Canadian Gov Data Shows that in June 2022, the Vaccinated Accounted for 93% of all COVID Deaths; 50% of which were Quadruple Jabbed

From [EXPOSE] The following chart shows the number of Covid-19 cases across the whole of Canada by vaccination status between 6th June and 12th June 2022 – 

THE METHODS USED TO MAKE FINDINGS IS HERE

the most recent figures show that there were 17,904 Covid-19 cases between 6th and 12th June, and the vaccinated population accounted for 17,040 of them, with 13,147 cases among the quadruple vaccinated population.

This means the unvaccinated population accounted for 5% of Covid-19 cases, whilst the vaccinated population accounted for 95%, 77% of which were among the quadruple jabbed.

Covid-19 Hospitalisations

The following chart shows the number of Covid-19 hospitalisations across the whole of Canada by vaccination status between 6th June and 12th June 2022 –

The most recent figures show that there were 1,041 Covid-19 hospitalisations between 6th and 12th June, and the vaccinated population accounted for 938 of them, with 694 hospitalisations among the quadruple vaccinated population.

This means the unvaccinated population accounted for 10% of Covid-19 hospitalisations, whilst the vaccinated population accounted for 90%, 74% of which were among the quadruple jabbed.

Covid-19 Deaths

The following chart shows the number of Covid-19 deaths across the whole of Canada by vaccination status between 6th June and 12th June 2022 –

The most recent figures show that there were 521 Covid-19 deaths between 6th and 12th June, and the vaccinated population accounted for 485 of them, with a shocking 242 deaths among the quadruple vaccinated population, and 200 deaths among the triple vaccinated population. 

This means the unvaccinated population accounted for just 7% of Covid-19 deaths, whilst the vaccinated population accounted for 93%, 50% of which were among the quadruple jabbed, and 41% of which were among the triple jabbed. 

Despite a mass booster campaign, and the Government of Canada trying to desperately conceal it, a bit of time, effort, and simple maths has revealed that 9 in every 10 Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths were recorded among the fully vaccinated population between 6th and 12th June 2022, and the vast majority of those were among the quadruple jabbed.

Should we really be seeing this if the Covid-19 injections are effective? 

Absolutely not. These figures suggest the more jabs you have, the more likely you are to be hospitalised or lose your life if exposed to the alleged Covid-19 virus.

Caught Off Guard by a Real Question, NY's Unelected Governor Said she ‘Doesn’t Need Data’ to Claim that Concealed Carry Permit Holders Commit Crimes [who needs reality when you have Dogma, Beliefs?]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

belief pushers – those men and women who call on their victim-followers to protest studies, facts, information, inner work, experience, knowledge, etc. that do not support their established dogma. You can never get rid of a belief by having it killed by another one! The realization and knowledge of the nature of what we imagine being God is fundamentally different and qualitatively much more than simply believing. “Reality heals the mind. It not only clears out the wrong information but it also regenerates your ability to think. When you live the lie you get used to believing in things that you subconsciously know aren’t true. You get used to believing lies that other people tell. You get used to believing contradictory information. When you think about reality you learn how to be more discerning. You learn to tell when someone is trying to bullshit you. Reality removes the leaches that are sucking your mind dry.” ~Marc Perkal. Belief is like a taboo—both respected and self-alienating. (See: Dogma, Reality, Awakening, Sacred Moment, Belief-Systems, Sacred Question, Bullshit, Vaccime, Dualisms, Sin, Holy Crossover, Memetics, Belief Space, Indoctrination & FUDGE)

From [HERE] When a local reporter in Albany, New York, asked Gov. Kathy Hochul if she had “the numbers to show it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes,” Hochul dismissed the question outright. “I don’t need to have numbers,” Hochul said. “I don’t need to have a data point to say this.”

The reporter, Anne McCloy, persisted and noted: “Somebody who is going to go do a mass shooting or something like that may not go and get a permit.” But Hochul said that was irrelevant to the issue of people carrying concealed handguns for protection.

The exchange must have caught Hochul off guard, since reporters don’t normally challenge support for gun control. But if Hochul wants to claim that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down New York’s restrictive concealed handgun law “could place millions of New Yorkers in harm’s way,” she has to explain how exactly permits make people a danger to others. After all, permit holders must pass a criminal background check, obtain the required training, and be at least 21 years old.

Democrats and gun control proponents are now predicting disaster in New York and the six other heavily Democratic states with restrictive “may-issue” concealed handgun laws. These states required applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” – a good reason that would convince a government bureaucrat of one’s need for a permit.

But those predicting catastrophe don’t have history on their side. Forty-three states don’t require a good reason for people to carry a gun for protection. And yet, concealed handgun permit holders have proven extremely law-abiding. No right-to-carry state has ever even held a legislative hearing to consider moving back to a “proper cause” requirement.

Since 1976, 18 states have eliminated “proper cause” requirements in favor of “right-to-carry” policies. In state after state, gun control proponents kept predicting the same disaster. And gun control proponents continually lost credibility.

But that didn’t stop Justice Stephen Breyer from speculating: “People of good moral character who start drinking a lot and who may be there for a football game or – or some kind of soccer game – can get pretty angry at each other. And if they each have a concealed weapon, who knows?”

Concealed carry laws have been in place for decades, and there are now 21.5 million permit holders nationwide. If there were any merit to Breyer’s concerns, his imagined scenario ought to have played out at least once. But there isn’t a single recorded incident like it.

In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at one-twelfth the rate of police officers. The average revocation rate is one-tenth of 1% in the 19 states with comprehensive data. Typically, permit revocations occur because someone moved, died, or forgot to bring a permit while carrying.

California and New York don’t provide data on revocation rates, but we do have some other information on how arbitrarily permits are issued. In 2013, Los Angeles County named its 341 permit holders out of a population of almost eight million adults. 

In L.A., only the political elite got permits: judges, reserve deputy sheriffs, and a small group of very wealthy, well-connected individuals who gave campaign donations to the county sheriff. Few recipients were minorities or women. While Hispanics made up over half of Los Angeles County residents, they only received about 6.5% of the county’s permits. Women got about 7%, and blacks 5%. In right-to-carry states, women have 29% of the permits and blacks have 12%.

In the rest of the U.S., 10% of adults have permits. People in most states don’t think twice about being in the presence of armed citizens in restaurants, theaters, and stores. New Yorkers must be terrified to visit Pennsylvania, where 14.4% of adults have permits. 

When officials get to decide who gets a permit, explicit death threats often aren’t even enough to qualify. Residence in a high-crime neighborhood is irrelevant.

Fifty-two peer-reviewed, empirical studies have been published on right-to-carry laws. Of these, 25 studies found that allowing people to carry reduces violent crime, and 15 found no significant effect. A minority, 12, observed increases in violent crime after concealed carry was adopted. Unfortunately, these 12 studies suffer, to varying degrees, from systematic error. They overwhelmingly focus on the last 20 years and compare states that recently passed concealed carry laws with more lenient states that had sustained a much larger growth in permits over the past two decades. The finding that crime rose relatively in such states is actually consistent with permit holders reducing crime.

Hochul says her job is to establish sensible gun safety laws, but facts do matter. The current system is arbitrary and favors the privileged. With California and New York unable to protect their citizens, people will soon learn that Hochul’s fears of letting law-abiding citizens defend themselves are unjustified.

John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”

Black Assistant Attorney General was Just Another NGHR at a Protest to White Des Moines Cops. Suit says Cops pepper-sprayed, tackled him and Falsely Arrested, Incarcerated Him Outside His House

From [HERE] The latest lawsuit accusing Des Moines police of using unnecessary and unlawful force during protests in 2020 comes from another law enforcement official: an assistant Iowa attorney general.

Paxton Williams, who represents the state in income and tax cases as an attorney for the revenue division in the Attorney General's Office, is suing the city, the police department and multiple officers for what he says were their actions against him on the night of June 1, 2020.

Williams, who also is president of the Iowa National Bar Association, a professional group for Black attorneys, is representing himself in the case.

According to his complaint, he participated in a June 1 protest march in response to the arrest of Des Moines Register journalist Andrea Sahouri while she was covering a protest the night before, as well as other "reports of questionable and unlawful police tactics."

The June 1 protest took place on and around the grounds of the Iowa Capitol. Williams says he was standing on the sidewalk outside his East Village residence, which is a few blocks away from the Capitol, when police approached and, without warning or ordering him to disperse, pepper-sprayed and tackled him. Williams was arrested and cited for failure to disperse and spent the night at the Polk

Williams says he and a co-worker had walked with the crowd to the Capitol, where the protest was "overwhelmingly peaceful," until police "without warning" began using what he considered to be unjustified force against protestors.

He "was shocked that law enforcement officers would instigate such violence and escalate it by chasing after individuals, using tear-gas, rubber-bullets, pepper-spray, and tackling, arresting or otherwise detaining individuals who had simply been excising their Iowa and federal constitutional rights," according to the complaint.

Williams says he and a co-worker had walked with the crowd to the Capitol, where the protest was "overwhelmingly peaceful," until police "without warning" began using what he considered to be unjustified force against protestors.

He "was shocked that law enforcement officers would instigate such violence and escalate it by chasing after individuals, using tear-gas, rubber-bullets, pepper-spray, and tackling, arresting or otherwise detaining individuals who had simply been excising their Iowa and federal constitutional rights," according to the complaint.

Williams says he was afraid for his life during the arrest, particularly when he was placed in the back of an empty police van, which reminded him of the 2015 death of Freddie Gray under similar circumstances in the custody of Baltimore police. Williams says in the complaint that ever since his arrest, he's felt fear and anxiety about what happened, particularly when he passes the entryway to his residence.

In his complaint, Williams denies any animus toward police and notes he works closely with agencies across the state in handling cases on behalf of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division. After his arrest, he says, he "felt real concern (his arrest) would affect his ability to perform his professional duties."

Williams says he filed a complaint with Des Moines police June 4, 2020, alleging excessive force and racial bias. Within hours, according to the complaint, a police sergeant called him to say he had reviewed police camera footage and "it had refuted everything in (Williams') claim," which Williams says is untrue.

He alleges the sergeant, Jeff Robinson, "was engaged in intimidation as an attempt to stop (Williams) from pursuing the matter further," and he is suing Robinson alongside the unnamed officers who took part in his arrest.

Multiple lawsuits filed in wake of 2020 protests

The complaint accuses the city of violating both federal and state constitutional civil rights through false arrest, excessive force, retaliation and malicious prosecution.

