…The main hurdles, as in all the other strategies, are the court-stripping carve-outs in which private cause of action is blocked as soon as US Government officials and military leadership are the named defendants… The only way to move forward, it seems to me, is to have a third prong, which is an argument that the men and women doing these things are not acting in their official capacities or under color of legal authority but are rogue actors. This is related to the other idea recently kicked around on this email thread: prosecuting Trump, Biden, Azar, Becerra, Fauci, Birx, Walensky, etc for impersonating federal officials (18 USC 912). We need plaintiffs, fact patterns and claims that drive a legal wedge to separate the legitimate US Government and the people still operating under the US Constitution and legitimate federal laws, from the infiltrated/co-opted illegitimate US Government and the embedded agents operating as if the US Constitution has been suspended, under federal pseudo-laws through the fraudulent national emergency and public health framework. Summarized: we need to get the US Gov in a position where it must either admit or deny that fraud + mass murder is the official, authorized policy of the US Gov., such that the identifiable people who are running the programs have recourse to legal defense services provided by the US Department of Justice, or get cut loose, declared rogue and are then opened to criminal prosecution in their personal capacities…
…For my own contributions to the fight against the Monster, I'm most interested in developing and supporting cases that force government defendants and defense counsel to first, admit that the evidence (the record of their public acts and documents) conclusively shows they've launched a covert war with their people, which is becoming widely seen and understood. The government attorneys would then be compelled to choose between two defenses:
To the extent the Department of Justice responded to a criminal prosecution of Kadlec, Azar, Gruber and Hinton by using the second argument, the war criminals would be subject to prosecution in their personal capacity, without recourse to sovereign, legislative, administrative or other immunities. They would be cut loose from the government, and legally construed as people who committed the war crimes outside their official capacities, while impersonating federal officials, or while serving as agents of foreign invaders or occupiers. The advantage offered by cutting the war criminals loose, is that it would leave the core governing institutions (legislatures, courts and executives) and the US Constitution intact…
- The war on the world is legal and the use of bioweapons to carry out official, authorized duties and orders to maim and kill billions of people, is justified and endorsed by the US government as an institution.
- The war is illegal, such that the official government acts undertaken by named defendants, to conduct the war, have been done without proper authority, by rogue actors, who can and will be removed from power and tried for their war crimes.
Human law is law only in virtue of its accordance with right reason: and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason, it is called an unjust law; in such case it is not law at all, but rather a species of violence.[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="584"] The Right Hand of God Protecting the Faithful against the Demons. Painting by Jean Fouquet[/caption] Read more at: BailiwickNews.Substack.com
By healthranger // Share
By healthranger // Share
By newseditors // Share
By isabelle // Share
By arseniotoledo // Share