Complaint filed against AstraZeneca by plaintiff Brianne Dressen, alleging breach of contract.

Prediction: AZ defense is likely to use provisions of the Defense Production Act shielding them from contract law.

Brianne is a severely injured clinical trial participant in Utah. She is a co-founder of React-19 group. She is suing AstraZeneca and Velocity Clinical Research (their contractor in UT) for breach of contract.

The case states that when signing up as a clinical trial participant, she was promised that in case of injury, medical expenses will be covered by AstraZeneca. Bri was 39 yo at the time, completely healthy, athletic, and a mother of 2 young children. She received the injection on November 4, 2020. She had an immediate adverse reaction, and she is now severely injured to the point of being disabled with debilitating demyelination condition, requiring very expensive medical care. She was offered $1200 by AZ as compensation for her injuries, on condition that she releases them from any further financial obligations. The legal complaint states that:

The contractual breach in this case is not that Bri suffered a vaccine reaction on November 4, 2020. The breach is that, once this reaction occurred, Defendants refused to honor their contractual obligations to provide medical care/referrals and cover the costs of the injury.

A question was raised by an attorney (not affiliated with the case): “So far, PREP [Act] has protected against negligence and battery, but will it protect against a breach of Contract (or possibly even fraud)?”

I had an email exchange with

Katherine Watt

on this topic which I am going to summarize here, with some predictions about the legal provisions that the defendants will likely utilize. Our guess is that it’s not going to be so much about PREP Act, it’s going to be about the Defense Production Act.

First, let’s recall that AstraZeneca’s CEO, Pascal Soirot has known since February 4, 2020 that covid was deemed a bioweapon (CBRN agent) attack by the US Government. This was not known to the prospective “clinical trial” participants, and it is still not generally known to the public. It is known to my subscribers (yes, you are special people). Note, this was mostly a faked “bioweapon” and a psychological operation deployed by the US government/DOD, and I will discuss this more fully in future posts. For purposes of this article, it doesn’t matter whether it was a deadly poison or a faked one. What is important - on February 4, 2020 AZ knew that the product they would be testing as “covid vaccine” was subject to a completely different set of laws vs. normal pharmaceutical products - the EUA Countermeasures under Public Health Emergency are not subject to pharmaceutical regulation. They knew the clinical trial regulations did not apply to what they would be representing as a “clinical trial” to people like Brianna. Specifically, no human subject protection laws would be applicable, and that the US Government had obligated itself to throw its full weight to shield them (AZ) from any future liability claims by people like Brianna. AZ received a phone call from DARPA informing them that covid was designated a “national security threat” by the US Government on that day.

Second, let’s recall that the Defense Production Act (DPA) was invoked by President Trump in early 2020, as a consequence of him announcing the National Emergency, and HHS announcing the Public Health Emergency. These announcements were based on no objective criteria whatsoever, as there were practically no cases or deaths in the US or worldwide but, very conveniently, the current US laws do not require any objective evidence of a pandemic for it to be declared! A random PCR sequence of a computer model uploaded to Genbank is sufficient.

Finally, let’s recall that by October 20, 2020, the Operation Warp Speed had officially switched from the pharmaceutical investigational status for their products to the non-investigational EUA Countermeasure status - allowing them to avoid complying with legal protections of human subjects in clinical research. Bri was not informed about this switch, making her signed informed consent document a meaningless piece of paper, but her legal case does not mention this at all.

One thing pharmaceutical companies do extremely well - they know with precision their liability exposure for any action that they take on any day. They employ armies of the best lawyers money can buy for this singular objective. That’s why there is a snowball’s chance in hell that Pascal Soirot or any person that matters did not know their legal “exposure” to this inevitable future lawsuit by a clinical trial participant who was lied to and injected with poison. And I venture to guess that’s why they brazenly offered her an insulting $1200 as a “compensation”.

Once the DPA has been invoked, public-private partnerships and government takeovers of private manufacturing facilities can be conducted through the adoption of “voluntary agreements” and “plans of action”.

Those legal instruments specifically exempt the participants from antitrust laws and contract laws, giving them recourse to the relevant DPA sections in any civil suit or criminal prosecution.

The relevant sections are mostly under 50 USC 4558, including:

• 50 USC 4558(a) - exemption from antitrust laws;

• 50 USC 4558(c)(1) - prerequisite for voluntary agreements and plans of action as substitute for contracts is Presidential finding of a national security threat or emergency

• 50 USC 4558(j) - defenses available in civil and criminal actions

• 50 USC 4558 (o) - preemption of contract law in emergencies

50 USC 4511(a) is also relevant, authorizes government takeover of production facilities.

50 USC 4558(o)

(o)Preemption of contract law in emergencies

“In any action in any Federal or State court for breach of contract, there shall be available as a defense that the alleged breach of contract was caused predominantly by action taken during an emergency to carry out a voluntary agreement or plan of action authorized and approved in accordance with this section. Such defense shall not release the party asserting it from any obligation under applicable law to mitigate damages to the greatest extent possible”.

Covid-19 bioweapons and the Defense Production Act of 1950

AstraZeneca knew starting on February 4, 2020, i.e. full 9 months before Bri was injected:

• that Pandemic Preparedness Plan is a DARPA-concocted horseshit a “science fiction, not science” (Mark Esser, AstraZeneca, on tape);

• that their product is a toxic brew and will kill and injure people;

• that the US Government/DOD wants to buy it and will pay a lot of money;

• that the US Government has invoked military laws for this purpose, including the PREP Act and the DPA;

• that the laws and regulations safeguarding human subjects in clinical research do not apply to EUA Countermeasures and would not apply to their “clinical trials”;

• that they will face no liability for killing and injuring people with their toxic product because the US Government/DOD will defend them and provide immunity via numerous mechanisms, including the PREP Act and the DPA.

The evidence that AstraZeneca knew all of the above is in the [completely meaningless] “informed consent” document that Bri signed. It contains the following statement:

Bri’s case is an important one. Just as it happened in Brook Jackson’s case, it may force the military-pharma cartel to fess up about the true nature of the unannounced war they are waging on all of us. Our prediction is that AstraZeneca may produce, in its motion to dismiss or other defense, the DPA contract (“voluntary agreement” or “plan of action”) with the US Government for emergency production of the AZ vaccine. In their motion they will claim that the DPA exempts them from the customary contract law.

Art for today: Skyline Park, 7x7 watercolor.