The first story tonight should be on the front pages of news outlets worldwide. The Covid injections have been classified
as weapons of mass destruction by a senior law professor.
This is a scoop. Dr. Francis Boyle, a Harvard professor and architect of the Bush-signed 1989 Biological Weapons
Anti-Terrorism Act, issued an affidavit calling Covid-19 mRNA injections biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
Dr. Joseph Sansone was the first to report it. br] Dr. Boyle's affidavit, filed as part of an emergency motion in Florida,
argues that the distribution of Covid-19 injections violates several laws, including the U.S. Biological
Weapons Act and Florida's weapons and firearms laws.
The petition, which is addressed directly to Governor Ron DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody, calls for an
immediate halt to the distribution of Covid injections in Florida and demands the
confiscation of remaining supplies of these injections.
According to Dr. Sansone, the original emergency petition for a writ of mandamus was filed
with the Florida Supreme Court on March 3, 2024.
Later, on March 20, it was transferred to Silkwood Court in Leon County. And after the Silkwood Court
dismissed the case on April 9, it went to the Court of Appeals.
The appellate brief was filed on Memorial Day, May 27, 2024. Dr. Boyle, one of the world's leading legal
experts on biological weapons, has lent considerable weight to this case with his affidavit.
The case already has extensive evidence included in the complaint - including affidavits from medical legal counsel
and biotech analyst Karen Kingston and Dr. Anahme Haidja.
According to Dr. Sansone, the complaint states that the distribution of these
injections violates several laws simultaneously.
Below, we'll just read you the main points: - Biological Weapons Act - Federal Crime of Treason - Domestic Terrorism - Murder
and Genocide - Florida Drugs and Cosmetic Act Fraud - Aiding and Abetting After the Fact and Florida Medical Consent Law.
The affidavit signed by Dr. Boyle states, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 1746: "I, Francis A. Boyle, declare under penalty of
perjury that the statements contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."
He then lists his credentials: Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, also an A. B. in
Political Science from the University of Chicago in 1971, then a J.D. degree Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law School, and
he holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University.
He says: "I have advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes and
genocide, nuclear policy and biological weapons.
In 1985, I publicly called for the implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention in the United
States and drafted the legislation known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.
They were adopted unanimously by both houses of the US Congress and signed by President George Bush with the
approval of the US Department of Justice. In it, he refers to his book on biological warfare and terrorism.
He says: It is my expert opinion that Covid-19 nanoparticle injections or mRNA nanoparticle injections or Covid-19 injections
fully meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction under
Biological Weapons 18, USC 175 Weapons and Firearms.
The Getaway Pundit previously reported that the Florida Supreme Court granted Gov. Ron DeSantis' request to impanel a
grand jury to investigate the makers of Covid-19 injections.
This bombshell follows a historic 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last week that the Covid-19 mRNA injection
is not a vaccine under traditional medical definitions.
Needless to say, the dam has broken. And more and more people are starting to call these injections what they
really are - biological weapons. And according to Dr. Francis Boyle, weapons of mass destruction.
I'd like to ask you in regards to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, what can people do now, Dr.
Martin? Because I've heard comments saying that it's now possible for people to file a lawsuit.
I mean, how far can you go with that?
Dr. David Martin: Yes, so let's be clear that it's about the practice of the law and not the theory.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals technically remanded the case back to the lower courts, stating that the
Los Angeles Unified School District teachers can indeed sue to challenge the vaccine mandate.
That's the technical wording of the statute. The opinion, which is actually part of precedent, and that's the key distinction I
want to make, makes it unmistakably clear that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that
Jacobson was misapplied in this particular case.
And that means that for the first time, the illusion that the vaccine mandate serves public
health has been shattered by an appeals court.
This is a decisive moment, because from now on we can make statements based on the law that there is deliberate deception of
the public by the manufacturers with the products for injection.
These products were mislabeled and cannot be labeled as vaccines.
This is a violation of the US Federal Trade Commission Act and a violation of the Deceptive Medical Practices Act, which also
exist in every civilized country with sound legal standards.
The good news is that we have been able to pierce this veil.
But more importantly, and this is the key point, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unequivocally stated that
the Jacobson waivers will not be admissible under this view.
Another consequence is that legally we get the openings we needed to penetrate the liability protection of vaccine manufacturers
and those individuals such as employers, pharmacists, doctors, nurses and hospitals who actually injected people from now on.
For the first time, we now have the opportunity to say that the 9th Circuit ruled that Jacobson was misapplied. That it
did not stop the infections and did not prevent transmission.
So the public was deliberately misled, which is a criminal offense. And under the Criminal
Code, Maria, all shields of liability fall away.
Pfizer and Moderna are both financially and criminally responsible for deceiving the public.
Ironically, the leftist mainstream media and part of the supposed medical freedom movement are in lockstep in
continuing to claim that this thing is somehow a vaccine.
So let's start with the obvious facts. First of all, both Pfizer and Biontech and Moderna unequivocally stated
in their SEC filings in April 2020 that mRNA is, and I quote, "experimental gene therapy".
That's straight out of the Securities and Exchange Commission filings. This is not the opinion of Dr. Dave Martin.
That's not someone else's opinion either. It's clearly what they said. Which means that at the time they were promoting
a vaccination, they weren't really promoting a vaccination, they were promoting an experimental gene therapy.
And they deliberately mislabeled them to deceive the public into accepting them. So let's be very clear, this is a crime.
This is indeed domestic terrorism used to force people to take something they would not otherwise take.
That is the definition of domestic terrorism. And that is exactly what it is. As you know, Maria, I have often said that it is a
bioweapon because Rolf Baric, in 2005, at the DARPA-MAITA conference, stated that synthetic
coronavirus fragments, I am quoting here from his CV, are a technology that enables bioweapons.
Maria, I don't know if you guys in Australia have a problem with common parlance, but biowarfare
enabling technology, sounds like bioweapon to me.
And it turns out now that if you look not only at the court ruling, but also at the definition of 7 CFR Part 331 for select
agents and toxins, which is the list of biological weapons, it turns out that the spike protein associated
with each modification of the coronavirus is actually listed as a biological weapon in that list.
That is the definition of the judgment. So it doesn't stimulate immunity at all.
The injection, which was given to people around the world, whether it came from Moderna or Pfizer,
causes the human body to produce a listed toxin.
And then you hope that you have a robust immune system after you've programmed your body to produce a
bioweapon, which is actually to produce immunity to what your body has been programmed to produce.
And this is where Aron Cere's interpretation is completely off the mark. Because unlike the other things he talks about in
relation to injections, in this particular case the injection is an instruction to produce
the toxin, not to stimulate an immune response.
And that is the subtle difference that the Ninth Circuit, in its majority opinion, very correctly recognized, in my view.