For
an overview/timeline of how Congress and US presidents enacted laws to
decriminalize military-public health mutilation and homicide: American Domestic Bioterrorism Program
For a more detailed understanding: Orientation for new readers
For things to do to correct the errors of previous and current lawmakers: Tools for dismantling kill box anti-law
I received an email from a reader in response to this post:
The reader made two false claims:
“The purpose of the WHO documents is to globalize the PREP Act and the other emergency bills.”
“It
[focusing public attention on Congressional and state lawmaker
authority to repeal bad federal and state laws] would allow our leaders
to say they have no control and blame the WHO.”
My reply
Your two points are false.
First,
the PREP Act and other emergency laws are already operationalized
globally through the manufacturing, sales, supply and purchasing
contracts.
See, for example, Section 11 (Other, PREP Act) of the DoD-ATI-Pfizer contract, July 21, 2020,
combined with Section 8 (Indemnification), Section 9.2 (Limits on
Liability), Section 9.4 (Waiver of sovereign immunity), Section 9.5
(Conditions Precedent to Supply) and Section 12.2 (Arbitration) of the
Pfizer "Manufacturing and Supply" agreements.
These
purchasing agreements were signed by national governments, and are
enforceable in US courts under international trade law and under the
dispute resolution functions of the International Chamber of Commerce.
The
same language is in all Pfizer contracts and term sheets worldwide,
although section numbering differs among contracts and some sections are
redacted in the publicly-available contracts.
Cut-and-paste from Pfizer-Albania contract, at section 9.5, Conditions Precedent to Supply:
Purchaser [Albania, all purchasing countries] represents
that it has and will continue to have adequate statutory or regulatory
authority and adequate funding appropriation to undertake and completely
fulfil the indemnification obligations and provide adequate protection
to Pfizer and all Indemnitees from liability for claims and all Losses
arising out of or in connection with the Vaccine or its use.
Purchaser hereby covenants and acknowledges and agrees that a condition precedent for the supply of the Product hereunder requires
that Purchaser shall implement and maintain in effect such statutory or
regulatory requirements or funding appropriation sufficient to meet its
obligations in this Agreement prior to supply of the Product by Pfizer
and thereafter shall maintain such statutory and regulatory requirement
and funding appropriation, each as applicable, for so
long as necessary to meet all of Purchaser’s obligations under this
Agreement, including, without limitation, any such obligations that,
pursuant to Section 6.5, survive expiration or termination of this
Agreement.
For
clarity, the sufficiency of such statutory or regulatory requirements
or funding appropriation shall be in Pfizer’s sole discretion…
Your second point is equally false.
It's
non-productive to encourage Congress members to play-act at having
influence within international organizations for which they are not
appointed or elected, voting members.
Congress
members actually do have legal authority and moral agency, as Congress
members, to repeal bad US laws that they and their predecessors passed.
By
repealing those laws, Congress will not only strip DoD, HHS and the
other federal agencies of their legalized authority to mask, test,
track, quarantine, mutilate, poison and kill Americans in conspiracy
with pharmaceutical drug and vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer,
BioNTech, Moderna, Merck, Janssen, Gilead, and Sanofi-Pasteur.
The
US Congress will also strip the US government of its ability to coerce
—through predatory contracts — other countries' federal governments and
agencies of their legalized authority to mask, test, track, quarantine,
mutilate, poison and kill their people.
That's
precisely why so much effort is expended to push Congress members and
the public away from understanding, acknowledging and using Congress
members’ own legal authority and moral agency.
Related Bailiwick reporting and analysis:
Sept. 14, 2022 - Biotech
idolatry: DOD-Pfizer contracts have replaced federal constitutions and
laws. And the DOD-DOJ-HHS complex has replaced federal legislatures and
courts. -
“…Latypova
said she had started reviewing some of the vaxx contracts and
discovered multiple subcontracts. She concluded that the products are
manufactured by DOD, BigPharma is just a front, and the actual
production happens at a network of small suppliers including Emergent
Biosolutions (formerly BioPort),
National Resilience, and academic institutions including Texas
A&M…DOD has overtaken the entire pharmaceutical sector…DOD direct
control of the manufacturing through the subcontractors is the reason
why there's no public access to vials for testing and verification of
contents and no access to the US Attorney General for enforcement of
manufacturing and other legal standards…
I dug up the January 2021 Albania contract…and located an indemnification section that covers a lot of potential losses.
