Amended Complaint, Doc. 30 — America's Frontline Doctors, etc. v. Becerra

Date: 2021-10-29

Summary

An Amended Complaint with jury demand filed October 29, 2021 as Document 30 in America's Frontline Doctors, Inc., et al. v. United States of America, et al., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00702-CLM, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. America's Frontline Doctors and individual plaintiffs sue the United States, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Secretary Xavier Becerra, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Janet Woodcock, and HHS, FDA, CDC, NIH and NIAID. The complaint contends that no emergency exists, that the COVID-19 emergency use authorizations are invalid and were issued in bad faith, that the vaccines were misbranded, and that vaccine mandates, including those tied to Executive Order 14043, are unconstitutional. It invokes jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and is signed by plaintiffs' counsel, with a certificate of service on government counsel.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

FILED

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 68

2021 Oct-29 PM 11:11
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS, INC.,
a 501C3 Organization; DR. DAVID CALDERWOOD, an
individual; JOSEPH MAKOWSKI, an individual; LYLE
BLOOM, an individual; ELLEN MILLEN, an individual;
JODY SOBCZAK, an individual; MICHAEL NELSON, an
individual; and JOSEPH LEAHY, an individual;
vs.

Plaintiffs,

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOSEPH R. BIDEN,
JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States;
XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, in his official and personal
capacities, DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Director of the National
Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, in his official
and personal capacities, DR. JANET WOODCOCK, Acting
Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, in her
official and personal capacities, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; the FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION; the CENTER FOR DISEASE
CONTROL AND PREVENTION; the NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF HEALTH; the NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF ALLERGIES AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES; and
DOES I-X
Defendants.
_______________________________________

Civil Action No.
2:21-cv-00702-CLM
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT
1

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are either individuals facing a COVID vaccine mandate, or organizations whose

members have received a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Plaintiffs contend that no emergency

exists and thus all EUAs and emergency actions are invalid, the EUAs were issued in bad faith

and in violation of the law, the COVID-19 vaccines were misbranded, and any mandate of the

COVID-19 vaccines is unconstitutional.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 68

This challenge will establish that, illegally and in bad faith, the following are true:



The COVID vaccine mandates are unlawful and unconstitutional. Further, Plaintiffs

assert that the declaration of an emergency, issuance of an EUA, current branding of

the COVID-19 vaccines, and mandate of vaccines authorized under said EUA cannot

be supported under the following circumstances which will be demonstrated at trial:

•

Over 99.8% of all those infected with COVID survive with the number being far

higher in a vast majority of the population. Even the highest risk population has

approximately a 95% recovery rate which is substantially higher than many other

diseases we have lived with for centuries with no emergency measures taken. (Hence

no emergency exists).



Merriam Webster defines an emergency as: an unexpected and usually dangerous

situation that calls for immediate action. 1 It is undisputed that COVID-19 will remain

with us forever and thus this is not an emergency. If we allow emergency measures

indefinitely we are constructively amending the Constitution and rewriting legislation

through the use of the emergency declaration.



Those who survive COVID-19 or it’s variants (“COVID”) obtain robust and durable

natural immunity. The natural immunity so obtained is superior to COVID vaccine-

induced immunity.



Adequate alternative treatments exist.



The COVID vaccines are ineffective against the Delta strain of COVID, which the

Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) states is the dominant (>99%) strain spreading

throughout the United States.



The CDC Director has acknowledged that the COVID vaccines do not prevent

infection or transmission of COVID: “[W]hat the vaccines can’t do anymore is

prevent transmission.” 2 The CDC has also acknowledged that the vaccinated and

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergency. Retrieved 10/29/2021
As the Wuhan vaccine cannot stop transmission of Delta, several studies have proven that the vaccinated are
passing the Delta strain amongst each other. For example, as reported by the NEJM, University of San Diego
healthcare workers. The New England Journal of Medicine, Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Highly
Vaccinated Health System Workforce (September 30, 2021).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2112981.

1
2

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 68

unvaccinated are equally likely to spread the virus. 3

32
33



The CDC changed its definition of “vaccine” in August 2021 without following any

formal rulemaking process despite the word vaccine carrying important legal

implications. Plaintiffs will show this to be a substantive rule change subject to notice

and comment under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). This process did not

occur prior to these changes.



Plaintiffs contend that the vaccines are not actually vaccines.



On October 22, 2020, during a web-conference/meeting of the Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA, a slide was shown to the

attendees disclosing likely known adverse consequences of the vaccines. Despite this

disclosure the COVID vaccines have been relentlessly misbranded, without

limitation, as both “vaccines” and as “safe and effective”.



Mandating COVID vaccines violates the fundamental right of bodily integrity

protected by United States Constitution as stated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey,

505 U.S. 833 which cited and largely overturned Jacobson v Massachusetts.



The COVID vaccines cause a significantly higher incidence of injuries, adverse

reactions, and deaths than any prior vaccines that have been allowed to remain on the

market and pose a significant health risk to recipients.



As COVID vaccines do not prevent the infection or transmission of COVID but do

result in a significant number of adverse events and deaths, Plaintiffs allege that the

authorization alone is an illegal abuse of discretion, and the mandate of these vaccines

is an unconscionable act done in bad faith.

THE PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS (“AFLDS”) is a non-partisan, not-for-profit

organization of hundreds of member physicians that come from across the country, representing

a range of medical disciplines and practical experience on the front lines of medicine.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 68

Many of AFLDS member physician’s employers subscribe to and follow the

recommendations of the American Medical Association (“AMA”). In a special meeting in

November of 2020, the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, updated a previously

published Ethics Opinion in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics as opinion 8.7, “Routine

Universal Immunization of Physicians.”

In this updated opinion, the astonishing position was taken that not only do physicians

have an ethical and moral obligation to inject themselves with the experimental COVID

vaccines, but they also have an ethical duty to encourage their patients to do likewise. The ethics

opinion repeatedly uses the phrase “safe and effective” as a descriptor for the experimental

COVID-19 vaccination. The AMA’s ethics opinion goes on to state that institutions may have a

responsibility to require immunization of all staff.

“Physicians and other health care workers who decline to be immunized with a safe and

effective vaccine, without a compelling medical reason, can pose an unnecessary medical risk to

vulnerable patients or colleagues,” said AMA Board Member Michael Suk, MD, JD, MPH,

MBA. “Physicians must strike an ethical balance between their personal commitments as moral

individuals and their obligations as medical professionals.”

The ethical opinion adopted by the AMA House of Delegates declares that doctors:

76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

have an ethical responsibility to encourage patients to accept immunization when
the patient can do so safely, and to take appropriate measures in their own
practice to prevent the spread of infectious disease in health care settings.
Physician practices and health care institutions have a responsibility to
proactively develop policies and procedures for responding to epidemic or
pandemic disease with input from practicing physicians, institutional leadership,
and appropriate specialists. Such policies and procedures should include robust
infection-control practices, provision and required use of appropriate protective
equipment, and a process for making appropriate immunization readily available
to staff. During outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease for which there is a
safe, effective vaccine, institutions’ responsibility may extend to requiring
immunization of staff.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 68

It is clear from this ethics opinion that AFLDS member physicians would be considered

by their employers to be both morally and ethically bound by a duty to encourage 12–15-year-

old minors to receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccination injection.

91
92

A great number of AFLDS member physicians and medical workers are currently facing
COVID vaccine mandates at threat of their “job”.

It is critical to point out that for AFLDS member physicians, the practice of medicine is

not simply a job. Neither is it merely a career. Rather, it is a sacred trust. It is a true high calling

that often requires a decade or more of highly focused sacrificial dedication to achieve.

To grasp the irreparable nature of the harm they face, one must consider the ease with

which even an anonymous report can be made that may injure or haunt a physician’s career. The

National Physicians Database (“NPDB”) was created by Congress with the intent of providing a

central location to obtain information about practitioners. However, as Darryl S. Weiman, M.D.,

100

J.D. pointed out, the “black mark of a listing in the NPDB may not accomplish what the law was

101

meant to do; identify the poor practitioner.” Weiman goes on to point out that “It is the threat of

102

a NPDB report which prevents the open discussion, fact-finding, and broad-based analysis and

103

problem solving which was the intent of the meaningful peer-review of the HCQIA.”

104

The gross imbalance of equities between an individual physician and the various large

105

institutions and pharmaceutical companies which exert tremendous sway over their professional

106

calling has many physicians fearful of pushing back against COVID vaccine mandates.

107

AFLDS may assert and protect the rights of its members as an association. (see Doe v.

108

Stincer, 175 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 1999). See also Pa. Psychiatric Society v. Green Spring Health

109

Servs., Inc., 280 F.3d 278 (3d Cir.2002); Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc.

110

v. Texas Medical Board, 627 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2010); Retired Chi. Police Ass’n v. City of

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 68

111

Chicago, 7 F.3d 584, 601-02, 608 (7th Cir. 1993). Cf., and Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons

112

v. United States FDA, No. 20-1784, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27157 (6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2021)).

113

DR. DAVID CALDERWOOD (“Dr. Calderwood) is a physician licensed to practice

114

medicine in the State of Alabama. He lives and works in Huntsville, Madison County, Alabama,

115

and one of his patients is Plaintiff JOSEPH MAKOWSKI. DR. CALDERWOOD has advised

116

MAKOWSKI to not take any of the vaccines at issue in this complaint due to his health

117

condition(s). DR. CALDERWOOD is entitled to assert the rights of his patient. (See Craig v.

118

Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976); June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, 140 S.Ct. 2103, 2118-19

119

(2020); and Robinson v. Attorney Gen., 957 F.3d 1171, 1177 (11th Cir. 2020)).

120

JOSEPH MAKOWSKI (“Makowski”) lives and works in Huntsville, Alabama.

121

Makowski works for a federal contractor that provides services on a federal installation in

122

Madison County. Makowski’s employer has issued a mandate declaring that he must be

123

vaccinated no later than November 8, 2021. However, Makowski’s physician, Dr. Calderwood,

124

has advised that because of his medical problems, he should not take any Vaccine.\

125

ELLEN MILLEN (“Millen”) is a resident of Huntsville, Alabama and a Systems

126

Engineer at Raytheon, a Federal Contractor. She has been employed there for 25 years. As a

127

result of Defendant Biden’s Executive Order 14043 applicable to federal government employees,

128

Millen confronts the vaccine mandate in November, 2021.

129

LYLE BLOOM (“BLOOM”) is a resident of Huntsville, Alabama and a Program

130

Director for Cummings Aerospace, a federal contractor. As a result of Defendant Biden’s

131

Executive Order 14043 applicable to federal government employees, Bloom confronts the

132

vaccine mandate in November, 2021.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 68

133

JODY SOBCZAK (“SOBCZAK”) is is a resident of Huntsville, Alabama and an

134

employee of Boeing. As a result of Defendant Biden’s Executive Order 14043 applicable to

135

federal government employees, both confront the vaccine mandate in November, 2021.

136

MICHAEL NELSON (“Nelson”) and JOSEPH LEAHY (Leahy”) are citizens and

137

residents of Madison County, Alabama, and both are employed at the Marshall Space Flight

138

Center in Huntsville. As a result of Defendant Biden’s Executive Order 14043 applicable to

139

federal government employees, both confront the vaccine mandate in November, 2021.
DEFENDANTS

140
141

Defendants are the United States, the President of the United States, appointed officials

142

of the United States government, and United States governmental agencies responsible for the

143

issuance and implementation of the challenged actions.

144
145
146
147

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. (“President Biden”) issued the challenged executive order.
See 86 Fed. Reg. at 50,985.
XAVIER BECERRA (“Secretary Becerra”) is the current Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. He is being sued in his official capacity.

148

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI (“Dr. Fauci”) is the Director of Defendant National Institute

149

of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, a federal sub-agency of the Department of Health and

150

Human Services. He is being sued in his official capacity.

151

DR. JANET WOODCOCK (“Dr. Woodcock”) is the current Acting Commissioner of

152

the Food and Drug Administration, a federal sub-agency of the Department of Health and

153

Human Services. She is being sued in her official capacity.

154
155

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (“DHHS”) is a
federal agency.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 8 of 68

156

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (“FDA”) is a federal sub-agency of DHHS.

157

CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (“CDC”) is a federal

158

sub-agency of DHHS.

159

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH (“NIH”) is a federal sub-agency of DHHS.

160

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGIES AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES

161
162
163

(“NIAID”) is a federal sub-agency of DHHS.
DOES I - X, are as yet unknown agencies and/or individuals who violated the law and
harmed Plaintiffs.

164

The Federal Defendants have coordinated, collaborated, planned and conspired, each

165

with the others, and aided and abetted each other to implement and undertake the unlawful

166

actions described herein.

167

The federal contractor Defendants have issued COVID vaccine mandates at threat of

168

employment, and/or have issued unlawful denials of religious accommodation exemptions from

169

their employees.

170

III. JURISDICTION, VENUE, STANDING

171

This Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which confers

172

original jurisdiction on federal district courts to hear suits arising under the laws and Constitution

173

of the United States.

174

This Court also exercises subject matter jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

175

1361, which grants to district courts original jurisdiction “of any action to compel an officer or

176

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”

177

Defendants owe a duty to Plaintiffs to comply faithfully with § 360bbb-3 and 45 CFR Part 46,

178

the provisions of which are intended to protect them.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 9 of 68

179
180
181
182

This Court has the authority to grant the requested declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2201, and the requested injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a).
This Court has Jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States and Authority
under its own equitable powers.

183

This Court is the appropriate venue for this litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)

184

since the Defendants are officers or employees of the United States acting in an official capacity

185

or under color of legal authority, and agencies of the United States, and at least one Plaintiff

186

resides in this District, and real property is not involved.