The city has not yet filed its answer to Williams' complaint, and city and department officials did not respond to a reporter's messages seeking comment. Williams also could not be reached for comment.

Court records show Williams' failure-to-disperse citation was dismissed under a deferred prosecution agreement requiring him to avoid further criminal charges for six months. A 2021 investigation by the Des Moines Register found that scores of people charged during the protests had their cases dismissed, often due to a lack of evidence or documentation.

Williams' suit is among at least eight cases, including  a class-action suit representing dozens of plaintiffs, to be filed against Des Moines police for alleged actions taken during the protests, which broke out following the death of George Floyd in the custody of Minneapolis police.

Black Man Locked Up for Not Wearing a Mask on Bus Dies in Custody After Authorities Refused to Provide His Blood Pressure Medication. Judge Refused Release, Couldn't Afford Bail, Suit Filed

From [HERE] Another abuse-of-an-incarcerated-person scandal at the beleaguered Santa Rita jail brings a new lawsuit against Alameda County, after they jailed a man for not wearing a mask on AC Transit, then allegedly denied him his medication and he died behind bars.

Few California correctional facilities have as terrible a reputation as Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, the Alameda County mega-jail known for some revolting behavior by guards, and one of the highest in-custody death rates in the state. The place has racked up so many civil lawsuits that it is now under court-appointed external supervision, but there are still plenty of past cases of alleged abuse at the facility working their way through the courts.

Add another one to the docket, in what sounds like another heartbreaking failure of the justice system. 45-year-old Maurice Monk of Oakland was jailed on charges stemming from not wearing a mask on AC Transit in October 2021. Monk, who was mentally ill and additionally had high blood pressure, was allegedly not given his medication while in custody. KTVU reports he died in jail a month later, and a new lawsuit from his family claims he died over being denied that medication.

“Jail Staff found the 45 year-old football coach laying unresponsive in cell just over a month after he was initially brought to Santa Rita,” the text of the lawsuit says. “This foreseeable yet readily preventable death was the result of Mr. Monk being denied adequate medical care despite his family’s repeated efforts to ensure Jail staff gave him the medications he so desperately needed.”

“Mr. Monk became the 57th death to occur at Santa Rita Jail since the year 2014,” the complaint says. “In fact, Mr. Monk was not even the only person to die that day at Santa Rita – adding another tally to the Jail’s shameful record of outpacing every jail in the country for inmate deaths per capita.”

The arrest itself was odd. According to a prior KTVU report, Monk was arrested on June 2, 2021 when he was not wearing a mask on AC Transit, and became argumentative with the driver, who called the police. (According to court documents, Monk also told the driver he would “fuck him up.”) Monk reportedly missed a court appearance, though the family claims he was there, and a deputy turned him away. Monk was taken into custody over a misdemeanor charge of making a criminal threat, and then died in prison, with his family claiming he was denied his medications.

Santa Rita Jail spokesperson Lieutenant Ray Kelly tells KTVU that Monk simply died of natural causes. "It's unfortunate when a person passes away at our jail," Kelly told the station. "Many of the people who come to us suffer from serious illness, poverty and lack of access to regular external health care in the community."

But the suit details a number of other in-custody deaths over alleged medical malpractice, and stunningly, also an incident wherein the jail’s medical director allegedly “was discovered to be unlawfully self-prescribing opioid pain medications for the previous five months and practicing medicine while impaired.”

It’s encouraging that there is, literally, a new sheriff in town in Alameda County to oversee the troubled facility. The far more progressive Yesenia Sanchez was elected last month, and had promised to reform the culture of that jail. That said, Sanchez will not take office until January 2023, and there’s a long list of past indiscretions still haunting that facility.

The lawsuit from Monk’s family does not specify a dollar amount for which they are suing, but asks for a jury trial, and damages for wrongful death.

The Only Monroe Cop Charged in Assault on Timothy Williams Pleads Guilty. 7 White Cops Kicked and Punched Handcuffed Black Man in the Face after He Surrendered and was Laying on the Ground

From [HERE] and [HERE] A former north Louisiana police officer pleaded guilty Friday to kicking a man in the face as he lay on the ground with his hands behind his back during an arrest in 2020, federal prosecutors said.

Jared Desadier, 44, of Monroe, entered the plea before U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Foote to a charge of deprivation of rights under color of law, U.S. Attorney Brandon B. Brown's office said in a news release.

At the time, Desadier was an officer with the Monroe Police Department. Authorities said Desadier and other officers detained a man for questioning and found he was carrying drug paraphernalia. The man ran and officers pursued him. Another officer caught up with the man and ordered him to the ground. The man complied and as the officer prepared to handcuff him, Desadier ran up on them and kicked the man in the face, authorities said.

Desadier admitted in court that his assault was without justification, as the man did not present a threat to any officer or other person on the scene, Brown's office said. Desadier also admitted that he knew that his actions were unjustified and unreasonable under the circumstances.

“Instead of lawfully carrying out his sworn duties as a law enforcement officer, Desadier abused his authority by assaulting and injuring an arrestee who was not a threat,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously prosecute any officer who abuses the public trust by using excessive force without basis.”

Desadier faces up to 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000. Sentencing is set for Nov. 21. The terms of his plea were not shared by the media.

Jared P. Desadier was accused of malfeasance in office and second-degree battery following the April 2020 encounter with Williams.  Body cam footage shows that Desadier was one of several law enforcement officers on the scene the night they encountered Williams. Desadier was arrested in July that same year and resigned a short time later. He had previously entered a plea of not guilty.

Williams says he ran from police while being searched because he was afraid but later surrendered by putting his hands in the air and laying on his stomach. Williams says he was handcuffed, punched, and kicked by at least two officers.

In a statement sent to KNOE. Williams’ attorneys expressed disappointment that other officers on the scene that night have not been charged. A federal lawsuit was also filed in this case. You can read the full release below.

Over the past year, the Monroe Police Department has been under federal investigation due to the brutal and senseless beating of Mr. Timothy Williams, whereby Mr. Williams still suffers effects from that inhumane treatment today. This has been a long journey, and Mr. Williams is still fighting for justice. We will continue in our endeavors to end this nightmare for Mr. Williams, other police brutality victims and the families of those who are still impacted by these traumatic and irreparable incidents that continually plagues them.

It saddens Mr. Williams, the impacted families, and community to know that the other Monroe Police Officers who were on the scene on that night have not yet been charged. These officers conspired to cover up this incident and should be held accountable. However, we will remain hopeful that justice will prevail. [MORE]

6 White LA County Jail Cops Caught on Camera Beating a Latino Man in an Unprovoked Attack, Struck 14 Times

From [HERE] Six deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department were caught on camera using excessive force on an inmate, who was arrested for a non-violent crime, an attorney representing the inmate alleged Monday.

The incident happened at LA County's Inmate Reception Center. The video shows inmate Jesus Soto Jara being compliant before he is ultimately attacked by six officers on video, the lawyer alleged. He was subsequently pushed to an area that is off-camera and further pummeled, he added.

According to his attorney, Soto Jara was arrested last week for drug possession with a firearm. He took a two-year deal during his court appearance in Pomona last Thursday.

Soto Jara's attorney said that his sources claim that a scuffle happened immediately above the camera view involving two other inmates, but, "Mr. Soto had nothing to do with that incident. He was compliant with the officers there."

He also alleged that the officers knew and intentionally continued to beat Sota Jara out of the view of the camera.

"It was out of view on purpose," he claimed. "They knew what was happening."

The inmate's attorney said that his client is in need of further medical treatment because he is suffering from injuries to his back, head and left eye, but he added that he has no pictures of the injuries. He was also unaware of whether there was any documentation of the injuries after they were initially received.

LASD has responded to Soto Jara's attorney's claims, calling them "categorically incorrect and misleading."

"He merely provided a fragment of the facts surrounding the incident, including the inmate was intentionally taken out of camera view and beaten. This is incorrect, in fact the LASD has multiple cameras covering the entire incident," Deputy Raquel Utley said in a statement to FOX 11. 

According to Utley, Soto Jara was in fact involved in an argument with another inmate before the interaction with deputies, and took off his shirt to fight that inmate.

"Mr. Romero claimed the contact with [Soto Jara] was ‘unprovoked’ and he was 100% not involved," Utley said. "This was inaccurate."

Soto Jara's lawyers claim a violation of civil rights and battery and are hoping for a viable motion to vacate his recent sentencing.

LASD tells FOX 11 that the investigation has been referred to the Internal Affairs Bureau, the Internal Criminal Investigation Bureau and the Office of the Inspector General.

This isn't the first time LASD deputies have been accused of using excessive force. Several top-ranking officials have filed lawsuits against LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, accusing him of a coverup in connection with a leaked jail video showing a deputy with his department kneeling on a handcuffed inmate's head.

Federal Judge Finds Arizona’s Prison Health Care is "Plainly Grossly Inadequate" and Unconstitutional

From [HERE] A prison sentence should not mean people lose fundamental human rights such as access to health care or humane conditions of confinement. Yet in Arizona prisons, despite a settlement promising to improve conditions, this problem persisted for years. Finally, after almost a decade of broken promises by Arizona state prison officials, U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver ruled on June 30 that the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) systematically violates the constitutional rights of people incarcerated in the state’s prisons by failing to provide them minimally adequate medical and mental health care, and by subjecting them to harsh and degrading conditions in solitary confinement units.

The lawsuit, Jensen v. Shinn, is part of a decade-long struggle to ensure that the nearly 30,000 adults and children in Arizona’s prisons receive the basic health care and minimally adequate conditions to which they are entitled under the Constitution and the law. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, the ACLU of Arizona, Prison Law Office, Arizona Center for Disability Law, and the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP.

The ACLU repeatedly detailed in court filings that preventable suffering and deaths, including deaths by suicide in solitary confinement, were occurring in Arizona’s prisons.

Our lawsuit was originally filed in 2012, and in 2014, prison officials settled the case, promising to improve health care and conditions in isolation. But in the seven years between settling the case and going to trial, we repeatedly detailed in court filings that preventable suffering and deaths, including deaths by suicide in solitary confinement, were occurring in Arizona’s prisons.

Judge Silver’s ruling came after 15 days of trial held in November and December 2021, where we showed that incarcerated people suffer excruciating pain, gruesome permanent injuries, and preventable deaths due to the state’s failure to provide basic health care. The evidence we presented at trial included expert testimony regarding unconstitutional medical and mental health care, the psychological effects of isolation and conditions in isolation units, and inadequate health care staffing.

