Law Professor Francis Boyle, Author of the U.S. Biological Weapons Terrorism Act of 1989, Links U.S. Bioweapons Facilities to SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) & Seeks Prosecutions in the U.S.
“The next generation of biological weapons made possible through genetic engineering will be asymmetric weapons par excellence.”
—Colonel Michael J. Anscough, M.D., M.P.H., April 2002
Must-see interview with Professor Boyle in which he describes U.S. bioweapons research and his plan to prosecute those responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic and Covid-19 vaccines:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/sjn4oHjmPHlC
Harvard educated lawyer, bioweapons expert, and author of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act passed by Congress in 1989, Professor Francis Boyle is perfectly situated to comment on bioweapons labs. He has taught both criminal law and international human rights law and argues the U.S. Pentagon is behind the bioweapons labs in Ukraine (among many countries) and that the bioweapons in those labs, surrounding Russia, are ethnic-specific.
Ethnic-specific bioweapons? What? Are you kidding? As it turns out, even college kids have been in-the-know about ethnic-specific bioweapons for quite a while. In 2013, in the Dartmouth University Journal of Science, for undergraduates, students were writing about scientists being able to transform the four letters of DNA—A (adenine), C (cytosine), G (guanine), and T (thymine)—into the ones and zeroes of binary code making genetic engineering the simple task of electronic manipulation. Exponential increases in the understanding of genetics and computational power has provided genetic engineers a seat at the bioweapons table. As Dartmouth student Mackenzie Foley argued in the University Journal of Science in 2013: “Genetic engineering can be used to manipulate genes to create new pathogenic characteristics aimed at enhancing the efficacy of the weapon through increased survivability, infectivity, virulence, and drug resistance.”
Biotechnology has come a long way from making bread or brewing beer. U.S. “biodefense” labs, located globally, produce ethnic-specific bioweapons that target specific DNA and kill particular races of people leaving other populations unharmed. Professor Boyle is not the only bioweapons expert to make the claim, see: here, here, here, here and here. In Mathew’s Ehret essay “The Project for a New American Century and the Age of Bioweapons: 20 Years of Psychological Terror,” he cites medical specialists like Dr. Shankara Chetti of South Africa and Dr. Soňa Peková of the Czech Republic who have argued Covid-19 is lab-generated and ethnic specific.
Professor Boyle explains the U.S. is the only country in the world that has not rid itself of all its biological weapons under the terms of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. The U.S. in fact continues to make more biological weapons in the name of “biodefense research” all around the world. Since 1984, Dr. Anthony Fauci has been responsible for 95% of the international funding of U.S. “biodefense” labs.
Bioweapons Legal History
A biological weapon is an infectious agent, virus, toxin, or bacteria deployed to intentionally harm people, animals or nature. There is a long history of banning bioweapons, including the 1863 Lieber Code, Article 16, during the U.S. Civil War, which outlawed “the use of poison in any way,” the 1899 Hague Declaration that prohibited expanding bullets, and the 1907 Hague Convention IV, Article 23, which states: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden: To employ poison or poisoned weapons.”
In February, 1918 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) launched an impassioned appeal, describing warfare by poison as "a barbaric invention which science is bringing to perfection..." and protesting "with all the force at [its] command against such warfare, which can only be called criminal." This appeal is still valid today. The 1925 Geneva Protocol, under the auspices of the League of Nations, built upon this appeal and prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons in war.
In 1972, the Biological Weapons Convention (BTWC) added to the 1925 Geneva Protocol by creating a multilateral disarmament treaty to ban the use and manufacturing process of biological and chemical weapons. It entered into force in 1975 by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and chemical weapons. The BTWC treaty has been ratified or acceded by 183 states. Unfortunately, there is no global body that monitors its compliance. In 1991, attempts were made to create a verification system but hopes were dashed when the U.S. withdrew its cooperation.
The 2002 International Red Cross Convenes a Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity Conference
“Paradoxically, the same biotechnology for developing a new drug or a new vaccine may be used to develop more virulent bioweapons.” — Colonel Michael J. Anscough, M.D., M.P.H.
Alarmed by the potential hostile uses of biotechnology, in September, 2002 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) met in Montreux, Switzerland for a conference titled Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity. The conference report summarizes testimony from governments, UN agencies, scientists, medical associations and industry on the capacity for the misuse of biotech. The findings include:
-Bioweapons could spread existing diseases such as typhoid, anthrax and smallpox to cause death, disease and fear in a population.