8.1 Indemnification by Purchaser [Government of Albania].
Purchaser
hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer, BioNTech,
each of their Affiliates, contractors, sub-contractors, licensors,
licensees, sub-licensees, distributors, contract manufacturers, services
providers, clinical trial researchers, third parties to whom Pfizer or
BioNTech or any of their respective Affiliates may directly or
indirectly owe an indemnity based on the research, development,
manufacture, distribution, commercialization or use of the Vaccine, and
each of the officers, directors, employees and other agents and
representatives, and the respective predecessors, successors and assigns
of any of the foregoing (“Indemnitees”), from and against any and all
suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities,
settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including, without
limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses of an
investigation or litigation), whether sounding in contract, tort,
intellectual property, or any other theory, and whether legal,
statutory, equitable or otherwise (collectively, “Losses”) arising out
of, relating to, or resulting from the Vaccine, including but not
limited to any stage of design, development, investigation, formulation,
testing, clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, packaging, transport,
storage, distribution, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, licensing,
donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, provision, or use of
the Vaccine.
8.2 Assumption of Defense by Purchaser.
The
Indemnitee(s) shall notify Purchaser of Losses for which it is seeking
indemnification pursuant hereto (“Indemnified Claims”). Upon such
notification, Purchaser shall promptly assume conduct and control of the
defense of such Indemnified Claims on behalf of the Indemnitee with
counsel acceptable to Indemnitee(s), whether or not the Indemnified
Claim is rightfully brought; provided, however, that Purchaser shall
provide advance notice in writing of any proposed compromise or
settlement of any Indemnified Claim and in no event may Purchaser
compromise or settle any Indemnified Claim without Indemnitee(s)’s prior
written consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
Indemnitee(s) shall reasonably cooperate with Purchaser in the defense
of the Indemnified Claims.
The same language is in the contract the Brazilian government signed in Spring 2021, described by Ehden Biber in July 2021.
Biber
found that the Brazil contract imposed no requirements for current Good
Manufacturing Practices, and required the Brazilian government to
“grant or obtain on Pfizer’s behalf, all exemptions, exceptions and
waivers of country specific requirements for the Product…including but
not limited to serialization, applicable laboratory or quality testing
and/or marketing information form submission and approval…” and required
that the contracts be kept from the public for 10 years.
Biber
also found that the Brazil contract put the Brazilian government on the
hook for damages, waived the sovereign immunity of the Brazilian
government, referred all claims to New York, USA courts or other "court
of competent jurisdiction" and prohibited Brazil’s government from
changing its own national laws to change liability, in language
identical to the Albanian Pfizer contract at 9.5…
Biber later reported that Carlos Murillo,
who was the head of Pfizer Brazil in 2020 when the contract
negotiations started, and was head of Pfizer Latin America as of January
2022, testified in May 2021:
"The
conditions that Pfizer sought for Brazil are exactly the same
conditions that Pfizer has negotiated and signed, at this moment, with
more than 110 countries in the world.[…] From the point of view of our
international consistency, given the pandemic situation, given our
vaccine development process, these were the conditions negotiated and
accepted by 110 countries with whom Pfizer has signed the contract
today."
April 7, 2023 - On enforcement mechanisms wielded against non-compliant nation-states.
…the primary enforcement mechanism, as I understand the structure of the global extortion system, is financial.
National
governments that don't comply lose access to international banking
systems: transaction processing; loans; manageable interest rates on
borrowing; currency stability; aid packages. Everything. The lifeblood
of their economies is drained.
Oct. 12, 2023 - On the moral agency of living human lawmakers.
…This is why I focus on the
need for current individual human lawmakers to revoke the moral agency
they have, in recent decades, misappropriated by loaning it out to the
globalists, and align their own moral agency and lawmaking acts with
divine law and natural law, by acting to withdraw countries from the
enabling treaties, and to repeal, nullify or block the enabling statutes
within each country.