187

This Court has authority under Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), which provides:

188

“A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by

189

agency action within the meaning of the relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” (5

190

U.S.C. § 702, et seq.). Further:

191

[t]he reviewing court shall —

192
193

(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found
to be

194
195

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law;

196

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

197
198

199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207

Plaintiffs satisfy the “case-or-controversy” requirement of Article III of the Constitution
and have standing to sue because they:
[have] suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b)
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed
to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
(Fla Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th
Cir. 2011)).

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 10 of 68

208

In Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934), the U.S.

209

Supreme Court stated: “Whether an emergency exists upon which the continued operation of the

210

law depends is always open to judicial inquiry.” (290 U.S. at 442, citing Chastleton Corp. v.

211

Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543 (1924)).

212

In Sinclair, the Supreme Court stated: “A law depending upon the existence of

213

emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency

214

ceases or the facts change.” (264 U.S. at 547).

215

Both Blaisdell and Sinclair are clear authority that an emergency and the rules

216

promulgated thereunder must end when the facts of the situation no longer support the

217

continuation of the emergency. They also forbid this Court to merely assume the existence of a

218

“public health crisis” based on the pronouncements of the Executive Defendants. They are clear

219

authority that it is the duty of the court of first instance to grapple with this question and conduct

220

an inquiry. “[A] Court is not at liberty to shut its eyes to an obvious mistake when the validity

221

of the law depends upon the truth of what is declared.” (Id.)

222

The Sinclair court instructed lower courts to inquire into the factual predicate underlying

223

a declaration of emergency, where there appears to have been a change of circumstances: “the

224

facts should be gathered and weighed by the court of first instance and the evidence preserved

225

for consideration by this Court if necessary.” (264 U.S. at 549).

226

I. NO EMERGENCY EXISTS

227

The Emergency Use Authorization Framework

228

Basis for DHHS Secretary’s Declaration of Emergency

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 11 of 68

229

Section 360bbb–3(b) authorizes the DHHS Secretary to declare a “public health

230

emergency” justifying the emergency use of unapproved medical products, in relevant part as

231

follows (emphasis added):

232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242

(b) Declaration of emergency or threat justifying emergency authorized use
(1) In General. The Secretary may make a declaration that the circumstances exist
justifying the authorization under this subsection for a product on the basis of—
[… ]
(c) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a
significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant
potential to affect, national security or the health and security of
United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical,
radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be
attributable to such agent or agents;

243

The DHHS Secretary declared a “public health emergency” pursuant to §360bbb–

244

3(b)(1)(C) on February 4, 2020, after making the relevant finding. Plaintiffs contend and the

245

facts set forth below demonstrate that the finding was made in error, without any real

246

justification, since there is no bona fide underlying public health emergency, and as such the

247

EUAs for the Vaccines are unlawful.

248

Criteria for Issuance of Emergency Use Authorization

249

Once the DHHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency, § 360bbb–3(c)

250

authorizes him to issue EUAs “only if” certain criteria are met, in relevant part as follows

251

(emphasis added):

252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261

(c) Criteria for issuance of authorization. The Secretary may issue an
authorization under this section with respect to the emergency use of
a product only if, […] the Secretary concludes
(1) that an agent referred to in a declaration under subsection (b) can cause a
serious or life threatening disease or condition,
(2) that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary,
including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if
available, it is reasonable to believe that—
(A) the product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing—
(i) such disease or condition; or

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 12 of 68

262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275

(ii) a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by
a product authorized under this section, approved or cleared
under this chapter, or licensed under section 351 of the Public
Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 262], for diagnosing, treating, or
preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an agent;
and
(B) the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to
diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the
known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration
the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a
declaration under subsection (b)(1)(D), if applicable;
(3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to
the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or
condition;

276
277

Plaintiffs contend and the facts set forth below demonstrate that the Secretary has not met
and cannot meet the criteria for issuing EUAs for the Vaccines.

278

Conditions of Authorization

279

Once an EUA has been issued, §360bbb–3(e) obligates the Secretary to establish such

280

conditions on an authorization as are necessary to ensure that both healthcare professionals and

281

consumers receive certain minimum required information, in relevant part as follows (emphasis

282

added):

283

(e) Conditions of authorization

284

(1) Unapproved Product

285
286
287

(A) Required conditions. With respect to the emergency use of an
unapproved product, the Secretary […] shall […] establish
[…]:

288
289

(i) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that health care
professionals administering the product are informed —

290
291

(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use
of the product;

292
293
294
295

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and
risks of the emergency use of the product, and of the
extent to which such benefits and risks are known;
and

296
297

(III) of the alternatives to the product that are available,
and of their benefits and risks.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 13 of 68

298
299

(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals
to whom the product is administered are informed —

300
301

(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use
of the product;

302
303
304
305

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and
risks of the emergency use of the product, and of the
extent to which such benefits and risks are known;
and

306
307
308
309
310

(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of
the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing
administration of the product, and of the alternatives
to the product that are available, and of their
benefits and risks.

311
312
313

(iii) Appropriate conditions for the monitoring and reporting
of adverse events associated with the emergency use of
the product.

314
315

Plaintiffs contend and the facts set forth below demonstrate that the Secretary has failed

316

to satisfy the conditions for authorization, because he has not ensured that healthcare

317

professionals and Vaccine subjects are properly informed, and because he has actively

318

suppressed and/or mischaracterized information relating to the Vaccines without which informed

319

consent cannot be provided and without which the conditions for authorization cannot be and

320

have never been met.
The Vaccine EUAs are Unlawful — There is No Underlying Emergency

321
322
323

In approximately January of 2020, the media began creating and circulating news stories

324

that seemed designed to generate panic, regarding a new and deadly disease that could kill us all.

325

This was odd given that the estimated fatality rate at the time was between 2-4%. By contrast,

326

tuberculosis has a fatality rate of approximately 10%, the original SARS virus had a fatality rate

327

of approximately 9%, and the MERS virus had a fatality rate of approximately 30% — all had

328

similar rates of spread.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 14 of 68

329

The actual COVID-19 statistics present a vastly different picture than the one painted by

330

the media — a fatality rate of 0.2% globally, dropping to 0.03% for persons under age 70, which

331

is comparable to the yearly flu. Further, statistically, the fatality risk is limited to the elderly

332

population. The Defendants’ own data published through publicly accessible government

333

portals 4 establishes that there is no public health emergency due to SARS-CoV-2 and COVOD-

334

19:
United States Totals
COVID-19
Emergency Room Visits

335

COVID-19
Inpatients
COVID-19
ICU Patients
COVID-19
Hospitalizations
COVID-19 “Cases”

1.2% are due to COVID-19
(In 26 states, COVID-19 accounts for less than 1% of ER
visits. The highest percentage is 3.1%).
4% of all inpatients are due to COVID-19
9% of all ICU are due to COVID-19
15 per 100,000 or less in 46 states, and 20 per 100,000 or
less in 49 states
9 per 100,000 per day

336

The actual COVID-19 fatality numbers are vastly lower than those reported. On March

337

24, 2020, the DHHS changed the rules applicable to coroners and others responsible for

338

producing death certificates and making “cause of death” determinations — exclusively for

339

COVID-19. The rule change states that “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate

340

for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

341

Many doctors have attested that permitting such imprecision on a legal document (death

342

certificate) has never happened before in modern medicine. This results in reporting of deaths as

343

caused by COVID-19, even when in fact deaths were imminent and inevitable for other pre-

344

existing reasons and caused by co-morbidities. In other words, people dying with COVID-9 are
See, e.g., https://healthdata.gov and https://healthdata.gov/Health/COVID-19-Community-Profile-Report/gqxmd9w9
4

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 15 of 68

345

being reported as dying from COVID-19. DHHS statistics are now showing that 95% of deaths

346

classed as “COVID-19 deaths” involve an average of four additional co-morbidities.

347

Substantial government subsidies paid for reported COVID-19 deaths undoubtedly fuel

348

this misattribution of the cause of death. Former CDC Director Robert Redfield acknowledged

349

this perverse financial incentive in sworn Congressional testimony on COVID-19: “I think

350

you’re correct in that we’ve seen this in other disease processes too, really in the HIV epidemic,

351

somebody may have a heart attack, but also have HIV – the hospital would prefer the

352

classification for HIV because there’s greater reimbursement.”

353

Dr. Genevieve Briand of John Hopkins University published a study demonstrating that

354

the overall death rate in the United States has remained the same, despite the deaths attributed to

355

COVID-19. Dr. Briand analyzed federal CDC data for 2018 and 2020 and found that nationwide

356

deaths from causes other than COVID-19, decreased by the same amount that COVID-19 deaths

357

increased, raising the presumption that deaths from these other causes have been characterized as

358

COVID-19 deaths. There are no excess deaths due to COVID-19.

359

Similarly, the actual number of COVID-19 “cases” is far lower than the reported number.

360

The signs, symptoms and other diagnostic criteria for COVID-19 are laughably broad. Applying

361

the criteria, countless ailments can be classed as COVID-19, especially the common cold or

362

ordinary seasonal flu. Compounding the problem, the DHHS authorized the use of the

363

polymerase chain reaction (“PCR”) test as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19, with disastrous

364

consequences. The PCR tests are themselves experimental products, authorized by the FDA

365

under separate EUAs. Test manufacturers use disclaimers like this in their product manuals:

366

“[t]he FDA has not determined that the test is safe or effective for the detection of SARS-Co-V-

367

2”

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 16 of 68

368

A PCR test can only test for the presence of a fragment of the RNA of the SARS-CoV-2

369

virus, and literally, by itself, cannot be used to diagnose the COVID-19 disease. The RNA

370

fragment detected may not be intact and may be dead, in which case it cannot cause the disease

371

COVID-19. This is analogous to finding a car part, but not a whole car that can be driven.

372

Manufacturer inserts furnished with PCR test products include disclaimers stating that the PCR

373

tests should NOT be used to diagnose COVID-19. This is consistent with the warning issued by

374

the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR test that such tests are not appropriate for

375

diagnosing disease.

376

Further, the way in which the PCR tests are administered guaranties an unacceptably high

377

number of false positive results. Cycle Threshold Value (“CT value”) is essentially the number

378

of times that a sample (usually from a nasal swab) is magnified or amplified before a fragment of

379

viral RNA is detected. The CT Value is exponential, and so a 40-cycle threshold means that the

380

sample is magnified around a trillion times. The higher the CT Value, the less likely the detected

381

fragment of viral RNA is intact, alive and infectious.

382
383

Virtually all scientists, including Dr. Fauci, agree that any PCR test run at a CT value of
35-cycles or greater is useless. Dr. Fauci has stated:

384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392

What is now evolving into a bit of a standard is that if you get a cycle threshold
of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are
miniscule…We have patients, and it is very frustrating for the patients as well as
for the physicians…somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR and it’s like 37
cycle threshold…you can almost never culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle. So
I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you gotta say, you know,
it’s dead nucleotides, period.” In other words, it is not a COVID-19 infection.

393

positivity rate is as high as 97%. Despite this, a majority of the PCR tests for COVID-19

394

deployed under EUAs in the United States are run at cycles seemingly guaranteed to produce

A study funded by the French government showed that even at 35-cycles, the false

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 17 of 68

395

false positive results. Under the EUAs issued by the FDA, there is no flexibility to depart from

396

the manufacturer’s instructions and change the way in which the test is administered or

397

interpreted. The chart below shows that all major PCR tests in use in the United States are run at

398

cycles of 35 or higher.
Manufacturer

399

Xiamen Zeesan SARS-CoV-2 Test Kit (Real-time
PCR)
Opti Sars CoV-2 RT-PCR Test
Quest SARS-CoV-2rRT-PCR Test
CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus Real Time (RT-PCR
Diagnostic Panel) Test
Wren Labs COVID-19 PCR Test
LabCorp COVID-19 RT-PCR Test

Manufacturer’s Recommended
Cycle Threshold
45 cycles
45 cycles
40 cycles
40 cycles
38 cycles
35 cycles

400

There is, however, one GLARING exception to this standard. THE CDC HAS STATED

401

THAT ONCE A PERSON HAS BEEN VACCINATED, AND THEN AFTER VACCINATION

402

THAT PERSON TESTS POSITIVE FOR COVID-19 USING A PCR TEST, THE CDC WILL

403

ONLY “COUNT” THE POSITIVE RESULT AT 28 CYCLES OR LESS! Why the difference?

404

More recently, the CDC has announced it will no longer compile and report data showing the

405

total number of vaccinated who subsequently contract COVID-19: “[We are] transitioning to

406

reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or

407

died to help maximize the quality of the data collected.” 5 There appears to be an agenda to

408

protect the myths about the vaccine, rather than to protect the public.

409

The Defendants and their counterparts in state governments used the specter of

410

“asymptomatic spread” — the notion that fundamentally healthy people could cause COVID-19

411

in others — to justify the purported emergency. But there is no credible scientific evidence that
5

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 18 of 68

412

demonstrates that the phenomenon of “asymptomatic spread” is real. On the contrary, on June 7,

413

2020, Dr. Maria Von Kerkhov, head of the WHO’s Emerging Diseases and Zoonosis Unit, told a

414

press conference that from the known research, asymptomatic spread was “very rare.” “From the

415

data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a

416

secondary individual.” She added for emphasis: “it’s very rare.”

417

Medical University in Guangzhou, China, published a study in August 2020 concluding that

418

asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is almost non-existent. “Asymptomatic cases were

419

least likely to infect their close contacts,” the researchers found. A more recent study involving

420

nearly 10 million residents of Wuhan, China found that there were no — zero — positive

421

COVID-19 tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases, indicating the complete

422

absence of asymptomatic transmission.

