The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.

— National Archives

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the precedent of judicial review. This judicial review power allows the Supreme Court to invalidate or declare unconstitutional actions or laws created by levels of government. The case surrounds the question of whether or not William Marbury’s right to a commission is valid and if he is due a mandamus from the court. The decision of the court also called into question the Judiciary Act of 1789 and if the constitution was superior or not. Given the supremacy clause, the constitution was deemed the supreme law and Marbury’s commission was denied and the case was discharged.

— U.S. Conlawpedia

During President John Adams’ lame duck session of his presidency, he appointed Marbury as a justice of the peace and signed the commission. Soon thereafter, Thomas Jefferson became President of the United States and refused to allow Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court to get his commission via a writ of mandamus.

Under Justice John Marshall, the Court specifically held that the provision in the 1789 Act that granted the Supreme Court the power to issue a writ of mandamus was unconstitutional. On a broader scale, this case established that the Supreme Court had the authority, under the Supremacy Clause and Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, to review legislative or executive acts and find them unconstitutional. The Court also delineated the limits of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, namely, political questions (which are not reviewable by the federal courts) and the limitations set forth by Article III of the Constitution. While Marbury v. Madison established that federal courts have limited jurisdiction, it also cemented the Court’s status as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

— LII > Wex

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

— Chief Justice John Marshall (1803)

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

AS OUR SELF APPOINTED RULERS…YOU WILL PASS WHATEVER IT IS YOU ARE GOING TO PASS. I FOR ONE WILL REFUSE TO COMPLY.

I have the constitution both state and federal on my side. I am on the right side of history with this. You are on the wrong side.

Just because you can make a felon out of the citizenry with the stroke of a pen, does not mean that the people will comply.

Respectfully submitted
John Cinque
Branford, ct

THREE ELEMENTS THAT CAN RENDER COURT RULINGS VACATABLE

1. Existence of inherent fraud.

2. Existence of inherent lack of bona fide jurisdiction.

3. Existence of inherent lack of bona fide due process of bona fide law.

Sources:

• 
  May 28, 2021. “Marbury v. Madison (1803).” National Archives.
  https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison.
  Government.
• 
  “Marbury v. Madison (1803).” U.S. Conlawpedia.
  https://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/marbury-v-madison-1803/.
  University.
• 
  “Marbury v. Madison (1803).” LII / Legal Information Institute.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marbury_v_madison_(1803).
  University.
• 
  John Marshall. “WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.” LII / Legal Information Institute.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137.
  University.

Related:

• 
  “16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 Late 2d, Sec 256:” N-FORMER.
  https://nformer.org/16-am-jur-2d.html.
  General Website Link.
• 
  John Cinque. “John Cinque – Branford CT.”
  https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/John%20Cinque%20-%20Branford%20CT.pdf.
  Government, PDF.
• 
  Carl Miller. “Constitutional Law.”
  http://www.freedomschool.us/constitutional-law-by-carl-miller.pdf.
  PDF.
• 
  Steffen Rowe. “The Most Important Law You Probably Never Heard Of.” UNITED NETWORK NEWS.
  https://www.unn.today/news-1/the-most-important-law-you-probably-never-heard-of.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “Unconstitutional Official Acts.” Constitution Society.
  https://constitution.org/1-Law/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “Three Elements That Can Render Court Rulings Vacatable.” Family Guardian Fellowship.
  https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/ThreeElements.htm.
  General Website Link.

The False Claims Act (FCA), also called the “Lincoln Law“, is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies (typically federal contractors) who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government’s primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called “relators” under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called “whistleblowing”, especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion (15–30%, depending on certain factors) of any recovered damages.

— Wikipedia

“In short, sir,” argued Sen. Jacob Howard, the chief proponent of the law in 1863, “I have based the [qui tam provision] upon the old-fashioned idea of holding out a temptation, and ‘setting a rogue to catch a rogue,’ which is the safest and most expeditious way I have ever discovered of bringing rogues to justice.”

— Sen. Jacob Howard, as quoted by Ken Stier

The FCA provided that any person who knowingly submitted false claims to the government was liable for double the government’s damages plus a penalty of $2,000 for each false claim.  The FCA has been amended several times and now provides that violators are liable for treble damages plus a penalty that is linked to inflation.

