Overturning COVID restrictions and states of emergency

“You think you got the horses for that? Well, good luck and God bless, but I tell you this…the last place you want to see me is in court.” (attorney Arthur Edens, in the film, Michael Clayton, 2007)

Memo to lawyers: What are you waiting for? File big cases now.

by Jon Rappoport

September 16, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’ve been covering the decision in the Pennsylvania COVID case and the court filing in Ohio. They give us the templates for potential victories in other states and countries.

(‘Lawsuit’ article archive here)

In Pennsylvania (ruling), a federal judge just ruled that Governor Wolf’s COVID containment measures are unconstitutional. The judge went further. NO emergency cancels the Constitution. There is a line that cannot be crossed. The right to assemble, to have freedom of movement, to earn a living—they can’t be wiped off the board by lockdowns for ANY reason.

This is, indeed, a heroic ruling. It affirms the unmistakable rays of light emanating from the basis of the American Republic.

In Ohio attorney Thomas Renz’s gigantic Ohio filing against Governor Mike DeWine, both the Constitution and issues of fact/science are asserted. Facts mean something. A declaration of emergency must undergo scrutiny, to determine whether a clear and present danger justifies the declaration.

Otherwise, a government can destroy the Constitution, the rule of law, and human rights by falsely claiming danger when there is none. We would be back in the time of Royal Edict, with the king’s army as the “rationale.”

(Attorney press release posted here; Attorney plaintiff document filed with court posted here.)

In 2020, lunatic cultural proclivities, media propaganda, political jockeying, pretensions of science, scare tactics, rigging of “facts,” and profit motives are in the mix. They produce amnesia about basic principles.

The law, when correctly applied, refreshes memory and sweeps away a blizzard of claims and counter-claims. The law comes to the point.

Using the law, one can say to governors and their public health advisors, “You’ve been going on for months now about the COVID spread and the emergency and the containment measures, but we want to reduce this to basics: do you have the Constitutional right to strip away our freedoms, and is there a factual reason to believe a state of emergency is necessary—so we’re going to court.”

Or, putting it another way: “Sir, you’re holding a gun to my head while you’re explaining at length why I can’t move. But you see, nothing has happened in court yet. Meet my lawyer. Are you going to shoot us both? Is that where you really want to go?”

In Ohio, attorney Tom Renz, on behalf of his clients, and against the governor, is asking for a jury trial. He wants citizens to hear the complex arguments about COVID SCIENCE. He wants citizens to understand the con and the game that is being played, in great detail. This is impressive. Renz believes The People deserve to know and they are capable of understanding.

From my nearly 40 years working as a reporter, experience tells me attorney Renz is correct. When the truth is laid out step by step, The People come to their senses. They cut through their own malaise. They cut through media indoctrination. As if they once took a voyage to an island called Logic, they suddenly remember that voyage.

After all, the COVID lockdowns and the economic destruction are being visited on the population at large, so let a dozen of their members (OUR members) hear the case and adjudicate it.

I’m not naïve about courts and judges and lawyers and juries. But I do know that, among the denizens of that system, there are keen minds and persons of good will. Persons who know that the Law, as it was once enshrined by the Founders, is a beacon and a breakthrough.

It is a culmination, after centuries of struggle, which places freedom at the head of the table.

Freedom—not edicts, not lockdowns.

What is COVID science? Has the virus actually been defined? Have case and death numbers been drastically inflated? Is there a pandemic? Why is a diagnostic test that has so many holes, that has never been properly validated, being deployed? How many obfuscations has the CDC planted to hide official secrets?

Let’s go to court and turn on the lights and explore the rabbit hole.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Covid update: The grand Ohio legal case for our time, against kings on their thrones

—You can hate the law until it’s not there anymore—

by Jon Rappoport

September 15, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The news is coming fast, the implications are titanic.

On Monday, I wrote about Thomas Renz, the Ohio lawyer who is taking on a case for a set of plaintiffs, against Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and the state of Ohio.

The charge: DeWine has created massive damage through lockdowns and other “containment measures” designed to stop the spread of the purported coronavirus.

Against DeWine, attorney Renz has mounted a legal case to defeat both Constitutional violations AND gross scientific fraud.

(Attorney press release posted here; Attorney plaintiff document filed with court posted here.)