Researchers from Southern

423

On September 9, 2020, Dr. Fauci was forced to admit in an official press conference:

424
425
426
427
428
429
430

[E]ven if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of
respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been
the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person,
even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is
not driven by asymptomatic carriers. 6

431

necessary legal predicate for unleashing dangerous experimental medical interventions on the

432

American public — that a true public health emergency exists. On a national level, Plaintiffs are

433

unaware of any inter-country requests for aid, or legitimately overwhelmed community health

434

resources or hospitals. The Cambridge dictionary defines the word “emergency” to mean

435

“something dangerous or serious, such as an accident, that happens suddenly or unexpectedly

Ultimately, there is simply no objective evidence to support the Secretary’s finding — the

See, starting at minute 44:
Error! Main Document Only.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6koHkBCoNQ&t=2638s (visited Oct. 19.
2021)
6

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 19 of 68

436

and needs fast action in order to avoid harmful results.” COVID-19 has been with us for over a

437

year and a half, and we know far more about the disease than we did at the outset. Most

438

importantly, we can identify with precision the discrete age segment of the population that is at

439

potential risk. For example, children under 18 statistically have a zero percent chance of death

440

*from COVID-19. Even if this were not the case, absent an emergency, the EUAs must be

441

invalidated entirely.

442
443

III. EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION WAS

444

GRANTED IN VIOLATION OF LAW

445
446

The Vaccine EUAs are Unlawful — The Vaccines are Not Effective in Diagnosing,
Treating or Preventing SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19

447

Some countries with the highest rates of Vaccine injection are facing a surge of COVID-

448

19 deaths and infections. Uruguay endured the highest COVID-19 death rate in the world per

449

capita for weeks, even though it had one of the world’s most successful vaccination drives.

450

Other highly vaccinated countries like Bahrain, Maldives, Chile and Seychelles, experienced the

451

same surge.

452

CDC data shows that deaths and hospitalizations for COVID-19 infection have tripled

453

among those who have already received the full recommended dosage of the Vaccines in the

454

United States in May of this year. Deaths from COVID-19 in those who have received the

455

recommended dosages of the Vaccines increased from 160 as of April 30, 2021, to 535 as of

456

June 1, 2021.

457

CDC data shows that a total of 10,262 SARS-CoV-2 “breakthrough infections” of those

458

who have already received the full recommended dosage of the Vaccines were reported to the

459

CDC from 46 states and territories between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021. Meanwhile, a

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 20 of 68

460

study published by the renowned Cleveland Clinic in Ohio indicates that natural immunity

461

acquired through prior infection with COVID-19 is stronger than any benefit conferred by a

462

Vaccine, rendering vaccination unnecessary for those previously infected.

463

In studying the effectiveness of a medical intervention in randomized controlled trials

464

(often called the gold standard of study design), the most useful way to present results is in terms

465

of Absolute Risk Reduction (“ARR”). ARR compares the impact of treatment by comparing the

466

outcomes of the treated group and the untreated group. In other words, if 20 out of 100 untreated

467

individuals had a negative outcome, and 10 out of 100 treated individuals had a negative

468

outcome, the ARR would be 10% (20 — 10 = 10). According to a study published by the

469

NIH, the ARR for the Pfizer Vaccine is a mere 0.7%, and the ARR for the Moderna

470

Vaccine is only 1.1%. 7

471

From the ARR, one can calculate the Number Needed to Vaccinate (“NNV”), which

472

signifies the number of people that must be injected before even one person benefits from the

473

vaccine. The NVV for the Pfizer Vaccine is 119, meaning that 119 people must be injected in

474

order to observe the reduction of a COVID-19 case in one person. The reputed journal the

475

Lancet reports data indicating that the NVV may be as high as 217.

476

hospitalization exceeds 4,000. The NVV to avoid death exceeds 25,000.

The NVV to avoid

477

There are several factors that reduce any purported benefit of the COVID-19 Vaccines.

478

First, it is important to note that the Vaccines were only shown to reduce symptoms – not block

479

transmission. For over a year now, these Defendants and state-level public health authorities

480

have told the American public that SARS-CoV-2 can be spread by people who have none of the

481

symptoms of COVID-19, therefore Americans must mask themselves, and submit to
7

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/ (Visited Oct. 19, 2021)

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 21 of 68

482

innumerable lockdowns and restrictions, even though they are not manifestly sick. If that is the

483

case, and these officials were not lying to the public, and asymptomatic spread is real, then what

484

is the benefit of a vaccine that merely reduces symptoms? There isn’t any.

485

Secondly, it appears that these Defendants either did lie about asymptomatic spread or

486

were simply wrong about the science. The theory of asymptomatic transmission — used as the

487

justification for the lockdown and masking of the healthy — was based solely upon mathematical

488

modeling. This theory had no actual study participants, and no peer review. The authors made

489

the unfounded assumption that asymptomatic persons were “75% as infectious” as symptomatic

490

persons. But in the real world, healthy false positives turned out to be merely healthy, and were

491

never shown to be “asymptomatic” carriers of anything. Studies have shown that PCR test-

492

positive asymptomatic individuals do not induce clinical COVID-19 disease, not even in a family

493

member with whom they share a home and extended proximity. An enormous study of nearly

494

ten million people in Wuhan, China showed that asymptomatic individuals testing positive for

495

COVID-19 never infected others. 8 Since asymptomatic individuals do not spread COVID-19,

496

they do not need to be vaccinated.

497
498
499
500
501
502
503

The Vaccine EUAs are Unlawful — The Known and Potential Risks of the Vaccines
Outweigh the Known and Potential Benefits
The “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” are
Novel Gene Therapy Technology, Not Vaccines
The CDC defines a “vaccine” as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to

504

produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are

505

usually administered through needle injections but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed

See: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201130131511.htm (visited Oct. 19. 2021)

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 22 of 68

506

into the nose.” 9 The CDC defines “immunity” as: “Protection from an infectious disease. If you

507

are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.” 10

508

However, the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19

509

Vaccine” do not meet the CDC’s own definitions. They do not stimulate the body to produce

510

immunity from a disease. They are a synthetic fragment of nucleic acid embedded in a fat carrier

511

that is introduced into human cells, not for the purpose of inducing immunity from infection with

512

the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and not to block further transmission of the virus, but in order to lessen

513

the symptoms of COVID-19. No published, peer-reviewed studies prove that the “Pfizer-

514

BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine” confer immunity or

515

stop transmission.

516

Further, the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19

517

Vaccine” are not “vaccines” within the common, lay understanding of the public. Since vaccines

518

were first discovered in 1796 by Dr. Edward Jenner, who used cowpox to inoculate humans

519

against smallpox, and called the process “vaccination” (from the Latin term vaca for cow), the

520

public has had an entrenched understanding that a vaccine is a microorganism, either alive but

521

weakened, or dead, that is introduced into the human body in order to trigger the production of

522

antibodies that confer immunity from the targeted disease, and also prevent its transmission to

523

others. The public are accustomed to these traditional vaccines and understand them.

524

The public are fundamentally uninformed about the gene therapy technology behind the

525

“Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.”

526

attenuated virus is used. Rather, instructions, via a piece of genetic code (“mRNA”) are injected

No dead or

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm. Retrieved 4/9/2021 at 11:00 AM
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm. Retrieved 4/9/2021 at 11:00 AM

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 23 of 68

527

into your body that tell your body how to make a certain “spike protein” that is purportedly

528

useful in attacking the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

529

By referring to the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” and the “Moderna COVID-19

530

Vaccine” as “vaccines,” and by allowing others to do the same, the Defendants knowingly

531

seduce and mislead the public, short-circuit independent, critical evaluation and decision-making

532

by the consumers of these products, and vitiate their informed consent. Meanwhile, this novel

533

technology is being deployed in the unsuspecting human population for the first time in history.

534

Inadequate Testing

535

The typical vaccine development process takes between 10 and 15 years and consists of

536

the following sequential stages — research and discovery (2 to 10 years), pre-clinical animal

537

studies (1 to 5 years), clinical human trials in four phases (typically 5 years). Phase 1 of the

538

clinical human trials consists of healthy individuals and is focused on safety. Phase 2 consists of

539

additional safety and dose-ranging in healthy volunteers, with the addition of a control group.

540

Phase 3 evaluates efficacy, safety and immune response in a larger volunteer group, and requires

541

two sequential randomized controlled trials. Phase 4 is a larger scale investigation into longer-

542

term safety. Vaccine developers must follow this process in order to be able to generate the data

543

the FDA needs in order to assess the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine candidate.

544

This 10–15-year testing process has been abandoned for purposes of the Vaccines. The

545

first human-to-human transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was not confirmed until January

546

20, 2020, and less than a year later both mRNA Vaccines had EUAs and for the first time in

547

history this novel mRNA technology was being injected into millions of human beings. As of

548

June 7, 2021, 138 million Americans, representing 42% of the population, have been fully

549

vaccinated.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 24 of 68

550

All of the stages of testing have been compressed in time, abbreviated in substance, and

551

are overlapping, which dramatically increases the risks of the Vaccines. Plaintiffs’ investigation

552

indicates that Moderna and Pfizer designed their Vaccines in only two days. It appears that

553

pharmaceutical companies did not independently verify the genome sequence that China released

554

on January 11, 2020. It appears that the Vaccines were studied for only 56 days in macaques,

555

and 28 days in mice, and then animal studies were halted. It appears that the pharmaceutical

556

companies discarded their control groups receiving placebos, squandering the opportunity to

557

learn about the rate of long-term complications, how long protection against the disease lasts and

558

how well the Vaccines inhibit transmission. A number of studies were deemed unnecessary and

559

not performed prior to administration in human subjects, including single dose toxicity,

560

toxicokinetic, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, prenatal and postnatal development, offspring, local

561

tolerance, teratogenic and postnatal toxicity and fertility. The American public has not been

562

properly informed of these dramatic departures from the standard testing process, and the risks

563

they generate.

564
565

AFLDS medico-legal researchers have analyzed the accumulated COVID-19 Vaccine
risk data, and report as follows:

566

Migration of the SARS-CoV-2 “Spike Protein” in the Body

567

The SARS-CoV-2 has a spike protein on its surface. The spike protein is what allows the

568

virus to infect other bodies. It is clear that the spike protein is not a simple, passive structure.

569

The spike protein is a “pathogenic protein” and a toxin that causes damage. The spike protein is

570

itself biologically active, even without the virus. It is “fusogenic” and consequently binds more

571

tightly to our cells, causing harm. If the purified spike protein is injected into the blood of

572

research animals, it causes profound damage to their cardiovascular system, and crosses the

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 25 of 68

573

blood-brain barrier to cause neurological damage. If the Vaccines were like traditional bona fide

574

vaccines, and did not leave the immediate site of vaccination, typically the shoulder muscle,

575

beyond the local draining lymph node, then the damage that the spike protein could cause might

576

be limited.

577

However, the Vaccines were authorized without any studies demonstrating where the

578

spike proteins traveled in the body following vaccination, how long they remain active and what

579

effect they have. A group of international scientists has recently obtained the “biodistribution

580

study” for the mRNA Vaccines from Japanese regulators.

581

traditional vaccines, this spike protein enters the bloodstream and circulates throughout the body

582

over several days post-vaccination. It accumulates in a number of tissues, such as the spleen,

583

bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and ovaries. It fuses with receptors on our blood platelets,

584

and also with cells lining our blood vessels. It can cause platelets to clump leading to clotting,

585

bleeding and heart inflammation. It can also cross the blood-brain barrier and cause brain

586

damage. It can be transferred to infants through breast milk. The VAERS system includes

587

reports of infants suckling from vaccinated mothers experiencing bleeding disorders in the

588

gastrointestinal tract.

589
590

The study reveals that unlike

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare
professionals or Vaccine subjects.

591

Increased Risk of Death from Vaccines

592

The government operated VAERS database is intended to function as an “early warning”

593

system for potential health risks caused by vaccines. It is broadcasting a red alert. Of the

594

262,000 total accumulated reports in VAERS, only 1772 are not related to COVID-19. The

595

database indicates that the total reported vaccine deaths in the first quarter of 2021 represents a

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 26 of 68

596

12,000% to 25,000% increase in vaccine deaths, year-on-year. In ten years (2009-2019) there

597

were 1529 vaccine deaths, whereas in the first quarter of 2021 there have been over 4,000.

598

Further, 99% of all reported vaccine deaths in 2021 are caused by the COVID-19 Vaccines, only

599

1% being caused by the numerous other vaccines reported in the system. It is estimated that

600

VAERS only captures 1% to 10% of all vaccine adverse events.

601

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare

602

professionals or Vaccine subjects.

603

Reproductive Health

604

The mRNA Vaccines induce our cells to manufacture (virus-free) “spike proteins.” The

605

“spike proteins” are in the same family as the naturally occurring syncytin-1 and syncytin-2

606

reproductive proteins in sperm, ova and placenta. Antibodies raised against the spike protein

607

might interact with the naturally occurring syncytin proteins, adversely affecting multiple steps

608

in human reproduction. The manufacturers did not provide data on this subject despite knowing

609

about the spike protein’s similarity to syncytin proteins for more than one year. There are now a

610

remarkably high number of pregnancy losses in VAERS, and worldwide reports of irregular

611

vaginal bleeding without clear explanation. Scientists are concerned that the Vaccines pose a

612

substantial risk to a woman’s reproductive system. This increased risk of sterility stems from an

613

increased concentration of the spike proteins in various parts of the reproductive system after

614

vaccination. Not enough is known to determine the risk of sterility, but it is beyond question that

615

the risk is increased.