-Bioweapons could alter existing disease agents rendering them more virulent, as already occurred unintentionally in research on the "mousepox" virus.
-Viruses created from synthetic materials are a threat, “as occurred in 2002 using a recipe from the Internet and gene sequences from a mail order supplier.”
-There is a possible future development of ethnically or racially specific biological agents.
-Research includes the creation of novel biological warfare agents for use in conjunction with corresponding vaccines for one's own troops or population.
-The research could increase the attractiveness of biological weapons.
-New methods have improved on the ability to covertly spread naturally occurring biological agents to alter physiological or psychological processes of target populations such as consciousness, behavior and fertility, in some cases over a period of years.
-Concerns regarding the production of biological agents that could attack agricultural or industrial infrastructure. Even unintended release of such agents could have uncontrollable and unknown effects on the natural environment.
-Biological agents developed that could affect the makeup of human genes, pursuing people through generations and adversely affecting human evolution itself.
The U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989* is Being Violated and Professor Boyle Wants Justice
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, famous for handing out cookies (while overseeing the Neo-Nazi US-backed Ukraine coup in 2014) and her diplomatic etiquette (when she declared “F*ck the E.U.!” in a leaked phone call) is at odds with Professor Boyle. Nuland argues the U.S. funded labs, that surround Russia, are actually diagnostic labs. She has also described them as vaccine development labs, and, my favorite: health labs. The Pentagon, it appears, is concerned about the health of the Russian people.
As Glenn Greenwald pointed out in March, Russia isn’t the only country complaining that the U.S. has its bioweapons labs in threatening places. The Chinese Foreign Ministry claimed: "The U.S. has 336 labs in 30 countries under its control, including 26 in Ukraine alone.” Investigative journalist Dilya Gaytandzhieva documents in a 2018 report the Pentagon’s multibillion dollar budget that sustains bioweapons labs globally. In the U.S., many Americans are not pleased with the 13 bioweapon labs within our borders.
Right out of the movie Dr. Strangelove, on October 4, 2007, the Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, held a hearing titled: Germs, Viruses, and Secrets: The Silent Profileration of Bio-laboratories in the United States. Congressman Bart Stupack (D-MI) presided over the hearing and included these words in his opening:
"What we do know is that the Federal Government has been
funding the proliferation of these labs on an unprecedented
scale. For the past 5 years, the NIH has spent more than $1
billion on the construction of new BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs.
Given the serious risk associated with these labs, we must ask if all these new labs are necessary. Has the NIH carefully assessed the need for these labs before writing checks to build them?
Our hearing today will focus on the risk associated with
the recent increase of domestic BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs. These
BSL-3 and 4 labs are the facilities where research is conducted on highly infectious viruses and bacteria that can cause injury or death.
Some of the world's most exotic and most dangerous
diseases are handled at BSL-3 and 4 labs, including anthrax,
foot-and-mouth disease and Ebola fever. The accidental or
deliberate release of some of the biological agents handled at these labs could have catastrophic consequences.
Yet, as we will hear from the Government Accountability Office, GAO, no single Government agency has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety and securing of these high-containment labs. However, GAO states there is a major expansion of the number of BSL laboratories is occurring both in United States and abroad but the full extent of that expansion is unknown.
Apart from the issue of mushroom growth of these labs,
perhaps the most important question looming over all this is, are these labs safe? The most serious accidents so far have occurred outside the U.S., including the death of a Russian lab worker exposed to Ebola and the SARS infections that sickened several people and killed a lab worker in Asia. Here in the U.S. for the past 4 years, the CDC has received more than 100 incident reports from labs handling select agents. However, there are indications that the actual number of incidents may be much higher.
Federal regulations require reports only for incidents
involving so called select agents, a list of highly dangerous pathogens. But other dangerous biological pathogens are not on the select agent list, such as hantavirus, SARS and dengue fever. It appears that there is no Federal oversight of the possession, use or transfer of these dreaded diseases nor is there any requirement that the theft, loss or release of these agents will be reported to Federal officials.
Even for select agents which are regulated, there may be a
significant amount of under-reporting of laboratory mishaps. A case of point is Texas A&M University. Texas A&M recently
reported to the CDC that one of its lab researchers had been
infected in 2006 with Brucella and that blood tests of three
other workers indicated two fever exposures. They reported the incidents only after one of our witnesses, Ed Hammond, of the Sunshine Project exposed the incidents on his Web site. The CDC's subsequent investigation of the Texas A&M lab revealed a number of serious violations of the select agent rules, including lost samples, unapproved experiments, a lack of training, safety training and lab workers without FBI clearance, which is required for working with select agents.
Unfortunately, the CDC's August investigation revealed not only shortcomings at the Texas A&M University but also shortcomings on the part of CDC's own oversight. It turns out that the CDC had inspected the very same Texas A&M lab prior to the disclosure of these incidents and found only minor problems. This may indicate that the periodic lab inspections that CDC carries out may not be as thorough as one might hope."The Growth in Bio-labs at Home and Abroad
The apparent explanation for the exponential growth of Pentagon-funded bio-labs strategically located around the globe, according to Canadian journalist and historian Mathew Ehert, is the December 2001 bio-weaponized anthrax attack that killed five Americans and justified an increase in the funding of bioweapons research from $5 billion, when former Vice President Dick Cheney’s 2004 Bio-shield Act was passed, to $60 billion today.
Did the Chinese leak Covid-19 from the U.S. Bioweapon Lab in Wuhan? Evidence Suggests Otherwise
Matthew Ehret argues in his brilliant recent essay, Putting the Shanghai Lockdown into Context: China Sees this as a Bioweapon, that because the Covid-19 virus emanated from a U.S. financed bioweapons lab in Wuhan, China is treating Covid-19 as a U.S. bioweapons terror attack against the Chinese people. The Chinese believe it is a targeted ethnic-specific bioweapons attack against them because the Covid-19 virus has disproportionately harmed ethnic Han Chinese more than other ethnic Chinese populations.
Ehret argues the evidence available for the Covid-19 virus leak points to the West and not to China. He offers bioweapon war game exercises as evidence. Bioweapon war games, during which pandemics are “acted out” as exercises, always emanate from the West, such as: the June 2000 Operation Dark Winter, the May 2010 Rockefeller Foundation report Operation Lock step, and the World Economic Forum/Gates Foundation/CIA Event 201 pandemic exercises. Ehret finds no evidence China is the causal nexus of the Covid-19 global pandemic. All evidence points to the West.
It is not a surprise to Mathew Ehret that Covid-19 is an ethnic-specific bioweapon likely leaked out of a U.S. funded lab in Wuhan. Ehret reminds us that China has been a victim of global depopulation policies in the past, designed in the West since WWII, such as:“The Rockefeller Foundation, Macy Foundation, City of London and Wall Street interests that gave their backing to eugenics (the science of population control).”
Ehret argues China (along with India, South America and Africa) have been the targets of depopulation policies infamously outlined in Henry Kissinger’s 1974 NSSM-200 report: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests in which U.S. foreign policy established a paradigm of population control that effectively made countries trade their population’s fertility for financial, food, and agricultural assistance.
If the ability to engage in ethnic-specific depopulation is a strategy of the Pentagon, it is logical they would situate bioweapons labs in or near countries where population control, or the threat of it, was on their agenda.
Neo-Conservative War Hawks Bolster America’s Defenses in Biowarfare Labs
Professor Boyle finds Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland’s descriptions of the U.S.-funded health labs in Ukraine farcical. Boyle states there can be no distinction between “biodefense” and “biowarfare” because to engage in biodefense work you necessarily create biological weapons. Biodefense labs are bioweapons labs. Biodefense lab scientists create a “threat” with an artificially stronger natural pathogen, or with gain-of-function research, or via a synthetic bioweapon, so they can then invent its “antidote” (such as a vaccine). Bioweapons labs create biowarfare threats in order to create and control the antidotes.
Neocon war hawk Donald Kagan was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland’s father-in-law and one of the authors of the October 2000 policy document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (the 90 page report can be found here if you scroll down). In “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” we see Donald Kagan (and colleague’s) plans and philosophy for America’s military just before 9/11 occurred:
Defend the American homeland (No problem here.)
Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars (Multiple, simultaneous major wars? Why? Will this make the U.S. a stronger and more respected leader at home and abroad?)
Perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions (Take on the totalitarian assignment of being the world’s police?)
Transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs” (Turn our beloved military men and women into dehumanized “boots on the ground”?)
Getting one, out of the above four, defense policy recommendation right should never have allowed Kagan’s military policy document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” to move forward and become the blueprint for President George W. Bush’s U.S. national and foreign defense policy. But, it did. Halliburton was pleased.
“Rebuilding American’s Defenses” was the treasonous Iraq War playbook used by President Bush and neoconservative war hawks: William Kristol, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Donald Rumsfeld. Donald Kagan and his co-authors demonstrated incredible powers of prediction, according to Mathew Ehret, as their policy brief foretold that in the new American Century, “combat will likely take place in new dimensions: In space, cyber-space and perhaps the world of microbes… advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
Robert Kagan, Donald Kagan’s son, and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland’s husband, co-founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The apple did not fall far from the tree. Many consider PNAC to be the foundation for the Bush Administration’s course of action for the invasion of Iraq (and elsewhere). The “New American Century” began on September 11th; the 9/11 attacks were coined the new Pearl Harbor. September 11th, aka the new Pearl Harbor, was the catalyzing event that launched father-and-son Kagan’s hot-off-the-presses “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” and PNAC’s plan for “multiple, simultaneous major theater wars.”
Purely a Coincidence: The New Pearl Harbor
Pre-9/11 military exercises and war games were remarkable in their ability to anticipate the events that occurred on September 11th. General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2001 to 2005, told the 9/11 Commission that NORAD drilled the hijacking of jet being flown into a high value target five separate times before September 11th, 2001. James Corbett of The Corbett Report, found that the 9/11 Commission declassified documents prove many hijack scenarios were practiced by NORAD that eerily predicted the actual attacks on September 11th.
In August 2001, just before September 11th, a Pentagon mass casualty exercise practiced building evacuations. General Lance Lord, Commander of Air Force Space Command, later responded: "Purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building." Many who question the events surrounding 9/11 see it as a catalyst for foreign wars of aggression and a consolidation of global power for the WEF, IMF, BIS, BlackRock and Vanguard owners. The United States appears to have been captured by international bankers and manipulated into carrying out their wars of aggression.
By late 2006, after the neocon PNAC war hawks lied their way into Middle East wars of aggression (without the justification of self-defense), PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website [with a] single employee ... left to wrap things up", according to Paul Reynolds, a correspondent at the BBC News. So much for caring about the New American Century. They got what they wanted by 2006.
Fort Detrick and U.S. Global Bioweapons
Professor Francis Boyle stated in 2007 that Fort Detrick’s mandate includes “acquiring, growing, modifying, storing, packing, and dispersing classical, emerging and genetically engineered pathogens for offensive weapon programs.” The post-9/11 Fort Detrick mandates flouted both the 1975 UN Convention Against Biological Weapons the U.S. had ratified, and the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.
Post-9/11 scientists at Fort Detrick also circumvented the 1975 UN Convention Against Biological Weapons and the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 by coordinating a strategic international network of bioweapons labs, funded by Fauci, that “off-shored” their illegal dirty work.
Not long after the neocon war hawks predicted upcoming biological warfare targeting specific genotypes in their 2000 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” report, Peter Daszak warned, in an October 2015 Nature article, that a global pandemic could be ignited from a laboratory and that “the risks were greater with the sort of virus manipulation research being carried out in Wuhan.”
Purely a Coincidence: Event 201
Mathew Ehret argues that the pre-9/11 military exercises that foretold a new Pearl Harbor parallel Event 201 pandemic simulations exercises that foretold Covid-19. The Event 201 Global Pandemic Exercise occurred on October 19, 2019 in New York and were sponsored by the Michael Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and the World Economic Forum. Event 201 simulated the hypothetical scenario of a novel coronavirus pandemic killing 60 million people.