— US Department of Justice

Sources:

• 
  December 31, 2011. United States: Congress: House of Representatives: Office of the Law Revision Counsel. “False Claims. Sec. 3729.” In MONEY AND FINANCE. Title 31, 2011th ed. U.S. Government Publishing Office.
  https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2011-title31/USCODE-2011-title31-subtitleIII-chap37-subchapIII-sec3729.
  Government.
• 
  February 2, 2022. “The False Claims Act.” The United States Department of Justice.
  https://www.justice.gov/civil/false-claims-act.
  Government.
• 
  False Claims. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733. United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 31-MONEY AND FINANCE.
  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title31/pdf/USCODE-2011-title31-subtitleIII-chap37-subchapIII-sec3729.pdf.
  Government, PDF.
• 
  March 28, 2010. Ken Stier. “Setting A Rogue To Catch A Rogue.” Pacific Standard.
  https://psmag.com/news/when-bad-things-happen-to-good-rogues-11512.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “HOWARD, Jacob Merritt.” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
  https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/H000839.
  Government.
• 
  “False Claims Act.” In Wikipedia.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_Claims_Act.
  Reference.

See also, on this site:

• Fraud vitiates everything: UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON

October 1878

Full Definition of fraud

1	a	: DECEIT, TRICKERY specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right was accused of credit card fraud
	b	: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK automobile insurance frauds
2	a	: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR He claimed to be a licensed psychologist, but he turned out to be a fraud. also : one who defrauds : CHEAT
	b	: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be The UFO picture was proved to be a fraud.

— Merriam-Webster

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

— The Free Dictionary

Sources:

• 
  October 1878. UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON. U.S. Supreme Court.
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98/61.
  Judgment.
• 
  “Definition of FRAUD.” In Merriam-Webster.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud.
  Reference.
• 
  “Fraud.” In The Free Dictionary.
  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud.
  Reference.

Related:

• 
  “Three Elements That Can Render Court Rulings Vacatable.” Family Guardian Fellowship.
  https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/ThreeElements.htm.
  General Website Link.

See also, on this site:

• The False Claims Act is passed

All I’m saying is that I want people to understand where the law is and so when you hear on mainstream media that under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Constitution gives the government the right to do this, I want people in their minds to understand, that’s not true.

— Attorney Mitch Fine, SGT Report

This is the U.S. Supreme Court case that the liberal media has been publicizing as support for vaccine mandates and the same U.S. Supreme Court case that Jeff Childers successfully used to support his argument against vaccine mandates.

Attorney Mitch Fine has looked at this case and does not believe that the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case applies to the COVID situation.

1. The small pox vaccine at issue in the case was well-established.  The COVID vaccines are still in testing even though they have been declared “approved.”  Long-term safety of the vaccines is still not yet known.  The technology of these so-called vaccines is entirely new.
2. The case ultimately is about the right of a state to legislate vaccine mandates.  The constitution of Massachusetts and its legislated law were taken into consideration in making the Supreme Court ruling.  The current COVID mandates generally have not been legislated.  If your state already has laws against mandatory vaccination, this case should help you to an easy win.
3. Mitch Fine cites “The 4 Part Standard (per Gostin) that Determines the Reasonableness of a Vaccine Mandate”: 1) necessity, 2) reasonable means, 3) proportionality, and 4) harm avoidance.OSHA employees interviewed in a Del Bigtree video also do not seem to believe that the reasonableness standard is met.

While the Court held a $5 fine was reasonable for Henning Jacobson’s refusal of a smallpox vaccine, Jacobson never applied its 4 part standard to a non consensual injection of an experimental “vaccine.”  For this reason, in this site’s section – Common Belief of the People, The Foundation of Jacobson v Massachusetts, this 4 part standard shall be applied to determine the reasonableness of forcibly mandating a novel genetic “vaccine.”