616

Since Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in this case, new

617

evidence has emerged that further confirms the risk. A leaked Pfizer document (below) exposes

618

that Pfizer Vaccine nanoparticles accumulate in the ovaries at an extraordinarily high rate, in

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 27 of 68

619

concentrations orders of magnitude higher than in other tissues. Billions of aggressive spike

620

proteins are accumulating in very delicate ovarian tissues, the one place in the human body

621

where females carry a finite number of fertile eggs.

623

Each baby girl is born with the total number of eggs she will ever have in her entire life.

624

Those eggs are stored in the ovaries, and one egg is released each month of a normal menstrual

625

cycle. When there are no more eggs, a woman stops menstruating. The reproductive system is

626

arguably the most delicate hormonal and organ balance of all our systems. The slightest

627

deviation in any direction and infertility results. Even in 2021, doctors and scientists do not know

628

all the variables that cause infertility.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 28 of 68

629

There is evidence to support that the vaccine could cause permanent autoimmune

630

rejection of the placenta. Placental inflammation resulting in stillbirths mid-pregnancy (second

631

trimester) is seen with COVID-19 and with other similar coronaviruses. There is a case report of

632

a woman with a normally developing pregnancy who lost the otherwise healthy baby at five

633

months during acute COVID-19. The mother’s side of the placenta was very inflamed. This

634

“infection of the maternal side of the placenta inducing acute or chronic placental insufficiency

635

resulting in miscarriage or fetal growth restriction was observed in 40% of pregnant women with

636

similar coronaviruses.” The mRNA Vaccines may instigate a similar reaction as the SARS-CoV-

637

2 virus. There is a component in the vaccine that could cause the same autoimmune rejection of

638

the placenta, but indefinitely. Getting COVID-19 has been associated with a high risk of mid

639

mid-pregnancy miscarriage because the placenta fails. The mRNA Vaccines may have precisely

640

the same effect, however, not for just the few weeks of being sick, but forever. Repeated

641

pregnancies would keep failing — mid-pregnancy.

642

On December 1, 2020, a former Pfizer Vice President and allergy and respiratory

643

researcher, Dr. Michael Yeadon, filed an application with the European Medicines Agency,

644

responsible for approving drugs in the European Union, seeking the immediate suspension of all

645

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines, 11 citing inter alia the risk to pregnancies. As of April 26, 2021, the

646

VAERS database contains over 3,000 reports of failed pregnancies associated with the Vaccines.

647

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare

648

professionals or Vaccine subjects.

649

Vascular Disease

See: https://2020news.de/en/dr-wodarg-and-dr-yeadon-request-a-stop-of-all-corona-vaccination-studies-and-callfor-co-signing-the-petition/ (visited Oct. 19, 2021)
11

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 29 of 68

650

Salk Institute for Biological Studies researchers in collaboration with the University of

651

San Diego, published in the journal Circulation Research that the spike proteins themselves

652

damage vascular cells, causing strokes and many other vascular problems. All the vaccines are

653

causing clotting disorders (coagulopathy) in all ages. The spike proteins are known to cause

654

clotting that the body cannot fix, such as brain thrombosis and thrombocytopenia.

655

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare

656

professionals or Vaccine subjects.

657

Autoimmune Disease

658

The spike proteins are perceived to be foreign by the human immune system, initiating an

659

immune response to fight them. While that is the intended therapeutic principle, it is also the case

660

that any cell expressing spike proteins becomes a target for destruction by our own immune

661

system. This is an autoimmune disorder and can affect virtually any organ in the body. It is likely

662

that some proportion of spike protein will become permanently fused to long-lived human

663

proteins and this will prime the body for prolonged autoimmune diseases. Autoimmune diseases

664

can take years to show symptoms and many scientists are alarmed at giving young people such a

665

trigger for possible autoimmune disease.

666

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare

667

professionals or Vaccine subjects.

668

Neurological Damage

669

The brain is completely unique in structure and function, and therefore it requires an

670

environment that is insulated against the rest of the body’s functioning. The blood-brain-barrier

671

exists so the brain can function without disruption from the rest of the body. This is a complex,

672

multi-layered system, using several mechanisms that keeps nearly all bodily functions away from

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 30 of 68

673

the brain. Three such systems include: very tight junctions between the cells lining the blood

674

vessels, very specific proteins that go between, and unique enzymes that alter substances that do

675

go through the cells. Working together, the blood-brain-barrier prevents almost everything from

676

getting in. Breaching it is generally incompatible with life.

677

Most unfortunately, the COVID-19 Vaccines — unlike any other vaccine ever deployed

678

— are able to breach this barrier through various routes, including through the nerve structure in

679

the nasal passages and through the blood vessel walls. The resulting damage begins in the arterial

680

wall, extends to the supporting tissue outside the arteries in the brain, and from there to the actual

681

brain nerve cells inside. The Vaccines are programmed to produce the S1 subunit of the spike

682

protein in every cell in every Vaccine recipient, but it is this subunit that causes the brain damage

683

and neurologic symptoms. Elderly persons are at increased risk for this brain damage.

684

COVID-19 patients typically have neurological symptoms including headache and loss of

685

smell and taste, as well as brain fog, impaired consciousness, and stroke. Researchers have

686

published a paper in the Journal of Neurological Sciences correlating the severity of the

687

pulmonary distress in COVID-19 with viral spread to the brain stem, suggesting direct brain

688

damage, not just a secondary cytokine effect. It has been shown recently by Dr. William Banks,

689

professor of Internal Medicine at University of Washington School of Medicine, that the S1

690

subunit of the spike protein — the part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that produces the COVID-19

691

disease and is in the Vaccines — can cross the blood brain barrier.

692

concerning, given the high number of ACE2 receptors in the brain (the ACE2 receptor is that

693

portion of the cell that allows the spike protein to connect to human tissue). Mice injected with

694

the S1 subunit of the spike protein developed direct damage to the perivascular tissue. In

This is even more

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 31 of 68

695

humans, viral spike protein was detected in the brain tissues of COVID-19 patients, but not in the

696

brain tissues of the controls. Spike protein produces endothelial damage.

697

There are an excessive number of brain hemorrhages associated with COVID-19, and the

698

mechanism suggests that it is the spike protein that is responsible. The federal government’s

699

VAERS database shows a dramatic increase in adverse event reporting of neurological damage

700

following injection with the Vaccine.

701
ear

000
010
015
018
019
020
702

021

Brain Bleeding
(Reports following
injection
with Vaccine)
7

12  (43)

4  (11)

17  (251)

0  (258)

Dementia
(Reports following
injection with Vaccine)

703

While the full impact of these Vaccines crossing the blood-brain barrier is unknown, they

704

clearly put vaccinated individuals at a substantially increased risk of hemorrhage, neurological

705

damage, and brain damage as demonstrated by the increased instances of such reporting in the

706

VAERS system.

707

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare

708

professionals or Vaccine subjects.

709

Effect on the Young

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 32 of 68

710

The Vaccines are more deadly or harmful to the young than the virus, and that is

711

excluding the unknown future effects on fertility, clotting, and autoimmune disease. Those

712

under the age of 18 face statistically zero chance of death from SARS-CoV-2 according to data

713

published by the CDC, but there are reports of heart inflammation — both myocarditis

714

(inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)

715

— in young men, and at least one documented fatal heart attack of a healthy 15-year-old boy in

716

Colorado two days after receiving the Pfizer Vaccine. The CDC has admitted that “[s]ince April

717

2021, increased cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have been reported in the United States

718

after the mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), particularly in

719

adolescents and young adults.” 12

720

The Vaccines induce the cells of the recipient to manufacture trillions of spike proteins for

721

an undetermined amount of time with the pathology described above, whereas naturally

722

occurring COVID-19 comes and goes. The spike protein is the same. The increased risk comes

723

from reprogramming the cells to permanently create the spike protein at potentially high levels.

724

Because immune responses in the young and healthy are more vigorous than those in the old,

725

paradoxically, the vaccines may thereby induce, in the very people least in need of assistance, a

726

very strong immune response, including those which can damage their own cells and tissues,

727

including by stimulating blood coagulation.

728
729

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare
professionals or Vaccine subjects.

730

Chronic Disease

See: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html (visited Oct. 19, 2021)

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 33 of 68

731

Healthy children whose birthright is decades of healthy life will instead face premature

732

death or decades of chronic disease. We cannot say what percentage will be affected with

733

antibody dependent enhancement, neurological disorders, autoimmune disease and reproductive

734

problems, but it is a virtual certainty that this will occur.

735
736

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare
professionals or Vaccine subjects.

737

Antibody Dependent Enhancement

738

Antibody Dependent Enhancement (“ADE”) occurs when SARS-CoV-2 antibodies,

739

created by a Vaccine, instead of protecting the vaccinated person, cause a more severe or lethal

740

case of the COVID-19 disease when the person is later exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. The

741

Vaccine amplifies the infection rather than preventing damage. It may only be seen after months

742

or years of use in populations around the world.

743

This paradoxical reaction has been seen in other vaccines and animal trials. One well-

744

documented example is with the Dengue fever vaccine, which resulted in avoidable deaths.

745

Dengue fever has caused 100-400 million infections, 500,000 hospitalizations, and a 2.5%

746

fatality rate annually worldwide. It is a leading cause of death in children in Asian and Latin

747

American countries. Despite over 50 years of active research, a Dengue vaccine still has not

748

gained widespread approval in large part due to the phenomenon of ADE. Vaccine manufacturer

749

Sanofi Pharmaceutical spent 20 years and nearly $2 billion to develop the Dengue vaccine and

750

published their results in the New England Journal of Medicine, which was quickly endorsed by

751

the World Health Organization. Vigilant scientists clearly warned about the danger from ADE,

752

which the Philippines ignored when it administered the vaccine to hundreds of thousands of

753

children in 2016. Later, when these children were exposed in the wild, many became severely ill

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 34 of 68

754

and 600 children died. The former head of the Dengue department of the Research Institute for

755

Tropical Medicine (RITM) was indicted in 2019 by the Philippines Department of Justice for

756

“reckless imprudence resulting [in] homicide,” because he “facilitated, with undue haste,”

757

Dengvaxia’s approval and its rollout among Philippine schoolchildren. 13

758

ADE has been observed in the coronavirus setting. The original SARS-CoV-1 caused an

759

epidemic in 2003. This virus is a coronavirus that is reported to be 78% similar to the current

760

SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes the disease COVID-19.

761

vaccine. Of approximately 35 vaccine candidates, the best four were trialed in ferrets. The

762

vaccines appeared to work in the ferrets.

763

challenged by SARS-CoV-1 in the wild, they became extremely ill and died due to what we

764

would term a sudden severe cytokine storm. The reputed journals Science, Nature and Journal

765

of Infectious Diseases have all documented ADE risks in relation to the development of

766

experimental COVID-19 vaccines. The application filed by Dr. Yeadon with the European

767

Medicines Agency on December 1, 2020 also cites to the risk from ADE. ADE is discovered

768

during long-term animal studies, to which the Vaccines have not been subjected.

769
770

Scientists attempted to create a

However, when those vaccinated ferrets were

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare
professionals or Vaccine subjects.

771

Vaccine-Driven Disease Enhancement in the Previously Infected

772

Scientists have noted an immediately higher death rate worldwide upon receiving a

773

Vaccine. This is generally attributed to persons having recently been infected with COVID-19.

774

The FDA states that many persons receiving a Vaccine have COVID-19.

775

previously had SARS-CoV-2, and then receives a Vaccine, mounts an antibody response to the

A person who

See: https://www.science.org/content/article/dengue-vaccine-fiasco-leads-criminal-charges-researcher-philippines
(visited Oct. 19, 2021)
13

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 35 of 68

776

Vaccine that is between 10 and 20 times stronger than the response of a previously uninfected

777

person. The antibody response is far too strong and overwhelms the Vaccine subject. With a

778

typical vaccine, the body trains itself how to respond to a disease because of exposure to a dead

779

or weakened version of the pathogen. The Vaccines by contrast actually reprogram the body and,

780

in doing so, can escalate the individual’s response to levels that place them at risk. Medical

781

studies show severe Vaccine side effects in persons previously infected with COVID-19. Groups

782

of scientists are demanding improved pre-assessment due to vaccine-driven disease enhancement

783

in the previously infected.

784

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare

785

professionals or Vaccine subjects.

786

More Virulent Strains

787

Scientists are concerned that universal inoculation may create more virulent strains. This

788

has been observed with Marek’s Disease in chickens. A large number of chickens not at risk of

789

death were vaccinated, and now all chickens must be vaccinated or they will die from a virus that

790

was nonlethal prior to widespread vaccination. 14 The current policy to pursue universal

791

vaccination regardless of risk may exert the same evolutionary pressure toward more highly

792

virulent strains.

793
794

These risks have not been adequately studied in trials, or properly disclosed to healthcare
professionals or Vaccine subjects.

795

Blood Supply

See: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-makes-virus-dangerous (visited Oct. 19, 2021)

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 36 of 68

796

Presently, the vaccinated are permitted to donate their spike protein laden blood into the

797

blood supply, which projects all of the risks discussed supra onto the general population of

798

unvaccinated blood donees.

799

Scientists and healthcare professionals all over the world are sounding the alarm and

800

frantically appealing to the FDA to halt the Vaccines. They have made innumerable public

801

statements. 57 top scientists and doctors from Central and South America are calling for an

802

immediate end to all vaccine COVID-19 programs. Other physician-scientist groups have made

803

similar calls, among them: Canadian Physicians, Israeli People’s Committee, Frontline COVID-

804

19 Critical Care Alliance, World Doctors Alliance, Doctors 4 Covid Ethics, and Plaintiff

805

America’s Frontline Doctors. These are healthcare professionals in the field who are seeing the

806

catastrophic and deadly results of the rushed vaccines, and reputed professors of science and

807

medicine, including the physician with the greatest number of COVID-19 scientific citations

808

worldwide. They accuse the government of deviating from long-standing policy to protect the

809

public. In the past, government has halted vaccine trials based on a tiny fraction – far less than

810

1% — of the number of unexplained deaths already recorded. The scientists all agree that the

811

spike protein (produced by the Vaccines) causes disease even without the virus, which has

812

motivated them to lend their imprimatur to, and risk their reputation and standing on, these

813

public objections.

814

Notwithstanding all of these risks and uncertainties, the federal government is

815

orchestrating a nationwide media campaign, funded with $1 billion, to promote the Vaccines.

816

The President has lent his voice to the campaign: “The bottom line is this: I promise you they are

817

safe. They are safe. And even more importantly, they are extremely effective. If you are

818

vaccinated, you are protected.”

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 37 of 68

819
820
821
822

The Vaccine EUAs are Unlawful — There are Adequate, Approved and Available
Alternatives

823

Defendants – there are numerous alternative safe and effective treatments for COVID-19.

Despite the misinformation being disseminated in the press – and, at times, by the

824

These alternatives are supported by over 300 studies, including randomized controlled

825

studies. Tens of thousands of physicians have publicly attested, and many have testified under

826

oath, as to the safety and efficacy of the alternatives.

827

treatments such as Ivermectin, Budesonide, Dexamethasone, convalescent plasma and

828

monoclonal antibodies, Vitamin D, Zinc, Azithromycin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Colchicine

829

are being used to great effect, and they are safer than the COVID-19 Vaccines. 15

Globally and in the United States,

830

Doctors from the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases and Urban Health and the Saint

831

Barnabas Medical Center have published an Observational Study on 255 Mechanically

832

Ventilated COVID Patients at the Beginning of the USA Pandemic, which states: “Causal

833

modeling establishes that weight-adjusted HCQ [Hydroxychloroquine] and AZM [Azithromycin]

834

therapy improves survival by over 100%.” 16

835

Observational studies in Delhi and Mexico City show dramatic reductions in COVID-19

836

case and death counts following the mass distribution of Ivermectin. These results align with

837

those of a study in Argentina, in which 800 healthcare professionals received Ivermectin, while

838

another 400 did not. Of the 800, not a single person contracted COVID-19, while more than half

839

of the control group did contract it. Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung specialist who has treated more

840

COVID-19 patients than most doctors, representing a group of some of the most highly

841

published physicians in the world, with over 2,000 peer reviewed publications among them,
15
16

Numerous studies can be reviewed here: https://c19early.com (visited Oct. 20, 2021).
See: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v1 (visited Oct. 20, 2021)

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 38 of 68

842

testified before the U.S. Senate in December 2020. He testified that based on 9 months of review

843

of scientific data from 30 studies, Ivermectin obliterates transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus

844

and is a powerful prophylactic (if you take it, you will not contract COVID-19). 17 Four large

845

randomized controlled trials totaling over 1500 patients demonstrate that Ivermectin is safe and

846

effective as a prophylactic. In early outpatient treatment, three randomized controlled trials and

847

multiple observational studies show that Ivermectin reduces the need for hospitalization and

848

death in statistically significant numbers. In inpatient treatment, four randomized controlled

849

trials show that Ivermectin prevents death in a statistically significant, large magnitude.

850

Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015 for its impacts on global health.

851

Inexplicably, the Defendants never formed or assigned a task force to research and review

852

existing alternatives for prev-enting and treating COVID-19. Instead, the Defendants and others

853

set about censoring both concerns about the Vaccines, and information about safe and effective

854

alternatives.
The Vaccine EUAs are Unlawful — Information is Being Suppressed, and

855
856

Healthcare Professionals and Vaccine Subjects are Not Properly Informed

857
858

The Associated Press, Agence France Press, British Broadcasting Corporation,

859

CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First

860

Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu Times, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of

861

Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post and The New York Times all participate in the

862

“Trusted News Initiative” which has agreed to not allow any news critical of the Vaccines.

863

Individual physicians are being censored on social media platforms (e.g., Twitter,

864

Facebook, Instagram, TikTok), the modern day “public square.” Plaintiff AFLDS has recorded
17

See: https://covid19criticalcare.com/senate-testimony/ (visited Oct. 19, 2021)

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 39 of 68

865

innumerable instances of social media deleting scientific content posted by AFLDS members

866

that runs counter to the prevailing Vaccine narrative, and then banning them from the platform

867

altogether as users. Facebook has blocked the streaming of entire events at which AFLDS

868

Founder Dr. Simone Gold has been an invited guest, prior to her uttering a word. Other doctors

869

have been banned for posting or tweeting screenshots of government database VAERS.

870

YouTube censored the testimony of undersigned counsel Thomas Renz, Esq. before the Ohio

871

legislature.

872

The censorship also extends to medical journals. In an unprecedented move, the four

873

founding topic editors for the Frontiers in Pharmacology journal all resigned together due to

874

their collective inability to publish peer reviewed scientific data on various drugs for prophylaxis

875

and treatment of COVID-19.

876

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy, a cardiology physician, former France Health Minister, 2017

877

candidate for Director of the WHO and former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations,

878

described the censorship in chilling detail:

879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892

The Lancet boss said “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this
continues, publish any more clinical research data, because the pharmaceutical
companies are so financially powerful today and are able to use such
methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently,
methodologically perfect but in reality, which manage to conclude what they want
to conclude.” … one of the greatest subjects never anyone could have believed …
I have been doing research for 20 years in my life. I never thought the boss of The
Lancet could say that. And the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too.
He even said it was “criminal” — the word was used by him. That is, if you will,
when there is an outbreak like the COVID-19, in reality, there are people … us,
we see “mortality” when you are a doctor or yourself, you see “suffering.” And
there are people who see “dollars” — that’s it.
In many instances, highly publicized attacks on early treatment alternatives seem to be

893

done in bad faith. For example, one study on Hydroxychloroquine overdosed study participants

894

by administering a multiple of the standard prescribed dose, and then reported the resulting

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 40 of 68

895

deaths as though they were not a result of the overdose. The 27 physician-scientist authors of the

896

study were civilly indicted and criminally investigated, and still the Journal of the American

897

Medical Association has not retracted the article.

898
899
900
901

G. The Vaccine EUAs are Unlawful — Inadequate System for Monitoring and
Reporting Vaccine Adverse Events

902

regarding adverse events potentially caused by vaccines. Uniquely for COVID-19, the CDC has

903

developed a parallel system called “V-Safe.” V-Safe is an app on a smart phone which people

904

can use to report adverse events. Plaintiffs’ investigation indicates that vaccine subjects who are

905

provided with written information are given the V-Safe contact information. Plaintiffs cannot

906

access V-Safe data, since it is controlled exclusively by the CDC. Plaintiffs are concerned that

907

the information in V-Safe exceeds that in VAERS, in terms of volume and kind, defying

908

Congressional intent in creating VAERS.

VAERS was established in 1986 in order to facilitate public access to information

H. Human Experimentation and the Requirement of Informed Consent

909
910
911

“Involuntarily subjecting nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known

912

therapeutic value — often under false pretenses and with deceptive practices hiding the nature of

913

the interference — is a classic example of invading the core of the bodily integrity protection.”

914

(Guertin v. Michigan, 912 F.3d 907, 920-21 (6th Cir. 2019)).

915

Federal Regulations and the Requirement of Voluntary, Informed Consent

916

Federal Regulations relating to the protection and informed consent of human subjects

917

further implement aspects of this norm and are binding legal obligations.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 41 of 68

918

In 1962, via § 103 (b), Drug Amendments Act of 1962, Pub. L. 87-781, 76 Stat. 780, at

919

783, 18 Congress became concerned about subjecting humans to drug experiments without

920

informed consent. Later, in 1979, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects

921

of Biomedical and Behavioral Research issued the Belmont Report, which addressed the issue of

922

informed consent in human experimentation. The Report identified respect for self-determination

923

by “autonomous persons” as the first of three “basic ethical principles” which “demands that

924

subjects enter into the research voluntarily and with adequate information.” Ultimately, the

925

principles of the Belmont Report, which itself was guided by the Nuremberg Code and the

926

Declaration of Helsinki, were adopted by the DHHS and FDA in their regulations requiring the

927

informed consent of human subjects in medical research.

928

U.S. Public Health Authorities’ Involvement in Unlawful Human Experimentation

929

It is entirely reasonable to posit that the U.S. public health establishment would in fact

930

design, fund, supervise and implement a non-consensual human medical experiment involving

931

the Vaccines, in conjunction with private sector actors, given its historical track record. On

932

October 1, 2010, President Obama apologized to the Guatemalan government and people for a

933

program of non-consensual human experimentation that had been funded and approved by the

934

U.S. Public Health Service (“PHS”) and implemented on the ground by a PHS doctor employed

935

for this purpose by private institutions but reporting to supervisors including PHS doctors. The

936

evidence was suppressed and remained buried until discovered by a private researcher in 2010.

937

A presidential commission investigated and found that in fact thousands of Guatemalans,

938

including orphans, insane asylum patients, prisoners and military conscripts, had been

Now codified at 21 U.S.C. § 355 (i).

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 42 of 68

939

intentionally exposed to syphilis, gonorrhea and other pathogens in furtherance of experiments

940

on the use of penicillin as a prophylaxis.

941

On May 16, 1997, President Clinton apologized to the African American community for

942

the so-called “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male”, a non-consensual

943

human medical experiment funded, organized and implemented by the PHS, again with

944

important private sector participation. This was the longest non-therapeutic, non-consensual

945

experiment on human beings in the history of public health, run by the PHS, spanning 40 years

946

from 1932 until its exposure by a whistleblower in 1972. The purpose of the study was to

947

observe the effects of untreated syphilis in black men and their family members. There are

948

numerous other examples, too many for inclusion here. 19

949

Targeting Children Who Are Intrinsically Unable to Consent

950

Within days of the FDA extending the Pfizer EUA to children ages 12 to 15, local

951

governments commenced hastily passing laws eliminating the requirement for parental consent,

952

and even parental knowledge, of medical treatments administered to children as young as 12.

953

This is intended to pave the way for children to receive the Vaccines at school, without parental

954

knowledge or consent.

955

However, children in the 12 to 18 age group are not developmentally capable of giving

956

voluntary, informed consent to the Vaccines. Their brains are rapidly changing and developing,

957

and their actions are guided more by the emotional and reactive amygdala and less by the

958

thoughtful, logical frontal cortex. Hormonal and body changes add to their emotional instability

959

and erratic judgment. Children also have a well-known and scientifically studied vulnerability to

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States (visited Oct. 19,
2021)
19

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 43 of 68

960

pressure from peers and adults. This age group is particularly susceptible to pressure to do what

961

others see as the right thing to do - in this case, to be injected with the Vaccine “for the sake of

962

other people and society.”

963

That the American population, and children in particular, are being used as experimental

964

test subjects (guinea pigs) in medical experimentation using the Vaccines is undeniable. The

965

Texas State Senate heard sworn testimony on May 6, 2021 from Dr. Angelina Farella, a

966

pediatrician who has given tens of thousands of vaccinations in her office. She testified:

967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995

Dr. Farella: “I have given tens of thousands of vaccinations in my
career. I am very pro-vax actually except when it comes to this covid vaccine …
We are currently allowing children 16, 17 years old to get this vaccine, and they
were never studied in this trial… Never before in history have we given
medications that were not FDA approved to people who were not initially studied
in the trial. There were no trial patients under the age of 18… They’re
extrapolating the data from adults down to children and adolescents. This is not
acceptable. Children are not little adults. … Children have 99.997% survivability
from the Covid. Let me repeat that for you all to understand: 99.997%.”
Senator Hall: “Has there been another vaccine that had the high incidents
of serious hospitalizations and deaths that this vaccine is now showing?
Dr. Farella:
Sen. Hall:
market?”
Dr. Farella:

“Not to this extent. Not even close.”
“Any other vaccine would have been pulled from the
“Absolutely.”

Sen. Hall:
“Have you seen any other vaccine that was put out for the
public that skipped the animal tests?”
Dr. Farella:

“Never before. Especially for children.”

Sen. Hall:
“…Folks I think that’s important to understand here, that
what we’re talking about is the American people … this is the test program.”
Self-Disseminating Vaccine

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 44 of 68

996

The phenomenon of “self-disseminating vaccines” adds a new dimension to the problem

997

of the lack of informed consent. These vaccines spread automatically from the vaccinated to the

998

unvaccinated, without the knowledge or consent of the unvaccinated. They are not a science

999

fiction concept, rather they have been a research subject for years if not decades.

1000
1001
1002
1003
1004

Page 67 of the Pfizer EUA application describes the possibility of the passive
“vaccination” of the unvaccinated through proximity to the vaccinated, including

1005
1006
1007

A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to
study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of
environmental exposure during pregnancy:

1008
1009
1010
1011
1012

A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is
pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin
contact.
Pursuant to the referenced document, each person getting the Pfizer Vaccine had to

1013

consent to the possibility of exposing pregnant women through inhalation or skin contact (note

1014

that pharmaceutical companies can only disclose actual, not purely speculative, risks).

1015

According to the document, an “exposure during pregnancy” event that must be reported to

1016

Pfizer within 24 hours occurs if:

1017
1018

A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention
exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.

Further, an “exposure during breastfeeding” event occurs if “[a] female participant is
found to be breastfeeding while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.”