What a surprise when, not long after the Event 201 simulation, there was an apparent Covid-19 bioweapon leak out of a U.S. funded Wuhan biolab (er, Wuhan health lab). Incredible, really. Coincidental too the immediate, global, unified, coordinated response to the Covid-19 “lab leak” further consolidated global power for the WEF, IMF, BIS, BlackRock and Vanguard owners (see here, here and here). As Dr. Robert Malone wrote in a recent article, titled: “The Corruption of our Nation and Inverted Totalitarianism: The World Economic Forum Represents Global Political Capture by Capitalism”:
In the 21st century, a new threat to democracy and the people’s rule has emerged. That is the party of Davos, the alliance of transnational corporations (TNC) and their representatives as the leaders and managers of global governance. This has yielded an emerging system of inverted totalitarianism on a global scale. Transnational corporate rule is not limited by national rules and regulations, and its tentacles are everywhere. At the national level, we see its effects on the judicial, legislative and executive branches. The money and power from the transnational organizations has bought off entities like the World Health Organization. The nominal head and coordinating body of this globalized effort to control the world through capitalism is the World Economic Forum, whose primary belief is that national boundaries are less important than the global connectivity through corporatism …
What somehow must be accomplished, if we wish to retain the US Constitutional form of government and the freedoms guaranteed by the founding documents, is a return to the primacy of the individual. “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” It is people that should control the levers of government - we must return balance between the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian ideals. Capitalism in the service of a representative democracy, not the other way around.
Centralized Global Power
The World Health Organization now wants to control the health policy of the world, circumventing the sovereignty of nations, and implementing universal health care, organized by WHO, as part of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum Great Reset agenda. If this WHO health treaty is ratified, the WHO will have the power to insist on global mandatory vaccinations for every man, woman and child on the planet, with any ingredient, under any circumstance, and as often as prescribed. And worse: health passports. Health passports are a ruse for the implementation of a centralized bank digital currency (CBDC) by which all money will be digitized, centrally controlled, and overseen by the WEF, IMF, BIS, BlackRock and Vanguard owners.
As Dr. Peter Breggin explained in Children’s Health Defense:
During Covie-19, WHO has proven its usefulness to the predators [aka, the global Owners mentioned above] in orchestrating science, medicine, and public health in the suppression of human freedom and the generation of wealth and power for the globalists … The pandemic was a perfect cover. In the name of keeping everyone “safe” from infection, the globalists have justified unprecedented attacks on democracy, civil liberties and personal freedoms, including the right to choose your own medical treatment … Now, the WHO is gearing up to make its pandemic leadership permanent, and to extend it into the health care systems of every nation.
Dr. Joesph Mercola reports that the European Council in May, 2021 announced its support of the WHO Pandemic Treaty that would override sovereign nations’ constitutions with its own under the banner of “pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” The European Council has posted the WHO International Treaty on Pandemics on its website. Mercola points out that the WHO recently changed its definition of “pandemic” to “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.” A worldwide epidemic of disease could mean a lot of things. That’s a lot of centralized power in the hands of the unelected, undemocratic WHO leaders.
If you see a pattern in this article, you may like this video: “If Pfizer Doesn’t Kill You, the Bankers Will.”
It’s Time to Fight Back
According to Professor Boyle’s 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, the Covid-19 virus and Covid-19 vaccines are illegally manufactured bioweapons. In an interview with Dr. Joesph Mercola, Professor Boyle explains there is a way to criminally prosecute the manufacturers of these Covid-19 bioweapons.
Boyle points out that because U.S. federal judges have not enforced the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act in the past, they are unlikely to enforce it now. Fortunately, Americans can circumvent federal judges. Boyle recommends plaintiffs seek locally elected prosecutors such as states’ attorneys, district attorneys, county attorneys and local prosecutors, who are not part of the federal system and are empowered by the 10th Amendment to convene grand juries. Covid-19 lawsuits must be filed in state courts, Boyle argues, because the cases may go nowhere in federal courts. If there is a possibility the case could succeed at both the state and federal level, it should be filed in both places. Boyle argues elected state prosecutors are the go-to people to get indictments for the harms caused by illegal Covid-19 bioweapons.
Is it Time to Take Down the Illegal U.S. Bioweapons Industry?
Taking down the U.S. biodefense industry is a large task. Where do you begin? Professor Boyle argues one starts with the 15 co-authors of the 2015 paper, “SARS-Like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronavirus Pose Threat for Human Emergence,” and those who funded it. You will recognize many of their names: Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Peter Daszak, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and Dr. Ralph Baric.
Boyle believes there are legal grounds to criminally charge the people engaged in behavior antithetical to the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 and responsible for creating the Covid-19 virus and Covid-19 vaccines. He argues those responsible for these bioweapons are open to charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder with malice of forethought. Anglo-American Common Law has a definition for “murder,” according to Boyle, that is applicable in all states except Louisiana. The definition of murder in 49 states is “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.”
