Is there a depopulation agenda with the Malone et al. mRNA vaccine? Yes! Are they involved? Yes…is it continuing? Yes. Did they know it would have harmed? Yes. Can they be stopped? Yes, by us in courts and ballot box. We can do this if we target the upcoming midterms and force the congress and Senate to vote against this PREP ACT. James Roguski leads that charge. The PREP Act gives HHS Secretary all types of powers to enable a declaration of emergency and keep it there. This is where I am calling on RFK Jr. to stand against this and call for the rescinding of the PREP Act. Before he joined Trump, he questioned the PREP Act and said all the right things as to the deadly OWS and mRNA vaccine. I call on him to return to the giant principled Bobby Jr., the real population advocate.
Start Sasha LATYPOVA here (please support her tremendous work as is Watt) and note, it is people like James Roguski and his (their) advocacy in seeking to reverse and rescind the PREP Act that must be admired, and I join their cause (James is a hero of mine):
Petition challenging constitutionality of the PREP Act filed with SCOTUS
“PREP Act (aka license to kill) and Countermeasures (aka, weapons disguised as medicines) have been thankfully gathering increased attention from the legitimate health freedom community. However, the kill box constructed with illegal laws that
Katherine Watt has written about for several years, has been studiously ignored or downplayed by the false “freedom leaders”. The controlled or simply disingenuous narrative is easy to spot – they say covid vaccines are bad and will discuss vaccine harms, but will not admit this is an intentional government led deployment of military countermeasures (weapons) under the PREP Act (license to kill). The controlled narrative insists that the pandemic was real and the response was a mismanaged public health issue due to incompetence, corporatism and corruption.
Recently, Robert Malone, in his usual fashion, realized that he can no longer deny that the PREP Act is a fundamental problem, and published a misleading article, full of contradictions and plainly wrong statements – such as claiming that if the PREP Act covid declaration is terminated, covid shots won’t be covered by NVICP! They were never covered by NVICP in the first place. They belong to a different unfunded black hole – Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). It appears Malone’s article was written largely by AI and nobody checked its hallucinations. Malone also pretends that my colleagues and I do not understand the difference between the PREP Act itself (requires Congressional repeal) and the emergency declarations made by the HHS Scy under PREP Act. Rest assured, we do. It’s Malone who is misrepresenting the facts here. This post by Katherine Watt explains the true facts with respect to this law and what HHS Scy can and cannot do.”
Petition challenging constitutionality of the PREP Act filed with SCOTUS
Bottom line, friends don’t let friends read nonsense from the likes of Malone.
End of PSA.
Hogan Petition to SCOTUS
My focus today is the petition to the Supreme Court filed by plaintiffs in the case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Maine ruling that injecting a child with an EUA Countermeasure (covid shot) against parental consent did not break the law, siding with the pre-emption of the state law by PREP Act. This ruling directly contradicted that of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in a very similar case. I have written about both cases:
Maine’s Supreme Court affirms the PREP Act liability shield for vaccinations of children against parental consent.
·
Mar 10
Good News: Supreme Court of North Carolina dents the PREP Act liability shield.
·
Mar 24
For background about PREP Act and why I consider it unconstitutional see this article:
PREP Act Brief: “License to Kill” must be repealed.
·
Apr 21
Legal briefing about federally-declared Countermeasures under PREP Act emergency declaration:
Memo Re EUA Countermeasures to send to your doctor, pharmacist, employer, school, sheriff, county commissioner and state lawmakers
·
January 26, 2024
Hogan SCOTUS petition challenges a ruling by the Maine Supreme Court, which held that 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d (the PREP Act) preempts state common-law claims, including battery and constitutional injuries, when a federally declared “countermeasure” (such as a vaccine) is administered to minors without parental consent. The Petitioners argue that the PREP Act’s immunity provisions, as interpreted by the Maine court, are unconstitutional.
Broad Preemption and Immunity under the PREP Act (as interpreted by Maine):
The Maine Supreme Court’s core finding was that “42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d preempts state actions asserting battery and constitutional injuries resulting from injections of minors without parental consent when a federally declared ‘countermeasure’ is the injection at issue.” The court held that even a provider’s “failure to obtain parental consent in this individual instance does not make the administered vaccine… any less of a ‘covered countermeasure’ under § 247d-6d(i)(1)(C).”
Summary of the Petitioners’ argument:
-
Exceeding Enumerated Powers: Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate health matters (like vaccine administration) or the practice of medicine within states, as these fall under the Tenth Amendment’s reserved police powers.
-
Lack of Interstate Commerce Connection: The PREP Act, particularly concerning intrastate vaccine administration, has no substantial effect on interstate commerce, which is the primary basis for federal legislative power in this area. The Petitioners argue that “the act of giving an unwanted vaccine to a student in an elementary school in Maine simply has no substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Drawing parallels to United States v. Lopez (1995) and Jones v. United States (2000), they assert that intrastate activities like a student vaccination at a local school do not fall under the Commerce Clause.