— Attorney Mitch Fine, VaccineLawfare.Com

Sources:

• 
  February 20, 1905. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). U.S. Supreme Court.
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/.
  Judgment.
• 
  “JACOBSON V MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11 (1905): Constitutional Standard for Vaccine Mandates.” VaccineLawfare.Com.
  https://www.vaccinelawfare.com/jacobson-v-massachusetts.
  Law.
• 
  April 2005. Lawrence O. Gostin. “Jacobson v Massachusetts at 100 Years: Police Power and Civil Liberties in Tension.” American Journal of Public Health 95 (4): 576–81.
  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.055152.
  Research Journal.
  Lawrence O. Gostin is the Director for the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at John Hopkins – A Collaborating Center of the WHO and CDC and author of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act.  The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security was one of the participants in Event 201.
• 
  October 21, 2021. SGT Report with Mitch Fine. LAWFARE: VAXX “MANDATE” IS WARFARE — Mitch Fine. SGT Report. Runtime: 52:58.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/DsrTYDhYxODX/.
  Video.
• 
  May 31, 2022. Del Bigtree and Jefferey Jaxen. CENTURY-OLD RULING AFFECTS VAX MANDATES. The Highwire with Del Bigtree. Runtime: 13:01.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/DAbqqQC0Lx6A/.
  Video.

See also, on this site:

• A case is won against vaccine mandates in Florida
• The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act is presented
• Obama signs the 21 Century Cures Act into law
• Is it illegal for OSHA to enforce vaccine mandates?

Charles Robert Richet (1850-1935)

Phylaxis, a word seldom used, stands in the Greek for protection. Anaphylaxis will thus stand for the opposite. Anaphylaxis, from its Greek etymological source, therefore means that state of an organism in which it is rendered hypersensitive, instead of being protected.

…

During a cruise on the yacht of Prince Albert of Monaco, the Prince advised me to study Physalia poison, together with our friends Georges Richard and Paul Portier. We found that it is easily dissolved in glycerol and that by injecting this glycerol solution, the symptoms of Physalia poisoning are reproduced.

When I came back to France and had no more Physalia to study, I hit upon the idea of making a comparative study of the tentacles of the Actinia (Actinia eqnina, Anemone sulcata) which can be obtained in large quantities, for Actinia abound on all the rocky shores of Europe.

Now Actinia tentacles, treated with glycerol, give off their poison into the glycerol and the extract is toxic. I therefore set about finding how toxic it was, with Portier. This was quite difficult to do, as it is a slowly acting poison and three or four days must elapse before it can be known if the dose be fatal or not. I was using a solution of one kilo of glycerol to one kilo of tentacles. The lethal dose was of the order of 0.1 liquid per kilo live weight of subject.

But certain of the dogs survived, either because the dose was not strong enough or for some other reason. At the end of two, three or four weeks, as they seemed normal, I made use of them for a new experiment.

An unexpected phenomenon arose, which we thought extraordinary. A dog when injected previously even with the smallest dose, say of 0.005 liquid per kilo, immediately showed serious symptoms : vomiting, blood diarrhoea, syncope, unconsciousness, asphyxia and death. This basic experiment was repeated at various times and by 1902 we were able to state three main factors which are the corner-stone of the history of anaphylaxis: (1) a subject that had a previous injection is far more sensitive than a new subject; (2) that the symptoms characteristic of the second injection, namely swift and total depression of the nervous system, do not in any way resemble the symptoms characterizing the first injection; (3) a three or four week period must elapse before the anaphylactic state results. This is the period of incubation.

Once these first factors in anaphylaxis were well grounded, the field opened right up, thanks to the skilled and fruitful research of many investigators.

In 1903 Arthus, in Lausanne, showed that a first intravenous injection of serum on a rabbit causes anaphylaxis, i.e. three weeks after the first injection the rabbit is hypersensitive to the second injection. The phenomenon of anaphylaxis was becoming of general application. Instead of applying only to toxins and toxalbumins, it held good for all proteins, whether toxic at the first injection or not.

Two years later Rosenau and Anderson, two American physiologists, demonstrated in a noteworthy piece of work that the phenomenon of anaphylaxis occurs after every injection of serum, even when the injection is minute, for example of 0.00001 ml which is an infinitely small amount but nevertheless sufficient to anaphylactize an animal. They quoted examples of anaphylaxis from all organic liquids: milk, serum, egg, muscle extract. They specified the reaction and clearly showed that of all the subjects, the guinea-pig appeared the most sensitive in anaphylactic terms.

…

But it is a much harder task to state when the anaphylactic period has actually passed. Most writers incline to the view (and I myself would think them correct in their view) that the anaphylactic state never passes. In other words, once a subject has been anaphylactized and consequently modified in his chemical constitution, then the subject can never go back to his former state. Return to normal is not possible. Subjects have been known who even after four years from the date of the first serum injection, were still sensitive to the unleashing reaction.

