Dedicated to Warner Mendenhall's legacy: the fight against the monstrosity of the PREP Act must continue.

Brian Ward's memo: "Weaponization of Experimental Medicine".

I am extremely saddened by the untimely passing of attorney Warner Mendenhall. Warner was a good friend and a colleague. We spoke and collaborated many times over the past 5 years. He took on Brook Jackson’s case against Pfizer, which was key to revealing the military nature of Project Covid, the fact that mRNA shots and hospital murder protocols were ordered by the Trump admin and deployed on Americans and people worldwide as military weapons. In fact, the statement that “Pfizer did not defraud the government, they delivered the fraud that the government ordered” was coined in my discussion with Warner about Brook Jackson’s case when the first production of the military contracts was invoked by Pfizer defense. I will remember Warner and I want you to remember him as an outstanding human being who gave his time, his intelligence and kindness to those who needed it the most.

This is an interview from 2024 where Warner and I discussed Brook Jackson’s case:

RIP, friend.

In this post, I am republishing, IMO, a very useful legal memo drafted by Brian Ward [on X].

The memo is summarizing the “weaponization of experimental medicine” (aka EUA Countermeasures) and discussing the current state of litigation v covid vax mandates. Here is the executive summary. All characterizations are opinions of the author. In my opinion, it is overall a very good representation of the legal reality of covid countermeasures under PREP Act.

I. Summary for the Working Professional

There is a coordinated, well-funded campaign—driven by rogue actors embedded throughout federal and state governments—to expose the American people to experimental drugs, biologics, and devices through covert means and coercion, to compel the disclosure of private health information to medical researchers, and to systematically strip individuals of any meaningful right to seek judicial redress when harmed by licensed or experimental medical products or activities causally connected to their administration.

First, in January 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enacted new regulations that effectively claim the American people as the agency’s personal property. The FDA granted an estimated 30,000 sponsors of clinical investigations the authority to exempt themselves from obtaining informed consent from Americans they secretly conscript into biomedical experimentation whenever the sponsor deems such consent “not practicable.” This includes cases in which the sponsor fears that the potential participant might dislike the investigator or the research activity—or, according to the FDA, might lack the intelligence to make an informed decision about whether to participate. An FDA-authorized clinical investigation is the deliberate exposure, by an investigator, of a human subject or the subject’s biospecimen to experimental drugs, biologics, devices, or other test articles to study the product’s impact on the structure or function of the human body.

Critically, even if the individual sustains injury, the FDA imposes no obligation on the investigator to disclose that the harm may result from an experimental investigation to which the person never consented. Worse, these sponsors are expressly permitted to create secret medical files on Americans, compile research data from those non-consensual experiments, and commercially exploit that data for profit—all at the direct expense of the citizens used as unwitting subjects. The disclosure of such private health data can expose Americans to dire civil, criminal, and reputational consequences—without the safeguards of due process. This regulatory scheme reduces free Americans to the status of human laboratory guinea pigs, in direct violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude and the Due Process Clause’s guarantee of bodily integrity. When an individual visits a university, a doctor’s office, a pediatrician, or a hospital, they no longer have the legal right to refuse unwanted biomedical experimentation conducted under covert conditions.

Second, hundreds of firefighters, police officers, nurses, surgeons, doctors, EMTs, and other public-safety and healthcare heroes across seven states filed seventeen lawsuits in federal court, arguing that punitive state health mandates cannot rely on investigational drugs, PREP Act countermeasures, or compelled disclosure of private health information to medical researchers for policy compliance. These suits revealed that defendants—such as Governor Newsom of California and Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas—operated under a Federalwide Assurance (FWA) and CDC COVID-19 Vaccination contracts. In those agreements, the defendants expressly promised the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that they would not pressure individuals to accept the administration of a federally funded investigational drug or punish those who refused. Notably, all drugs mandated by the defendants were classified by the FDA as investigational and listed as PREP Act-covered countermeasures, which required participation in medical research activities for administration. Under established Supreme Court doctrine, neither states nor their agents may authorize public access to investigational drugs outside the specific conditions set by federal agencies— conditions that Congress has mandated must remain strictly voluntary. Government investigational drug mandates and related research activities are outside the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s (FDCA) authorization conditions and thus illegal.