Boyle argues that because the 15 co-authors of the 2015 paper, “SARS-Like Cluster of Circulating Bat Coronavirus Pose Threat for Human Emergence,” were involved in unlawful research, development, testing and stockpiling biological weapons, they violated the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 and can be prosecuted. The Covid-19 virus is an outcome of their illegal activity. The people involved in the illegal creation of the Covid-19 virus, a biological weapon, are responsible for the harms and deaths caused by Covid-19 in the U.S. and around the globe.
“Malice of forethought” covers a lot of behavior, according to Professor Boyle. One element of malice of forethought is the reckless endangerment of human beings. Since there is ample documented evidence the people involved in the creation of the Covid-19 virus via gain-of-function research knew their behavior was illegal and existentially dangerous, but did it anyway, they engaged in reckless endangerment of human beings with “malice of forethought,” like drunk drivers who harm or kill innocent people.
“Conspiracy to commit murder” consists of the term “conspiracy” which means that two (or more) people get together and agree to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by illegal means, according to Boyle. Knowingly violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 is conspiracy to commit murder.
Seek Justice if You Have Been Harmed by the Covid-19 Bioweapons
Professor Boyle urges those who have lost a loved one or a friend to Covid-19 bioweapons to seek indictments for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Boyle will offer to act as an expert witness or consultant in your trial. He encourages those arguing on behalf of plaintiffs to draw on these references:
Australian journalist Sharri Markson’s book, What Really Happened in Wuhan?
Robert Kennedy Jr.’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci
A September 2020 House Minority Intelligence Committee report, “The Origins of the COVID-19 Global Pandemic, Including the Roles of the Chinese Communist Party and the World Health Organization”
If you want to seek Covid-19 bioweapon justice, Professor Boyle recommends identifying your local district attorney by doing an online search and/or finding out who was on your most recent ballot. Boyle adds you will likely have an easier time prosecuting Covid-19 bioweapons crimes if you “live in a jurisdiction in which the state attorney general has already filed lawsuits in the federal court system” ( see the list below). Boyle argues that if you live in one of these areas you are likely to be successful because these lawyers have already filed suit in federal court. You just need to convince them to convene a grand jury locally for your case.
Here are the names and addresses of the 27 state attorneys general currently suing the Biden administration over COVID-19 as of November 12, 2021:
Steve Marshall
Attorney General's Office
State of Alabama
501 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104
Treg R. Taylor
Alaska Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501-1994
Mark Brnovich
2005 N Central Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2926
Leslie Rutledge
Office of Attorney General
323 Center Street, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201
Ashley Moody
Office of the Attorney General
State of Florida
PL-01 The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Christopher M. Carr
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
Lawrence G. Wasden
700 W. Jefferson Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0010
Todd Rokita
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South
302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tom Miller
Office of the Attorney General of Iowa
Hoover State Office Building
1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines IA 50319
Derek Schmidt
120 SW 10th Ave., 2nd Floor
Topeka, KS 66612
Daniel Cameron
Office of the Attorney General
700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-3449
Jeff Landry
Louisiana Department of Justice — Attorney General
300 Capital Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Lynn Fitch
P.O. Box 220
Jackson, MS 39205
Eric Schmitt
Missouri Attorney General's Office
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High St.
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Austin Knudsen
Attorney General
215 N Sanders St, Helena, MT 59601
Doug Peterson
Nebraska Attorney General's Office
2115 State Capitol
PO Box 98920
Lincoln, NE 68509
John M. Formella
New Hampshire Department of Justice
33 Capitol St
Concord, NH 03301
Wayne Stenehjem
Office of Attorney General
600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 125
Bismarck, ND 58505-0040
Dale Yost
30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
John O’Connor
313 NE 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Alan Wilson
The Honorable Alan Wilson
P.O. Box 11549
Columbia, S.C. 29211
Jason R. Ravnsborg
Office of the Attorney General
1302 E Hwy 14
Suite 1
Pierre SD 57501-8501
Herbert Slatery III
Office of the Attorney General and Reporter
P.O. Box 20207
Nashville, TN 37202-0207
Ken Paxton
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548
Sean D. Reyes
Office of the Attorney General
Utah State Capitol Complex
350 North State Street Suite 230
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2320
Patrick Morrisey
State Capitol Complex, Bldg. 1, Room E-26
Charleston, WV 25305
Bridget Hill
109 State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002
*PUBLIC LAW 101-298—MAY 22, 1990 104 STAT. 201 Public Law
101-298 101st Congress An Act To implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction, by prohibiting certain conduct relating to biological weapons, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989".
SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT. (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to— (1) implement the Biological Weapons Convention, an international agreement unanimously ratified by the United States Senate in 1974 and signed by more than 100 other nations, including the Soviet Union; and (2) protect the United States against the threat of biological terrorism. OJ) INTENT OF ACT.—Nothing in this Act is intended to restrain or restrict peaceful scientific research or development.
SEC. 3. TITLE 18 AMENDMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 9 the following: "CHAPTER 10—BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS "Sec. "175. Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons. "176. Seizure, forfeiture, and destruction. "177. Injunctions. "178. Definitions. "§ 175. Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons "(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States. "
(b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term 'for use as a weapon' does not include the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes.
May 22, 1990 [S. 993] Biological Weapons AntiTerrorism Act of 1989. International agreements. 18 us e 175 note. 18 us e 175 note. 104 STAT. 202 PUBLIC LAW 101-298—MAY 22, 1990 "§ 176. Seizure, forfeiture, and destruction "(a) IN GENERAL.—
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Attorney General may request the issuance, in the same manner as provided for a search warrant, of a warrant authorizing the seizure of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system that— "(A) exists by reason of conduct prohibited under section 175 of this title; or "(B) is of a type or in a quantity that under the circumstances has no apparent justification for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes.
"(2) In exigent circumstances, seizure and destruction of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) may be made upon probable cause without the necessity for a warrant.
"(b) PROCEDURE.—Property seized pursuant to subsection (a) shall be forfeited to the United States after notice to potential claimants and an opportunity for a hearing. At such hearing, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. Except as inconsistent herewith, the same procedures and provisions of law relating to a forfeiture under the customs laws shall extend to a seizure or forfeiture under this section. The Attorney General may provide for the destruction or other appropriate disposition of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system seized and forfeited pursuant to this section.
"(c) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.—It is an affirmative defense against a forfeiture under subsection (aXlXB) of this section that— "(1) such biological agent, toxin, or delivery system is for a prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purpose; and "(2) such biological agent, toxin, or delivery system, is of a type and quantity reasonable for that purpose. "§ 177. Injunctions
"(a) IN GENERAL.—The United States may obtain in a civil action an injunction against— "(1) the conduct prohibited under section 175 of this title; "(2) the preparation, solicitation, attempt, or conspiracy to engage in conduct prohibited under section 175 of this title; or "(3) the development, production, stockpiling, transferring, acquisition, retention, or possession, or the attempted development, production, stockpiling, transferring, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that under the circumstances has no apparent justification for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes.
"(b) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.—It is an affirmative defense against an injunction under subsection (aX3) of this section that— "(1) the conduct sought to be enjoined is for a prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purpose; and "(2) such biological agent, toxin, or delivery system is of a type and quantity reasonable for that purpose. "§ 178. Definitions "As used in this chapter— "(1) the term 'biological agent' means any micro-organism, virus, or infectious substance, capable of causing—
PUBLIC LAW 101-298—MAY 22, 1990 104 STAT. 203 "(A) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; "(B) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or material of any kind; or "(C) deleterious alteration of the environment; "(2) the term 'toxin' means, whatever its origin or method of production— "(A) any poisonous substance produced by a living organism; or "(B) any poisonous isomer, homolog, or derivative of such a substance; "(3) the term 'delivery system' means— "(A) any apparatus, equipment, device, or means of delivery specifically designed to deliver or disseminate a biological agent, toxin, or vector; or "(B) any vector; and "(4) the term 'vector' means a living organism capable of carrying a biological agent or toxin to a host.".
(b) WIRE INTERCEPTION.—Section 2516(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding "section 175 (relating to biological weapons)," after "section 33 (relating to destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities),".
(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 9 the following new item: "10. Biological Weapons 175.".
Approved May 22, 1990.
So glad I've stumbled upon this newsletter. This article is probably one of the most important, well researched and thorough papers I've read on the development of bioweapons and the law prohibiting such actions. Thank you!