Let me add in passing that it is an extraordinary phenomenon that so insignificant a quantity of poison can modify the organism to the extent that the succeeding days down long years can not eradicate this indelible modification. Unfortunately minute researches on just this point are still lacking. But it certainly looks as though considerable differences will be found in the duration of anaphylactization.

Anaphylactic symptoms also vary to a great extent, although the differences are marked rather according to the nature of the experimental animal than according to the nature of the poison used. It is indeed worthy of note to find that the phenomena are constant, whatever the poison used.

This phenomenon is similar to the Antibody-Dependent Enhancement that several experts expected when the COVID jabs rolled out and that we are now seeing.  This explains why we are seeing more adverse events with the COVID-19 jabs after the second dose than we see with the first dose.  Those who have had flu vaccines likewise tend to be more sensitive to the COVID-19 jabs.

So how do we relate this to now?

The agency revealed in a report Wednesday that there had been 21 anaphylaxis cases out of 1.9 million people who had received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Seventeen of the 21 people had a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions, seven of whom previously experienced anaphylaxis, Messonnier said.

But the rate is higher than among people who have received the flu shot.

Flu vaccines cause anaphylaxis in an estimated 1.3 people per 1 million recipients, while around 11.1 Pfizer recipients out of every million had the reaction, the CDC estimates.

— New York Post

These are first dose statistics.

Source:

• 
  December 11, 1913. Charles Richet. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1913, Nobel Lecture, Anaphylaxis.” NobelPrize.Org.
  https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1913/richet/lecture/.
  Nobel Prize.

Related:

• 
  December 29, 2020. Helen Davis. “Managing Anaphylaxis in the COVID-19 Vaccination Setting.” United Kingdom: National Health Service, Specialist Pharmacy Service.
  https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/managing-anaphylaxis-in-the-vaccination-setting/.
  Government.
• 
  January 6, 2021. Jackie Salo. “29 COVID-19 Vaccine Recipients Had Serious Allergic Reactions: CDC.” New York Post.
  https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/29-covid-vaccine-recipients-had-serious-allergic-reactions-cdc/.
  News.
• 
  December 31, 2020. Steve Goldstein. “U.K. Health Service Pushes Back Interval for Delivering Second Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine to a Duration Company Says Is Untested.” MarketWatch.
  https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-k-health-service-pushes-back-interval-for-delivering-second-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-to-a-duration-company-says-is-untested-11609424175.
  News.
• 
  October 24, 2021. DANGERS OF THE COVID SWAB PCR TESTS! YHWH GOD HAS WARNED MANY TO NOT EVEN GET TESTED. PLSE SHARE. Angela*Lynne~Messenger*Of*YAH. Runtime: 1:54:48.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/3YCgmyu6eK0U/.
  Video.
  Additional posts cited by this video.

See also, on this site:

• Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)

The Nuremberg Code (German: Nürnberger Kodex) is part of a judicial ruling.  The Kodex has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association.  In the US, when preparing a legal case, refer to the National Research Act, which is legislation from the US Congress.  The National Research Act implements key provisions from the Nuremberg Code.

Following World War II, tribunals were held in Nuremberg, Germany.  Among those tried were the doctors in the Nazi concentration camps where prisoners were forced to participate in medical experiments.  The ten points of the Nuremberg Code were given in the section of the judges’ verdict against Nazi doctors entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments.”  The following is a summary.

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

For the detailed list, please see this article: Nuremberg Code

Sources:

• 
  United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Nuremberg Code.”
  https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/doctors-trial/nuremberg-code.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “Nuremberg Code.” In Wikipedia.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuremberg_Code.
  Reference.
• 
  November 13, 1997. Evelyne Shuster. “Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code.” New England Journal of Medicine 337 (20): 1436–40.
  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006.
  Research Journal.

Related:

• 
  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.
• 
  October 19, 2005. “Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: UNESCO.” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
  General Website Link.
  Article 3.2: “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”
  And there is more in this document related to the issue at hand, all of which is also being violated in the current crisis.

See also, on this site:

• The National Research Act is signed into law.
• FDA approves Comirnaty COVID-19 Vaccine
• Federal judge rejects DOD claim that Pfizer EUA and Comirnaty vaccines are ‘interchangeable’

After four-term Democrat President FDR, the popular Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (Public Law 402) prohibited the government from FURTHER propagandizing its own public and controlling the narrative.  The Act originally introduced at the request of the United States State Department as the BLOOM BILL after Rep. Sol Bloom (D-Ill), the chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign affairs, in October 1945. The purpose of the bill was to make various existing information and exchange activities permanent, such as THE VOICE OF AMERICA radio broadcasts that began in 1942 and to create the institutional framework to grow the programs as required.

— Betty Freauf

There was a broad consensus that the suppression of the free flow of information contributed to the outbreak of wars. During World War I, the U.S. media was particularly vocal about the role nationalist (vice government) news agencies had — notably Reuters (Great Britain), Havas (France), Wolff (Germany) — in controlling news content and availability across borders. It was the same in World War II. In September 1944, for example, then-Congressman J. William Fulbright, Democrat from Arkansas, introduced a bill calling for international agreements to guarantee freedom of the press and radio as an aid in preventing future wars. Senator Robert A. Taft, Republican from Ohio, introduced a similar bill in the Senate that stated the “complete absence of censorship and the removal of discrimination in the use of facilities of communication will contribute to the knowledge of all peoples, nullify the effect of false propaganda and remove causes of misunderstanding among nations, thereby contributing to the prevention of war in the future.”

— Matt Armstrong

Sources:

• 
  “Smith-Mundt Act.” U.S. Agency for Global Media.
  https://www.usagm.gov/who-we-are/oversight/legislation/smith-mundt/.
  Government.
• 
  “Smith–Mundt Act.” In Wikipedia.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act.
  Reference.
• 
  February 23, 2012. Matt Armstrong. “A Brief History of the Smith-Mundt Act and Why Changing It Matters.” MountainRunner.Us.
  https://mountainrunner.us/2012/02/history_of_smith-mundt/.
  General Website Link.
• 
  June 16, 2018. Betty Freauf. “Smith-Mundt Act Of 1948 And The Coup.” News With Views.
  https://newswithviews.com/smith-mundt-act-of-1948-and-the-coup/.
  General Website Link.

See also, on this site:

• Obama signs law that allows propaganda to be presented as news

The final section of the joint resolution states:

In adopting this joint resolution, the Congress does so with the understanding that nothing in the Constitution of the World Health Organization in any manner commits the United States to enact any specific legislative program regarding any matters referred to in said Constitution.

Sources:

• 
  June 14, 1948. JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for Membership and Participation by the United States in the World Health Organization and Authorizing an Appropriation Therefor. Public Law 80-643.
  https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=441#,
  https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=62&page=442#,
  Local copy.
  Government.
• 
  March 24, 2022. James Roguski. “PANDEMIC TREATY.” Substack newsletter. James Roguski.
  https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/pandemic-treaty.
  Blog.

Related:

• 
  April 14, 2022. James Roguski. DON’T YOU DARE. jamesroguski. Runtime: 4:44.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/mHmeGUgoQ7LO/.
  Video.
• 
  James Roguski. “WAKE UP and Smell the Burning of Our Constitution.” James Roguski.
  http://dontyoudare.info/.
  Blog.
• 
  April 20, 2022. Sarah Westall with James Roguski. VERY URGENT: WHO World Domination, Amendment May 2022 Vote for Tyranny & World Dictatorship. Sarah Westall – Business Game Changers. Runtime: 25:39.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/8HgYD6UuwTUC/.
  Video.

See also, on this site:

• HHS regulation, Control of Communicable Diseases, 42 CFR Parts 70 and 71, is made law
• The WHO adopts IHR (2005) Third Edition
• UPCOMING, May 22-28, 2022: WHO seeks to enact unilateral control of pandemic actions

Sometime in May 1951.

Publishers of science can make profits far higher than most businesses because they are given their raw material (scientific studies) for free and yet that material is “must have” for customers, particularly academic libraries. What’s more success in academia depends on publishing in the journals owned by those publishers. This combination leads to science publishing being close to the Holy Grail of the greedy—“a licence to print money, a free lunch, or a magic money tree.” One of the first people to discover this Holy Grail was a man of great talent (or at least bombast) and few moral qualms: Robert Maxwell.

