|
Thank you for reading and sharing Bailiwick News by email and social media.
To support Bailiwick with a paid subscription:
Litigation framing: biochemical weapons used on military targets, not experimental drugs used on clinical trial subjects.
Post-Jackson, post-Bridges litigation should start from true premises, not false ones.
|
| |||||||||||||||
A reader included me on a group email thread this morning about the Nuremberg Code, informed consent, American state laws founded on the Nuremberg Code, and applicability of those laws for plaintiffs injured and killed by the DoD biochemical weapons known as “Covid-19 vaccines.”
I replied with links to Bailiwick reporting and analysis:
Feb. 9, 2023 - On the significance of 21 USC 360bbb-3(k): "use" of EUA products "shall not constitute clinical investigation."
21 USC 360bbb-3 Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies
…21 USC 360bbb-3(k) Relation to other provisions
If a product is the subject of an authorization under this section, the use of such
product within the scope of the authorization shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation for purposes of section 355(i), 360b(j), or 360j(g) of this title or any other provision of this chapter or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 262].
Key paragraphs in Bridges v. Houston Methodist ruling by USDJ Lynn N. Hughes, US District Court, Southern District of Texas:
“…Bridges does not specify what illegal act she has refused to perform, but in the press-release style of the complaint, she says that she refuses to be a "human guinea pig." Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties. She is refusing to accept inoculation that, in the hospital's judgment, will make it safer for their workers and the patients in Methodist's care...
She also argues that injection requirement violates federal law governing the protection of "human subjects." She says that the injection requirement is forcing its employees to participate in a human trial because no currently-available vaccine has been fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Federal law requires participants give legal, effective, and informed consent before participating in a human trial; this consent cannot be obtained through coercion or undue influence. Bridges says the threat of termination violates the law...
Bridges has again misconstrued this provision, and she has now also misrepresented the facts. The hospital's employees are not participants in a human trial. They are licensed doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and staff members. The hospital has not applied to test the COVID-19 vaccines on its employees, it has not been approved by an institutional review board, and it has not been certified to proceed with clinical trials. Bridges's claim that the injection requirement violates 45 C.F.R. § 46.116 also fails.
She also says that the injection requirement is invalid because it violates the Nuremberg Code, and she likens the threat of termination in this case to forced medical experimentation during the Holocaust. The Nuremberg Code does not apply because Methodist is a private employer, not a government. Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible. Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.
Although her claims fail as a matter of law, it is also necessary to clarify that Bridges has not been coerced. Bridges says that she is being forced to be injected with a vaccine or be fired. This is not coercion. Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer. Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else…”
The Bridges ruling has been affirmed by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and is now cited as precedent.
Reader asked: “Do you agree with their ruling?”
My reply:
Yes.
Here’s the chain of reasoning.
Plaintiffs filed their cases claiming that the products were experimental vaccines, and that recipients were participants in clinical trials and therefore had cognizable informed consent rights.
Plaintiffs were entitled to believe that at the time they filed (January 2021 for Brook Jackson, June 2021 for Jennifer Bridges and her co-workers), because those are part of the package of lies (legalized fraud) presented to the public through false, misleading, ambiguous and concealing language used by federal and state officials to describe the products and the programs.
As military targets of DoD biochemical weapons, plaintiffs do not fall under informed consent laws and clinical trial subject participant protections. Those laws are inapplicable in military/war contexts.
Through the Jackson and Bridges decisions, the federal government has made clear that the products are biochemical weapons and the use is a military operation intended to harm and kill recipients.
So cases that are being brought now, still characterizing the products as regulated, medicinal products (“experimental vaccines”); still characterizing recipients as participants in regulated clinical trials; still characterizing government programs as “public health” campaigns; and still characterizing Covid-19 as a “deadly global pandemic;” are being brought under false premises.
In my view, all such cases will continue to be dismissed, by judges following the public health emergency (PHE) and Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) laws and building on the Jackson and Bridges precedents.
This is why I have advocated and still advocate that attorneys draft the factual history and legal argument sections of all post-Jackson, post-Bridges lawsuits, by
identifying the enabling statutes, regulations and treaties, and directly challenging their constitutionality;
calling the products intentionally-lethal DoD biochemical weapons;
characterizing the plaintiffs as military targets of military weapons during a military campaign (Operation Warp Speed); and
identifying — as defendants — the men and women running the military campaign in their personal capacities only, as individuals impersonating government officials.
To date, to my knowledge, no attorneys have been interested in filing such cases. I’ve been told it’s because there’s no money in it, either now or in future.
The advantages of such legal strategies are two-fold:
They happen to be true accounts of what’s happening, and
They have very high potential to educate the public and drive public pressure on Congress and the state legislatures to repeal the enabling laws¹, strip the legal immunities currently held by the people running the programs, and re-assert the US Constitution as superseding and nullifying the United Nations World Health Organization International Health Regulations.
 |
Repealable laws enabling State-sponsored mass murder of Americans:
Homeland Security Act (6 USC Ch. 1, Domestic Security)
Federal Reserve Act (12 USC Ch. 3, Banks and Banking)
International Bureaus, Congresses, Etc., (22 USC Ch. 7, Foreign Relations and Intercourse) including Subchapter XVIII, International Organizations Immunities Act, and Subchapter XX, World Health Organization
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, (50 USC Ch. 40, War and National Defense), including amendments to 10 USC Ch. 15, Armed Forces (Military Support for Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies), and amendments to 10 USC 382, renumbered to 10 USC 282, authorizing domestic deployment of military against civilians during “emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction.”
Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, (21 USC Ch. 9, Food and Drugs), including Emergency Use Authorization program
Public Health Service Act (42 USC Ch. 6A, Public Health and Welfare), including Public Health Emergencies program and Vaccines program
Social Security Act (42 USC Ch. 7, Public Health and Welfare), including Medicare and Medicaid programs
Stafford Act/Disaster Relief Act (42 USC Ch. 68, Public Health and Welfare)
Chemical and Biological Warfare Program (50 USC Ch. 32, War and National Defense)
War Powers Resolution/War Powers Act (50 USC Ch. 33, War and National Defense), including 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
National Emergencies Act (50 USC Ch. 34, War and National Defense)
Defense Production Act (50 USC Ch. 55, War and National Defense)
PATRIOT Act — Additions and Amendments to Title 8, Aliens and Nationality; Title 15, Commerce and Trade; Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure; Title 31, Money and Finance; Title 50, War and National Defense; and Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.
All content is free to all readers.
All support — reading, sharing and financial — is deeply appreciated.
| ||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment