independent-journalist-katherine-watt-lays-out-the-legal-architecture-constructed-over-decades-that-allows-for-totalitarian-control-during-health-emergencies-like-covid

Independent Journalist Katherine Watt Lays Out the Legal Architecture Constructed Over Decades that Allows for Totalitarian Control During ‘Health Emergencies’ Like COVID


TOP LINE

Independent journalist and paralegal Katherine Watt has done a—very—deep dive into the legal framework that allowed for the totalitarian control that came into play in the U.S. during the COVID-19 “pandemic” and discovered federal laws have been changed over the past several decades in preparation for the “health emergency” coup. In several recent interviews Watt specifically highlights 1983 as a “critical decay” year when the ‘public health emergencies’ section was added to the 1944 Public Health Service Act, as well as 2005, when the PREP Act was passed.


While it may seem like the COVID-19 “pandemic” had only been planned several years before its execution, we now know that the most powerful people in the world had been orchestrating the worldwide governmental reaction to the (real?) disease for decades. Global elites weren’t only holding numerous “planning exercises” for the grand ruse over the years, but also putting into place the legal framework that would allow for enormous governmental overreach. And for those curious about how that was done, exactly, independent journalist Katherine Watt has assembled much of the relevant documentation.

In the interview immediately above with Dr. Jane Ruby—a “medical professional” and “pharmaceutical drug development expert”—Watt offers a summary of the extensive research she’s performed into how the legal underpinnings for the authoritarianism that was put into play in response to COVID-19 have developed over the years.

Watt—a Roman Catholic, American, Gen-X writer, paralegal, printmaker, wife and mother—notes toward the beginning of the interview with Ruby that she began to suspect something was wrong with the COVID narrative in May, 2020. Her suspicions grew in September of 2020 when there was an early win for the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens via County of Butler, et al. v. Pennsylvania Governor Thomas Wolf that was thwarted by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. At that point Governor Wolf had “sort of” rolled back the COVID measures, which allowed for the Third Circuit to dismiss the case as “moot.” Despite the fact that the initial federal judge ruled that—in Watt’s words—the COVID measures were “infringing on people’s rights” and the measures couldn’t go on forever as “the Constitution was designed to protect people’s rights even in emergencies.”

When the plaintiffs tried to take the case to the Supreme Court, however, it “refused to hear [the case] entirely.” Watt, subsequently, began to wonder where all the safeguards against tyranny were. Then, when she heard a podcast featuring attorney Todd Callender in January of 2022 (embedded immediately above) she “started to put the pieces together” regarding how the legal shenanigans surrounding COVID had been pulled off.

Callender noted in the podcast—which was with Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet—that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR)—specifically its amendments from 2005—effectively made the WHO’s “laws” enforceable in the U.S. That is, once U.S. Congress had put into place the “implementing statutes” necessary at the nation-state level for those “laws” to take effect.

For reference, the IHR, first adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1969 is “the only international legal treaty with the responsibility of empowering the World Health Organization (WHO) to act as the main global surveillance system.” The 2005 amendments forced the 196 WHO member countries to “recognize that certain public health incidents, extending beyond disease, ought to be designated as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), as they pose a significant global threat.”

A PHEIC—which is literally an acronym that’s pronounced as “FAKE” (read more about that via the post embedded immediately above)—is what was used to kick off the COVID-19 pandemic, and all of the subsequent authoritarian “countermeasures” against the supposed disease.

Watt notes in a Substack post titled “American Domestic Bioterrorism Program” that in 2005 former President Bush also signed Executive Order 13375, which added symptomatic influenza to a list of quarantinable communicable diseases, authorizing the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to use force to apprehend and detain people. In the same year Congress and President Bush also passed the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, which, as Watt points out in her post, allows the head of the HHS to “unilaterally issue declarations recommending ‘manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more covered countermeasures.'”

For reference, the Wiki page for the PREP Act (or PREPA) notes that “By invoking provisions of PREPA, the HHS secretary can wield broad authority to declare an emergency, which in turn [triggers] drug company immunity from liability at any time, thereby conferring upon drug companies legal immunity for harm caused by their misconduct.” The Wiki page also notes “The immunity that could be conferred on drug and vaccine manufacturers can be applied regardless of wrongdoing by affected drug companies.”

All of this to say: the authoritarian powers (including mandates, lockdowns, etc.) set into play in 2020—nor the extraordinary liability shield for Pfizer, Moderna, et al.’s wildly dangerous experimental injections—would have been possible without both the IHR amendments from 2005 and the special powers granted to the head of the HHS in the same year via the PREP Act. (Read more about the newly proposed amendments to the IHR via the post embedded immediately above.)

The year 2005 was not the beginning of laying the foundation for the legal framework necessary for the atrocities that have happened since 2020, however. On the contrary, Watt notes in her Bioterrorism post that “the critical decay began around 1983, when the ‘public health emergencies’ section was added to the 1944 Public Health Service Act… .” Watt adds, however, that “Most of the worst laws have been passed since 2000 — just before 9/11 and the US Department of Defense false flag anthrax attacks.”

Interpreting all of the legal changes mentioned, Watt goes on to say that:

“The basic goal of the architects [responsible for health emergency authoritarianism in the U.S.]… was to set up legal conditions in which all governing power in the United States could be automatically transferred from the citizens and the three Constitutional branches into the two hands of the Health and Human Services Secretary, effective at the moment the HHS Secretary himself declared a public health emergency, legally transforming free citizens into enslaved subjects.”

Watt also notes in her interview with Ruby that she believes the Department of Defense (DoD) being legally primed for authoritarianism can be traced back to November of 1997 when Congress passed two laws including the FDA Modernization Act and The National Defense Authorization Act, “which made it so that there were more protections for military members when they were being asked to take a new, experimental product.” Watt notes, however, that this was a “bait-and-switch,” as Congress then passed “the emergency use authorization section of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act… [moving] all of the chemical and biological weapons research, testing, and deployment—domestically—onto the entire American population. Calling it ’emergency use authorizations for public health emergencies.'” Watt adds “it’s [now] a joint DoD-HHS program, and… it’s housed under HHS, where it was housed under DoD before.”

In the interview immediately above with pharma insider Sasha Latypova, Watt elaborates further on the legal framework put into place prior to the 2020 COVID “pandemic.” She discusses the federal statute legalese more directly related to COVID-19, including the Other Transactions Authority (OTA) granted to 11 federal agencies, which she says she began to study after looking into whistleblower Brook Jackson’s lawsuit against Pfizer and its subcontractor Ventavia.

Jackson, a site manager for Ventavia during Pfizer’s clinical trials, initially accused the pharma giant’s subcontractor of not obeying good clinical practices; at first bringing her complaints to Ventavia, but then, ultimately to the FDA—soon after which she was fired. In turn, Jackson sued Pfizer and Ventavia for “false claims”—thinking that Pfizer and Ventavia had lied to the federal government about conducting its clinical trials appropriately. But, as Watt notes, “It turned out that… the U.S. government was in on the fraudulent clinical trials and in on the whole fraud entirely.” (You can read more about that via the post embedded immediately below.)

Watt notes in Pfizer’s April, 2022 motion to dismiss Jackson’s lawsuit the pharma giant attached an OTA contract “saying, in effect, ‘we had no obligation to conduct [real] clinical trials because the only goods and services we were providing to the U.S. government according to this contract [was] a large-scale manufacturing demonstration for a prototype.'” Watt notes Pfizer “split off” the clinical trials from the manufacturing and production side of the prototype COVID “vaccines.”

When Watt looked at Pfizer’s OTA contract with the federal government, she realized the agreement “is a separate contracting [and] purchasing framework that U.S. government agencies can enter into with private companies… .” The independent journalist notes that OTA contracts—which began with a NASA contract in 1958—are entered into between the government and private companies and “[suspend] all kinds of oversight.”

As a result, Watt notes, “under the terms of the OTA [Pfizer] had no obligation to ever conduct a valid clinical trial.” She adds “They can make the entire thing a fraud, they can make the entire thing seem to be real… but it didn’t have to be in compliance with any of the regulations that otherwise govern clinical trials.” In essence, Watt says what the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) did for the COVID injections in terms of liability, the OTA has done for the financial contracting side regarding Pfizer’s deal with the government to deliver the experiment injections.

Watt goes on to note the OTA and the EUA have essentially allowed the federal government to waive, on its own behalf, all of the normal safety practices and standards normally in place when developing pharmaceuticals.

Watt notes that the experimental COVID injections are “a bioweapon, not a drug,” and that “what it boils down to is [the injections are] a military product as part of a military project.” She adds the injections are not “a pharmaceutical product as part of a health project.”

Watt clarifies that the head of the HHS was able to decide, based on “available data” about the injections, as well as the severity of COVID-19, as to whether or not the novel “vaccines” should be deployed. “So [the head of the HHS] got to decide unilaterally—basically as [a dictator]—what is the level of threat that this SARS-CoV-2 poses to the population, and what are the acceptable risks and benefits calculations of the countermeasure deployed against that first SARS-CoV-2 thing.”

The independent journalist goes on to tell Latypova that “Congress not only put all the power into the HHS Secretary’s hands, they also eliminated their own oversight power.” Watt adds “[Congress claims] that they have no power to overrule or… review his emergency declarations [and] they can’t overrule his EUA declarations. They also put provisions that no federal judge can review those declarations. Once they’re made, they’re considered solely within agency discretion—so there’s no judicial review.”

On top of that, Watt says Congress “eliminated states’ power to take any course of action different from what the HHS Secretary has said that they should do, which is called preemption.” In all, Watt clarifies that this means there is no state, congressional, or judicial authority that now exists to overrule the HHS Secretary’s authority to declare, unilaterally, a national health emergency. Nor that a medical product is sufficiently safe and effective for use in the general public during a national health emergency.

“This raises the super-interesting philosophical question with horrible implications,” Watt says, of “how did [Congress] give away a power that [it] didn’t have the power to give away?” She adds “Congress does not have the power to dissolve itself; Congress does not have the power to dissolve the federal judiciary under the U.S. Constitution. But they did it to the extent that the federal judges are deferring to them and Congress is deferring to the HHS Secretary and the states—for the most part, with exceptions like Florida—are deferring and not challenging these things; they’re just saying whoop!, that happened!”

As for Pfizer’s clinical trials themselves, Watt says she thinks of them “as… performance art.” She says that Pfizer had to conduct them “only insofar as they had to make people believe that real ones were happening.”

Latypova adds “I’ve seen the DoD contracts [with Pfizer] and it was very puzzling [the] way they have carved out the clinical trial and anything that has to do with [the] regulatory process from the money that was being paid ostensibly for the large-scale demonstration.” The pharma veteran adds “literally, they’re saying this clinical trial stuff and regulatory theater, this is a voluntary activity Pfizer and FDA [participated in]. They’re just… play-acting together because they feel like it. What we’re paying for is this other thing—this Other Transaction Authority [military prototype].” (You can read more about Latypova’s take on things via the post embedded immediately above.)


Feature image: Team Enigma

(Visited 444 times, 30 visits today)

Accessibility Toolbar