1019

There are worldwide reports of irregular and often very heavy vaginal bleeding in the

1020

unvaccinated who are near those who have been injected with the Vaccines, even in post-

1021

menopausal women. These public reports are scrubbed from the Internet rapidly, however

1022

Plaintiff AFLDS has also received innumerable emails from around the world with the same

1023

reports. It is well documented that the vaccinated have excessive bleeding and clotting disorders

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 68

1024

including

vaginal

1025

thrombocytopenia.

bleeding,

miscarriages,

gastrointestinal

bleeding

and

immune

1026

Psychological Manipulation

1027

The idea of using fear to manipulate the public is not new, and is a strategy frequently

1028

deployed in public health. In June, 2020, three American public health professionals, concerned

1029

about the psychological effects of the continued use of fear-based appeals to the public in order

1030

to motivate compliance with extreme COVID-19 countermeasures, authored a piece for the

1031

journal Health Education and Behavior calling for an end to the fearmongering. In doing so,

1032

they acknowledged that fear has become an accepted public health strategy, and that it is being

1033

deployed aggressively in the United States in response to COVID-19:

1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040

“… behavior change can result by increasing people’s perceived severity
and perceived susceptibility of a health issue through heightened risk appraisal
coupled by raising their self-efficacy and response-efficacy about a behavioral
solution. In this model, fear is used as the trigger to increase perceived
susceptibility and severity.”

1041

Force, published his study on techniques employed by communist captors to induce individual

1042

compliance from Air Force prisoners of war during the Korean War. The study was at the time

1043

and to some extent remains the core source for capture resistance training for the armed forces.

1044

The chart below compares the techniques used by North Korean communists with the fear-based

1045

messaging and COVID-19 countermeasures to which the American population has been

In 1956, Dr. Alfred Biderman, a research social psychologist employed by the U.S. Air

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 46 of 68

1048

After more than a year of sustained psychological manipulation, the population is now

1049

weakened, frightened, desperate for a return of their freedoms, prosperity and normal lives, and

1050

especially vulnerable to pressure to take the Vaccine. The lockdowns and shutdowns, the myriad

1051

rules and regulations, the confusing and self-contradictory controls, the enforced docility, and the

1052

consequent demoralization, anxiety and helplessness are typical of authoritarian and totalitarian

1053

conditions. This degree of systemic and purposeful coercion means that Americans cannot give

1054

truly free and voluntary informed consent to the Vaccines.

1055

At the same time, the population is being subjected to an aggressive, coordinated media

1056

campaign promoting the Vaccines funded by the federal government with $1 billion. The media

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 47 of 68

1057

campaign is reinforced by a system of coercive rewards and penalties designed to induce

1058

vaccination. The federal government is offering a range of its own incentives, including free

1059

childcare.

1060

allowing them to enter into the “Vaxamillion” lottery with a total $5 million prize and the chance

1061

to win a fully funded college education, while barring entry for residents who decline the

1062

Vaccines. In New York, metro stations offer free passes to those receiving the Vaccine in the

1063

station. West Virginia is running a lottery exclusively for the vaccinated with free custom guns,

1064

trucks and lifetime hunting and fishing licenses, a free college education, and cash payments of

1065

$1.5 million and $600,000 as the prizes. Previously, the state offered a $100 savings bond for

1066

each injection with a Vaccine. New Mexican residents accepting the Vaccines will be entered

1067

into weekly drawings to take home a $250,000 prize, and those fully vaccinated by early August

1068

could win the grand prize of $5 million. In Oregon, the vaccinated can win $1 million, or one of

1069

36 separate $10,000 prizes through the state’s “Take Your Shot” campaign. Other state and local

1070

governments are partnering with fast food chains to offer free pizza, ice cream, hamburgers and

1071

other foods to the vaccinated. Many people are desperate following the last year of economic

1072

destruction and deprivation of basic freedoms, and they are especially vulnerable to this

1073

coercion.

1074

The Ohio Governor rewarded those Ohio residents accepting the Vaccines by

The penalties take many forms, among them:

1075
1076

Using guilt and shame to make unvaccinated adults and children feel badly about
themselves for refusing the Vaccines

1077
1078

Threatening the unvaccinated with false fears and anxieties about COVID-19, especially
children who are at no risk statistically

1079

Removing the rights of those who are unvaccinated:

1080

Being prohibited from working

1081

Being prohibited from attending school or college

1082

Being limited in the ability to travel in buses, trains and planes

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 48 of 68

1083

Being prohibited from traveling outside the United States

1084

Being excluded from public and private events, such as performing arts venues.

1085
1086

The combined effect of (i) the suppression and censorship of information regarding the

1087

risks of the Vaccines, (ii) the failure to inform the public regarding the novel and experimental

1088

nature of the mRNA Vaccines, (iii) the suppression and censorship of information regarding

1089

alternative treatments, (iv) the failure to inform and properly educate the public that the Vaccines

1090

are not in fact “approved” by the FDA, (v) the failure to inform and properly educate the public

1091

that the DHHS Secretary has not determined that the Vaccines are “safe and effective” and on

1092

the contrary has merely determined that “it is reasonable to believe” that the Vaccines “may be

1093

effective” and that the benefits outweigh the risks, (vi) the sustained psychological manipulation

1094

of the public through official fear-based messaging regarding COVID-19, draconian

1095

countermeasures and a system of rewards and penalties, is to remove any possibility that Vaccine

1096

recipients are giving voluntary informed consent to the Vaccines. They are participants in a

1097

large scale, ongoing non-consensual human experiment.

1098
1099
1100

I. Conflicts-of-Interest
While Plaintiffs make no allegations regarding the legality or illegality of the potential

1101

conflicts-of-interest identified herein, they are numerous, now well publicized, and may create an

1102

incentive to suppress alternative treatments while promoting and profiting from the experimental

1103

COVID-19 Vaccines.

1104

NIAID scientists developed the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine in collaboration with

1105

biotechnology company Moderna, Inc. NIAID Director Dr. Fauci referred to the Moderna

1106

COVID-19 Vaccine when he said: “Finding a safe and effective vaccine to prevent infection with

1107

SARS-CoV-2 is an urgent public health priority. This Phase 1 study, launched in record speed, is

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 49 of 68

1108

an important first step toward achieving that goal.” 20 NIAID scientists submitted an Employee

1109

Invention Report to the NIH Office of Technology Transfer in order to receive a share in the

1110

profits from the sale of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Each inventor stands to receive a

1111

personal payment of up to $150,000 annually from sales of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.

1112

NIAID stands to earn millions of dollars in revenue from the sale of the Moderna COVID-19

1113

Vaccine.

1114

The NIH Director stated the following in May 2020: “We do have some particular stake in

1115

the intellectual property behind Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine.” In fact, NIH and Moderna

1116

signed a contract in December 2019 that states “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates are

1117

developed and jointly owned by the two parties.” Moderna, Inc. is currently valued at $25

1118

billion despite having no federally approved drugs on the market.

1119

The DHHS awarded $483 million in grants to Moderna, Inc. to accelerate the development

1120

of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Dr. Fauci could have focused on treatments, including

1121

treatments he previously advised were beneficial in countering SARS-CoV-1. Instead, Dr. Fauci

1122

directed the NIAID, NIH, Congress and the White House to develop the Vaccines, where he has

1123

financial and professional ties.

1124

Further, on May 11, 2021, Senator Rand Paul asked Dr. Anthony Fauci under oath about

1125

the origins of SARS CoV-2 and the NIH and NIAID funding for Gain-of-Function research, and

1126

Dr. Fauci stated to the Senator and to all of Congress and to the American people stating that the

1127

NIH and NIAID did not fund Gain-of-Function (making viruses more lethal) research when in

1128

fact, he provided at least $60 million funding. The Defendants obfuscate and profit financially,

1129

personally and professionally while the American people suffer.
See: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-investigational-vaccine-covid-19-begins
(Oct. , 2021)
20

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 50 of 68

1130

Plaintiffs’ investigation has revealed additional conflicts-of-interest among members of

1131

the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (“VRBPAC”), which is an

1132

FDA sub-agency that reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and

1133

appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products. VRBPAC makes recommendations

1134

to the FDA regarding whether or not to grant EUAs. The FDA is not bound to follow the

1135

VRBPAC’s recommendations, but should VRBPAC advise against approval, especially over

1136

safety concerns, it would make it harder for the FDA to move forward.

1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165

The University of Florida Conflicts of Interest Program and the Project on Government
Oversight report that numerous members of the VRBPAC have conflicts-of-interest:
•

Dr. Hana el-Sahly, the VRBPAC Chair, was working with Moderna, as one of the
three lead investigators for the company’s 30,000 person trial of its Vaccine in
July 2020. Plaintififs cannot locate information related to payments made to Dr.
el-Sahly by the company.

•

The Acting Chair Dr. Arnold Monto received $54,114 from 2013 to 2019 from
vaccine contenders Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Shionogi. He also received
$10,657 from Novartis, which has a contract to manufacture Vaccines. Dr. Monto
received a total of $194,254 from pharmaceutical companies, the largest
contributor being Seqirus, a company developing COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.

•

In 2019, Dr. Archana Chaterjee received $23,904 from Pfizer, $11,738 from
Merck and $11,480 from Sanofi, each of which was racing to develop a COVID19 vaccine. Since 2013, she has received more than $200,000 in consulting fees,
travel, lodging and other payments from those companies and others working on
COVID-19 vaccines. She is also a professor of epidemiology at the University of
Michigan, which is partnering with AstraZeneca on a clinical trial of a potential
COVID-19 vaccine.

•

Dr. Myron Levine is Associate Dean of Global Health, Vaccinology and
Infectious Diseases at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, which is
participating in a clinical trial of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Since 2013,
Dr. Levine has received general payments of $41,635 and research funding of
$2.3 million. His 2019 funding was approximately six times the mean of similar
physicians. His largest source of funding is from Sanofi Pasteur, which is
developing a COVID-19 vaccine.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 51 of 68

1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210

•

Dr. Cody Meissner is the head of all clinical trials for all of Tufts Children’s
Hospital. Since 2013, Tufts University has been paid $13.2 million in general
payments, and $34.2 million in research payments, by companies like Pfizer and
Janssen.

•

Dr. Paul Offit is Director of Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician
in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Since 2013, the Hospital has received $4.6 million in general payments, and $32
million in research payments, from companies like Pfizer and Novartis.

•

Dr. Steven Pergam is Associate Professor, Vaccine and Infectious Disease
Division, and Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. Since 2013, Dr. Pergam has received $4,167 in general payments, and
$140,311in research funding from companies like Merck, which has been
developing a COVID-19 vaccine. He is participating in clinical trials of the
Sanofi-Aventis COVID-19 vaccine and has participated in research with Merck.

•

Dr. Andrea Shane is professor of pediatrics at Emory University School of
Medicine. Since 2013, Emory University Hospital has received $44.1 million in
general payments, and $170.7 million in research funding, with Pfizer being a
primary donor. Since 2013, the Wesley Woods Center of Emory University has
received $41,205 in general payments, and $3.4 million in research payments,
with Janssen being a primary donor.

•

Dr. Paul Spearman is Director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Cincinnati
Children’s Hospital and a Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the
University of Cincinnati School of Medicine. Dr. Spearman received $39,459 in
research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, both of which have
developed COVID-19 vaccines. Plaintiffs cannot locate payment data for the
years 2016-2019. The University of Cincinnati Medical Center has received $2.2
million in general payments and $4.3 million in research funding since 2013, with
Pfizer topping the list of donors. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital is a COVID-19
vaccine clinical trial site.

•

Dr. Geeta K. Swamy is a Senior Associate Dean in the Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology, and Associate Vice President for Research, Duke University
School of Medicine. Duke is a clinical trial site for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID19 Vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine. Since 2013, Dr. Swamy has received
general payments of $63,000 largely from Pfizer, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline,
all COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, and $206,000 in research funding from
GlaxoSmithKline, approximately three times the mean funding of similar
physicians. Since 2013, Duke University Hospital has received $7.6 million in
general payments ($866,000 from Pfizer) and $40.6 million in research funding
($2.7 million from Pfizer) from pharmaceutical companies.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 52 of 68

1211

Note: (potential additional conflicts of interest have come to light since this

1212

information was originally obtained. Plaintiffs will supplement this pleading with that

1213

additional information as it is confirmed).
IV. THE MANDATES ARE UNLAWFUL

1214
1215

On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14042 (86 Fed. Reg.

1216

50985), the purpose of which was to “decrease the spread of COVID–19, which will decrease

1217

worker absence, reduce labor costs, and improve the efficiency of contractors and subcontractors

1218

at sites where they are performing work for the Federal Government.” To achieve this goal, this

1219

Order directed that “new contracts” and similar agreements of the federal government to obtain

1220

goods and services from various vendors and manufacturers were to include certain COVID

1221

provisions therein.

1222

This Order directed the recently created Safer Federal Workforce Task Force to draft and

1223

develop a “Task Force Guidance” document by September 24, 2021 and submit the same to the

1224

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and if that Director determines that such

1225

Guidance “will promote economy and efficiency in Federal contracting if adhered to by

1226

Government contractors and subcontractors”, that determination was to be published in the

1227

Federal Register. 1

1228

The “Task Force Guidance”, as with all such federal agency Guidances, is without force

1229

and effect as law because the same has not been promulgated as a “rule” pursuant to the

1230

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., and 41 U.S.C. § 1707 (b).

That determination was so published in the Federal Register of September 28, 2021, 86 Fed.Reg. 53691.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 53 of 68

1231

The determination of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is without

1232

force and effect as law because it has not been promulgated as a “rule” pursuant to the

1233

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., and 41 U.S.C. § 1707 (b).