— The Origins of Exploitative Science Publishing

At the peak of his business empire, his net worth was $1.9 billion. After his death, his business empire was nearly $4 billion in debt. His companies included the Mirror group of newspapers, Maxwell Communications, Nimbus Records, P.F. Collier, Official Airline Guide, Prentice Hall Information Services, Macmillan publishing, the Berlitz language schools, and Pergamon Press, a technical publishing company.

⋮

In 1946, Robert Maxwell met Dr Ferdinand Springer, owner of the German Springer Verlag, Europe’s leading pre-war scientific publisher which was under financial burden due to the war. While still working at the Control Commission, Robert Maxwell became the director of a firm that offered distribution for Springers journals across Europe and the United States. In 1948, Butterworth Scientific Publications failed to take off and a joint company was created with its partner Springer Verlag, the new company was called Butterworth-Springer. In 1951, Robert Maxwell bought three-quarters of Butterworth-Springer and the remaining quarter was held by the former Springer Verlag scientific editor Paul Rosbaud. They changed the name of the company to Pergamon Press and rapidly built it into a major publishing house.

— Spooky Connections

There followed protracted negotiations organized by Vanden Heuvel and, in May 1951, Butterworth agreed to sell its interest to Maxwell for £13,000. Agreeing also to a change of name to Pergamon Press, Butterworth set aside a considerable debt of £10,000.

As his official biographer, Joe Haines, acknowledge, this was ‘more money than Maxwell possessed at that moment, so he borrowed. He first went to Sir Charles Hambro.’ Who introduced Maxwell to Hambro varies with the different accounts. Haines says it was via the Board of Trade (BoT); Maxwell said it was Whitlock; Betty Maxwell claims it was Vanden Heuvel, Hambro’s business ‘fixer’. Whoever it was, the meeting gave rise to a City legend that Hambro had been so impressed by the forward-looking Maxwell and sufficiently persuaded of his business acumen that he ordered the chief cashier to give Maxwell a cheque book with authority to draw cheques up to a total of £25,000. In fact, the legend was no more than a cover story. The meeting certainly took place, but the matter of money had already been fixed by MI6.

— MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service, p. 141

Robert Maxwell was born as Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch on June 10, 1923 in Slatinské Doly in what was then Czechoslovakia [and is now Solotvyno, Ukraine]. His parents were poor Yiddish-speaking Orthodox Jews named Hannah and Mechel. Maxwell was one of seven siblings. During World War II, most of the family was murdered during Nazi occupation; Maxwell, however, had previously fled to France.

— Robert Maxwell Net Worth

Here’s one that I just discovered.  ‘Cause when you talk about science, people say, “Well, that might be true of politics, but that can’t be true of science because, I mean, we’ve got Ph.D. students, we’ve got university think tanks, we’ve got all these publications.  How can they all be lying?  Well, let me just tell ya.  Here’s a little fun factoid.  After World War II …  I’ll just tell you the punch line, and then I’ll tell you how I got there.  The intelligence services or the service created with Mossad, CIA, and MI6, they own all scientific and medical publishing.

What?  Here’s how I discovered that.  After World War II, Charles Dalton Darwin—he’s the grandson of Charles Darwin the explorer and Alexander Flemming who discovered penicillin.  They got together and went to the British government.  They said, “Hey, look what happened in World War II, the science.  We would have been a lot better off had we been able to really communicate well.  We need better scientific publishing around the world.”

And the British government, without consulting anybody, said, “No problem.  We can do that.”  And boom!  Why could they do that?  Because MI6 owned Buttersworth.  MI6, being their equivalent of CIA.  Buttersworth, the biggest medical scientific journal in the world.  And it’s owned by their intelligence spy agency?  Then, they combined it with the Germans.

And now, guess who they made—you can’t make this one up—the first editor-in-chief of the biggest now scientific publishing house in the world was Robert Maxwell.  Robert Maxwell, who was provably a double agent.  He worked for the British against the Germans in World War II.  He was buried on the Mount of Olives, so he was a Mossad agent.  But the claim to infamy is his daughter is Ghislaine Maxwell, pedophile consort of Jefferey Eppstein.  It’s a cute club and we’re not in it.  You have to control the narrative.  You have to control publishing if you’re going to pull off The Truman Show of science, and they’ve done that.

It’s not just about [parasites as cause of cancer].  It’s about the PCR test.  In The Truman Show, when he starts he’s in a false reality, this light falls from what he thinks is the sky, and it’s a stage light, almost hits him.  He goes, “What?  How can this be real?”