(‘Lawsuit’ article archive here)

Update: A crucial part of this case is the DISCOVERY process. Attorney Renz and his colleagues would have the opportunity to sit down with key players in the COVID operation and grill them, in great detail, on matters of fact and science.

Imagine Fauci, Birx, Redfield in the room having to answer very probing questions UNDER OATH.

And the discovery proceedings would be made public, as they happen. Renz would be filing periodic reports with the court.

Another factor. The Ohio court, as part of its verdict, could grant PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. This means it could order the governor of Ohio to cancel the State of Emergency—thereby ending all orders and “containment measures” connected with the Emergency. No lockdowns, no mandatory masks, no mandatory distancing.

Yes, I’m aware that nothing is a slam-dunk in the judicial system. Fingers crossed. But this is a chance, an opportunity, a ray of light, a practical and real possibility.

Further, attorney Renz’s case is a model and a template for other lawyers, in other states and countries, who want to file similar cases.

When a government declares an Emergency, it must explain and justify it on the facts, not on lies and deceptions. Otherwise…

The Constitution no longer exists.

The Law no longer exists.

In their place, there is a reversion to a time of arbitrary edicts, handed down from kings and their wise ones who must not be doubted or challenged.

On what rational basis has Governor Mike DeWine taken away the freedom of citizens? Where is his evidence? What is the quality of that evidence, beyond the mere claim that “experts are always right”?

In his law suit against Governor DeWine, attorney Renz takes up big questions:

What are the REAL COVID case and death numbers?

How much flim-flam has been deployed to cook those numbers?

What is the underhanded definition of a COVID case?

Why is the PCR test useless?

Can a strip of RNA stand in for a virus that isn’t defined?

Is this a pandemic or is it just “another flu season?”

These are just a few of the many questions attorney Renz raises in his lengthy Ohio court filing. He has shocking answers. They do not depend on the news or the assumed primacy of the Coronavirus Task Force or a sitting president or a presidential candidate or a political party or governors. The answers don’t depend on what Governor DeWine thinks or what he has been told.

You could compare this case to a proceeding in which the evidence of a law-enforcement lab is challenged purely on the merits of its findings. The name of the lab doesn’t matter. The government agency which houses the lab doesn’t matter. The so-called reputation of the lab doesn’t matter. What matters is a searchlight centering on fact and truth.

The serious nature of the Ohio proceeding is magnified, because at stake is the freedom of many, many citizens. Their liberty, as enshrined in basic Law, is on the line.

We’re at a crossroads. This case and what happens to it are of vital importance.

Attorney Renz is asking for a jury trial. Citizens would be empaneled to listen to a profound and detailed UNCOVERING of evidentiary fraud, on a truly massive scale. And then this jury would hear how the fraud is leveraging the lockdowns and the destruction of businesses and lives, and the removal of freedom.

This case puts its arms around the immediate future of the country, the Constitution, the basic concept of Law, the difference between a jury and a King, and whatever still remains of 1776.

This case dives into the difference between claims of science, and science, and who controls the distinction.

Winning this one would expose a scientific fraud so solid, so dense, the whole world would see an iron curtain of a century’s duration exploding in front of their eyes.

Victory requires one imperative: follow the Law.


CODA…BREAKING… More good news: federal judge declares Pennsylvania governor’s COVID restrictions unconstitutional.

Bricks are falling out of the walls of the American imprisonment—

CBS News, Pittsburgh: “U.S. District Judge William Stickman IV, an appointee of President Donald Trump, sided with the plaintiffs. Stickman wrote in his ruling that the [Pennsylvania] Wolf administration’s pandemic policies have been overreaching, arbitrary and violated citizens’ constitutional rights…”

FOX News: “The ruling found that [Pennsylvania Governor] Wolf’s restrictions that required people to stay at home, placed size limits on gatherings and ordered ‘non-life-sustaining’ businesses to shut down were unconstitutional.”

In this case, the judge made his ruling strictly on Constitutional grounds. His conclusion is worth reading:

“…even in an emergency, the authority of the government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble. There is no question that this Country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Action taken by Defendants [Governor Wolf] crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional. Thus, consistent with the reasons set forth above, the Court will enter judgement in favor of Plaintiffs.”

