On the absence of legal and scientific standards of evidence for public health emergency and emergency countermeasure determinations and declarations by HHS Secretary.

Katherine Watt

Mar 19

READ IN APP

Exchange with Jessica Hockett.

Hockett responding to Edwin Chemerinsky letter to Senate, Dec. 20, 2005, on unconstitutional PREP Act

I find the timing of this and connection to hurricane (Katrina) recovery incredibly interesting and not-insignificant. There are numerous connections between Katrina (2005) and the initial COVID event (2020).
Needless to say, Hurricanes “hit”.
Viruses do not.

To some extent hurricanes “hit.” But also, apparently natural disasters are also manipulated to make them more disastrous. For example, by demolishing levees. Orchestrated, unilaterally-declared “Public health emergencies” of all sorts — hurricanes, pandemics, others — are facilitated by the same sets of laws. And each event is used to drive the Congressional passage of the next legal instruments to concentrate power and wealth even more.

Yes, I agree 100%. TPTB ‘need’ these disasters and emergencies for many evil reasons and they are, indeed, orchestrated and coordinated - including between countries.
Tangent - I know you are very busy, but I am curious about how you would characterize the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” decree from a legal standpoint. I hold certain views about it as an instrument of propaganda but, as I said here, “The legality of such a decree—how it falls within the bounds of executive power—and the federal government’s ability to declare a threat without demonstrating its existence before taking emergency action have never been fully explained.”

Very briefly, my understanding is that the legality is based in the absence of any legal requirement to demonstrate, with material evidence, the existence of anything.

The wording of the PHE laws is such that simple statements, by the HHS Secretary, that a threat “exists,” or might exist in future, made without any testable factual claims, are legally sufficient. There is no evidence required. It’s just emergency-by-unilateral-declarations and determinations.

And that’s also why the laws are specifically written to preclude evidentiary testing by courts or Congress, and to make it so that the only way that a threat can stop existing, is if the HHS secretary says it doesn’t exist anymore.

There’s no legal requirement to produce any evidence to support the declaration that something exists, so there’s no evidentiary standard that an HHS secretary can be challenged for not having met. HHS secretary could say that unicorns exist, and pose a threat, and that would be enough.

It’s very difficult to convey that the non-presence of provisions in the laws and the presence of provisions blocking judicial review and Congressional oversight, are more important than the provisions that are in the laws.

It’s a shell game con or illusion in which there’s nothing under the cups at all, and no requirement that there be anything under the cups, and no opportunity for anyone to lift up the cups and see that there’s nothing under them.