Court rules that some illusory promises are more illusory than others...
Court rules that some illusory promises are more illusory than others...
AstraZeneca's motion to dismiss was denied in vaccine injured Brianne Dressen's lawsuit for breach of clinical trial contract.
I wrote about this lawsuit previously. 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.
On November 4, 2024 there was a significant win in this case - the judge denied AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The primary reason cited for this ruling is that PREP Act does not shield from breach of contract. If you have been hiding under a rock all this time and are not familiar with the PREP Act, here are some articles explaining this brilliant license to kill issued by the US Congress to the pharmaceutical and all of the “deathcare” industry:
I am very happy for this court milestone for Brianne and hope that she will ultimately prevail in getting proper compensation for her injuries. It is an atrocity that millions of the vaccine injured are ignored or worse - belittled, gaslit by the healthcare establishment, denied care, denied help, all under a perverse theory that acknowledging their plight creates “vaccine hesitancy”. You should never hesitate before injecting government poison into yourself and your children!
Having said this, I wanted to provide a more detailed critical review of the court ruling, because if you think this somehow overturns the PREP Act and opens the gates for all vaccine injured to get compensation and true justice, well, not quite so fast!
The judge sided with Dressen’s attorneys’ argument that very cleverly avoids mention (and thus precludes any chance of introducing into court evidence) the reality that Brianna was disabled by the covid vaccine, i.e. the “covered countermeasure”, which is “covered” by the PREP Act:
The PREP Act liability shield requires a causal relationship to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure. The judge is saying, we must examine the flies separately from the shit over which they are circulating. These two thing have differences in causation. Technically, that’s true, but they also have some major common causes.
So, the judge is siding with Dressen’s attorneys’ argument. They found a way to bring her case and demand compensation from AstraZeneca, by avoiding the talk of vaccine injury entirely! That’s good for Dressen and her attorneys. And may help a few other people injured while being a “clinical trial” subject, for example, Maddie DeGaray a teen who is completely disabled and left in a wheelchair with a feeding tube for the rest of her life. For this to happen, however, the victims MUST NOT talk about injuries caused by covid vaccines or any vaccines.
And so, Dressen’s attorneys DO NOT talk about her covid vaccine injuries:
The judge (correctly) points that not only the language of the law, but the intent of the law must be taken into account. Since we know that the intent of the PREP Act was to issue license to kill to all of healthcare and pharma by the US Government, some really mind-bending creative arguments are being employed here to pretend this is not the case:
There is a lot to unpack in the above passage! It would make Orwell proud. The judge says that the PREP Act authors could not have possibly allowed to let pharma make “illusory promises” in contracts. Um… ah… yeah… how do I formulate my shock at reading this… some illusory promises appear to be more illusory then others. For example, it seems that the authors of the PREP Act DID allow pharma to make quite a lot of illusory promises, such as “safe and effective”, “95% effective”, “prevents transmission and infection”, “rigorously tested”, allowed to deny injuries and deaths, allowed (now well documented) data fraud, clinical trial fraud, and manufacturing fraud. The list of the illusory promises explicitly allowed by the PREP Act is several miles long. It is fully legal under EUA countermeasures law for pharmaceutical products to be adulterated and misbranded, and it is also legal for all the “covered persons” involved to lie about it.
Curious - is judge Shelby aware of Brook Jackson’s case dismissal by the federal court in Texas? Wherein judge Truncale sided with Pfizer’s making illusory promises in contracts with the US Government, promising “safe and effective” vaccine while conducting numerous varieties of fraud in clinical trials, and not disputing that they committed fraud.
So, which is it? Is it ok to make illusory promises in contracts for EUA countermeasures or not?
The ruling continues, stating that AstraZeneca’s interpretation of the PREP Act (as shielding them from liability under contractual claims) creates an “absurd” result, i.e. contracts allowing lies and becoming unenforceable:
This court apparently ignores not only the intent, but the actual language of the US law, too, in order to shield the public-private criminal cartel of the Pandemic Preparedness Racket from any exposure.
As stated in the US law, as prototypes under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) during a Public Health Emergency, covid countermeasures need not comply with laws governing clinical trials, manufacturing quality, safety or labeling (21 USC 360bbb-3(k)). The same law clearly states that:
21 USC 360bbb-3 Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies
…21 USC 360bbb-3(k) Relation to other provisions
If a product is the subject of an authorization under this section, the use of such product within the scope of the authorization shall not be considered to constitute a clinical investigation for purposes of section 355(i), 360b(j), or 360j(g) of this title or any other provision of this chapter or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 262].
More about this unconstitutional, perverted law here, in Katherine Watt’s post.
And herein lies the ultimate evil absurdity of the situation. To get any help or compensation for their injuries the victims must present an “alternative theory” in which the perpetrators of the crime who lured unsuspecting, trusting, good people through illusory promises into mass poisoning are the good guys. Where the poison they concocted and lied about is a “safe and effective vaccine”. Where the “widespread tort immunity” given to the entire criminal cartel of pandemic preparedness is just a genius legislative innovation to make the criminal cartel more agile.
Imagine a criminal trial for murder or aggravated assault where the victim’s side is required to present a theory in which the perpetrator is innocent! Absurd, indeed…
Finally, earlier in the post I put “clinical trial” in quotes, because it wasn’t legally a clinical trial. As the US law clearly states, Brianne Dressen was NOT a clinical trial subject. There were no clinical trial subjects for covid injections, because regulated, human-subject protected clinical trials are not possible for EUA Countermeasures under Public Health Emergency. This is because the law explicitly makes EUA Countermeasures “non-investigational”, and thus a legally safeguarded clinical investigation with proper informed consent is not possible. It is also not possible to set up a clinical trial by a contract with participants alone. Try setting up a raw milk clinical trial by direct contract with your local farmer and watch the FDA/FBI/CDC/USDA send tanks and helicopters in your direction. Just calling something a clinical trial is a fraudulent claim and an illusory promise when the law precludes that possibility. Dressen’s attorneys could have used this argument. This argument also avoids stating that she was injured by a vaccine. It is curious that they, together with the judge, studiously ignore the relevant law as written.
As I said at the beginning of the article, I am happy for Brianna Dressen, and I hope she will get a meaningful compensation. However, this court’s decision is not on any pathway to produce justice for the crime of killing and injuring millions of people by the mRNA injections. The courts serve the government, not the average citizen. When the law itself is perverted, corrupt and evil, like the pandemic preparedness law, the courts rule in favor of the crime, solidifying rather than overturing the injustice.
Art for today: From my recent sketches in Death Valley, watercolor.
Dutch government admits Covid was a military operation
https://patientmaktpatientcv.substack.com/p/dutch-government-admits-covid-was
Sasha. I stand amazed every time you write of your in-depth knowledge of all things Covid, trials, and law. You should be an attorney, or at the very least those attorneys should have consulted you prior to preparing this case. Thank you for all you share.