fight. They are all difficult and strewn with obstacles, and they should all be tried anyway: each person should fight in the way that he or she thinks makes sense and uses the skills and interests that he or she has available to offer to the fight.

For legal strategies in general, I think the simpler the arguments, the better, for both generating public understanding and support, and for engaging prosecutors, judges and legislators.

In my view, neither judges nor the public care anymore about dueling data analysis experts or the status of efforts to isolate SARS-CoV-2 viruses or prove that PCR tests work or don't work.

They know several things from direct experience:

  • Something made people sick in a strange way starting in late 2019 and early 2020.

  • Governments and their media propagandists said that nothing but social isolation, economic dependency, testing, masking and vaxxes would solve the problem, and blocked every other possible mitigation, prevention and treatment.

  • The claims of governments and media propagandists proved to be false, because people have continued to  get sick with weird things even after complying with the recommendations and ‘mandates,’ and lacking access to the things the governments blocked.

  • Since the vaxx rollout, people are sick and dying from blood clots, heart attacks, turbo-cancers, immune system dysregulation and many other horrible things, and birth rates are dropping.

  • Governments and media propagandists are pretending that's not happening, and continuing to fund and push the same policies, programs and products.

My work up to this point has been about figuring out how and why the regulatory, consumer safety mechanisms have been blocked, and how and why the constitutional checks and balances have been blocked.

Now that I know, beyond any doubt, that it's because our governments are at war with us, and that their war plans included establishing triggers to quietly and illegitimately, suspend all constitutional and regulatory provisions that would have protected us from the attack, I'm focused on educating more people about that reality, and thinking through legal strategies that can expose and nullify that war footing as being an illegal war that does not comply with just war doctrine, such that acts undertaken in support of it are war crimes, in addition to being grave mortal sins.

For my own contributions to the fight against the Monster, I'm most interested in developing and supporting cases that force government defendants and defense counsel to first, admit that the evidence (the record of their public acts and documents) conclusively shows they've launched a covert war with their people, which is becoming widely seen and understood.

The government attorneys would then be compelled to choose between two defenses:

  1. The war on the world is legal and the use of bioweapons to carry out official, authorized duties and orders to maim and kill billions of people, is justified and endorsed by the US government as an institution.

  2. The war is illegal, such that the official government acts undertaken by named defendants, to conduct the war, have been done without proper authority, by rogue actors, who can and will be removed from power and tried for their war crimes.

To the extent the Department of Justice responded to a criminal prosecution of Kadlec, Azar, Gruber and Hinton by using the second argument, the war criminals would be subject to prosecution in their personal capacity, without recourse to sovereign, legislative, administrative or other immunities.

They would be cut loose from the government, and legally construed as people who committed the war crimes outside their official capacities, while impersonating federal officials, or while serving as agents of foreign invaders or occupiers.

The advantage offered by cutting the war criminals loose, is that it would leave the core governing institutions (legislatures, courts and executives) and the US Constitution intact.

Badly damaged. Threadbare.

But intact, and positioned to begin the long process of rebuilding and reweaving legitimacy and public trust from a solid foundation.

Some of my thinking about this comes from the many carve-outs built into criminal and civil statutes, to exempt senior executive service (SES) officials, cabinet secretaries, Congress members, judges, military officials and state and local government agents from prosecution for acts that are criminal when committed by anyone else.

Examples of laws containing carve-out provisions include the False Claims Act (31 US 3729); Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 USC 1961); federal laws prohibiting use of biological weapons of mass destruction (18 USC 175); prohibiting use of chemical weapons of mass destruction (18 USC 229); prohibiting international and domestic terrorism (18 USC 2331); prohibiting genocide (18 USC 1091); prohibiting torture (18 USC 2340A); and prohibiting war crimes (18 USC 2441).

A couple of months ago, I read a book chapter by Jed S. Rakoff, Fundamentals of RICO, (RICO - Civil Law and Strategy, 1999), in which Rakoff reported:

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s increasing receptivity to claims of sovereign immunity by state governments, several circuit courts have held that state governmental entities cannot be sued under RICO. One approach to the issue of sovereign immunity, which is best exemplified by decisions from the Ninth Circuit, has concluded that government entities cannot violate RICO because they are incapable of forming the “malicious intent” needed to commit predicate acts.

Until very recently, I took those carve-outs at face value. I construed them as self-serving methods whereby powerful people protect themselves from criminal prosecution and civil liability.

They serve that function well, for as long as the People, including honorable, courageous legislators, judges and governors construe them as applicable.

And yes, I do believe that there are honorable, courageous government officials walking among us. There aren’t many. But there are enough for now, and more joining the battle daily.

I now think these carve-outs have a far deeper and nobler purpose.

They represent a suppressed but useful scalpel with which honorable government officials can excise the cancer from the body politic.

The “government” cannot form malicious intent, because the only legitimate, valid basis for the existence and continuation of any government is the protection and prosperity of the people living on the soil within its sovereign territory.

All intentions and acts formed or committed for purposes other than the protection and prosperity of the people, are by definition no longer government intentions and acts.

Individual human beings occupying government positions certainly can form malicious intent.

They often do, and demonstrably have, to unfathomable depths that have become visible since January 2020.

The deeper and nobler function of the carve-outs in the laws, imply that, starting with the moment in time and place that anyone elected or appointed to office or employed by the government, engages in criminal acts and conspiracies to commit criminal acts, or induce others to participate in crimes (knowingly or unknowingly), he silently and automatically forfeits classification as a government official and removes him or herself from the protective shield that Almighty God has placed around legitimate, valid sovereigns who serve the legitimate, valid purpose of protecting and defending the lives and properties of the people entrusted to their care and jurisdiction.

In other words, a government at war with its people is not a valid, legitimate government.

It’s an invalid, imposter government.

By logical extension, any individual government official demonstrably engaged in war on the people is not part of a valid, legitimate government.

He’s an invalid, imposter official.

He’s a rogue, an outlaw, operating beyond the scope of the authority given to valid governments through legitimate social compacts and covenants formed (in various ways) among the three parties: God, Sovereign Government and People.

To sum up, if an illegal, immoral war is being waged on the people, (it is) and if it’s legally and morally impossible for a VALID government to do such things, in the course of VALID official duties (it is), then by legal and moral definition, the people doing these things are not of, from or inside the US Government.

They are outside of the government, and outside of the law.

They are outlaws occupying government offices.

The legitimate, valid, authorized government still includes anyone in executive, legislative, judicial and military positions who either resisted going along with the program from the start, such as by defying unlawful orders, and also includes men and women who cooperated at the start when under the false impression of legitimacy, but have since realized an illegal war is underway, have stopped cooperating and have started resisting.

Those conducting the war have already abdicated from office in substance, but not in form.

They are filling real time and space — the physical offices in Washington DC and other US government sites, as of Jan. 16, 2023 Sept. 19, 2023.

But they are not fulfilling proper functions, and are in fact violating them.



Death of the Virgin Mary. Painting by Caravaggio.

All content is free to all readers.

All support — reading, sharing, commenting and financial — is deeply appreciated.

Share

Leave a comment

Upgrade to paid

at

No comments:

Post a Comment