"U.S. Criminal Code and the Biological Weapons Convention"
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General (18 U.S.C. 1964)
TO: Editors, The Epoch Times
There is a valid effort underway to pinpoint the exact dates and
exact amounts of NIAID financial assistance to the Wuhan
Institute of Virology ("WIV"), whether direct or indirect
via the EcoHealth Alliance, Inc.
It was not very difficult to locate the NIAID grant number
which was cited as a funding source in a scientific paper
authored by Wuhan Lab scientists and published on Nov. 30, 2017:
We contacted law librarians at an American university
with a very simple request: could they help us
locate other scientific papers which also credit
that same NIAID grant number?
The backlash our routine question generated was
surprising, given the published history of faculty
employed by that law school.
Nevertheless, the law librarians recognized the
value of that search, and replied timely with
a link to a credible on-line medical research
Our query promptly produced a list of 22
other scientific papers that also cite that
very same NIAID grant number.
Taken together, all 23 papers provide a
well documented source of individuals and
organizations that have been actively and
professionally involved in gain-of-function
research and development for many years.
What has been much less obvious is
the lack of serious, competent legal debate
of the applicable criminal laws in the U.S.
that were probably violated by many
if not all of those same individuals
Chiefly, the Biological Weapons Convention
was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1975.
That Treaty was formally implemented when
Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. sections 175-178
in the year 1990.
The passage of 15 years -- before the latter
were finally enacted to implement that Treaty --
is a legal question too complex to explore here
in any depth.
Suffice it to say that the U.S. Senate now sanctions
a policy of ratifying treaties under the Supremacy Clause,
but then it has barred private rights of action by appending
Reservations, Understandings and Declarations ("RUD").
The major problem with said RUDs is that the U.S. House
of Representatives never votes on them, and as such
they cannot be regarded as valid domestic U.S. laws.
Consequently, it is quite telling whenever U.S. judges
merely assume RUDs are valid laws.
Further complicating the legal status of such RUD
is the Petition Clause which is clearly violated
whenever Congress attempts to prevent private
individuals from suing in American courts
to seek remedies for Treaty violations.
Setting such RUD aside, the implementing Federal statutes
at 18 U.S.C. 175 thru 178 do have the legal force and effect
of valid U.S. laws. And, because they were enacted in 1990,
it should be obvious that all gain-of-function R&D violates
those criminal laws whenever it develops, produces, stockpiles,
transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses biological weapons.
Compare the dates of the NIH "moratorium" on gain-of-function R&D,
officially issued in October 2014, and officially lifted in December 2017.
Clearly, the Biological Weapons Convention had already been
formally implemented in the USA for 24 years, by the time that
moratorium was declared. And, later lifting that ban should be
considered an overt act that also qualifies as a racketeering
"predicate act" -- defined as such at 18 U.S.C. 1961.
Once Congress had added sections 175 thru 178 to the list of
RICO predicate acts itemized there, Congress also authorized
liberal construction of those same prohibitions. However,
that liberal construction rule was never codified anywhere
in the U.S. Code; one must locate it in the Historical and
Statutory "Notes" under section 1961.
We encourage your Editors to investigate the legal implications
of those U.S. criminal statutes for all individuals and organizations
named in the 23 scientific papers which have expressly cited
NIAID grant number R01AI110964 .
Thank you for continuing your excellent journalism across the board.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1964;
Agent of the United States as Qui Tam Relator (4X),
Federal Civil False Claims Act: 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.
All Rights Reserved
( cf. UCC 1-308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308 )
Appendix (follow-up discussion):
July 29, 2021 A.D.
FYI: I'm following my own counsel by starting to assemble
a matrix of individuals and organizations that have been
funded by grants from U.S. government agencies
to do gain-of-function research and development
AT THE SAME TIME as the Biological Weapons Convention
was in full force in the USA i.e. no later than 1990.
This should help people on the front lines
like Senator Rand Paul.
Thus, I would now urge the Senator to summon officials
of USAID -- to pursue the same line of questioning
which he already asked of Dr. Fauci.
The bureaucrats can try to claim they had "permission"
from some regulation, Executive Order and/or
some other agency "policy". Most notably,
the decision by NIH to end the "moratorium"
on GoF R&D is one such "permission" that
cannot circumvent a ratified U.S. Treaty
and Acts of Congress which expressly
implemented that Treaty.