Judge Silver’s 200-page order finding Arizona prison officials in violation of the Eighth Amendment cited evidence showing that ADCRR has abdicated its responsibility to deliver health care through its merry-go-round of for-profit correctional health care vendors. Judge Silver also described the gratuitous cruelty of isolation units, including the indefinite incarceration in solitary confinement of seriously mentally ill persons and children who were convicted as adults. [MORE]

Amnesty International Urges Biden to End the Federal Death Penalty and Commute All Federal Death Sentences

From [DPIC] A new report by the human rights organization Amnesty International urges President Joe Biden to act upon his campaign pledge to work to abolish the death penalty by exercising his constitutional authority to commute the sentences of all federal death row prisoners.

The report, titled The Power of Example: Whither the Biden Death Penalty Promise?, was released on June 27, 2022, just two days before the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia, which struck down all existing death penalty statutes. Amnesty International argues that “the 50th anniversary of Furman is an opportune moment for the US administration and members of Congress to be reminded that the world is waiting for the USA to do what almost 100 countries have achieved during this past half century — total abolition of the death penalty.”

The report cites the 2020-2021 federal execution spree under President Donald Trump as an example of the egregious nature of the United States’ application of capital punishment, highlighting the arbitrariness, racial disparities, issues of tribal sovereignty, and the executions of people with intellectual and mental disabilities. “When the Trump administration resumed federal executions in July 2020 after a 17-year hiatus, it provided a stark reminder of the horror show that is capital justice in the United States,” said Justin Mazzola, Deputy Director, Research, at Amnesty International USA.

“The President, his administration and Congress must recognize that respect for human dignity and retention of the death penalty are incompatible; that respect for the rule of law must include international human rights law guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty; that upholding universal rights must include upholding the right of everyone to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and that making international institutions stronger must include implementing the conclusions of UN human rights treaty bodies,” the report urged.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules the Public has a First Amendment Right to Film Police

From [HERE] The federal appeals court covering Colorado and five neighboring states on Monday for the first time affirmed that the public’s right to film police is protected under the First Amendment — a landmark ruling celebrated by press freedom organizations.

“Based on First Amendment principles and relevant precedents, we conclude there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public,” Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. wrote in a published opinion on behalf of a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet taken up the issue.

The ruling centers on the case of a YouTube journalist, Abade Irizarry. On May 26, 2019, Irizarry and three others took out their phones to film a DUI traffic stop in Lakewood, only for officers to intentionally obstruct their line of sight.

One officer, Ahmed Yehia, also shone a bright light into their cameras and then gunned his police cruiser directly at the journalists while blasting his air horn, according to the ruling.

Irizarry sued Yehia, claiming the officer violated his First Amendment rights. A district court judge threw out the lawsuit, saying Yehia was entitled to qualified immunity as a law enforcement officer.

But Monday’s ruling reversed the decision, with the 10th Circuit judges concluding Irizarry’s right to film police “falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core purposes to protect free and robust discussion of public affairs, hold government officials accountable and check abuse of power.”

In the opinion, Matheson cited previous rulings in six of the nation’s 12 circuit courts of appeal affirming the right to film police as a basis for the 10th Circuit’s decision.

Irizarry’s lawyer, Andrew Tutt, said the ruling will protect the right of every citizen under the court’s jurisdiction to record police carrying out their duties.

“Today’s decision also adds to the consensus of authority on this important issue, bringing us a step closer to the day when this right is recognized and protected everywhere in the United States,” he said.

Lakewood police could not be reached for comment.

Press freedom organizations applauded Monday’s ruling, calling the right to record police “extremely critical” for holding law enforcement agencies accountable.

“It’s a huge victory,” said Dan Shelley, president and CEO of the Radio Television Digital News Association and Foundation. “It’s one we hope is replicated by the remaining circuit courts of appeal that have not yet spoken on this issue.”

Colorado law states that “officers may not threaten or intimidate individuals who are recording police activities.” But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

In 2018, journalist Susan Greene was detained and put in handcuffs after refusing to stop recording an arrest on a public sidewalk. The Denver police officers took Greene’s phone, telling her to “act like a lady.” The Denver Police Department later disciplined the officers for violating policy.

“It’s absurd it needed a court case to get the point across that we have basic First Amendment rights in the 10th Circuit to watchdog police and other officials who work on the public’s dime,” Greene said Monday. “It’s a no-brainer.”

It’s not just reporters who need this ruling, Greene stressed. It’s every person with a phone.

“To a large extent, (reporters) really are only as good as people’s willingness to record something they see as questionable,” she said.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last year to take a case on this issue, leaving it to the circuit courts of appeal to rule for themselves. Members of Congress also planned to introduce legislation last year that would enshrine the right into law, but the bill never made it to a vote.

“You can kill people in many ways.” Ben Crump Joins Lawsuit which Claims the Baltimore Public Fool System Defrauded Taxpayers by Failing to Provide Acceptable Education to its Mostly Black Students

From [HERE] Trial attorney Ben Crump, who has represented families in the Trayvon Martin, George Floyd and Flint, Mich., civil rights cases, is adding parents Jovani and Shawnda Patterson to his list of clients as he joins their fight against Baltimore City and its public school system.

The Pattersons sued in January, claiming both parties have defrauded taxpayers by failing to provide acceptable education to public school students. Scott Marder, another lawyer representing the Pattersons in the case, said this is a unique approach, noting that past school lawsuits have tried to argue over civil and constitutional rights.

“This lawsuit is about the system and its performance and how it continues to fail our children,” Crump said at a news conference Wednesday. “It goes to the crux of the matter that educational injustice leads ultimately to racial injustice because it puts our children, our Black and Brown children especially, on a fast track to the school-to-prison pipeline.”

The Pattersons, who have a child in the city school system, started off with representation from Marder, who is with the Baltimore-based Thomas & Libowitz law firm. Jovani Patterson has Republican Party ties and lost a bid for Baltimore City Council president in 2020. Shawnda Patterson used to be a city teacher.

The lawsuit alleges that the school system offers “no benefit” to city residents and that it “completely fails to perform its most important function.” The parents claim that the city school system has poor student performance, a “pattern” of enrollment and grading scandals, and prior instances of false entries in public records, racketeering, mail fraud, theft and embezzlement. The suit aims to have the court impose oversight on the school system.

Last month, Richard Henry, Maryland’s inspector general for education, reported that his office’s examination of grading policies revealed inconsistencies. Specifically, the report found more than 12,500 situations where high-schoolers’ grades were changed from failing to passing between 2016 and the end of the 2019-2020 school year. Though there are many reasons for grade changes, such as miscalculations or students completing missed assignments, investigators discovered that some school administrators told educators to pass all 58 percent and 59 percent grades, which are close to making the mark.

Following the report, the school system promised it will conduct an independent review of grading procedures.

Meanwhile, Mayor Brandon M. Scott (D) celebrated city schools CEO Sonja Santelises on July 5 to honor her for holding the position the longest since former CEO Alice Pinderhughes, the first woman to lead the system. At the event, Scott applauded Santelises for her work.

“For me personally, it’s great to see someone who cares deeply about young people. Even when no one is looking,” Scott said.

Crump said he was asked a year ago to join the case, and as he learned more, he decided he wanted to take part. Marder said it helps to have a nationally recognized lawyer such as Crump on the case because he is able to see the bigger picture of how this case will affect society at large.

“I think you can kill people in many ways,” Crump said. “You can kill them with a racist criminal justice system. You can kill them by them not having adequate education. These slow deaths are what we’re focused on today.”

FDA Quietly Grants Full Approval of Comirnaty Vax for Teens. Yet, It's not available in the US and Not the Same Formula as the Emergency Authorized Vax Falsely being Distributed as “fully approved”

From [CHD] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday granted full approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine for adolescents 12 through 15 years old.

In an FDA press release, the agency said full approval of Comirnaty follows a “rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data,” and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”

Pfizer’s press release announcing the approval said the Comirnaty vaccine has been available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) since May 2021 for the adolescent age group.

Yet, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S for any age group and is not the same formula as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine currently authorized under EUA and being distributed as a “fully approved” vaccine.

“The approval of Comirnaty for adolescents 12 to 15 is head-spinning,” said Mary Holland, president and general counsel for Children’s Health Defense.

Holland added:

“The FDA failed to convene an expert committee and failed to appropriately weigh the risk-benefit profile of this vaccine for this age group. Even Vaccine cheerleader Dr. Paul Offit acknowledged FDA decisions are being made based on political pressure, not science when, in commenting on the agency’s vote last week to allow reformulated booster shots, he said it felt like ‘the fix was in.’”

Holland said that at base, “this is a move by pharma to ensure liability protection” under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Some states likely will attempt to put Comirnaty on the childhood vaccine schedule, despite the myriad known and unknown risks, Holland said.

“Pfizer‘s fraud and collusion with government is becoming more evident by the day,” Holland said. “CHD, already challenging the authorizations for those six months through age 11, will be at the forefront of challenging this approval for teenagers.”

Efficacy claims based on old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds — before Delta, Omicron variants

Pfizer said Friday’s approval is based on data from a Phase 3 clinical trial of 2,260 participants ages 12 through 15.

About half of the participants, “elicited SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs)” demonstrating “strong immunogenicity in a subset of adolescents one month after the second dose,” Pfizer said.

It is unknown what happened to antibody levels after one month, but peer-reviewed researchsuggests vaccine protection conferred by second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine wanes rapidly against the Omicron variant.

“Our study found a rapid decline in Omicron-specific serum neutralizing antibody titers only a few weeks after the second and third doses of [the Pfizer-BioNTech] BNT162b2,” said the authors of a May 13 study published in JAMA.

BAIT AND SWITCH WITH THE DEPENDENT MEDIA’S HELP: CONFUSE TO DESTROY INFORMED CONSENT. LAST MONTH PFIZER ADMITTED IT WILL NEVER MANUFACTURE THE VACCINE THAT WAS FDA APPROVED. PFIZER QUIETLY SUBMITTED AN UPDATE TO THE CDC, ADMITTING THAT ITS ORIGINALLY LICENSED “COMIRNATY” VACCINE WILL NEVER BE DISTRIBUTED FOR USE. PFIZER HAS EXCLUSIVELY BEEN SUPPLYING ITS VERSION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL VACCINE THAT WAS GRANTED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) BY THE FDA. [MORE]

To further support its claim that Comirnaty is effective in the 12 to 15 age group, Pfizer used an old analysis of 16- to 25-year-olds conducted before the Delta and Omicron surges.

“The efficacy analysis was conducted between November 2020 and May 2021, which was before the Delta and Omicron surges,” and the “only SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern identified from the confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was Alpha,” Pfizer said in its press release.

FDA experts question neutralizing antibodies as standard for vaccine effectiveness

During a June 28 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), vaccine experts raised concerns that neutralizing antibodies did not correlate to clinical protection — noting Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine had a two-fold increase in neutralizing antibody levels compared with Pfizer’s vaccine during clinical trials, but it did not translate into a clinically significant difference in terms of protection against severe disease.

Dr. Ofer Levy, VRBPAC member and infectious disease physician at Boston Children’s Hospital, said during the meeting there is still “no established correlate of protection,” referring to the level of antibodies needed to confer protection.

“You have a lot of data now,” Levy told Pfizer. “What is your relative protection?”

“I would say there is no established correlate of protection,” Kena Swanson, Ph.D., vice president of viral vaccines at Pfizer, told Levy.

Levy said:

“I would like to hear from FDA what their overall approach will be around improving our understanding of correlate protection. We spend a good amount of time reviewing antibody data. We have no doubt antibody data is important. We don’t have a level of antibody that anybody is comfortable stating is correlated [with] protection.

Levy, who said antibodies are important, but T cells are more important, called for federal leadership to establish a “standardization of the T-cell assay and encourage or in fact require the sponsors to gather that information.”

“So what is the effort to standardize the pre-clinical assays?” Levy asked. “This is an effort that’s critical not just now but for future cycles of vaccine revision. If we aren’t able to define a standard for correlate protection we are fighting with one arm behind our back.”

Dr. Peter Marks, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, acknowledged the importance of Levy’s question and said they are “having conversations” with colleagues at the National Institutes of Health and throughout government about how they might move forward, but it is something they “don’t have an answer to yet.”

Marks said as vaccines are developed in the future, it will “become even more important” to define a standard of correlate protection because “we won’t be able to have a large naive population to vaccinate with newer vaccines.”

“We will need to understand the T-cell response better,” Marks said. “I take your point, it’s just that we haven’t solved the problem yet.“

Comirnaty not available in the U.S. 

According to Pfizer’s press release, Comirnaty was previously made available to the 12 to 15 age group in the U.S. under EUA and 9 million U.S. adolescents in this age group have completed a primary series.

“The vaccine, sold under the brand name Comirnaty for adults, has been available under an emergency use authorization since May 2021 for the 12-15 age group,” Reuters reported. “It will now be sold under the same brand name for adolescents as well.”

Yet, Pfizer’s information hotline says it has no specific information on when Comirnaty will be available.

The FDA said Friday the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be, authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”

The CDC’s website states that Comirnaty is “not orderable.”

A branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services overseeing the Strategic National Stockpile indicated Comirnaty was not available because Pfizer did not have time to change the labels.

According to FDA documents, Comirnaty is not available in the U.S. and nobody has received a fully approved and licensed COVID-19 vaccine.

“Comirnaty has not been made available under EUA,” said Dr. Madhava Setty, physician and senior science editor for The Defender.

Setty added:

“The FDA and Pfizer have already stated very quietly, that they have no intent of manufacturing Comirnaty for distribution. Everyone is getting the non-licensed formulation that carries no liability for pharmaceutical companies.”

The CDC website confirms this, stating the Comirnaty formulation “will not be manufactured or made available in the near term even if authorized.”

The FDA on Aug. 23, 2021, approved Pfizer’s biological licensing application (BLA) for its COVID-19 vaccine named Comirnaty for people age 16 and older.

CHD challenged FDA on Comirnaty ‘approval’ for adults

As The Defender reported, there were “several bizarre aspects to the FDA approval” that proved confusing — which led to CHD suing the FDA over its approval of Comirnaty.

The FDA acknowledged that while Pfizer had “insufficient stocks” of the newly licensed Comirnaty vaccine, there was “a significant amount” of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine — produced under EUA — still available for use.

The FDA said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine under EUA should remain unlicensed but could be used “interchangeably” with the newly licensed Comirnaty product.

The FDA also said the licensed Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine and the existing Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were “legally distinct,” but proclaimed their differences did not “impact safety or effectiveness.”

Yet, there is a “huge real-world difference” between products approved under EUA compared with those the FDA has fully licensed.

EUA products are experimental under U.S. law and cannot be mandated. A licensed vaccine, such as Comirnaty, can be mandated by employers and schools.

Although Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine can be mandated, it has no liability shield. Vials of the branded product, which say “Comirnaty” on the label, are subject to the same product liability laws as other U.S. products.

Only COVID-19 vaccines distributed under EUA — which in the U.S. includes Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — have liability protection under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP).

Under PREP, the only way an injured party can sue a pharmaceutical company for an injury caused by an EUA vaccine is if he or she can prove willful misconduct and if the U.S. government has also brought an enforcement action against the party for willful misconduct. No such lawsuit has ever succeeded.

Comirnaty cannot receive liability protection unless it is fully approved for children and added to the CDC’s immunization schedule bringing it under the auspices of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty vaccines aren’t interchangeable 

The FDA on Oct. 29, 2021, authorized a manufacturing change to allow an additional formulation of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that uses tromethamine (Tris) buffer instead of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) used in the originally authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The FDA on Dec. 16, 2021, approved a supplement to the Comirnaty BLA to include a new 30 mcg dose formulation that uses the Tris buffer instead of the PBS buffer used in the originally approved vaccine.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine may contain either the PBS buffer or tris buffer, except for the 5 to 11 age group. The Comirnaty vaccine contains the Tris buffer.

The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine used for the 5 to 11 age group uses a Tris buffer, despite clinical trialshaving been conducted using Pfizer’s vaccine containing the PBS buffer.

According to Pfizer’s July 8 press release, the FDA relied upon studies conducted prior to the formula change to justify the approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine for adolescents ages 12 to 15.

The type of buffer used in a COVID-19 vaccine can affect the potency of the vaccine, how it is stored and the propensity to develop potential adverse events, TrialSite News reported.

​​According to Cleveland Clinic, Tris is commonly used for the prevention and treatment of metabolic acidosis associated with various clinical conditions such as heart bypass surgery or cardiac arrest. It is also used in other vaccines, including Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, dengue, smallpox and Ebola vaccines.

The FDA categorizes tromethamine as a category C drug and suggests using tromethamine only if clearly needed.

It is unknown if tromethamine will harm an unborn baby, but animal reproduction studies have shown an adverse effect on the fetus, and there are “no adequate and well-controlled studies in humans.”

“The FDA-evaluated manufacturing data [to] support the change in this inactive ingredient and concluded it did not impact the safety or effectiveness of the product,” Marks, said during an October 2021, press briefing.

According to the FDA’s Letter of Authorization, reissued on Oct. 29, “analytical comparability assessments” revealed the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine formulations containing Tris and PBS buffers were “analytically comparable.”

Yet, no human or animal trials were conducted to determine the safety or efficacy of the new formula.

“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t Think of It as a Vaccine.” Twitter Forced to Admit Fault in Suspending Journalist Alex Berenson (and many Others) for Tweeting Truthful Information

From [AFD] Twitter admitted it was wrong to suspend journalist Alex Berenson after the two parties reportedly settled a lawsuit, Berenson shared Wednesday. The social media giant booted Berenson from the platform in August 2021 for contradicting official COVID-19 messaging in a tweet, despite it being factually accurate.  

“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission,” Berenson’s offending tweet read. “Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.” 

None of Berenson’s statement about the vaccine is disputed by Pfizer, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or any other official body, yet it prompted Twitter to suspend the former New York Times journalist in violation of Twitter’s own “five strikes” rule. The tweet was Berenson’s first “strike”.  

After bringing a lawsuit against the social media giant for the violation and “specific commitments” made to him by a Twitter PR executive, Berenson and Twitter engaged in mediation and settlement talks, the details of which the journalist said he is unable to disclose.  

But Berenson’s eye has been on a different prize – a ruling by U.S. District Judge William Alsup entitling Berenson to discovery. The order requires Twitter Inc. to hand over any and all communications regarding Berenson, even “nonparty complaints or inquiries about plaintiff” which include “all texts, emails, voicemails, statements, and other documents pertaining to plaintiff.”  

This means that if any party, whether in the U.S. government, a pharmaceutical company or otherwise contacted Twitter and complained about Berenson, Twitter is obligated to show that. Furthermore, Berenson is allowed to publicize whatever he finds.  

“As we debate the power and political influence of social media companies, this discovery offers a unique opportunity to see how Twitter and the federal government and others may have colluded against my voice,” wrote the journalist in his Substack newsletter. “No one else has this chance. No one. And I am not going to give it up.”  

Berenson added that while he will make some sacrifices, he refuses to concede his rights to discovery.  

“Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. There are other things I will (and have) given up, you have to give to get, but this is the reddest of lines.” 

Berenson re-affirmed his pursuit of discovery Wednesday in his newsletter, which he linked to in a tweet. 

“The settlement does not end my investigation into the pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter to suspend my account,” he said. “I will have more to say on that issue in the near future. I made a promise to readers last month, and I take my promises to readers seriously. 

Billionaire Elon Musk, who is currently in the process of acquiring Twitter, replied to Berenson’s tweet, apparently having read Berenson’s article: 

“Can you say more about this: ‘… pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter …’ 

Media Destroyed Informed Consent: The Only FDA Approved "Vaccine" is Comirnaty. It’s not Available in US. All Other Shots are Emergency Use, which are Legally Distinct, Not Interchangeable w/Comirnaty

The following is from an amicus brief filed by Defending The Republic (DTR) in the case of NFIB v. OSHA that was before the US Supreme Court. [MORE] The footnotes and complete brief can be found here. It was filed in December 2021.

DTR is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to defending the Constitution, the rule of law, and protecting individual rights of Americans including medical freedom and religious liberty. DTR represents over thirty military service members in litigation involving the violation of their religious freedoms and their other constitutional and statutory rights to refuse mandatory vaccination with experimental COVID-19 treatments.

SUMMARY

A critical issue that has not been addressed in the Applicants' briefs, the OSHA Mandate, or the opinions by the Fifth or Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, is that OSHA and other federal agencies are mandating the administration of an experimental product that has not been approved by the FDA.4 In fact, none of the approved "vaccine" is available in the United States.

DTR urges the Court to grant Applicants' request to find that the OSHA Mandate exceeds the agency's authority. But first, it is imperative to explain why the OSHA Mandate is properly understood as an experimental vaccine mandate. Currently, the only COVID-19 "vaccine''5 that has been approved by the FDA is Pfizer-BioNTech's Comirnaty, which is not available in the United States. The only COVID-19 products that are available are not FDA approved and instead are subject to an EUA.

As explained below, the distinction between an EUA and an FDA-approved product matters. See infra Section III. In particular, the FDA's grant of EUA requires little, if any, demonstration that the EUA product is safe and effective. Nor does the EUA include FDA review or approval of manufacturing processes, facilities, storage, distribution, or quality control procedures. This is why the FDA has acknowledged the products are "legally distinct.''6

The unavailability of Comirnaty raises a second question that also has not been asked, much less addressed, by OSHA or in the judicial decisions under review. Federal laws and applicable FDA regulations expressly provide a "right to refuse" experimental or EUA products. See 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III). Yet, the OSHA Mandate unlawfully overrides or circumvents those laws.

These rights to informed consent and to refuse experimental drugs--embodied not only in federal law, like 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, but also international law and conventions like the Nuremburg Code--should foreclose such a wide-ranging mandate. DTR urges this Court to consider the enormous wrongful consequences of imposing an illegal mandate requiring nearly the entire United States adult workforce to take an experimental and irreversible medical treatment.

The immeasurable ramifications of endorsing a near-universal federal mandate justify granting a stay to give more time for deeper consideration by this Court, the political branches, public health experts, and the citizens of the United States to consider the legal arguments and scientific evidence on the safety and efficacy of the newly manufactured "vaccines," the rapidly proliferating range of therapies, and alternative federal, state, and local public health measures. Surely a stay to allow this Court to hear the arguments presented by all Parties and Amici is appropriate given the momentous consequences for tens of millions of Americans who face the loss of their rights to work, education, travel, worship and other fundamental constitutional rights unless they submit to an unproven, experimental medical treatment with an unprecendented history of adverse effects including deaths.

The Development of COVID-19 Vaccines

The pharmaceutical industry undoubtedly moved quickly to develop vaccines in response to the COVID- 19 pandemic. This was done in conjunction with the United States government's Operation Warp Speed, that awarded billions to these companies to spur the development and distribution of the vaccines.7 To clear the way for expedited development, the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("HHS") issued notice, pursuant to section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, that COVID-19 had a "significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States Citizens" and that "circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic." 85 Fed. Reg. 18,250 (April 1, 2020).

The currently available COVID-19 "vaccines" are the results of these efforts. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received its EUA on December 11,2021.s This was followed by EUAs for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson Vaccines ('WIoderna Vaccine" and "Janssen Vaccine") on December 18, 2021 and February 27, 2021, respectively) These EUAs were granted after limited testing. For example, the Pfizer- BioNTech Vaccine's EUA was issued based on an "entire enrolled study population [that] had a median follow-up of less than 2 months.''10 Typically, vaccines "require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic.''11

II. The FDA-Approved Comirnaty is Unavailable to the American Public

On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the Pfizer- BioNTech mRNA vaccine under the marketed name Comirnaty.12 Soon thereafter, on September 9, 2021, President Biden announced that he would "protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers" by having the Department of Labor issue "an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees . . . to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week."13

With these marching orders, the Secretary of Labor, through OSHA, issued the OSHA ETS, which mandated that private businesses with 100 or more employees "develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination." OSHA ETS, 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,402. Americans subject to this ETS are in compliance if they receive the recommended minimum doses of COVID-19 vaccines that are "[a]pproved or authorized for emergency use by the FDA." Id. at 61,479.

Notwithstanding the jurisdictional issues underlying the OSHA Mandate, there is a significant problem concerning how Americans are forced to comply with the mandate. Specifically, the only FDA- approved vaccine - Comirnaty - is not available to the American public. According to the CDC, "COMIRNATY products are not orderable at this time.''14 As of December 16, 2021, "there is not sufficient approved vaccine [i.e., Comirnaty] available for the population for whom it is authorized." See supra, FDA Pfizer-BioNTech Expansion Letter, note 6 at 5 n.9. In fact, it appears that Comirnaty is not available at all in the United States. Pfizer and the National Institutes of Health confirmed that Comirnaty would be unavailable for months after its approval. 15

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") finally conceded the unavailability of Comirnaty through defense counsel for DOD in Austin, where DTR represents service members challenging the DOD Mandate. While DOD initially claimed that the DOD in fact possessed Comirnaty and was administering it to service members, in oral argument, DOJ defense counsel acknowledged that not only did it not have Comirnaty and did not know when it would it get it, but also "could not say even whether vaccines labeled 'Comirnaty' exist at all." Doe v. Austin, 2021 WL 5816632, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 12, 2021) (citations omitted).16

DOD is the largest purchasing organization in the United States, and given its priority for national security matters, it would necessarily go to the front of the line for any purchasing COVID-19 vaccines. Yet DOD does not have Comirnaty and to this day the DOD cannot say when it will get Comirnaty. If the DOD cannot obtain Comirnaty, then how can average Americans who are subject to the OSHA Mandate? And perhaps more importantly, how can employees be fired for the failure of their employers to obtain a vaccine that even the DOD cannot procure?

The unavailability of Comirnaty is important. First, while OSHA purports to give employers the option of requiring vaccination or allowing testing and masks, it does not hide its real intent to force employees to choose vaccination to keep their jobs. If an employee opts out of their employer's mandatory vaccination policy, OSHA believes its ETS and the costs it imposes on that employee - which includes paying for regular testing - "creates a financial incentive for those employees to become fully vaccinated and avoid that cost." OSHA Mandate, 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,532.

As Judge Larsen observed in his dissenting opinion on the emergency motion to dissolve the stay of the OSHA Mandate, the Mandate's main purpose is to compel vaccination:

Here, employers, not employees, control any non-vaccine option in the first instance; and OSHA has been candid that it has stacked the deck in favor of vaccination ... OSHA has alerted us to no prior attempt on its part to mandate a solution that extends beyond the workplace walls-- much less a permanent and physically intrusive one, promulgated on an emergency basis, without any chance for public participation. But that it is what OSHA has done here. A vaccine may not be taken off when the workday ends; and its effects, unlike this rule, will not expire in six months.17

Second, and in consideration of OSHA's coercive policy, workers will only be able to comply with the OSHA Mandate if they receive a vaccine under an EUA.is This is especially important because EUA vaccines bypass the FDA and PHS Act's requirements for safety and efficacy.

BAIT AND SWITCH WITH THE DEPENDENT MEDIA’S HELP: CONFUSE TO DESTROY INFORMED CONSENT. Last month Pfizer Admitted it Will NEVER Manufacture the Vaccine that was FDA Approved. Pfizer quietly submitted an update to the CDC, admitting that its originally licensed “Comirnaty” vaccine will never be distributed for use. Pfizer has exclusively been supplying its version of the experimental vaccine that was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA. From the Pfizer update, via independent journalist Jordan Schachtel:

“Pfizer received initial FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename. These NDCs will not be manufactured. Only NDCs for the subsequently BLA approved tris-sucrose formulation will be produced.” [MORE]

III. Important Differences Between EUA and FDA-Approved Vaccines

There are significant differences between the FDA's approval standards and the EUA standards. EUA vaccines require little to no proof of safety or efficacy. FDA vaccine approvals do.

The FDA may grant an EUA where: (1) the HHS Secretary has declared a public health emergency that justifies the use of an EUA, see 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(b)(1); and (2) the FDA finds that "there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating" the disease in question. 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(c)(3).

The differences between licensed vaccines and those subject to an EUA render them "legally distinct." See supra, FDA Pfizer-BioNTech EUA Expansion Letter, note 6 at 2 n.8. First, the requirements for efficacy are much lower for EUA products than for licensed products. EUAs require only a showing that, based on scientific evidence "if available," "it is reasonable to believe," the product "may be effective" in treating or preventing the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(A).

By plan, those vaccines that are subject to the OSHA Mandate have relatively little data to support their authorization. The Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine was granted its EUA after approximately 2 months of follow-up testing. See supra, FDA Pfizer-BioNTech EUA Review Memo, note 10 at 17. The Moderna Vaccine received its EUA after providing its studies to the FDA "with a median of 7 weeks of follow-up after the second dose.''19 And for the Janssen Vaccine, which also received an EUA, "the median follow-up duration for participants in the efficacy and safety analysis populations was 8 weeks after vaccination.''20

Second, the safety requirements are minimal, requiring only that the FDA conclude that the "known and potential benefits ... outweigh the known and potential risks" of the product, considering the risks of the disease. 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(c)(2)(B). There is no requirement that the FDA know the potential risks of the product.

In comparison, vaccines that go through traditional FDA review typically take 10 years or more to reach approval.21 And the approval process compiles more information on the risks of the vaccine, gathered through lab testing and clinical trials, "to assess the safety and effectiveness of each vaccine.''22

A. The Right to Refuse an EUA Vaccine

The FDA's grant of an EUA is subject to informed consent requirements to "ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed" that they have "the option to accept or refuse administration of the product." 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb- 3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).

For the three COVID-19 vaccines, FDA implemented the "option to accept or refuse" condition described in Section 564(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) in each letter granting the EUA by requiring that FDA's "Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers" be made available to every potential vaccine recipient. These include the statement that the recipient "has the option to accept or refuse" the vaccine.23 Moreover, the EUA label itself must expressly state that the recipient has a "right to refuse" administration of the EUA product. Accordingly, the OSHA Mandate contradicts established federal law and will require any covered employer, including state agencies, to violate an express requirement of federal law and the express terms of the FDA labeling and packaging requirements.

B . OSHA Cannot Override Informed Consent Rights

The norm of informed consent has been "firmly embedded" in U.S. law and FDA regulations for nearly 60 years. Adullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 182 (2d Cir. 2009). Congress first enacted this requirement in 1962 drawing on the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, "which suggests the government conceived of these sources' articulation of the norm as a binding legal obligation." Adullahi, 562 F.3d at 182. Informed consent requirements are a cornerstone of FDA rules governing human medical experimentation. See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. §§ 50.20, 50.23-.25, 50.27, 312.20, 312.120 (2008); 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.111, 46.116-117.

In any case, OSHA has not even acknowledged workers' informed consent rights, much less explained how its mandate can override these rights or force private and public sector employers into violating these rights. Accordingly, the OSHA Mandate cannot stand.

A helpful analogy when considering forced vaccination is to compare the present case to the DaD's much narrower Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program. Courts enjoined that program, as it sought to impose a vaccine mandate on service members using experimental, unapproved anthrax mandates, which were expressly barred by statute. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 1107 and 1107a. Even in those cases, courts recognized the limitations of DaD power over military service members, observing "the United States cannot demand that members of the armed forces also serve as guinea pigs for experimental drugs." Doe No. 1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119, 135 (D.D.C. 2003) (granting injunctive relief against DaD for mandating an EUA anthrax vaccine).24 Certainly, aSHA has even less authority over American workers.

IV. EUA and FDA Licensed Products do not have the "Same Formulation" and are not "Interchangeable"

Notwithstanding any potential assertions to the contrary, the EUA and licensed versions of Pfizer- BioNTech do not have the "same formulation" as revealed by a simple inspection of the Pfizer Vaccine EUA letters and the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action (SBRA) for Comirnaty. Thus, they cannot be treated as "interchangeable," because there is no legal basis to administer an EUA product as if it were the FDA-licensed product. By definition, they are different.

There is no evidence in the public record for finding that the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and FDA-licensed Comirnaty have the "same formulation." There is, however, ample evidence for finding that they do not. The most detailed information on Comirnaty's composition, manufacturing process, manufacturing locations and other matters approved by the FDA is included in the FDA Comirnaty SBRA, nearly all of which is redacted,25 while most of this information was never made available in the Pfizer- BioNTech EUA applications or authorizations. To the extent such information is available, it reveals differences in the composition of the EUA and the licensed product.26 There is also no dispute that the FDA EUA does not address manufacturing processes or locations, which are addressed in the Comirnaty license. See August 23 Comirnaty SBRA at 12-13.

For the same reasons, the public record does not support any argument that the two admittedly "legally distinct" products are "interchangeable." "Interchangeable" and "interchangeability" are specifically defined terms in Section 351 of the Public

Health Service Act ("PHS Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 262, in relation to a "reference product," which is a biological product licensed under Section 351(a) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. § 262(a). For the purposes of determining "interchangeability," the "reference product" must be an FDA-licensed product; in this case, the FDA- licensed Comirnaty Vaccine. But the "interchangeable" product, the EUA BioNTech Vaccine, must be the subject of a later filed "abbreviated" application under 42 U.S.C. § 262(k), and there is no indication that any such application was ever filed by BioNTech, much less reviewed or approved by the FDA.

Any "interchangeability" determination would therefore reverse the temporal order of the COVID-19 licensed product and the interchangeable product. The reference product under 42 U.S.C. § 262(a) is the first licensed product, and therefore the basis for determining the interchangeability of the later product (i.e., the generic or EUA product). Here, however, the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine is the earlier product, while the licensed Comirnaty is the latter product; the earlier EUA product cannot rely on the FDA's safety and efficacy determinations for Comirnaty. Thus, an "interchangeability" determination would be a transparent attempt to retroactively license the earlier EUA Pfizer-BioNTech Vaccine, solely for the purpose of enabling the unlawful vaccine mandate.

Moreover, "FDA licensure does not retroactively apply to vials shipped before [FDA] approval." Austin, 2021 WL 5816632, at *6. Any EUA-labeled vaccines manufactured before licensure and "vaccines produced after August 23 in unapproved facilities--remain 'product[s] authorized for emergency use,"' i.e., EUA rather than licensed products. Id. In any case, such a post hoc interchangeability determination should not even be considered by the Court. "An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted." DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1909 (2020).

CONCLUSION

This Court should stay the OSHA Mandate because the unavailability of Comirnaty precludes compliance. Congress has not clearly granted the agency the power to require private employers to mandate that their employees take an experimental vaccine.27 Congress has not granted OSHA the authority to require State agencies to impose and police a mandate which cannot be satisfied through distribution of FDA-approved vaccines. No American can be compelled to suffer an injection of an experimental product.

Elite Dems Spent Big Money to Recall San Francisco DA who Promised to Address Racial Disparities in the Justice system, Reduce Incarceration and Hold Cops Accountable

From [HERE] San Francisco residents voted to recall district attorney Chesa Boudin, one of the nation’s most progressive top prosecutors, on June 7. Political groups spending on efforts to recall Boudin reported raking in more than $7 million in contributions while the anti-recall camp raised about $3 million.

Several of the donors giving to recall Boudin are also frequent donors to Republican candidates and conservative causes.

Boudin, once a public defender who switched sides of the courtroom to become a prosecutor, was elected San Francisco’s DA in 2019 after he ran on a platform of addressing racial disparities in the justice system, reducing incarceration, lowering penalties for lower-level offenses and holding police accountable. His victory was one of the most prominent in a growing national progressive prosecutor movement.

But a recall campaign focused on concerns about crime and public safety proved to be Boudin’s downfall. In the final result of the recall, 55% of San Franciscans voted to recall Boudin – 122,588 San Franciscans voted “yes,” with 100,177 voting “no.” 

Pundits pointed to the election results as evidence of the growing discontent within the Democratic electorate with progressive policy on criminal justice, particularly in regards to low-income minority voters. Others have pushed back, emphasizing that many of the neighborhoods in San Francisco with the largest Black and Latino populations were least supportive of Boudin’s recall.

A single PAC, Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, accounted for two-thirds of the money spent in favor of the recall campaign, according to San Francisco Ethics Commission data analyzed by OpenSecrets. In total, the PAC spent nearly $4.8 million of the roughly $7 million dropped against Boudin, the majority of which came from various wealthy donors in either the real estate industry or the finance industry.

The two largest donors to Neighbors For A Better San Francisco were Shorenstein Realty Services with $633,000 and local billionaire investor William Oberndorf with over $602,000. 

Shorenstein Realty Services is a San Francisco based property management company run by Brandon Shorenstein, son of the late San Francisco real estate mogul Doug Shorenstein and heir to the $1.3 billion Shorenstein family estate. Shorenstein is a financial supporter of the Democratic Party and has previously given to Democratic politicians including former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

“At Shorenstein, we take seriously our role as a corporate citizen, and are proud of our long history of investing behind initiatives and programs that advance the safety and betterment of San Francisco for all its residents,” said a spokesperson for Shorenstein Realty Services when reached for comment by OpenSecrets. “Our fellow San Franciscans have shown that leadership can and will be held accountable, and we look forward to continuing to work together to build a better, stronger and safer city.”

Oberndorf is the founder of Oberndorf Enterprises LLC, a San Francisco based investment firm. He is a regular donor to Republican politicians, including political contributions to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Oberndorf has given over $11 million in political contributions to Republican-aligned PACs and super PACs since 2011. 

Boudin told the New York Timesthat in 2019, Oberndorf offered to support Boudin’s campaign if he would oppose San Francisco’s status as a sanctuary city. Boudin claims he refused this offer and Oberndorf became upset. When Oberndorf was reached for comment by the New York Times he denied this allegation. 

The third-largest donor to the PAC is Jean-Pierre Conte, a managing director at San Francisco based private equity firm Genstar Capital, who gave $503,800. Although Conte has given considerably to various state-level Democratic committees, such as the Democratic Party of Nevada and the Democratic Party of New Mexico, he has also given political contributions to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee and then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. 

Other significant donors to the PAC are longtime financial contributors to Republican candidates and Republican-aligned PACs, including local real estate company Kilroy Realty Services, who donated $167,000, the chairwoman of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco Diane Wilsey, who donated $50,000, and Route One Investment LLC founder William Duhamel, who gave $160,000. Duhamel also gave $40,000 to other groups spending on the recall.

Outside of Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, the next biggest donations to the recall campaign all came from donors in the real estate, business, and tech industries:

• California Association of Realtors ($458,000)

• The National Association of Realtors ($100,000)

• Local tech investor Garry Tan ($100,000)

• The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce’s PAC SF Forward ($90,000)

• PayPal founding COO David Sacks ($75,000)

Anti-recall contributions from criminal justice reform organizations and others not enough to bridge funding gap

A large portion of the money raised for the anti-recall campaign – over $700,000 – came from criminal justice reform groups like Smart Justice, Real Justice PAC and the American Civil Liberties Union. The anti-recall effort also received about $250,000 in contributions from two service employee unions, SEIU Local 2015 and SEIU Local 1021.

The anti-recall campaign didn’t drum up the same support from big donors as the pro-recall effort. Instead, the anti-recall camp received a significant portion of its funds from small donors. 

Heart Disease in Children Explodes Since the Vaccine

From [MERCOLA] Heart conditions in children who don’t normally get heart disease are being reported since they started getting the COVID jabs, and The Irish Light is bringing light to the topic by criticizing mainstream media for its silence on the topic.

To ignore this and continue onward with the shot program is “the greatest crime ever committed by an Irish government,” the newsletter says, but “as hard as the HSE tries to cover up the horrifying impact of the COVID vaccine on Irish children, there is no containing the staggering toll of sudden deaths in young people.”

A sudden rise in hepatitis cases is suspicious, too, the newsletter says: “Why are so many healthy children dying? What has changed in their lives to cause it? We all know the answer but many still do not have the courage to say it out loud because they too may meet the same fate.”

While it’s being ignored right now, it won’t be forever, the newsletter suggests, because “soon the dam of silence will burst because the injury levels are too alarming to ignore.”

How the Media Secretly Carries Out Assignments for the CIA: "Anti-disinformation” has nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with controlling the population and hiding truths

From [MERCOLA] STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• The “anti-disinformation” industry has nothing to do with protecting a gullible public from information that might cause them to make bad or unhealthy choices. It’s about creating and directing a narrative for the purpose of controlling the population and hiding truths that might overthrow the ruling cabal and its plans for a one world government

• In 1948, the CIA’s Office of Special Projects launched Operation Mockingbird, a clandestine CIA media infiltration campaign that involved bribing hundreds of journalists to publish fake stories at the CIA’s request

• During the Cold War, CIA propaganda disparaged communist ideologies. Today, it promotes radical ideas that bring us closer to The Great Reset — which is based on a technocratic economic system — instead

• Most of the organizations claiming to promote truth and counter disinformation are in fact doing the exact opposite. The latest and most blatant example of this was the Biden administration’s “Ministry of Truth” — the Disinformation Governance Board, set up by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

• Evidence shows scholars and academics who speak out against the establishment narrative on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are being targeted by media personalities working hand-in-hand with the intelligence apparatus

The June 21, 2022, Grayzone article,1 “British Security State Collaborator Paul Mason’s War on ‘Rogue Academics’ Exposed,” shines a great big light on what the “anti-disinformation” industry is really all about.