1234
1235

The President claimed 3 U.S.C. § 301 as one statutory authority to issue Executive Order
14042. This section provides as follows:

1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250

The President of the United States is authorized to designate and empower
the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official
thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President
(1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which
such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the
approval, ratification, or other action of the President: Provided, That nothing
contained herein shall relieve the President of his responsibility in office for the
acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such
functions. Such designation and authorization shall be in writing, shall be
published in the Federal Register, shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and
limitations as the President may deem advisable, and shall be revocable at any
time by the President in whole or in part.

1251

Services Act, 40 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., as statutory authority to issue Executive Order 14042.

1252

This section provides as follows:

The President also claimed provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative

1253
1254

The purpose of this subtitle is to provide the Federal Government with an
economical and efficient system for the following activities:

1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262

(1) Procuring and supplying property and nonpersonal services, and
performing related functions including contracting, inspection, storage, issue,
setting specifications, identification and classification, transportation and traffic
management, establishment of pools or systems for transportation of Government
personnel and property by motor vehicle within specific areas, management of
public utility services, repairing and converting, establishment of inventory levels,
establishment of forms and procedures, and representation before federal and state
regulatory bodies.

1263

(2) Using available property.

1264

(3) Disposing of surplus property.

1265

(4) Records management.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 54 of 68

1266
1267

The subsequent provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act are
no broader than the purpose of this Act as set forth in § 101.

1268

However, these statutes do not provide the President with authority to impose vaccine

1269

mandates, and thus he lacks the statutory as well as constitutional authority to impose these

1270

mandates he may believe assist in a speedy resolution of the current COVID-19 crisis.

1271

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). 2

1272

On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14043 (86 Fed.Reg.

1273

50989, a copy of which is attached). The apparent objective of this Order was to mandate

1274

COVID-19 vaccinations for federal employees. As authority for this Order, the President relied

1275

upon 5 U.S.C. §§ 3301, 3302, and 7301 as permitting him to impose vaccine mandates on federal

1276

employees.

1277

5 U.S.C. § 3301 provides as follows:

1278

The President may—

1279
1280
1281

(1) prescribe such regulations for the admission of individuals into the
civil service in the executive branch as will best promote the efficiency of that
service;

1282
1283

(2) ascertain the fitness of applicants as to age, health, character,
knowledge, and ability for the employment sought; and

1284
1285

(3) appoint and prescribe the duties of individuals to make inquiries for the
purpose of this section.

1286
1287

The origin of § 3301 is found in § 9 of “An Act Making Appropriations for sundry civil

1288

Expenses of the Government for the fiscal Year ending June 30, eighteen hundred and seventy-

1289

two, and for other Purposes”, 16 Stat. 495, 514, ch. 114. This section was later incorporated into

1290

the Revised Statutes of 1873 as § 1753, and thereafter was incorporated into 5 U.S.C. § 631
2

See also Schaezlein v. Cabaniss, 135 Cal. 466, 471, 67 P. 755 (1902); State v. Marana Plantations, 75 Ariz. 111,
115, 252 P.2d 87 (1953); and Boreali v. Axelrod, 71 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 517 N.E.2d 1350 (1987).

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 55 of 68

1291

when the U.S. Code was created in 1926. A part of this § 631 became § 3301 when this title of

1292

the U.S. Code was enacted into positive law in 1966. See Pub.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378, at 417.

1293

11. 5 U.S.C. § 3302 provides as follows:

1294
1295

(a) The President may prescribe rules which shall provide, as nearly as
conditions of good administration warrant, for—

1296
1297
1298
1299

(1) open, competitive examinations for testing applicants for appointment
in the competitive service which are practical in character and as far as possible
relate to matters that fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the applicants
for the appointment sought;

1300
1301

(2) noncompetitive examinations when competent applicants do not
compete after notice has been given of the existence of the vacancy; and

1302
1303

(3) authority for agencies to appoint, without regard to the provision of
sections 3309 through 3318, candidates directly to positions for which—

1304

(A) public notice has been given; and

1305
1306
1307
1308

(B) the Office of Personnel Management has determined that there exists a
severe shortage of candidates (or, with respect to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, that there exists a severe shortage of highly qualified candidates) or that
there is a critical hiring need.

1309
1310

The Office shall prescribe, by regulation, criteria for identifying such
positions and may delegate authority to make determinations under such criteria.

1311
1312
1313
1314
1315

(b) An individual may be appointed in the competitive service only if he
has passed an examination or is specifically excepted from examination under
section 3302 of this title. This subsection does not take from the President any
authority conferred by section 3301 of this title that is consistent with the
provisions of this title governing the competitive service.

1316
1317

(c)(1) For the purpose of this subsection, the term “technician” has the
meaning given such term by section 8337(h)(1) of this title.

1318
1319
1320
1321

(2) Notwithstanding a contrary provision of this title or of the rules and
regulations prescribed under this title for the administration of the competitive
service, an individual who served for at least 3 years as a technician acquires a
competitive status for transfer to the competitive service if such individual—

1322
1323

(A) is involuntarily separated from service as a technician other than by
removal for cause on charges of misconduct or delinquency;

1324

(B) passes a suitable noncompetitive examination; and

1325
1326

1327
1328

(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall promulgate regulations on
the manner and extent that experience of an individual in a position other than the

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 56 of 68

1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335

competitive service, such as the excepted service (as defined under section 2103)
in the legislative or judicial branch, or in any private or nonprofit enterprise, may
be considered in making appointments to a position in the competitive service (as
defined under section 2102). In promulgating such regulations OPM shall not
grant any preference based on the fact of service in the legislative or judicial
branch. The regulations shall be consistent with the principles of equitable
competition and merit based appointments.

1336
1337
1338
1339

(e) Employees at any place outside the District of Columbia where the
President or the Office of Personnel Management directs that examinations be
held shall allow the reasonable use of public buildings for, and in all proper ways
facilitate, holding the examinations.

1340
1341
1342
1343
1344

(f)(1) Preference eligibles or veterans who have been separated from the
armed forces under honorable conditions after 3 years or more of active service
may not be denied the opportunity to compete for vacant positions for which the
agency making the announcement will accept applications from individuals
outside its own workforce under merit promotion procedures.

1345
1346

(2) If selected, a preference eligible or veteran described in paragraph (1)
shall receive a career or career-conditional appointment, as appropriate.

1347
1348

(3) This subsection shall not be construed to confer an entitlement to
veterans’ preference that is not otherwise required by law.

1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354

(4) The area of consideration for all merit promotion announcements
which include consideration of individuals of the Federal workforce shall indicate
that preference eligibles and veterans who have been separated from the armed
forces under honorable conditions after 3 years or more of active service are
eligible to apply. The announcements shall be publicized in accordance with
section 3327.

1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360

(5) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations
necessary for the administration of this subsection. The regulations shall ensure
that an individual who has completed an initial tour of active duty is not excluded
from the application of this subsection because of having been released from such
tour of duty shortly before completing 3 years of active service, having been
honorably released from such duty.

1361
1362

Section 2 of “An act to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States”, 22

1363

Stat 403, ch. 27, enacted by Congress on January 16, 1883, is the genesis of § 3302. When the

1364

current U.S. Code was created in 1926, parts of this section were incorporated into 5 U.S.C. §

1365

633, and when this title of the U.S. Code was enacted into positive law in 1966, it became §

1366

3302. See Pub.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378, at 417.

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 57 of 68

1367

5 U.S.C. § 7301 provides as follows:

1368

The President may prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the executive

1369

branch.

1370

The origin of § 7301 is the same as that for § 3301: § 9 of “An Act Making

1371

Appropriations for sundry civil Expenses of the Government for the fiscal Year ending June 30,

1372

eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and for other Purposes”, 16 Stat. 495, 514, ch. 114. This § 9

1373

was later incorporated into the Revised Statutes of 1873 as § 1753 and was later incorporated

1374

into 5 U.S.C. § 631 when the U.S. Code was created in 1926. A single sentence of § 631 became

1375

§ 7301 when this title of the U.S. Code was enacted into positive law in 1966. See Pub.L. 89-

1376

554, 80 Stat. 378, at 417.

1377

Sections 3301, 3302 and 7301 have the same meaning now as when they were laws

1378

adopted by Congress in 1873 and 1883. At that time, these sections were merely parts of federal

1379

civil service laws and the President then (as now) lacked authority to impose vaccine mandates

1380

on federal employees, either through these or any other statutes.

1381

To the extent that the President contends that Executive Orders 14042 and 14043

1382

authorize the imposition of mandatory vaccines, that construction would be illegal and contrary

1383

to the plain language of 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb–3 (e)(1)(A)(ii): recipients of an EUA vaccine must

1384

be informed “(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the

1385

consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the

1386

product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 58 of 68

1387

Pursuant to the above quoted § 360bbb–3, every American, possessed of the

1388

constitutional right to bodily integrity, 3 has the perfect right to refuse an EUA vaccination for

1389

any disease, whether COVID-19 or some other disease.

1390

COUNT I

1391

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

1392
1393
1394
1395

§ 360bbb–3(b) — Cessation of Public Health Emergency; APA
(All Defendants)

1396

Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
fully set forth herein.

1397

The DHHS Secretary declared a “public health emergency” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §

1398

360bbb-3(b)(1)(C) on February 4, 2020, after finding that “there is a public health emergency

1399

that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United

1400

States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes COVID-19.” 21

1401

It is clearly not the intention of the statute that the DHHS Secretary should be able to

1402

renew his declaration of a “public health emergency” in perpetuity when the basis for the

1403

emergency no longer exists. Further, the DHHS Secretary cannot continue renewing his

1404

emergency declaration as a pretense for dodging the licensing requirements for vaccines and

1405

other drugs all to the benefit of well-funded political partners.

1406

Further, in Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934), the

1407

U.S. Supreme Court stated: “Whether an emergency exists upon which the continued operation

Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337, 1343 (11th Cir. 2005) (“These special ‘liberty’ interests include ‘the rights to marry,
to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to
bodily integrity, and to abortion.’”).
3

See https://www.fda.gov/media/147737/download (last visited June 7, 2021).

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 59 of 68

1408

of the law depends is always open to judicial inquiry.” 290 U.S. at 442, citing Chastleton Corp.

1409

v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543 (1924).

1410

In Sinclair, the Supreme Court stated: “A law depending upon the existence of

1411

emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency

1412

ceases or the facts change.” 264 U.S. at 547.

1413

Both Blaisdell and Sinclair are clear authority that an emergency and the rules

1414

promulgated thereunder must end when the facts of the situation no longer support the

1415

continuation of the emergency.

1416

They also forbid this Court to merely assume the existence of a “public health

1417

emergency” based on the pronouncements of the Defendants. They are clear authority that it is

1418

the duty of the court of first instance to grapple with this question and conduct an inquiry. “[A]

1419

Court is not at liberty to shut its eyes to an obvious mistake when the validity of the law depends

1420

upon the truth of what of what is declared.” Id. The Sinclair court instructed lower courts to

1421

inquire into the factual predicate underlying a declaration of emergency, where there appears to

1422

have been a change of circumstances: “the facts should be gathered and weighed by the court of

1423

first instance and the evidence preserved for consideration by this Court if necessary.” 264 U.S.

1424

at 549.

1425

Whereas one can make allowances for an initial, precautionary declaration of a “public

1426

health emergency” in the absence of reliable information and experience of SARS-CoV-2 and

1427

COVID-19 (though we do not concede this), over time that justification has worn thin and it is

1428

no longer valid. We are no longer in the nascent stage. There is a wealth of data. The

1429

Defendants’ own data demonstrates an undeniable change in circumstances, and that the

1430

exigencies underlying the “public health emergency” no longer exist, if they ever did. Plaintiffs

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 60 of 68

1431

have accumulated and will present expert medical and scientific evidence further supporting this

1432

contention. If the exigencies no longer exist, then the “public health emergency” must end.

1433

Plaintiffs therefore seek a Declaratory Judgment terminating the “public health emergency”

1434

declared by DHHS Secretary Azar and extended by DHHS Secretary Becerra, and the EUAs

1435

which are legally predicated upon that “public health emergency.”

1436

Plaintiffs therefore seek a Declaratory Judgment that: the actions of the Defendants are

1437

unlawful and arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with § 360bbb-3, contrary to constitutional

1438

rights, powers, privileges and immunities, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or

1439

limitations; that the exigencies underlying the “public health emergency” no longer exist, if they

1440

ever did; that the “public health emergency” has ended; and that in the absence of a “public

1441

health emergency” the Defendants lack any reason to continue to authorize the emergency use by

1442

the American public of the dangerous, experimental Vaccines, thereby nullifying all Vaccine

1443

EUAs as unlawful.

1444

COUNT II

1445

BODILY INTEGRITY

1446
1447

The Fundamental Right to Bodily Integrity Bars Mandates
(All Defendants)

1448
1449

Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
fully set forth herein.

1450

There exists a fundamental right to bodily integrity in which the Supreme Court has

1451

recognized places “limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its

1452

rejection.” These limits stand so strongly that “a State's interest in the protection of life falls short

1453

of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey,

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 61 of 68

1454

505 U.S. 833. This high standard indicates that ANY governmental intrusion on decisions related

1455

to bodily integrity should be reviewed under the strictest of scrutiny.

1456

Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld rights related to abortion. Abortion results in the

1457

death of a child almost 100% of the time. This stands in stark contrast to the COVID-19 vaccines

1458

which carry unknown long-term risks (there have been no long-term studies), have the highest

1459

risk of side-effects, including death, of any vaccine in history, and are being mandated for a

1460

disease that has well over a 99% recovery rate for a vast majority of the population.

