"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 175178 (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:

 

http://supremelaw.org/authors/flccc/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

 

 

The profits now being reported by the BIG FOUR

speak volumes: J&J, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna.

 

Follow the money!

 

 

Gmail

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

[begin excerpt]

 

In our studied opinion, it is already rather obvious that the period between 1990 and 2014 spans 24 years, during which the NIH and NIAID should have honored that Treaty in good faith, instead of waiting until 2014 to issue an official BAN on gain-of-function research and development.

 

Bottom Line: the "reasonable justification" loophole has NOT been available as a defense against charges of developing, producing, stockpiling, transferring, acquiring, or retaining biological weapons expressly prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention. All of the latter warranted life in prison at least during the 24 years between 1990 and 2014.

 

[end excerpt]

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: 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"
To: <bwc@un.org>, <UNODA-web@un.org>
Cc: <sen.dallasheard@oregonlegislature.gov>, <sen.DennisLinthicum@oregonlegislature.gov>, Sen Thatcher <Sen.KimThatcher@oregonlegislature.gov>, <dcsoinfo@co.douglas.or.us>

 

To:

https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/implementation-support-unit

 

Re:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-10

 

cf.: Sections 175 thru 178 inclusive

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961 :

 

cf.: all of the following are also RICO "predicate acts":

 

1961(1)(B)  sections 175178 (relating to biological weapons)

1961(1)(G)  any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) :

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b (g)(5)(B)

 

cf.:  long list of additional RICO "predicate acts"

 

 

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:47 PM Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

 

https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/


https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/about/history/


https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.37_conv%20biological%20weapons.pdf

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: 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"
To: AK Dewdney

 

Thank you very much, Kee.

 

Coming from you, that is a HUGE compliment!

 

And, you're always welcome, of course.

 

Cc:  other interested colleagues

 

/s/ Paul

 

 

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 11:08 AM AK Dewdney <kee.dewdney@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Dear Paul,

 

Your legal analyses have always impressed me with the care you take over various legal issues.

 

Well done!

 

Kee

 

 

On Oct 19, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com> wrote:

 

https://www.cracknewz.com/2021/10/i-would-convince-people-trump-says-us.html

 

our long COMMENT today:

 

Very recently, we delved into the legislative history of the Acts of Congress that implemented the Biological Weapons Convention. Very briefly, the Senate ratified that BWC in 1975, but did not enact implementing legislation until 1990. See 18 USC 175-178.

In 2001, Congress added subsection (b) ADDITIONAL OFFENSE. As I read that amendment, it appears to add a loophole for gain-of-function R&D that is "reasonably justified".  What came to my mind was one or more NIH documents with the arbitrary heading REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION -- typical of petty bureaucrats desperate for an excuse.

Here's the rub, however: NIH did not issue an official BAN on GoF R&D until 2014. EVEN IF they did establish a REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION, that loophole was not available between 1990 and 2001 -- a period spanning 11 years.

Now for the hard part: 175(a) reads "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses." 175(b) reads "Whoever knowingly possesses."

Using rules of statutory construction, it should be obvious to legal professionals that Congress limited 175(b) to whomever "possesses" and omitted "develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains" from 175(b). Thus, doing any of the latter violates 175(a), which authorizes life in prison; violating 175(b) warrants only 10 years in prison.

Quite frankly, we were very surprised that Congress was persuaded to add such a loophole.

For example, a criminal defendant charged with violating 175(b) might sow serious doubt in a criminal jury by merely testifying that s/he was provided with a memo entitled REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION.  In other words, Congress effectively rendered the BWC that much more difficult to enforce, particularly in criminal cases where the standard of proof is "beyond the shadow of any doubt".  [ED.  and when criminal statutes must be strictly construed]

One last thing, in 2004 Congress added 18 USC 175-178 to the list of "predicate acts" itemized in the RICO statutes. This one amendment to 18 USC 1961 should have been noticed, chiefly because Congress also authorized Liberal Construction of the RICO statutes. And, only 2 such predicate acts in any given 10-year period qualify as a "pattern of racketeering activities". As such, the "discovery window" in Federal RICO cases is 10 years, and that statute of limitations can be "tolled" (extended) for several reasons already recognized in existing case law.

We'll leave it to readers here to make up their own minds about the enforcement history of the Biological Weapons Convention in the USA. In our studied opinion, it is already rather obvious that the period between 1990 and 2014 spans 24 years, during which the NIH and NIAID should have honored that Treaty in good faith, instead of waiting until 2014 to issue an official BAN on gain-of-function research and development.

 

Bottom Line: the "reasonable justification" loophole has NOT been available as a defense against charges of developing, producing, stockpiling, transferring, acquiring, or retaining biological weapons expressly prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention. All of the latter warranted life in prison at least during the 24 years between 1990 and 2014.

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating the law.

 

Further reading:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-10

 

http://supremelaw.org/uscode/18/175/

 

http://supremelaw.org/uscode/18/175/P.L.101-298.pdf

 

http://supremelaw.org/uscode/18/175/Presidential.Statement.1990-05-22.pdf

 

http://supremelaw.org/uscode/18/175/amendments.htm

 

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/bwc.rico.htm

 


--

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 )

--