For me, that light was the PCR test.  And it’s not just that the overcycled it.  It’s that when I ran those sequences on the PCR test through the index of genetic, where these things come from, it didn’t show up SARS-COV-2, the virus they claimed.  It showed up human genomes.  Homo sapiens.  There were 18 tests.  I ran 12 of them, and then I gave up, and then I said, “Dear God!  They’re testing to our own human genome.”

— Dr. Lee Merritt

Sources:

• 
  June 8, 2000. Stephen Dorril. MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service. 1st edition. New York: Free Press.
  https://www.amazon.com/MI6-Inside-Majestys-Intelligence-Service/dp/0743203798/.
  Book.
• 
  November 5, 2002. Martin Dillon. Robert Maxwell, Israel’s Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul. Carroll & Graf.
  https://www.amazon.com/Robert-Maxwell-Israels-Superspy-Murder/dp/0786710780.
  Book.
• 
  April 25, 2003. George Canning. “Robert Maxwell: A Spy Betrayed—But Whose Spy?” EIR Books, April 25, 2003.
  https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2003/eirv30n16-20030425/eirv30n16-20030425_062-robert_maxwell_a_spy_betrayed_bu.pdf.
  PDF.
• 
  June 7, 2019. Bridget, JC, and Jon Swinn. “Robert Maxwell, Promisgate, and the Advent of the Israeli Cybersecurity Industry.” Expose the Enemy.
  https://www.exposetheenemy.com/robert-maxwell-promisgate-and-the-advent-of-the-israeli-cybersecurity-industry.
  General Website Link.
• 
  July 12, 2019. Recluse. “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.” VISUP.
  https://visupview.blogspot.com/2019/07/maxwells-silver-hammer.html.
  Blog.
• 
  August 3, 2020. Richard Hollick. “The Bouncing Czech.” Making Book.
  https://rhollick.wordpress.com/2020/08/03/the-bouncing-czech/.
  Blog.
• 
  February 9, 2021. John Preston. Fall: The Mysterious Life and Death of Robert Maxwell, Britain’s Most Notorious Media Baron. New York, NY: Harper.
  https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Mysterious-Maxwell-Britains-Notorious/dp/0062997491/.
  Book.
• 
  February 25, 2021. Jason Diamond. “Robert Maxwell, Not Rupert Murdoch, Was the Real-Life Logan Roy.” InsideHook.
  https://www.insidehook.com/books/robert-maxwell-real-life-logan-roy.
  General Website Link.
• 
  March 19, 2021. Richard Smith. “The Origins of Exploitative Science Publishing.” Richard Smith’s Non-Medical Blogs.
  https://richardswsmith.wordpress.com/2021/03/19/the-origins-of-exploitative-science-publishing/.
  Blog.
• 
  July 29, 2022. “Robert Maxwell Net Worth.” Celebrity Net Worth.
  https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest-billionaires/robert-maxwell-net-worth/.
  General Website Link.
• 
  November 1, 2023. Stew Peters with Lee Merritt. Are Micro-Parasites the REAL Cause Of Cancer? Scientist SHILLS Censor Live Saving TRUTH. Stew Peters. Runtime: 18:39.
  https://www.bitchute.com/video/NTCbzl2hTHzO/.
  Video.
• 
  “Who Was Robert Maxwell? Everything You Need to Know.” In The Famous People.
  https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/robert-maxwell-13892.php.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “Robert Maxwell.” Spooky Connections.
  https://www.spookyconnections.com/Robert-Maxwell.
  General Website Link.
• 
  “Pergamon Press.” In Wikipedia.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pergamon_Press.
  Reference.
• 
  “Dr. Lee Merritt – The Medical Rebel.”
  https://drleemerritt.com/.
  General Website Link.

On April 12, 1955 the government announced the first vaccine to protect kids against polio. Within days, labs had made thousands of lots of the vaccine. Batches made by one company, Cutter Labs, accidentally contained live polio virus and it caused an outbreak.

Source:

• 
  September 1, 2020. Jen Christensen CNN. “Past Vaccine Disasters Show Why Rushing a Coronavirus Vaccine Now Would Be ‘Colossally Stupid.’” CNN.
  https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccine-history/index.html.
  News.