Brook Jackson’s attorney, Robert Barnes, had a strong day in court last week with the $3 trillion false claims lawsuit against Pfizer, by driving home that Pfizer was contracted to deliver a safe and effective vaccine to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. He pointed out to the judge that the contract promises the delivery of a safe and effective vaccine under FDA laws more than a half-dozen times.
I spoke to Brook’s attorney Warner Mendenhall in July of 2022 who asked my opinion on Pfizer’s motion to dismiss. I stated that you can’t contract to commit a crime. Pfizer was contracted to deliver a safe and effective vaccine.
Since the summer of last year, I’ve stated that under the Operation Warp Speed (OWS) contract, the US military contracted with Pfizer to “deliver a safe and effective vaccine capable of providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses (variants) subject to FDA technical, clinical and regulatory success (laws and guidance)” AND in compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices. Pfizer forfeited their EUA immunity rights under their contract with the DoD under the Trump administration.
Pfizer collaborated with the FDA to lie to the US military, the American people, and President Trump that their mRNA nanoparticle technologies were safe and effective vaccines. In fact, Pfizer knew their mRNA technology would only cause disease, disabilities and death and offer no immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Per the contract, Pfizer was also in charge of the data of submitted to the DoD, which they clearly falsified per Brook Jackson’s testimony.
Many of the points Barnes highlights in his InfoWars interview regarding Pfizer’s violation of their Operation Warp Speed contract can be found in the below January 13, 2023 SubStack where I annotate specific pages, paragraphs and phrases from the contract.
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
The Kingston Report. TRUTH WINS.
10 Reasons to Criminally Charge Pfizer in Court.
Originally Posted on January 13, 2023: You can NOT contract to commit a crime, any crime. Just to be clear, Pfizer can NOT go through the entire Initial New Drug (IND) application process, Phase 1/2/3, Biological License Application (BLA), pay the $3 million dollar Pharmaceutical Drug User Fee (PDUFA), FDA-approval, post-marketing clinical requirements, and manufacture and market FDA-approved product and then claim that under their contract with the DoD they were instructed to perform the clinical trials and receive FDA-approval as a part of a psyop. This is the most ridiculous story I have heard so far in an attempt to defend Pfizer’s EUA vaccine immunity shield which is completely shattered.
The only reason why Pfizer is getting away with murder is because Pfizer is influencing the narrative that we are listening to from trusted leaders and media platforms on both sides of the COVID-19 isle to convince the entire population of the United States that their injectable COVID-19 mRNA lipid nanoparticle bioweapons are;
- safe and effective vaccines,
- vaccines gone wrong, or
- bioweapons, but Pfizer is following orders from the US military under a military contract and under EUA law Pfizer has legal immunity, so there is nothing we can do about it.
These are all false statements.
As we read through the DoD contract, it’s clear that Pfizer is in charge of communications with the FDA. Per the FDA documents, Pfizer exerted extreme influence over the FDA forcing the FDA to ignore safety flags during the clinical trials, thereby strong-arming the FDA to fraudulently authorize and then fraudulently approve a bioweapon as a safe and effective vaccine.
Pfizer is obviously the criminal in this case and can be criminally charged now.
If I was an advisor in a criminal case, here’s a few examples on how I would eviscerate many of the fraudulent claims (extrinsic fraud) currently being made. Extrinsic fraud is when an attorney or expert witness misrepresents material facts or law so that victims are unable to take effective civil or criminal action.
Fraudulent Claims Made by Attorneys and Experts
1. Pfizer’s DoD Contract was for a Prototype, NOT a Vaccine.
FALSE. Per the contract, the vaccine prototypes were part of a manufacturing demonstration, however the ‘vaccine prototypes’ would be categorized as emergency use authorized (EUA) or FDA-approved vaccines after receiving FDA authorization or FDA approval. If vaccine prototypes never received FDA authorization or approval, then they would have remained manufacturing prototypes and never distributed as vaccines to the US civilian population.
Pfizer’s Operation Warp Speed contract with the DoD was to produce 100 million doses of a vaccine (vaccine prototype) capable of providing protection against SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses (variants) subject to FDA technical, clinical and regulatory success (laws and guidance).
Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines COULD NOT have been made available to the American public until after FDA regulatory approval per Sec 564 of the FD&C Act for an EUA authorized product or Sect 351 of PHS Act for a FDA-approval of a biological product based on successful clinical trial data.
If the FDA failed to provide authorization or approval, then Pfizer’s manufactured vaccine doses would not be made available to the US or global market.
This means that the ‘vaccine prototypes’ would be categorized as emergency use authorized (EUA) vaccines after receiving FDA authorization and then FDA-approved vaccines after receiving FDA-approval. The term prototype is a legal term confirming the reduction in process clause in the contract, confirming Pfizer as the original inventor of the vaccine technology whether it be FDA-approved or FDA-authorized.
2. BioNTech is the Clinical Trial Sponsor and EUA/BLA Holder, NOT Pfizer.
FALSE. The contract states that Pfizer and BioNTech will work jointly together on the clinical trials and the commercialization for the vaccine upon regulatory approval (EUA authorization or FDA approval/BLA approval).
Although part of the contract states that BioNTech is the regulatory sponsor and the EUA/BLA holder, per the contract Pfizer was instructed to act as the clinical trial sponsor and EUA/BLA holder, and in fact, has acted in those roles.
Any attorney or contract expert worth their weight in salt would point out that Section B. Clinical and Regulatory is nullified by Section A. Regulatory Planning which designates;
This article was originally published on The Kingston Report by Karen Kingston.