Litigation
can help, in my view, only and most powerfully by drawing the hidden
aspects of the communitarian law takeover into more open public
awareness.
The
only reason those approaches (treaty withdrawal + statute repeal +
litigation-triggered disclosures of communitarian law overrides of
constitutional and criminal law) can be effective, is because the Monster wants to be perceived as legitimate, not as criminal.
That’s
why the treaties and statutes have been written and passed, by the
legislatures and executives in each country, and why the federal courts
in each country refuse to allow constitutional challenges, and why the
federal prosecutors in each country refuse to take up criminal
prosecutions.
The
acts of national lawmakers and executives provide the veneer of
legitimacy that the globalists want but cannot manufacture for
themselves out of nothing.
The
national lawmakers retain the power to repeal those laws by virtue of
the same actual legitimacy the lawmakers possess and in which the
globalist imposters are only clothing themselves temporarily.
Even
more importantly, lawmakers who expose the duress under which the
illegitimate treaties and statutes were originally adopted, and are
regularly amended and expanded, also expose the moral and legal basis
for nullification of those legal instruments, because duress invalidates
the moral dimension of acts of the will, and the free-ness of acts of
the will is the only thing that makes them morally sound.
The
refusals and immobility and silence of the courts and prosecutors
provide another layer of legitimacy that the globalists want but cannot
manufacture for themselves out of nothing.
And
those refusals and silences are also an implicit admission — by the
living judges, misappropriating their moral agency — that the acts of
the globalist imposters who have “penetrated ze cabinets” cannot pass constitutional muster and are crimes under criminal codes.
The globalist killers don’t want to openly attack and kill people.
They
want to deceive people into killing themselves and killing each other.
They want people to think that what they’re doing is caring for
themselves and taking care of each other.
The globalists want to stay hidden, and they want the mechanisms of deceit that they’ve built to also stay hidden.
Dec. 20, 2023 - Ending National Suicide Act.
…AN
ACT To repeal Congressional authorizations for communicable disease
control, quarantine and inspection programs; chemical and biological
warfare programs; biological products and vaccine manufacturing
programs; public health emergency programs; national vaccine and
immunization programs; expanded access and emergency use authorization
programs; public health and emergency preparedness and response
programs; enhanced control of dangerous biological agents and toxins
programs; and related statutes.
Jan. 10, 2024 - On
international and US legal instruments governing "adjustment of
domestic legislative and administrative arrangements" and exercise of
political authority during declared public health emergencies.
As also laid out in Article 59, member-states are obligated to "adjust domestic legislative and administrative arrangements fully"
to align them with IHR provisions within that entry-into-force time
interval, by adopting implementing statutes and regulations (kill box
laws) that are triggered when trigger conditions are met.
For
example, by the WHO Director-General declaring a PHEIC (public health
emergency of international concern) and/or by the in-country health
administrator (HHS Secretary in the US) declaring a public health
emergency…
To
avoid or reduce the financially destructive wrath of the BIS, WTO and
other supranational organizations, governments of sovereign countries
have subordinated themselves to the United Nations: they have "adjusted
domestic legislative and regulatory arrangements" to comply with the
WHO-IHR…
March 8, 2024 - Regulatory simulations at home and abroad: Mutual Recognition Agreements. First in series on legal links connecting domestic and international non-regulation of non-medicines.
…Mutual
Recognition Agreements or MRAs are international treaties or trade
agreements governing the import and export of regulated, manufactured
consumer products.
MRAs
have been negotiated and signed to enable regulators representing
different countries to share information about their regulatory reviews,
keep the regulatory information confidential from the public, and defer
to each others' legal decisions concerning regulatory compliance,
without conducting independent evidentiary collection and assessments…
Among
other provisions relevant to the non-regulation of the non-medicines
known as Covid-19 vaccines, Article 9 of the 2017 sectoral annex for GMP
"relieved"
the "qualified persons" in EU countries who receive drug products
imported from the United States of "responsibility for carrying out"
batch testing controls, under Article 51, Paragraph 2 of EU Directive 2001/83/EC,
Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as adopted
by European Parliament and European Council Nov. 6, 2001…
No comments:
Post a Comment