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, US District Judge William S Stickman IV, County of Butler et al v. [Governor] Thomas W Wolf et al.

NO emergency is so great that it supersedes individual liberty and freedom.

Even if the science underlying the official response to COVID were true (which it decidedly is NOT), it wouldn’t justify tearing away Constitutional and natural freedoms.

The resistance to tyranny is alive.

A million peaceful protestors in Berlin; 460,000 bikers riding into Sturgis, South Dakota, where Governor Kristi Noem has never locked down; numerous other protests the mainstream press refuses to cover; the new groundbreaking Ohio lawsuit filing I’ve been covering; untold millions of people who know what a sham and a crime the whole COVID operation really is…

Lights are coming on and the wind has changed direction.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

COVID: Major case filed against Ohio governor and the state of Ohio for restricting freedom without legitimate justification

by Jon Rappoport

September 14, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Ohio attorney, Thomas Renz, on behalf of plaintiffs, has filed a case against the state of Ohio and Governor Mike DeWine. Renz is asking for a jury trial.

(Attorney press release posted here; Attorney plaintiff document filed with court posted here.)

(‘Lawsuit’ article archive here)

This case, in the current climate, should provoke intense interest from the public, and from every lawyer within hailing distance.

Here is the impressive opening salvo in the court filing:

“In recent months, entire states have been imprisoned without due process and with the clear threat to impose such lockdowns again, interstate travel has been severely restricted, privacy rights have been devastated, numerous business takings without compensation, and many regulations being implemented without statutory process requirements under the guise of a health emergency that is roughly as dangerous as a seasonal influenza outbreak. The plaintiffs in this case have all been injured in various capacities by these unconstitutional actions, and without action by the Court, will be left without redress. More terrifying, without action by the Court, the Court will be setting future precedent that will allow states to withhold fundamental Constitutional rights, in violation of US Supreme Court precedent, circumventing the various levels of scrutiny applied to such rights, and justify such actions under public health emergency orders without subjecting those orders to any real review—just trust the bureaucrats because they are the experts.”

Here is the most important point: “We humbly ask the Court in this case to…Recognize that the political process and operative orders are invalid if based on false or misleading information… and recognize the criticality that all future emergency orders be based and maintained on clear, honest facts—particularly when such orders are infringing on Constitutional rights.”

In other words, a declared State of Emergency cannot stand on the mere basis of arbitrary edict.

Facts matter. Actual science matters. Reasons why an Emergency is declared matter.

People can’t be locked down and restrained from earning a living and having contact with other humans simply because a state authority decides to issue such orders.

If this case goes to trial, the door will open to the presentation of fact and science.

Attorney Renz, for the plaintiffs, is well aware of this, and his filing is studded with bold and accurate claims of fact:

“According to recent data from the Ohio COVID-19 Dashboard, we can see that the ‘spike’ in cases is actually just a spike in testing. The State went from a few thousand tests per day to 25,000 tests plus per day. The positivity rate for COVID-19 has remained fairly steady but there have been more tests.”

“When the Emergency was declared we heard a daily drumbeat about the danger and deaths related to COVID-19. Now that the case fatality rate has been shown to be roughly the same as the yearly flu…those [death] numbers are simply not scary to the public. As a result, the State sees no impact from talking about fatalities and has instead begun testing more so they could tell us there are more cases.”

“The PCR tests are generally viewed as the means of determining if a patient has COVID-19. The problem is that the inventor of the PCR test, who won a Nobel Prize in chemistry for the invention, specifically stated that the test was not well-suited to and never designed to diagnose disease. Much has been made about this in the press and elsewhere but the reason there are issues with PCR testing in relation to COVID is that PCR testing cannot detect how much of a virus exists in a person. Exposure of the existence of incomplete traces of a virus do not mean a person is infected with a disease [,] which is part of the reason the PCR tests have an elevated rate of false positives.”

“…there is not even a true standard for testing…Instead we have numerous tests from numerous vendors that may or may not have a similar standard for what it means to ‘have’ COVID-19. The CDC, governor, and ODH [Ohio Department of Health] know this so they have allowed for the diagnosis of cases based on as meaningless criteria as a cough in a community in which COVID supposedly exists.”