In point of law, that decision to end the "moratorium"
now takes on the character of an "overt RICO act".
Treaties are elevated to supreme Law
of the Land by the Supremacy Clause; and,
it is very well settled that Executive Branch agencies
may not issue regulations that contradict, expand upon or
conflict with Acts of Congress like 18 USC 175-178.
the power of an administrative agency to make rules
does not extend to the power to make legislation
a regulation which is beyond the power of the agency to make
The Supremacy Clause also elevates those Acts of Congress
to supreme Law of the Land, as well.
Constitution, Laws and Treaties of the Federal government
are all supreme Law of the Land.
Under a questionable policy that U.S. Treaties
cannot be enforced without Acts of Congress
that implement those Treaties, Executive agencies
might have a defense as long as implementing
legislation has NOT been enacted.
The situation with gain-of-function R&D is different
this time, chiefly because the Biological Weapons
Convention was formally implemented in 1990
by reason of 18 U.S.C. 175 thru 178.
And, by alleging the same are also RICO "predicate acts",
the Civil RICO statute authorizes automatic triple damages,
a 10-year discovery window, plus the Liberal Construction Rule
expressly authorizes liberal construction of all applicable laws.
There are also several American courts which have
also identified reasons why the RICO statute of limitations
can be tolled (extended).
In civil cases, "preponderance of evidence"
is the standard of proof; in criminal cases,
proof must be "beyond the shadow of any doubt".
Conclusion: all of the elements of a global criminal
enterprise are already well documented and
can be prosecuted civilly using the Civil RICO statute.
July 29, 2021 A.D.
FYI: Civil RICO actions under 18 U.S.C. 1964
are summarized here, with points and authorities:
See also case law authorizing prosecution
of government agencies for engaging in
patterns of racketeering activities
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.:
Federal RICO statutes:
(1) “racketeering activity” means ...
(b) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions
of title 18, United States Code:
sections 175–178 (relating to biological weapons)
any act that is indictable under any provision
listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B)
(5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that —
(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government
by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct;
(B) is a violation of — [long list of sections follows]
July 30, 2021 A.D.
Also to clarify, I do not intend to assemble
a complete list of "individuals and organizations" --
too daunting and too time-consuming for one person.
I retired in 2018, and slavery is still prohibited
It's also requiring a lot of time merely to stay
current with the latest independent news on this
"plandemic" aka global murder racket.
I did intend to offer an example of how such an
investigation can and should be expanded to
cover all entities that have done or are doing
genetic engineering to synthesize biological weapons.
A good point to cover, along those lines, is to
edify such an investigation with all available
details of the deliberations that led up to the
NIH "moratorium" on GoF R&D, officially announced
in October 2014 -- merely 24 YEARS after Congress
implemented the Biological Weapons Convention.
For example, it would be very revealing to determine
if any of the players in those deliberations
made any mention of 18 U.S.C. 175 thru 178
or the Biological Weapons Convention e.g.
particularly in email messages exchanged
among those players.
The insights of Dr. Peter McCullough are particularly
valuable as 20/20 hindsight: he is now charging that
the plandemic was all about the "vaccine" and
not about COVID-19. Therefore, my studied hypothesis
is that GoF symposia, like those conducted at
UNC/Chapel Hill, have demonstrated a distinct bias
for "vaccine solutions" and a distinct bias
against other available solutions, even when
the latter have long well documented histories of
favorable clinical outcomes and official approvals
e.g. ivermectin / Dr. Pierre Kory:
The profits now being reported by the BIG FOUR
speak volumes: J&J, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna.
Follow the money!
Paul Andrew Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
FYI: we COMMENT re: enforcing Biological Weapons Convention at ""I Would Convince People" - Trump Says US Wouldn't Need COVID Vaccine Mandate If He Was President"
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <email@example.com>
Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 8:54 AM
To: Christopher.Hilton@oag.texas.gov, Halie.Daniels@oag.texas.gov, Amy.Hilton@oag.texas.gov
Cc: Intergovernmental.Affairs@ag.ny.gov, Kim.Ramos@ag.ny.gov, Joseph.Malczewski@ag.ny.gov, John.Maas@ag.ny.gov, Timothy.Hatter@ag.ny.gov, Casandra.Walker@ag.ny.gov, Monica.Abend@ag.ny.gov, Jonathan.Shabshaikhes@ag.ny.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org