1461
1462

As such, Plaintiffs request injunctive and declaratory relief against any mandate or action
that would lead to the mandate of the COVID-19 vaccines.

1463

COUNT III

1464

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

1465
1466
1467
1468

§ 360bbb–3(c) — Failure to Meet Criteria for Issuance of Vaccine EUAs; APA
(All Defendants)

1469

Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
fully set forth herein.

1470

Under § 360bbb–3(c), the DHHS Secretary and his delegee, the Commissioner of the

1471

FDA, are authorized to issue and sustain the Vaccine EUAs “only if” they can satisfy certain

1472

criteria. As Plaintiffs have alleged and for the reasons set forth herein, the Defendants have failed

1473

to do so:

1474
1475

 SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are not “a serious or life-threatening disease or condition”
for 99% of the population;

1476
1477
1478
1479

 the scientific evidence and data available to the DHHS Secretary are not derived from
“adequate and well-controlled” clinical trials, since the Vaccine trials are compressed,
overlapping, incomplete and in many cases run by the Vaccine manufacturers
themselves;

1480
1481

 it is not “reasonable to believe” that the Vaccines “may be effective” in treating or
preventing SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19;

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 62 of 68

1482
1483
1484

 it is not “reasonable to believe” that “the known and potential benefits of the [Vaccines]”
in preventing or treating SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 “outweigh the known and
potential risks of the product”; and

1485
1486
1487
1488
1489

 there are “adequate, approved, and available alternative[s] to the [Vaccines]” for
preventing or treating SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, including inter alia Ivermectin and
Hydroxychloroquine which are prescribed by doctors worldwide with great effect and are
approved by physicians as meeting the standard of care among similarly situated medical
professionals.

1490

Plaintiffs therefore seek a Declaratory Judgment that: the actions of the Defendants are

1491

unlawful and arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with § 360bbb-3, contrary to constitutional

1492

rights, powers, privileges and immunities, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or

1493

limitations; and that the Vaccine EUAs are an abuse of discretion (as violative of 21 U.S.C. 21

1494

U.S.C. § 352(j)) and unlawful, since the DHHS Secretary and his delegee the FDA

1495

Commissioner cannot meet the criteria for their issuance, thereby nullifying all Vaccine EUAs.

1496

COUNT IV

1497

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

1498
1499

§ 360bbb–3(e) — Failure to Establish Conditions for Vaccine EUAs; APA
(All Defendants)

1500
1501

Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
fully set forth herein.

1502

§ 360bbb–3(e) provides that the DHHS Secretary, as a condition to ongoing validity of

1503

the Vaccine EUAs, “shall [ ] establish” certain “[r]equired conditions” “designed to ensure” that

1504

both healthcare professionals and Vaccine recipients are duly informed of certain critical

1505

information. As Plaintiffs have alleged and for the reasons set forth herein, the Defendants have

1506

failed to do so:

1507
1508
1509
1510

 neither healthcare professionals nor Vaccine recipients are being informed by the
Defendants, and conditions do not exist ensuring that others will inform them, that the
DHHS Secretary “has authorized the emergency use of the [Vaccines]” since they are not
being informed of the true meaning of the EUAs, specifically, that the Secretary has not

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 63 of 68

1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518

determined that the Vaccines are “safe and effective” (notwithstanding the President’s
widely publicized statements to the contrary, which are amplified daily by countless other
governmental and private sector statements that the Vaccines are “safe and effective”),
and that instead the DHHS Secretary has only determined that he has “reason to believe”
that the Vaccines “may be effective” in treating or preventing SARS-CoV-2 and COVID19, based on trials of the Vaccines that are not being conducted like any previous trials
and are compressed, overlapping, incomplete and in many instances conducted by the
Vaccine manufacturers themselves;

1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525

 neither healthcare professionals nor Vaccine recipients are being informed by the
Defendants, and conditions do not exist ensuring that others will inform them, of “the
significant known and potential [ ] risks” of the Vaccines, since there is a coordinated
campaign funded with $1 billion to extol the virtues of the Vaccines, and a simultaneous
effort to censor information about the inefficacy of the Vaccines in preventing or treating
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, Vaccine risks, and injuries and deaths caused by the
Vaccine;

1526
1527
1528
1529

 Vaccine recipients are not being informed by the Defendants, who have a financial stake
in the intellectual property underlying at least one Vaccine, and who have other financial
conflicts of interest, and conditions do not exist ensuring that others will inform them,
that there are alternatives to the Vaccines and of their benefits;

1530
1531
1532
1533
1534

 Vaccine recipients are not being informed by the Defendants, and conditions do not exist
ensuring that others will inform them, of their “option to accept or refuse” the Vaccines,
since they have been saturated with unjustified fear-messaging regarding SARS-CoV-2
and COVID-19, psychologically manipulated, and coerced by a system of rewards and
penalties that render the “option to [ ] refuse” meaningless; and

1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540

 Appropriate conditions do not exist for “the monitoring and reporting of adverse events”
since only a fraction (as low as 1%) of adverse events are reported to VAERS by
physicians fearing liability, and the Defendants have established a parallel reporting
system for COVID-19 that is not accessible by Plaintiffs or the rest of the public.

1541

unlawful and arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with § 360bbb-3, contrary to constitutional

1542

rights, powers, privileges and immunities, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or

1543

limitations; and that the Vaccine EUAs are an abuse of discretion (as violative of 21 U.S.C. 21

1544

U.S.C. § 352(j)), and unlawful, since the DHHS Secretary has not established and maintained the

1545

required conditions, thereby nullifying all Vaccine EUAs.

1546

Plaintiffs therefore seek a Declaratory Judgment that: the actions of the Defendants are

COUNT V

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 64 of 68

1547

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

1548
1549

45 CFR Part 46 — Protection of Human Subjects; APA
(All Defendants)

1550
1551

Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
fully set forth herein.

1552

For all of the foregoing reasons, the deployment of the Vaccines into the general

1553

population constitutes an ongoing human experiment, or “clinical trial” for purposes of 45 CFR

1554

Part 46, and triggers the mandatory protections of human experiment subjects mandated by this

1555

extensive regulation. The Defendants have failed to implement those protections.

1556

For instance, 45 CFR § 46.405 states that DHHS will conduct or fund research involving

1557

children that presents “more than minimal risk” to the children “only if” an Institutional Review

1558

Board (“IRB”) reviews the proposed experiment and makes certain mandatory findings. One of

1559

those findings is that “[t]he risk is justified by the anticipated benefit to the subjects.” The very

1560

real and substantial risks of the Vaccines can never be justified when they are administered en

1561

masse to children under the age of 18, since they have statistically no risk from SARS-CoV-2

1562

and COVID-19.

1563

Plaintiffs therefore seek a Declaratory Judgment that: the actions of the Defendants are

1564

unlawful and arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with § 360bbb-3, contrary to constitutional

1565

rights, powers, privileges and immunities, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or

1566

limitations; and that the Vaccine EUAs are unlawful, since they violate 45 CFR Part 46, thereby

1567

nullifying all Vaccine EUAs.

1568

COUNT VI

1569

MANDAMUS

1570
1571

28 U.S.C. § 1361
(Individual Federal Defendants)

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 65 of 68

1572

The individual federal defendants have a clear duty to act to ensure the faithful

1573

implementation of § 360bbb-3 and 45 CFR Part 46, the provisions of which are mandatory and

1574

intended to protect Plaintiffs.

1575

There is “‘practically no other remedy.’” Collin v. Berryhill, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

1576

78222 at *9, quoting Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 505 (1979). Courts have held that the

1577

perceived medical urgencies created by COVID-19 itself, and also those created by the

1578

decisions, orders and actions of authorities responding to COVID-19, can make it impractical

1579

and inappropriate to force a plaintiff seeking mandamus to wait for alternative processes to run

1580

their course:

1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590

Moreover, given the broader context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we agree with
the Fifth Circuit that ‘[i]n mill-run cases, it might be a sufficient remedy to simply
wait for the expiration of the TRO, and then appeal an adverse preliminary
injunction. In other cases, a surety bond may ensure that a party wrongfully
enjoined can be compensated for any injury caused. Those methods would be
woefully inadequate here.’(In re Rutledge, 956 F.3d 1018, (8th Cir. 2020), quoting
In re Abbott, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10893 at *14.) 22
Plaintiffs therefore seek mandamus, compelling the individual federal defendants to
perform the duties owed to them pursuant to § 360bbb-3 and 45 CFR Part 46.

1591

COUNT VII

1592

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT-

1593
1594

Plaintiffs adopt all of the preceding paragraphs and incorporate them by reference, as if
fully set forth herein.

1595

Wherefore, Plaintiffs request the following declarations:

The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the judgment in In re Abbott, and remanded to the Fifth Circuit with
instructions to dismiss the case as moot, following the Texas Governor’s relaxation of his order restricting abortion
as a non-essential surgical procedure, however the decision did not turn on an analysis of mandamus. See, Planned
Parenthood Ctr. for Choice v. Abbott, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 647.
22

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 66 of 68

1596



1597
1598

A declaration that EOs 14042 and 14043 are invalid to authorize compulsory EUA
vaccinations of American Citizens;



1599

A declaration that § 360bbb–3 permits an American citizen to refuse without adverse
consequences any EUA vaccine.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1600
1601

WHERFORE, and for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629

(A)

Declare that the exigencies underlying the DHHS Secretary’s declaration of a
“public health emergency” under § 360bbb-3(b) never existed, or if they ever did
exist, have since ceased to exist, and in the absence of those exigencies, the
declaration of the “public health emergency”, the extensions thereof and the
Vaccine EUAs are unlawful, null, void and terminated;

(B)

Declare that the DHHS Secretary and his delegee the Acting Commissioner of the
FDA have failed to meet the criteria for issuing the Vaccine EUAs under §
360bbb-3(c), and therefore the Vaccine EUAs are unlawful, null, void and
terminated;

(C)

Declare that the DHHS Secretary has failed to meet the conditions of
authorization under § 360bbb-3(e), and therefore the Vaccine EUAs are unlawful,
null, void and terminated;

(D)

Declare that the Defendants are engaged in non-consensual human
experimentation in violation of their constitutional right to bodily integrity;

(E)

Declare that the Defendants have failed to meet the requirements of 45 CFR Part
46 for the protection of human subjects in medical experimentation;

(F)

Enjoin the enforcement of the challenged declaration of a “public health
emergency” and further renewals thereof, the enforcement of the Vaccine EUAs;

(G)

Enjoin enforcement of any and all actions by Defendants in violation of the
Constitutional right to Bodily Integrity.

(H)

Award Plaintiffs such other and additional relief as the Court deems fit.

1630
1631

VII. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all issues so triable.

1632

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 67 of 68

1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638

Dated: Friday, October 29, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lowell H. Becraft, Jr.
LOWELL H. BECRAFT, JR.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
ASB 5005-F66L
403C Andrew Jackson Way
Huntsville, AL 35801
(256) 533-2535
becraft@hiwaay.net
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

/s/ Thomas Renz
THOMAS RENZ
(Ohio Bar ID: 98645)
1907 W. State St. #162
Fremont, OH 43420
(419) 351-4248
renzlawllc@gmail.com
(Pro Hac Vice)

/s/ F.R. Jenkins
F. R. JENKINS
(Maine Bar No. 004667)
Meridian 361 International
Law Group, PLLC
97A Exchange Street, Ste 202
Portland, ME 04101
(866) 338-7087
jenkins@meridian361.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
(Pro Hac Vice)

/s/ Michael A. Hamilton
MICHAEL A. HAMILTON
(KY Bar No. 89471)
CORNERSTONE ATTORNEY
1067 N. Main St, PMB 224
Nicholasville, KY 40356
(859) 655-5455
michael@cornerstoneattorney.com
(Pro Hac Vice)

/s/ Robert J. Gargasz
ROBERT J. GARGASZ
(Ohio Bar ID: 0007136)
1670 Cooper Foster Park
Rd. Lorain, Ohio 44053
(440) 960-1670
rjgargasz@gmail.com
(Pro Hac Vice)

/s/ N. Ana Garner
N. ANA GARNER
Garner Law Firm
1000 Cordova Place #644
Santa Fe, NM 87505
(505) 930-5170
garnerlaw@yahoo.com
(Pro Hac Vice)

1639

Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 30 Filed 10/29/21 Page 68 of 68

/s/ Jonathan Diener
JONATHAN DIENER
P.O. Box 27
Mule Creek, NM 88051
(575) 388-1754
jonmdiener@gmail.com
(Admission Pending Pro Hac Vice)

1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661

/s/ Joseph S. Gilbert
JOSEPH S. GILBERT
(Nevada Bar No. 9033)
Joey Gilbert & Associates
D/B/A Joey Gilbert Law
405 Marsh Avenue
Reno, Nevada 89509
(775) 284-7700
joey@joeygilbertlaw.com
(Pro Hac Vice)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date, Friday, October 29, 2021, I electronically transmitted
this pleading to the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system for filing, which will send
notification of such filing to the following counsel for the Defendants:
Hon. Don B. Long, III
Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Alabama
1801 Fourth Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Hon. James W. Harlow
Trial Attorney, Consumer Protection Branch
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 386
Washington, D.C. 20044-0386
/s/ Lowell H. Becraft, Jr.
lowell H. Becraft, Jr.

1662
1663

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.alnd.177186.30.0.pdf
Size: 1,500,150 bytes
SHA-256: 38c950e45fcf9d0007d4fcd019ebf6f174ca2829dc89abad37e0125d9797683a
Our copy: gov.uscourts.alnd.177186.30.0.pdf
Original: archive.org

Amended Complaint, Doc. 30 — America's Frontline Doctors, etc. v. Becerra

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records