AS THE accretion of legal safeguards built up over centuries to protect the governed from abuses of power has been eroded by legislation, and finally overridden by capricious declarations of ‘emergency’, it requires creative lawyers to pierce the cage of interlocking pseudo-legal stratagems put in place to prevent any accountability and reckoning.
As we know, regulators and manufacturers of ‘vaccines’ have been shielded from liability for death or injury from these experimental drugs unless they were aware of the damage that might foreseeably be caused by them, which would constitute wilful misconduct. Proving this is the challenge.
Three first-of-a-kind cases in Switzerland, the US and Germany are attempting to do precisely that, and if successful, could trigger a cascade of similar cases.
The Swiss case is a criminal complaint against the country’s regulator of medicines, Swissmedic, filed in July 2022 by Philipp Kruse, co-president of the Swiss Bar Association, on behalf of a group of plaintiffs.
The complaint alleges that Swissmedic repeatedly violated its due diligence obligations under therapeutic product law because:
a) it was already aware of countless risk factors from December 2020 onwards, each of which, when assessed in isolation, should have prevented the granting of the ‘temporary’ authorisation and subsequent administration of the mRNA injections;
b) it breached the prohibition of the advertising of therapeutic products;
c) it failed to fulfil its duty of post-marketing surveillance in a risk-adequate manner.
The US case is a civil lawsuit for damages against the Department of Defense (DoD), which is the de facto developer and distributor of Covid vaccines, and names Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III as defendant. The case was filed on May 31 by health freedom rights attorney Ray Flores representing the family of George Watts Jr, a 24-year-old student who died in October 2021 from vaccine-induced myocarditis after a second Pfizer injection. This was confirmed by the medical examiner and listed on his death certificate as the sole immediate cause of death. Watts was required by his college to be ‘vaccinated’ in order to attend classes in the autumn of 2021. The lawsuit is being funded by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
This case reveals that drugs approved under Emergency Use Authorisation (EUAs) cannot legally be described as ‘safe and effective’ as they are held to a lower standard of approval and required to demonstrate only that they ‘may’ be effective. Only products with full approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are licensed to make the claim of ‘safe and effective’.
In late August 2021 the FDA gave full approval to the Pfizer Comirnaty injection, a different formulation, to much trumpeting and fanfare by President Biden. However, the DoD did not initiate the production and distribution of Comirnaty. Instead, with sleight of hand, it continued to distribute the stockpiled Pfizer BioNTech earlier version which remained under EUA, whilst promoting the idea that this was the fully licensed one. As fully approved drugs are not exempt from liability for death and injury, as EUA drugs are, the deception served the purpose of insulating the government and distributors of the drugs from legal claims for compensation resulting from harm. However, the shield does not apply when wilful misconduct can be proved.
So the case hinges on the falsehood that the Pfizer injections in use were fully approved and therefore safe and effective, when in fact these were only approved under EUA which had not met that standard. The lawsuit alleges: ‘The DoD knowingly deceived Watts and the public at large for the purpose of mass human experimentation, which violates protections provided by the Nuremberg Code.’ The lawsuit seeks ‘general, specific, compensatory and punitive damages’.
The case in Germany is also a civil lawsuit for damages filed against biotech firm BioNTech by a female healthcare worker who suffered injuries after receiving its mRNA-based Covid-19 vaccine. Under German pharmaceutical law, vaccine manufacturers are liable for damages only if it can be shown that the injections caused disproportionate harm relative to their claimed benefits, or if labelling information is incorrect. Lawyers for the plaintiff propose challenging the risk-benefit analysis of the BioNTech injection made by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the German vaccine assessment bodies. The case is being heard by the regional court of Hamburg.
The question of course remains: will any of these cases in three different jurisdictions succeed? The American case will serve to raise awareness of how much skulduggery has been deployed by governments against their own people. Few people realise that the ‘vaccines’ were developed and coordinated by the military, through pseudo-legal mechanisms that enabled them to evade normal regularity processes designed to protect populations from potentially dangerous pharmaceutical products, to which private commercial companies are subject. This case is important because for the first time it targets the Department of Defense at the top of the pyramid of malfeasance. Please see Sasha Latypova’s testimony and her discussion with bioweapons expert Dr Meryl Nass.