Plow through this quote and then receive the translation below: “Another document also came to light that is critical in demonstrating the egregiously misleading nature of the public COVID-19 data. On the final paragraph of page 39 of a document published by the FDA regarding instructions for a COVID-19 test is the following quote: ‘Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen’.”

“In plain English this means that there are no available pure 2019-nCOVvirus isolates to test against so instead an educated best guess is being used. The question this leads us to is how accurate can a test be for a virus that has not been defined…? If our freedoms are to be abridged under an emergency declaration related to a disease, should it not be a requirement that the disease at least be defined?”

As you can see, this case is being argued not only on Constitutional grounds, but on major and deep issues of science. The plaintiffs are not accepting “the Word from the experts.”

There is no reason why they, or anyone, should surrender and accept.

In Ohio, a bright light is shining in the darkness.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Monsanto loses lawsuit and $289 million

by Jon Rappoport

August 13, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

A lot of people were waiting for this day. It finally arrived.

Reuters: “…a California jury ordered [Monsanto]…to pay $289 million for not warning of cancer risks posed by its main weed killer [Roundup].”

“The case of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, filed in 2016, was fast-tracked for trial due to the severity of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system that he alleges was caused by Roundup and Ranger Pro, another Monsanto glyphosate herbicide.”

More than 5000 lawsuits against Monsanto and Roundup are waiting in the wings, and this verdict, in favor of Johnson, is a strong signal to future juries.

Of course, Monsanto, and its new parent company, Bayer, claim last week’s court ruling was deeply flawed and Roundup is not a health threat; an appeal is in the works.

And that is where the danger lies.

As you go higher in the court system, judges, not juries, are making the decisions, the judges tend to be appointed on the basis of their politics.

Official science IS politics, with mega-corporations the favored clients.

Monsanto’s lawyers will be able to restate the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] assessment that Roundup is not a proven or likely carcinogen.

The judges of an appeals court could decide, for example, that the scientific evidence presented by both sides “cancels itself out” and leaves a definitive opinion on Roundup in maybe-limbo “at the present time.” Therefore, the accuser, Dewayne Johnson, has not proved his case. Therefore, there is no judgment in his favor, and no $$ penalty against Monsanto.

I would say Monsanto (and its new owner Bayer) are counting on this scenario.

Could we also be talking about secret payoffs (or blackmail) to assure a favorable outcome? I’m absolutely shocked that anyone would suggest the possibility. As we all know, these corporations are models of propriety and good citizenship. Their reputations are above reproach. They arise each day seeking only to do good in the far flung communities they serve. They search their souls for any sign of moral turpitude and eradicate such problems in short order.

Right?

No?


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Breakthrough in explosive lawsuit against Monsanto

Breakthrough in explosive lawsuit against Monsanto

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2018

A San Francisco lawsuit against Monsanto and its weedkiller, Roundup, is moving forward. And it’s just received a new green light from the judge in the case.

Monsanto’s lawyers are bracing for a deep level of attack, which they were hoping to avoid. The judge has ruled the jury can hear testimony on this issue: Monsanto suppressed evidence that Roundup causes cancer.

Reporter Carey Gillam has the story (The Guardian, 5/22): “At the age of 46, DeWayne Johnson is not ready to die. But with cancer spread through most of his body, doctors say he probably has just months to live. Now Johnson, a husband and father of three in California, hopes to survive long enough to make Monsanto take the blame for his fate.”

“On 18 June, Johnson will become the first person to take the global seed and chemical company to trial on allegations that it has spent decades hiding the cancer-causing dangers of its popular Roundup herbicide products – and his case has just received a major boost.”

“Last week Judge Curtis Karnow issued an order clearing the way for jurors to consider not just scientific evidence related to what caused Johnson’s cancer, but allegations that Monsanto suppressed evidence of the risks of its weed killing products. Karnow ruled that the trial will proceed and a jury would be allowed to consider possible punitive damages.”

“’The internal correspondence noted by Johnson could support a jury finding that Monsanto has long been aware of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicides are carcinogenic … but has continuously sought to influence the scientific literature to prevent its internal concerns from reaching the public sphere and to bolster its defenses in products liability actions’, [Judge] Karnow wrote.” [Yes, the Judge in the case wrote that statement.]

