"U.S. Criminal Code and the Biological Weapons Convention"
by
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:
http://supremelaw.org/cc/fauci/journal.ppat.1006698.pdf
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
database.
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
and organizations.
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.
--
Sincerely yours,
/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.
http://supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm
the power of an administrative
agency to make rules
does not extend to the power to make
legislation
and ...
a regulation which is beyond the
power of the agency to make
is invalid
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:
http://supremelaw.org/decs/agency/civil.rico.htm
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.:
http://supremelaw.org/uscode/18/1964/caselaw/
Federal RICO statutes:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961
(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)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b
(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;
and
(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
in America.
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 <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> |
|
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. <supremelawfirm@gmail.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, myrie@nysenate.gov,
<msb.nysenate@gmail.com>, pressoffice@cityhall.nyc.gov Bcc: mimi.nl@epochtimes.com |
||
|
||