Spoiler alert: It has nothing to do with protecting a gullible public from information that might cause them to make bad or unhealthy choices. No, it’s about creating and directing a narrative for the purpose of controlling the population and hiding truths that might overthrow the ruling cabal and its plans for a one world government.

Operation Mockingbird

Propaganda is as old as humanity itself, but the modern version of it can be traced back to 1948, when the CIA’s Office of Special Projects2 launched Operation Mockingbird,3,4 a clandestine CIA media infiltration campaign that involved bribing hundreds of journalists to publish fake stories at the CIA’s request.

The CIA reportedly spent $1 billion a year (about one-third of its entire budget5) on this enterprise. CIA-recruited journalists worked in most major news organizations, including CBS News, Time, Life, Newsweek and The New York Times, just to name a few.6 Later on, the campaign expanded to include foreign media as well.7 As reported by the Free Press:8

“In 1976, Senator Frank Church’s investigation into the CIA exposed their corruption of the media ... The tactic was straightforward. False news reports or propaganda would be provided by CIA writers to knowing and unknowing reporters who would simply repeat the falsehoods over and over again.”

During the Cold War, CIA propaganda disparaged communist ideologies. Today, it promotes radical ideas that bring us closer to The Great Reset — which is based on a technocratic economic system — instead.

Media Is More Controlled Than Ever

While Operation Mockingbird is said to have been officially dismantled, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it’s still in operation. If anything, the system has only gotten more efficient and effective, as the number of major media outlets has shrunk over these past decades, and a vast majority of journalists and news anchors simply parrot what’s reported by the three global news agencies.

What’s more, the CIA isn’t the only intelligence agency using the media for its own propaganda purposes. The intelligence agencies in other countries do it too.

For example, leaked documents9 reveal Reuters and BBC News received multimillion-dollar contracts to advance a covert propaganda program by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) aimed at weakening Russia’s influence over its neighbors.10 You can learn more about this in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign.”

One of the biggest changes we’re seeing right now is that most of the world’s intelligence agencies are controlling media in the same direction — toward The Great Reset and the technocratic control of the global population. That’s why we’re seeing the same narratives playing all over the world.

In 1977 Carl Bernstein wrote a 75-page article for Rolling Stone that exposed the CIA’s involvement with the media in even greater detail.11 Those were the days when Rolling Stone actually did decent investigative journalism. Today they are one of the largest spreaders of government disinformation.

It’s the Opposite of What They Claim It Is

It’s no small irony that most of the organizations claiming to promote truth and counter disinformation are in fact doing the exact opposite. The latest and most blatant example of this was the Biden administration’s “Ministry of Truth” — the Disinformation Governance Board,12,13 set up by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

It didn’t quite go as planned though. It was announced and then canceled just as quickly in the face of political and public backlash. The Orwellian connotations were just so blatant, few were able to dismiss them.

Perhaps they overestimated the level of brainwashing achieved over the past two years. They probably thought they could get away with what amounts to ripping up the U.S. Constitution in front of everyone’s face, but the time was not yet ripe for that kind of frontal assault.

If anything, it worked against them because many have suspected government uses media and Big Tech to censor and control narratives, and the past two years have provided undeniable evidence of that reality. So, the attempt to formalize this unlawful influence completely failed — for now.

Covert Assault on Academics

Getting back to The Grayzone story, Paul Mason, “one of Britain’s most prominent alleged left-wing journalists,” and other “covert helpers,” were found to have targeted scholars and academics who spoke out against the establishment narrative on the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

As explained by Jimmy Dore in the featured video, Mason is basically pretending to be a left-leaning journalist but is working with the intelligence community to destroy political opponents. Emails obtained by The Grayzone and reviewed by Dore shows Mason is in favor of “relentless deplatforming,” getting people kicked off PayPal, demonetized by YouTube and so on. The Grayzone writes:14

“Amidst his campaign to neutralize the UK antiwar left, Paul Mason declared in an email to several academics willing to inform on and undermine their own colleagues: ‘the far left rogue academics is who I’m after ... The important task is to quarantine their ‘soft’ influencers and expose/stigmatize the hard ideologists.’

Mason’s fishing expedition was conducted in apparent coordination with Andy Pryce, a senior British intelligence official involved in a series of malign information warfare and censorship initiatives.

The journalist’s key academic enabler, self-styled counter-disinformation researcher Emma Briant, not only helped further his campaign to target antiwar figures, but furnished bogus claims about one individual which appears to have inspired a BBC smear piece ... Many of those she snitched on considered her a colleague and even a comrade.”

The Grayzone details how Briant introduced Mason with two individuals who would be able to furnish a meme-tracing tool to determine their source. Mason specifically wanted to find out “who in Britain denies the Bucha massacre” (thinks it’s a false flag) and/or believes Russia’s justifications for the invasion of Ukraine.

Ironically, the people Mason was most eager to trap weren’t falling into it, as they weren’t publicly discussing their views. Briant then offered to provide Mason with the names of the main organizers of an academic mailing list called “Organized Persuasive Communication,” run by Piers Robinson, described by Grayzone as “a dissident academic who has been relentlessly targeted in UK mainstream media.”

“Robinson was shocked to learn that a participant on his listserv was ratting out fellow members to a security state collaborator,” The Grayzone writes.15 “‘I’m dismayed that a former colleague whom I have supported over the years appears to have abused an academic listserv,’ Robinson told The Grayzone.

‘Rather than engaging in open debate and critique, which would have been the scholarly and ethical thing to do, Briant has instead sought to support what seems to be underhand and nefarious attempts to damage reputations and silence critics.’”

In the featured Jimmy Dore Show video, Dore interviews Max Blumenthal, a Grayzone contributor, about this and related stories they’ve written about Mason and his covert relationship with the British government. Blumenthal details how The Grayzone was censored by YouTube, for the first time ever, after they started exposing Mason, and it seems clear YouTube was responding to demands by Mason himself.

This suggests he is indeed working for or with British intelligence. We’ve seen the same kind of censoring at the request of the U.S. government.

A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black

One of the people singled out by Briant as a Russian collaborator was Greg Simons, “a communications researcher at Sweden’s Uppsala University specializing in Russian mass media,” whose only crime was filling out and circulating a survey relating to conflicts and war on the behalf of a Russian academic who was working on a research paper.

Not even the Russian academic could be rightly accused of being a threat to democracy, as he’d “played a key role in Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s liberalization agenda, freeing political prisoners, ending regulations on foreign travel, and enshrining fundamental rights in the country’s new constitution,” The Grayzone writes. Commenting on Briant’s betrayal, Simons told The Grayzone:16

“This puts a big spotlight on the professional integrity and knowledge of Briant, who spreads propaganda and misinformation on people, something claims on her Twitter profile to fight. It also demonstrates a clear lack of personal integrity and deficiency in knowledge on topics that she claims to be an expert in.”

The Spook Behind It All

Behind Mason’s and Briant’s pet project to “neutralize the U.K.’s grassroots antiwar left” is Andy Pryce, founding director of the Counter Disinformation and Media Development (CDMD) program at the British Foreign Office. In 2018, Pryce was also “exposed as a key player in the scandalous MI6/military intelligence project known as the Integrity Initiative.” The Grayzone writes:

“A January 2020 European Commission event listing identifies Pryce as the head of public diplomacy at UKREP, London’s diplomatic mission to the EU. 

However, the same month Pryce appeared at the EU event, UKREP was replaced with a new office, the UK Mission to Europe, and Pryce has not been publicly mentioned in any official capacity since. So where did he go?

In his communications with Mason, Pryce mentions his personal involvement in activities placing him at the forefront of London’s public relations strategy on the Ukraine crisis, which is delivered by the recently formed Government Information Cell (GIC) and Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU). 

Staffed by spies and charged with disseminating intelligence through the media and other forums for the purpose of information warfare, both the units have operated in highly clandestine fashion. Largely unknown to the public, they have played a pivotal part in NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine.”

‘Conspiracy Theorist’ Is a Propaganda Smear

Over the past two years, the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” have become household terms for anything and everyone who doesn’t agree with whatever crazy story the media claim to be fact. Few seem to realize that in using these terms, they’ve fallen for the oldest propaganda methods there is: When you can’t argue with the facts, just attack the person delivering them.

Calling someone a ‘conspiracy theorist’ is a strategy aimed at silencing dissent in general and truth in particular, plain and simple.

Belittling people and making them look silly, stupid, ignorant, gullible or incompetent are classic attack strategies by propagandists who don’t really have a leg to stand on otherwise. It’s all about firing up people’s negative emotions, which makes them less likely to sit back and evaluate both sides.

So, calling someone a “conspiracy theorist” is a strategy aimed at silencing dissent in general and truth in particular, plain and simple. In terms of health, COVID-19 reporting has taken censorship and media manipulation to brand new heights, eclipsing just about all previous propaganda efforts. They don’t even hide the bias anymore.

Many believe that the term “conspiracy theory” was actually created by the CIA in 1967 to disqualify those who questioned the official version of John F Kennedy’s assassination and doubted that his killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, had acted alone. It makes perfect sense since Oliver Stone has shared credible evidence that the CIA was behind the JFK assassination.

When it comes to the COVID jab, for example, we know the U.S. government spent $1 billion on a media campaign to build public confidence in, and uptake of, the injections using mainstream news outlets.17

In return for that paycheck, media rabidly lashed out at anyone who questioned the unsupported claim that the shots were “safe and effective” as either a crazy conspiracy theorist, an ignorant science-denier, a dangerous misinformation agent with a personal profit motive, a domestic terrorist hell-bent on maximizing the death toll, or all four. All the while, media never actually countered the data showing the narrative was riddled with holes and contradictory at its face.

An example of how these kinds of smears have been, and continue to be, used by media, consider the June 19, 2022, Guardian article18 by Mark Townsend. He wrote:

“A network of more than two dozen conspiracy theorists, frequently backed by a coordinated Russian campaign, sent thousands of disinformation tweets to distort the reality of the Syrian conflict and deter intervention by the international community, new analysis reveals.”