-
Deprivation of Due Process and Right to Jury Trial: The PREP Act, by granting broad immunity, effectively denies injured parties access to state courts and the right to a jury trial for common-law torts, violating the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments. Petitioners argue that Maine law recognizes a common-law battery claim with a right to a jury trial (Maine Constitution, Art. I, § 20). The PREP Act, as applied, “unconstitutionally deprives parties injured by the… unwanted vaccine” of their right to sue in state court and to a jury trial. Under the PREP Act, claims are limited to “death or serious injury” based on “willful misconduct” and must be filed in Washington, D.C. (§ 247d-6d(e)(1)), or an administrative claim through the “Covered Countermeasure Process Fund” (§ 247d-6e), which is dependent on Congressional appropriations. This scheme, they argue, leaves “injured parties without a real remedy or access to the courts in their own state, and without the right to a jury trial there, is violative of both substantive and procedural due process.”
-
Violation of Parental Control and Bodily Integrity: Administering a vaccine to a minor without parental consent, and then granting immunity for such an act, abridges the fundamental constitutional rights to bodily integrity (of the child) and parental control (of the parents) under the Fourteenth Amendment. Parental rights are described as a “fundamental liberty interest” under the Fourteenth Amendment (Santosky v. Kramer, 1982), and are “inextricably linked with the parents’ interest in and obligation for the welfare and health of the child” (Parham v. J.R., 1979).
-
Unconstitutional “Commandeering” of State Courts: The PREP Act compels state courts to dismiss otherwise valid state-law claims, thereby “commandeering” state judicial processes in violation of the Tenth Amendment and established Supreme Court precedent. The Petitioners argue that the PREP Act, by compelling state courts to dismiss valid state-law claims, “commandeers” the state judicial apparatus, which is unconstitutional. They refer to the “anticommandeering doctrine” established in New York v. United States (1992) and reinforced in Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
-
Abnormal Legislative Adoption: The PREP Act was inserted into an appropriations bill at the last minute, bypassing normal legislative deliberation and debate, raising concerns about its legitimacy and scope.
-
Conflict in State Courts: There is a “confusion and conflict in state courts” regarding the application and scope of the PREP Act’s immunity provisions, warranting Supreme Court review.
Additionally, the petition points out that the PREP Act’s provisions were “inserted into an appropriations bill at the last minute… without undergoing the open deliberations and debate that are fundamental to the democratic process.” This violates House Rule XXI and Senate Rule XVI, which “prohibit ‘legislation’ from being added to an appropriation bill.” This “abnormal adoption” means “no Congressional or Committee Reports related to the PREP Act provisions in the legislative history of this act,” and thus “no Congressional review or debate was held concerning the meaning and constitutional import of the provisions therein.”
The passage of this legislation was described in detail in these posts by
:
Question Presented for Certiorari
Since the North Carolina Supreme Court recently concluded that the PREP Act did not provide immunity against constitutional torts, in direct contradiction to the ruling of the Maine Supreme Court, the Petitioners emphasize a confusion and conflict in state courts regarding the application of the PREP Act.
Is 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d, when read to grant immunity against all state-law claims in favor of parties who administer a vaccine to a child when the parents of that child have not consented thereto, constitutional?
This is a GREAT question! We await the answer.’
___
You must not wait for another catastrophic crisis (at times manufactured but we are prevented from making our own basic personal decisions or accessing needed drugs and response tools) to catch you off-guard. We must take charge and be prepared today so that we can enjoy peace of mind tomorrow.
Enter the Wellness Company as a solution and a willing participant in the health care conversation. The Wellness Company, launched in 2022, offers health care, prescriptions, and supplements, all backed by research
The Wellness Company isn’t chasing profits — it’s trying to help people recover. While the government continues pushing vaccines, The Wellness Company is focusing on real solutions.
From telemedicine, prescriptions, memberships, and supplements, TWC is leading America with alternative choices to the traditional health care model.
Please consider support of a good PATRIOT company (in this PATRIOT economy) Drs. McCullough, Risch, Thorp, myself support (they are our sponsors), The Wellness Company; see the emergency preparation kit (key component being antibiotics you were denied by doctors, pharmacists, governments during the fraud COVID), first aid kit, travel emergency kit, contagion control kit etc. Please consider the SPIKE SUPPORT (spike protein DETOX dissolving spike from mRNA vaccine, this is critical to remove spike form the mRNA vaccine/and DNA viral vector) formula with NATTOKINASE as well as the triple formula (SPIKE SUPPORT, BROMELAIN, CIRCUMIN)
If you wish to give a donation to help me, you can at:
Zelle:
Or Ko-Fi
Ko-fi.com/drpauleliasalexander
Or to my address at:
150 South 8th Street
Unit 170
Lewiston, New York
14092
Alternatively, please consider going from an UNPAID subscriber or follower to a PAID at $5 per month or $30 per year. This can provide me help. If this is not possible at this time, this is ok, please remain a subscriber for FREE and there is no difference between FREE and PAID. No restrictions.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Dr. Paul Alexander
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://palexander.substack.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
