Congressional elimination of judicial review and preemption of state law to enable interstate trafficking in intentionally harmful 'covered countermeasures.'

42 USC 247d-6d(b)(7) and 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(8)

Katherine Watt

Mar 15

READ IN APP

Orientation for new readers; American Domestic Bioterrorism Program; Tools for dismantling kill box anti-law

Response I gave to a reader who sent me a link to Ray Flores' recent piece: Legal Opinion - PREP Allows for Two Different Causes of Action.

I think Flores’ interpretations of the text of 42 USC 247d-6d and suggested legal strategies are incorrect, false and misleading in several different ways.

My views are based on my reading of the federal PREP Act law and my reading of federal and state court decisions in cases interpreting and applying the PREP Act to covered countermeasure products and to acts of manufacture and use or non-use of such products as committed by manufacturers and health care workers.

For the time being, I’m limiting my comments to pointing again to 42 USC 247d-6d(b)(7) and (b)(8), which preempt all access to state and federal courts for review and overturning of HHS Secretary actions, and preempt all access to state law for review and overturning of any HHS Secretary action pertaining to a covered countermeasure.

42 USC 247d-6d(b)(7) - Judicial review. No court of the United States, or of any State, shall have subject matter jurisdiction to review, whether by mandamus or otherwise, any action by the [HHS] Secretary under this subsection.
42 USC 247d-6d(b)(8) - Preemption of State law. During the effective period of a declaration under subsection (b) [unilateral, unreviewable HHS determination that a disease constitutes a ‘public health emergency’ combined with declaration recommending manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of ‘covered countermeasures’], or at any time with respect to conduct undertaken in accordance with such declaration, no State or political subdivision of a State may establish, enforce, or continue in effect with respect to a covered countermeasure any provision of law or legal requirement that—
(A) is different from, or is in conflict with, any requirement applicable under this section; and
(B) relates to the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, formulation, manufacture, distribution, sale, donation, purchase, marketing, promotion, packaging, labeling, licensing, use, any other aspect of safety or efficacy, or the prescribing, dispensing, or administration by qualified persons of the covered countermeasure, or to any matter included in a requirement applicable to the covered countermeasure under this section or any other provision of this chapter, or under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act...

Under these conditions, which have been in place without interruption since January 2020 for Covid-19 countermeasures and remain in place (current amendment extends these conditions through Dec. 31, 2029), the only inquiries any state or federal court will make, upon receiving a civil or criminal case involving a covered countermeasure and manufacture or use of it by a covered person or qualified person or program planner, all classified as such by unilateral HHS Secretary action without any requirement for evidence or any opportunity for evidentiary review or overturning, are whether the item is or is not classified as a covered countermeasure; whether the person did or did not make or use the product; and whether the person is or is not classified as a covered person, qualified person or program planner, or reasonably believed him or herself to be a covered person or qualified person or program planner.

If the product is classified as a covered countermeasure and was made or used by a covered person, qualified person or program planner, then the inquiry stops there and the case is dismissed, because the state or federal court has no jurisdiction, because Congress stripped jurisdiction by statute.

There is no further evidentiary review as to the product’s development, production and use, the harmfulness of its contents, or the knowledge, intent or culpability of the covered person or qualified person who made or used it.

It's just a legally-authorized kill product, used by a legally-authorized killer.

If it's not a covered countermeasure, then the case might proceed to further discovery or evidentiary review.

Under HHS Secretary PREP Act actions, all Covid products are covered countermeasures, and all the people who make and use them are qualified persons or covered persons.

The PREP Act and related laws are written to make a legal box in which legalized mutilation and killing can take place, by precluding all possibility of authentic, rigorous, adversarial, public evidentiary review in scientific and judicial venues, because the scientific and legal evidence supporting covered countermeasures, vaccines and vaccination programs cannot withstand any scrutiny at all without collapsing.

Upon scrutiny, the products are instantly exposed as intentionally harmful, their development and promotion instantly exposed as intentionally fraudulent, and the laws enabling their manufacture, trafficking and use are instantly exposed as immoral, treasonous and void from the beginning.

For as long as Congress, US Presidents, HHS secretaries, drug manufacturers, drug regulators, judges, lawyers, physicians, pharmacists and nurses can forestall evidentiary review, they can and will continue legally lying to legally induce homicidal and suicidal behavior, including acts of vaccine administration, and acts of submission to vaccination.

Prior reporting:

March 24, 2022 - Project Bioshield Act of 2004 and PREP Act of 2005. Legal immunity for Pfizer, Moderna, hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies, clinics, nurses, doctors, pharmacists. (Katherine Watt)
April 7, 2022 - Re: “judicially-unreviewable.” (Katherine Watt)
April 8, 2022 - Note to Attorney Aaron Siri re: US statutes nullifying US Constitution. (Katherine Watt) - “…A commenter…asked about “willful malfeasance” as a way for plaintiffs to get around the liability protections for the products (vaxxes) and the people involved in developing, manufacturing, distributing and administering them. I wrote back: “My understanding is that the people who wrote the statutes — probably pharma lobbyists and WHO technocrats on behalf of financial elites — wrote them carefully to split apart the people who knew how deadly the shots are (the corporate executives, attorneys and researchers) from the people who would actually administer them (the nurses, pharmacists and doctors). So they wrote in two prongs plaintiffs must prove for defendants to be culpable: “willful misconduct” (knowingly engaging in bad behavior like clinical trial fraud or adding toxic ingredients to vials) and “proximate” to injury and death (being near in time and space to the victim). The corporate executives and researchers knew but weren’t proximate, because they didn’t personally inject victims. The nurses and pharmacists were proximate to the injuries (delivered the injections) but didn’t know about the clinical trial fraud and adulterated contents of the vials…”
Dec. 6, 2023 - More on the workings of the war machine running on public health emergency determinations, PREP Act license-to-kill declarations, and EUA countermeasures. (Katherine Watt)