Pandemic Timeline

Judgments

Dawn Johnsen issues memo: “Vaccine mandates legal”

Tags:

If you are feeling pressured to take a vaccine, DO NOT QUIT YOUR JOB! Make your boss fire you. Please see the statement from America’s Front Line Doctors about this.

Federal law does not prohibit public agencies and private businesses from requiring COVID-19 vaccines that are under emergency use authorization, the Department of Justice concluded in an opinion.

The Department of Justice was asked if the COVID-19 vaccines could be mandated.  In response, Acting Assistant Attorney General Dawn Johnsen issued a memo saying that the vaccines could be mandated. But apparently, she missed the National Research Act of 1974 in her considerations. That legislated law upholds the philosophy of the Nuremberg Code that it is a serious crime to force an experimental drug or procedure on anyone, including prisoners.  Informed consent without coercion is absolutely required in their administration.  Threat of the loss of a job or privileges is coercion.  By definition, EUA drugs are experimental drugs that are being made available to those who believe such drugs may help in an emergency situation in which no other options are available.

Should it matter that no other options were available because effective treatments had been blocked and wrongfully discredited by health agencies and organizations as well as the media in spite of testimony that such treatments did indeed exist?  Should the blocking of effective treatments be prosecuted as crimes?  Do these actions constitute or contribute to frauds that would vitiate contracts?

As of August 23, 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech inoculation is now approved under the brand name Comirnaty. The Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine clearly states that pre-authorization Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Comirnaty vaccine are equivalent. The argument now becomes whether that approval was legal. Dr. Jane Ruby and Karen Kingston both have concerns about the legality of the approval. While the jabs may have satisfied the checklist for approval of a vaccine, these jabs are also gene therapies and are thus subject to that checklist as well. It is impossible that these jabs have passed the long-term checklist items for a gene therapy. There simply has not been enough time elapsed for such tests to have been completed. See the post about the approval for details.

  • Food & Drug Administration
    October 20, 2021. “Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech].” US Food & Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download.
    Food & Drug Administration.
    This document has instructions for healthcare providers who are administering the vaccines.

A judge ruled that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty jabs are NOT interchangeable.  Since only fully approved vaccines can be mandated, only the Comirnaty jab in Comirnaty packaging can be mandated, according to this ruling.  Coercing someone to accept any other jab is an unlawful act.  And since Comirnaty is not yet available in the US, anyone in this country who felt coerced to take a jab to keep their job or retain other freedoms is the victim of an unlawful act, and they may proceed accordingly.  Likewise, anyone who was fired for not taking a jab can proceed accordingly since only experimental jabs were available to them to fulfill that requirement.

In the case of the military, experimental vaccines can be mandated, but only with a waiver signed by the president.  According to this same ruling, the DOD has admitted that Biden did NOT sign such a waiver; therefore, only the fully approved Comirnaty vaccine can be legally administered to service members.  If any other COVID jab is administered to a service member, an unlawful act has been committed.

Let’s call this statement by Dawn Johnsen what it is: a memo of opinion from an individual. An individual does not have final say regarding law in the United States of America. This is not how the law works in this country. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of this land. A system of checks and balances was set up by the Constitution so that no one person could create the laws we live by. Rather, law is to be determined by a consensus of our representatives.

Next in supremacy after the Constitution is legislated law from Congress. Legislated law supersedes any state law. We have legislated law regulating the use of drugs and medical devices still in the research stages: the 1974 National Research Act. This law states that nothing in testing can be coerced. The law against coercion also prohibits enticements. There must be fully informed consent in any medical experiment, which includes the current vaccine rollouts.

Next in order of supremacy to US law are judicial interpretations, which is what Dawn Johnsen’s memo would be. Generally, it takes at least five of nine judges on the Supreme Court to issue a binding interpretation of law. A memo from an individual does not create law, especially where legislation to the contrary exists, which it does in this case.

The president of the United States cannot create law, either. The role of the president is to enforce the laws. When a president issues an executive order, it is for the enforcement of laws already on the books. Executive orders cannot create new law.

The available vaccines are still in testing. Therefore, the issuance of the vaccines must follow the laws that control medical research. I do not see any reference to the 1974 National Research Act anywhere in Dawn Johnsen’s memo. Where legislation exists, judges must follow the law.

Any decisions made based on Dawn Johnsen’s memo need to be challenged in court. The regulations resulting from the 1974 National Research Act need to be cited in those cases. If the prosecution wants to throw in the information about the Nuremberg Code as well, that is fine, but legislated law holds more weight under the framework of the US Constitution than do judicial rulings, which is what the Nuremberg Code is.

Further, the laws regarding Emergency Use Authorizations specifically prohibit mandates.  This is spelled out in the law and the documentation issued with the individual Emergency Use Authorizations.  The laws and documents also prohibit the words “safe and effective” in any advertising of the products.  The law does not allow the use of these terms until a drug or device has completed all approval requirements for proving safety and efficacy and been granted approval by the FDA.  None of the available vaccines have completed these processes.  This includes, by legal technicality, the Pfizer-BioNTech jabs, as stated in a judicial ruling.  Yes, the jabs have undergone SOME testing, but they have not completed ALL required testing to achieve approval.  The vaccines have not even completed all of the animal testing that usually precedes any human trials.  And so even the Comirnaty approval could be contested.  This is a critical point that people need to understand.  Without an emergency, there is no Emergency Use Authorization. Emergency Use Authorizations are a means for allowing the use of unapproved drugs and devices during an emergency when no other treatment is available.  So looking at whether drugs allowed under an Emergency Use Authorization can be mandated overlooks a key intent of the law regarding them. The laws regarding Emergency Use Authorizations cover emergencies by intent. Attempting to circumvent these laws destroys provisions of law set up to protect the public. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the provisions in the Emergency Use Authorization laws were already circumvented when doctors were ignored and silenced when they attempted to show that they had effective treatment plans and also when the FDA acted to revoke an EUA for hydroxychloroquine.

Sources:

See also, on this site:

Comments are closed.