On state bills to deny state and local jurisdiction to World Health Organization and United Nations.

Katherine Watt

Mar 4

READ IN APP

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

Email from reader:

Subject line: Keep the WHO out of Georgia - HB 570
…I am wondering if it’s possible to know whether a bill is what they are saying it is without knowing legalese…I am sure there are several other states trying to pass similar bills…Before I pass this on to family and friends, I want to make sure it’s not embedded with other codes that actually imprison us even more. Could you give me your opinion?

My reply:

Thank you for sending this email.

I can say a few things about it. Very briefly, I think these bills are symbolic gestures, but not aimed at substantive reform.

The problem is that all of the things the WHO and UN want, as far as control, are exercised by means of public health emergency laws in each state. WHO and UN don't need to have direct jurisdiction over a state or local government, so long as the state and local governments have themselves enacted state and local laws that require their agents (state and local health officials) to implement specific quarantine and treatment policies and programs in the event that a state or local executive (i.e. a governor or a state health department secretary) declares a public health emergency and triggers the deployment of all the public health emergency powers and legal immunities.

The enemy, so to speak, is much closer to home than in the UN or WHO.

I've written a handful of posts on these issues, most of them linked at the bottom of these two, which are overviews of where I think bills like Georgia HB570 go off-target.

April 17, 2024 - Globalist misleaders focus public attention on WHO International Health Regulations to distract people from understanding and repealing federal and state public health emergency law. (Katherine Watt)
Sept. 20, 2024 - Federal and state poison-legalizing laws and quarantine laws matter more than the UN, WHO and the IHR. (Katherine Watt)

The approach I think is better targeted, is to try to get state legislatures to repeal the public health emergency laws they themselves (the state legislatures) put in place.

There was a first round of state adoption of these laws around 1976, after the Three-Mile Island incident, and then another round starting roughly in 2001, after 9/11. (It’s also useful to try to get Congress to repeal the federal public health emergency laws).

March 28, 2024 - Repeal state public health emergency, emergency management, and communicable disease control laws. (Katherine Watt). PDF version.

In the last two years or so, I've participated in a handful of orientation meetings for people who thought they might be interested in working at this level in several states, but have not seen much follow-up.

So, to the extent that you are interested in trying to build public understanding, I think you can use HB570 as a conversation starter, and you can say that it may be a good symbolic move, but that those kinds of bills are also a bit misleading, because they suggest that the enemy is outside the US government (which passed and uses the federal enabling laws) and the state and local governments (which passed and use the state and local enabling laws), when in fact, the enemy and his enabling laws are embedded inside the US and state governments…

April 17, 2024 - Globalist misleaders focus public attention on WHO International Health Regulations to distract people from understanding and repealing federal and state public health emergency law.

A few weeks ago, I got an email asking for my views on international and US domestic law, as related to state bills attempting to protect state citizens from forced communicable disease surveillance, reporting, quarantine (apprehension and detention), and treatment, including vaccinations.
The email writer referred, as an example, to Louisiana Senate Bill 133, “to disallow the exercise of jurisdiction by certain international organizations” including the World Health Organization, and similar proposed bills.
I think it’s a good idea for state lawmakers to draft, introduce and vote for bills that help each state lawmaker go on public record as denying that officials representing the United Nations, World Health Organization, and other supranational entities have legal jurisdiction over American citizens living in American states.
However, such laws are not enough to protect Americans from officials representing American state governments, and the US federal government, exercising domestic legal jurisdiction, under American federal and state law, to surveil, report, apprehend, detain and poison Americans under ‘public health emergency’ pretexts.
Louisiana citizens, for example, are currently subject to communicable disease surveillance, reporting, quarantine, and treatment, including vaccination, within their own state and country, under federal communicable disease control law (42 USC 264, 42 CFR 70, 42 CFR 71, and related statutes, regulations and executive orders) and under Louisiana state communicable disease control law and policy, enforceable by Louisiana public health and law enforcement officers.
See, for example: 29 LRS 764A(2)(e) and A(4)(c) and related laws and communicable disease control program guidelines.
Louisiana citizens are also currently subject to surveillance, reporting, quarantine and vaccination under existing law if they choose to travel abroad, under the federal laws as implemented by other countries' governments to execute the terms of the WHO International Health Regulations treaty.
In my view, fights around the WHO pandemic treaty and WHO IHR amendments are distraction maneuvers to occupy the time and energy of people who might otherwise work on repealing or nullifying federal and state public health emergency and communicable disease control law.
Seven federal public health emergency, communicable disease control, biological product licensing and vaccination laws that should be repealed by Congress, and nullified by state legislatures:
Quarantine and Inspection, 42 USC §264 to 272 (in effect since 1944)
Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, 50 USC §1511 to 1528 (since 1969)
Licensing of Biological Products, 42 USC §262 to 263 (since 1944)
Public health emergencies, 42 USC § 247d to 247d-12 (since 1983)
National Vaccine Program and National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 USC §300aa-1 to 300aa-34 (since 1986)
Expanded access to unapproved therapies and diagnostics program, 21 USC §360bbb to 360bbb-8d (since 1997)
National All-Hazards Preparedness for Public Health Emergencies, 42 USC §300hh-1 to 300hh-37 (since 2002)
Tools Congress members and state lawmakers can use to repeal and nullify the federal laws, and the state versions of same:
Ending National Suicide Act; Notes
Repeal state public health emergency, emergency management, communicable disease control laws; Notes

Sept. 20, 2024 - Federal and state poison-legalizing laws and quarantine laws matter more than the UN, WHO and the IHR. Congress and state legislatures have the political authority to repeal poison-legalizing laws and quarantine laws. Lawmakers choose not to acknowledge their authority and choose not to use it.

Reader questions received a few days ago, about efforts to get Congress to withdraw US from United Nations.
I’ve addressed this in several posts, linked below.
Whether the US government in 1945 validly ratified and signed the UN charter as a treaty, and whether or not Congress repeals one or more of the presumed ratification acts, my view is that the UN and UN-WHO directors (and their non-public handlers) have always been interested in creating redundancy by using international agreements — whether validly ratified or not — as the political basis for obtaining compliance from national lawmakers, and state-level lawmakers within each nation, to install enforceable versions of the terms of the international agreements.
The one-world atheist technocratic bankers’ government has no visible law enforcement mechanisms, although they do use the US military through its personnel, weapons and bases all around the world; the Bank for International Settlements and national central banks, through their control of financial transactions and currencies; and the World Trade Organization, through its control of commercial contracts. Those three banker-controlled supranational entities (with a handful of others) enforce the terms of specific commercial contracts such as the Pfizer vaccine supply contracts with national governments around the world.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the UN, WHO or IHR texts say in themselves. They have already been used to generate military and economic momentum (see previous paragraph) and also political momentum for getting Congress and all 50 US states (and other countries’ governments) to adopt federal and state laws that are enforceable, including all of the 'public health emergency' preparedness and response laws.
This is the main point on which my work differs from the social, political and economic organizing work of those who refuse to discuss the federal and state laws already on the books.
Their silence on the existing federal and state laws is the basis on which I assess their work as non-credible.
They want to keep public attention on largely irrelevant, unenforceable international legal instruments, to keep it away from extremely relevant, enforceable, deceit-, mutilation- and murder-legalizing federal and state kill box statutes, fake-regulations, and case law.