DETAILS

​

Message from Todd Callender - International Attorney in the Robert v Austin suit against the Department of Defense (DOD), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Health and Human Services (HHS). 

​

​

" In our case, Roberts v. Austin it's It was the first case against the DOD, Health and Human Services, and FDA, which is still ongoing. It's in the 10th circuit. We've demonstrated to the court the people who got the shots are now probably the intellectual property chattel property of the patent holders. Aside from that, what we've come to find is that this whole initiative was really DOD driven, that it was the DOD that developed a lot of these shots, and then actually put out tender offers to Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson to actually make these to craft and refine these shots for the purposes of a lot of things including gene modification. But it's not it's not in a vacuum.

 

So you have health and human services involved, the FDA involved, and then you've got governments from around the planet also involved.  All of whom seem to be falling in line under the WHO.  So for instance, we saw that President Biden extended the Emergency Powers from the original Declaration, the magic legal words of "Public Health Emergency of International Concern" when the HHS Director utters these magic words all kinds of legal things happen which is that everybody, every country that is a signatory to those treaties, as a member nation of who is therefore obliged to observe that and make the same findings. You know, what is the net effect of that? Well, when they did that in March of 2020, resulted in the suspension of everybody's constitutional charter and human rights.

 

So for March of 2020, till now we've been effective medical martial law. It's really easy to see. All you have to do is take note that the mom-and-pop shops were closed by Walmart target, we're open. Liquor stores are open but you couldn't go to church and those are fundamental and basic rights that we enjoy. The First Amendment right to express and enjoy the freedom of religion was taken away. We were locked in our houses, which is against the Fourth Amendment, amongst other things, it's false imprisonment.

 

So it's really actually easy to see that our constitutional human rights were suspended and what happened is under US law when that declaration was made, in came the substitute law to govern our lives, and that's under 42 CFR Part 70 and 71 which effectively is medical martial law. Fast forward to what happened last weekend. Tedros ad non-directive, he uttered those magic words magic legal words Public Health Emergency of International Concern, this time in relation to monkeypox and that has, has extended the emergency powers indefinitely meaning that your constitutional and your human rights remain suspended, ad infinitum.

 

And the other part of that is that now, mandatory things must happen. The same rules the same laws under 42 CFR 70. And 71 means that Health and Human Services and the FDA and the CDC are now in charge of your life. All of that is in furtherance of the WHO agenda and the WHO agenda is a global military-based martial law, medical martial law, and it's global. And we can see that now in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2022. And the NDAA 2023, which is sitting as a bill in the House right now, but it's effectively done. And because it's tied to military spending, it is going to become law.

 

I would encourage people to simply type in the search word public health and NDAA and what you'll come to find is that this function of our government is now being moved under the Department of Defense. The Defense Health Agency will now be in charge of your substitute rights. They're not human rights, your substitute privileges, your substitute life. And if you look at the budget of the Health and Human Services, what you'll find is a whole lot of mandatory things. mandatory shots, mandatory quarantines, all of that are in place right now."

​

​

​I - CURRENT FEDERAL COURT CASES
​

1. 06/17/22 - Case No. 22-1032 - Appellant's Brief filed 10th Circuit Robert v. Austin - See highlighted page 24.
   
   "Plaintiffs are entitled to seek enforcement of applicable statutory protections against unwarranted and unwanted injection by completely novel biological agents. These include genetic engineering agents, such as Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (“mRNA”) that likely results in the loss of vaccinated persons’ bodily sovereignty and autonomy by current law making genetically modified genomes, such as the inoculated service members, the chattel property of the patent holders in violation of the 13th Amendment."
   
   Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 582-85 (2013).

   • "Held: A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. Pp. 10–18. (a) The Patent Act permits patents to be issued to “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful . . . composition of matter,”
      

2. 05/27/22 - Case No. 22-1032 - DOJ Answer to Appellate Brief 10th Circuit
   
   See Conclusions pg 26 : "Plaintiffs could not do anything more than speculate about the contours of and exemptions to any future vaccination requirement and its exemptions. And they could only speculate that they would be denied an exemption, that they would ultimately be ordered to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and that they would then suffer adverse consequences from either taking or refusing the vaccine."

​

NOTE:  The Robert v. Austin case is being tried based upon procedure and not merits; however, given that Appellant's brief brought into question constitutionality of 13th Amendment, the DOJ was obligated to respond.  The DOJ gave no response to the assertion that recipients of the mRNA shots would become chattel property of the patent holders.  Attorney ethics would prevent them from misleading the court by saying this assertion was incorrect, so they did not respond.

​

  3.    C01/08/21 Case 1:21-cv-00008-MJT  BROOK JACKSON V. VENTAVIA RESEARCH GROUP, LLC; PFIZER INC.
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT in US District Court for the Eastern Division - Beaumont. 

07/05/22 - Children's Health Defense - Pfizer Asks Court to Dismiss Whistleblower Lawsuit Because Government Was Aware of Fraud

​

A lawsuit filed by whistleblower Brook Jackson alleging Pfizer and two of its contractors manipulated data and committed other acts of fraud during Pfizer’s COVID-19 clinical trials is paused following a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case.

In an interview with The Defender, Jackson’s lawyer said Pfizer argued the lawsuit, which was filed under the False Claims Act, should be dismissed because the U.S. government knew of the wrongdoings in the clinical trials but continued to do business with the vaccine maker. Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers can be rewarded for confidentially disclosing fraud that results in a financial loss to the federal government.

However, a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded the scope of a legal principle known as “materiality” resulted in a series of federal court decisions in which fraud cases brought under the False Claims Act were dismissed. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, if the government continued paying a contractor despite the contractor’s fraudulent activity, the fraud was not considered “material” to the contract.

​

II - FEDERAL LAW ALTERATIONS:

​

05/06/22 The American Domestic Bioterrorism Program (ADBP) by Katherine Watt -, which is a forensic review of our federal laws changes over decades under the guise of public health.  These changes have converted illegal actions into legal actions.  

For example: 

According to the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq., “It is unlawful to advertise that a product can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time.”  

 

How are statements that the non-FDA approved COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective” not a violation of this FTC Act?

"There are no required standards for product safety, and only one standard for efficacy: a declaration by the HHS Secretary that a product “may be effective.” Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, 21 USC 360bbb-3(c)(2)(A). 1997, 2004" (Pg 9 #2 of ADBP).
 

III - CURRENT SCOTUS OPINION REGARDING CASES INVOLVING STATE OF EMERGENCY:

​

05/2020 in the case of South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom II

 

SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion to federal courts stated to  “owe significant deference to politically accountable officials” due to state of emergency.
 

“Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States.” 

​

IV - CONCLUSIONS - THE US PUBLIC HAVE LITTLE TO NO CIVIL OR CRIMINAL RECOURSE FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD AND INJURY FROM COVID-19 MRNA INJECTIONS:
 

1. Opinions from the SCOTUS gave "stand down" directions to federal judges regarding cases involving "state of emergency" actions.
    

2. Changes to federal laws during "Public Health Emergencies of International Concern", such as those in the PREP Act,  have suspended US citizens' constitutional rights and provided complete indemnification for all "covered parties", except in cases of fraud.  See The American Domestic Bioterrorism Program.
    

3. Opinions from the SCOTUS have ruled, "if the government continued paying a contractor despite the contractor’s fraudulent activity, the fraud was not considered “material” to the contract." 
    

4. Individuals whose DNA was altered due  to the COVID-19 injections are deemed as chattel property under current 2013 US Supreme Court rulings.

​