As reported by The Hill (video above), Townsend identified Grayzone journalist Aaron Maté as “the most prolific spreader of disinformation” about the Syrian conflict “among the 28 conspiracy theorists identified.”

In a tweet, Maté responded to the article, stating Townsend had failed to contact him for comment, failed to provide any example of his alleged “disinformation” on the Syrian conflict, and failed to disclose the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) think tank responsible for the “analysis” is funded by the U.S. and U.K. governments and allied nations.

According to The Hill, Townsend was on vacation and not available for comment, but Katie Halper, who cohosts the “Useful Idiots” podcast with Maté came on to discuss Townsend’s attempted hack job. “Perhaps this can be a teachable moment for Townsend,” she said.

Not only did Townsend violate three basic standards of journalism, but the article’s main premise is also based on a lie, Halper says. The Guardian actually corrected the initial headline, which read “Russia-Backed Network of Syria Conspiracy Theorists Identified.” Since there’s no evidence of Russia backing any of these individuals, the headline was changed to the slightly less libelous “Network of Syria Conspiracy Theorists Identified.”

Townsend’s piece appears to be nothing more than a government-backed “Mockingbird”-style counterattack aimed at silencing Maté, who has been challenging the official narrative about the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria,19 and even delivered remarks to the United Nations Security Council on the matter.20

Considering he’s implicating both the U.S. and U.K., it seems rather obvious that Townsend’s article is an intentional propaganda piece aimed at chipping away Maté’s credibility. It can be helpful to always remember that we are, in fact, at war. It’s an information war, and the ruling powers whose aim it is to usher us into a new system of technocracy have many secrets.

They’ve rigged the game of life in a thousand different ways, and if people understood just how we’ve been robbed and enslaved, they’d become uncontrollable. Hence, the propaganda machine is in full swing, trying to control all aspects and shut down all truth tellers, lest the populace get wise to their games.

Truly, this now applies to just about every part of life. Politics, election integrity, the economy, the food system, energy, health and medicine, wars and conflicts — you name it — it’s all been rigged and it’s all falling apart.

The old guard is shooting for a controlled demolition of the old so they can transition to the new — which will be even more enslaving — but in order for that sleight of hand to work, pesky truth tellers must be silenced and the populace kept intellectually sedated. Don’t fall into that trap. One way to avoid it, is to interpret smears for what they are — attempts to silence. And ask yourself what the propagandists don’t want you to know.

PPI's New Correctional Contracts Library shows you what companies are profiting off of incarcerated people in your area

From [PPI] Today, we launched the new Correctional Contracts Library, which contains documents that show how companies profit on the backs of incarcerated people and their families. Through our twenty years of work to expose and stop the abusive practices of private companies, we’ve amassed a collection of hundreds of documents, including contracts, bids, evaluations, and more. These documents provide a paper trail showing how for-profit companies work with jails and prisons to squeeze money out of people who can least afford it. Our collection is now publicly available through this new tool.

The Library includes documents related to phone service, tablets, electronic messaging, commissary, and more. We’ve organized them so you can search for records from a specific facility or filter documents by state, vendor, service, or type. And we’ve provided some notes and remarks about the documents to help users understand what they contain and where they came from.

Using this new resource:

• Organizers can monitor when their local jail is scheduled to renegotiate its contracts for services and pressure it to secure the best deal for people that are behind bars;

• Journalists can assess whether prisons and jails in their area are helping companies exploit incarcerated people and their families;

• Researchers can track how the cottage industry of companies that profit off of incarceration is developing new ways to sap profits from people in prison and jail; and

• Policymakers can examine contract terms and identify problematic practices that need to stop.

This new tool does not have every prison or jail contract document that exists. We’re sharing our records, but we know our collection isn’t exhaustive. If you don’t see the documents you’re looking for, we’ve put together a guide to help you submit your own public records request to get them.

If you have documents that you think should be in this library, you can send them to us or, if you have a lot of files, use this form to send us a message telling us what you have.

This new database is the latest addition to our Advocacy Toolkit. Through the Toolkit, we’re giving advocates and organizations access to the data, lessons, and resources we’ve honed in our twenty years of working to end mass incarceration in America.

Profit Over People: The commercial bail industry perpetuates unjust cash bail systems and relies on egregious practices to protect its bottom line

Introduction and summary

From [HERE] On any given day in 2022, 658,000 people are incarcerated in jails across the country, more than 80 percent of whom are awaiting trial to determine if they will be convicted of a crime.1 Although courts have determined that most people can safely await their trial while remaining in their communities, the inability to afford the cost of cash bail prevents thousands of people from accessing pretrial release.

The pretrial process that is supposed to protect community safety and ensure access to justice has been corrupted by the corporate influence of the commercial bail industry. A small group of large insurance corporations oversees a web of private companies that make an estimated profit of $2.4 billion each year.2 For-profit bail companies get rich by foisting nonrefundable costs onto the very people who can least afford the cost of bail, most often people experiencing poverty and people of color. These costs are owed even if the charges are dropped or the person is found not guilty at trial.

The commercial bail industry actively defends cash bail systems that produce racially3 and economically unjust outcomes,4 high rates of pretrial incarceration,5 significant costs to taxpayers,6 and negative public safety consequences7 The commercial bail industry traps people who cannot afford cash bail premiums in a predatory cycle of debt and incarceration, in the same way that payday loan companies and other predatory lenders make a profit by taking advantage of people who need help affording the necessities of daily life.8 Moreover, commercial bail companies operate with little oversight or accountability, frequently engaging in abusive and unethical practices that jeopardize public trust and undermine the legal system’s ability to administer justice.

This report is presented in five sections. The first section provides context for the two-tiered systems—one for the rich, one for the poor—in which the commercial bail industry operates. The second section outlines the stakeholders in the commercial bail industry and describes their roles in the commercial bail process. The third section explores harmful practices many industry stakeholders engage in, to the detriment of their individual clients and the broader community. The fourth section highlights how legislation has expanded the use of commercial bail bonds while current regulatory frameworks fail to provide necessary accountability and oversight. Finally, the fifth section makes recommendations for various state-level reforms. It is crucial that policymakers implement solutions to rein in the commercial bail industry and protect clients from industry abuses.

Two-tiered cash bail systems reinforced by the commercial bail industry

The practice of assigning cash bail as a condition of an individual’s pretrial release has led to two-tiered systems of justice. People with money can return to their communities while they await trial, while those without money are forced to choose between remaining incarcerated—and facing the harms that accompany pretrial detention—and entering into a predatory contract with a commercial bail company to obtain release.

For people without the resources to pay a full bail amount, the only way to avoid pretrial incarceration in the vast majority of states without a state-run cash bail system is to hire a commercial bail bond company to pay on their behalf. These companies promote themselves as providing a public service, but in reality, they capitalize on unjust cash bail systems to extract their profit from underresourced individuals and families.

In exchange for a fee, called a premium, commercial bail agents enter into an agreement with the court that they will pay an individual’s full bail amount if the individual fails to appear in court.9 This transaction places the responsibility of ensuring individuals return to court on the commercial bail agent. The premium amount is typically from 10 percent to 15 percent of the total bail assignment.10 Unlike cash bail deposits made by those who can afford to pay them upfront, premiums collected by agents are nonrefundable. Premiums are not returned to the individual even in cases of false or illegal arrest, when charges are dropped, or when an individual is found not guilty.11 From 2011 to 2015 in Maryland, $75 million in nonrefundable premiums was paid by people whose cases did not result in a conviction.12

Today, the setting of cash bail is an arbitrary practice. Those who enforce a jurisdiction’s bail policies (bail setters) often rely on bail schedules—arbitrary lists of cash bail amount recommendations for different charges13—rather than conducting a meaningful assessment to determine the conditions that would best support a released individual, ensure their appearance in court, and protect public safety.14 Bail setters regularly assign unaffordable bail amounts without considering an individual’s ability to pay,15 even though most Americans lack the resources to cover many emergency expenses. This is due in large part to the reliance on commercial bail companies to cover the costs that individuals cannot afford to pay.

In 2017, 57 percent of Americans could not afford a $500 emergency expense without incurring debt.16 Because of the systemic inequities in criminalization and enforcement practices that target people from underinvested communities, people involved with the criminal legal system tend to have fewer financial resources than the U.S. population as a whole. In fact, in 2019, 80 percent of people involved with the criminal legal system were assessed as being legally “indigent,”17 meaning they were “unable to afford the necessities of life.”18 Still, the median bail amount for felonies in 2009 was $10,000,19 meaning a person arrested on a felony charge would have to pay $1,000 to secure their release. The commercial bail industry capitalizes on these economic vulnerabilities by offering to pay the cost of an individual’s release and extracting payment regardless of the outcome of the case.

Racially disparate bail assignment practices also make people of color more likely to need a commercial bail bond to afford release.23 From 2011 to 2015, Black people in Maryland paid nearly 2 1/2 times more in premium payments than all other races combined.24 In practice, cash bail systems extract wealth from the same Black communities that have faced generations of intentional disinvestment.

Furthermore, recent reforms have demonstrated that cash bail is unnecessary—and often unhelpful—to protect community safety and ensure appearance in court. For example, many jurisdictions have implemented bail reform without any significant increase in recidivism rates.25 After New Jersey implemented bail reform in 2017, the state saw decreases in the rate of all categories of crime. Violent crime rates decreased 18 percent immediately following reform.26 In 2018, Philadelphia ended the practice of prosecutors requesting cash bail for many misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies without seeing any increase in recidivism.27 In Harris County, Texas, where misdemeanor bail reform was initiated under a consent decree in 2019, rearrest rates have remained stable.28 Despite widespread disinformation surrounding bail reform in New York City, a recent report by the city’s comptroller revealed that pretrial rearrest rates were nearly identical before and after bail reform was implemented.29

Current bail setting and commercial bail practices ignore the fact that most people who are arrested are safe to be in the community. The vast majority of people arrested in the United States are arrested on nonviolent charges. In 2016, less than 5 percent of arrests were for charges of violent crime.30 In 2020, the rates of property crime were approximately 2,100 per 100,000 people, while violent crime rates were 379 per 100,000 people.31 Cash bail systems’ reliance on arbitrary bail schedules incarcerates people based on their access to money, draining taxpayer resources even when there is little risk to public safety. Systems that rely on cash bail produce high rates of unnecessary pretrial incarceration,32 which is known to increase recidivism.33 One study found that assigning cash bail was associated with a 6 percent to 9 percent increase in the rate of recidivism.34 [MORE]