The lawsuits also revealed that the government defendants, under threat of penalty, required a waiver of due process rights because the drugs were listed as covered countermeasures under the PREP Act. The PREP Act inherently waives Americans’ right to access the courts when they are injured by a covered countermeasure or by activities causally connected to its administration. The Supreme Court has long held that any waiver of constitutional rights must be “the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception” (Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 382–83 (2010)). Therefore, governments cannot lawfully mandate the use of a PREP Act-covered countermeasure, as doing so would unconstitutionally compel individuals to waive their due-process right to meaningful judicial redress in the event of injury. The Supreme Court has also made clear that no state may achieve a result indirectly that it cannot command directly. Mandating the use of a liabilityshielded countermeasure indirectly waives America’s core due process protections, and thus, such mandates are unconstitutional.

Notably, no state, governor, mayor, or hospital CEO ever asserted legal authority in court to mandate the use of investigational drugs, EUA products, the disclosure of private health information to medical researchers, or PREP Act countermeasures. Nevertheless, the Third, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts took over the appeals and arguments, directly violating federal court procedures and the plaintiffs’ dueprocess rights. In rulings that flatly contradict federal law and the Executive Branch’s own contractual assurances, these courts manufactured a fictitious right for states and their agents to mandate experimental drugs, compel disclosure of private medical data, and force individuals to waive their right to judicial relief if injured— all as a condition of public employment, continued practice in a state-licensed profession, or other public benefits subject to the Due Process Clause. Such rulings are contrary to more than 200 years of settled constitutional doctrine.

The courts willfully ignored federal law, refused to allow discovery to establish the facts of the case, and hid behind Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims, even though the cases involved matters of first impression—an extremely abusive form of judicial corruption. The Third Circuit exemplified the corruption when brazenly declaring that it would not legally distinguish between investigational and licensed drugs, despite Congress expressly requiring the court to make such a distinction. The Ninth Circuit willfully turned its back on America’s frontline heroes by refusing to acknowledge the indisputable fact that federal law and the signed HHS agreements of California, Washington, and Oregon expressly prohibit state officials from applying external pressure on Americans offered the opportunity to receive federally funded investigational drugs, much less punish those who refuse. Rather than uphold federal supremacy, the court shockingly established a new doctrine: when citizens challenge state health policies under the Fourteenth Amendment, Article III courts need not inquire whether those policies violate federal law or infringe upon the federal domain. This ruling nullifies the Supremacy Clause and the federal rights secured to Americans—a radical doctrine now echoed by at least six federal circuit courts.

The federal judiciary is actively preparing America for a hostile takeover by rogue governors no longer constrained by the Supremacy Clause.

Finally, more than fifteen state supreme and lower courts have terrorized the American people by brazenly asserting that Congress may lawfully grant one citizen absolute immunity from civil liability for the crime of assault and battery—by secretly injecting another person with a drug the victim had explicitly and vehemently refused, thereby inflicting irreversible physical harm. Never in the history of this Nation has the Supreme Court or any legislative body asserted the authority to shield one member of society from liability for harming another through nonconsensual acts. The Constitution completely forbids such abhorrent authority. Yet state courts are now weaponizing federal legislation against Americans’ dueprocess rights. Under this new judicial doctrine, Americans have been reduced to second-class citizens, subordinated to the dictates of criminals, while the Fourteenth Amendment is burned at the altar of progressivism—guaranteeing inequality in a real but bitterly satirical irony.

In the next declared public health emergency, the first Americans subjected to these unconstitutional mandates will be our nation’s schoolchildren, firefighters, police officers, teachers, healthcare workers, military members, public employees, and all professionals who rely on state licensure. If our elected leaders fail to intervene and dismantle this apparatus immediately, history will record the single greatest human rights catastrophe the Republic has ever endured—and death on an unimaginable scale will engulf the nation.

I urge you to read the entire 20-page document. It is a very enlightening legal summary.

Art for today: Breaking Waves, oil on panel, 11x14 in.