“Johnson’s case, filed in San Francisco county superior court in California, is at the forefront of a legal fight against Monsanto. Some 4,000 plaintiffs have sued Monsanto alleging exposure to Roundup caused them, or their loved ones, to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Another case is scheduled for trial in October, in Monsanto’s home town of St Louis, Missouri.”

“How the Johnson lawsuit plays out could be a bellwether for how other plaintiffs proceed. If Johnson prevails, there could be many more years of costly litigation and hefty damage claims. If Monsanto successfully turns back the challenge, it could derail other cases and lift pressure on the firm.”

“According to the court record, Johnson had a job as a groundskeeper for the Benicia unified school district where he applied numerous treatments of Monsanto’s herbicides to school properties from 2012 until at least late 2015. He was healthy and active before he got the cancer diagnosis in August 2014. In a January deposition, Johnson’s treating physician testified that more than 80% of his body was covered by lesions, and that he probably had but a few months to live.”

How will Monsanto proceed? First, they’ll argue that Johnson’s cancer could have been caused by other factors. They’ll throw the kitchen sink at the jury. It could have been genetics. It could have been lifestyle. It could have been causes that are still unknown to researchers. It could have been starlight from a galaxy far, far away. Monsanto’s lawyers will try to bury the jury in reams of supposition.

Second, they’ll show the jury an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) finding that Roundup does not cause cancer. Like the FDA, the EPA has sided with major corporations in efforts to protect them. Monsanto will claim: “The federal government has asserted Roundup is safe, and that’s the end of our responsibility. The federal government is the final arbiter.” Which is to say: the truth isn’t the final arbiter.

Third, Monsanto will execute a series of acrobatic moves to prove they never suppressed evidence that Roundup causes cancer. They were simply “considering all relevant safety issues.” They were “posing various scenarios.” Their internal memos were “temporary work product” on the way to making a final judgment about Roundup’s safety. They were raising valid concerns about flawed studies that claimed Roundup was dangerous.

If all else fails, Monsanto might try to settle with Johnson—and then claim the $$ payout was simply a way to show compassion for his unfortunate condition—and move on—continuing to offer the public a fine and safe product (Roundup). No guilt admitted.

In the extreme—and I need to raise this question—might Monsanto, behind the scenes, secretly and illegally offer Johnson’s lawyer and his client a very large sum to present a weak case in court and let Monsanto win the case?

You decide.

If Monsanto has intentionally hidden the dire effects of Roundup for decades, while people have gotten sick and died, what wouldn’t they do?

Among the myriad scandals and crimes of Monsanto, here is one that sheds light on the mindset of the company. Axisoflogic.com reports (3/22/12): “In 2001, 3,600 inhabitants of the city of Anniston, Alabama, attacked Monsanto for PCB [a chlorine chemical] contamination. According to a report, declassified by the U.S. Agency of Environmental Protection (EPA), Monsanto for almost forty years dumped thousands of tons of contaminated waste in a stream and an open garbage dump in the heart of a black neighborhood in the city.”

“The way The Washington Post reported the story is instructive: ‘Monsanto documents — many emblazoned with warnings such as ‘CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy’ — show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew. In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one.”

“Monsanto was finally convicted in 2002 of having polluted ‘the territory of Anniston and the blood of its people with the PCB’. The firm was ordered to pay $ 700 million in damages and to guarantee the cleaning-up of the city. No legal action was brought against the company officials.”


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Shareholder lawsuit: delightful weapon against drug companies

by Jon Rappoport

May 24, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

The company is NewLink. The vaccine, or drug, depending on how it is defined, is called algenpantucel-L. A clinical trial of the drug recently failed to produce benefits in cancer patients, and the stock price of the company took a major dive.

A shareholder in NewLink, Rickey Ely, decided to sue.

His reasons are interesting, to say the least.

Clinical trials of new drugs seeking FDA approval go through four phases. The lawsuit states that phase 2 produced no encouraging results, violated standard protocol (there was no control group), and yet the company hyped the outcome of phase 2, and launched phase 3 only a few months after starting phase 2. Phase 3 shouldn’t have been initiated at all.

Owing to the company’s PR machine, shareholders were encouraged, but when phase 3 turned out to be a bust, the company’s stock price collapsed—thus punishing those shareholders.

Not only that, the lawsuit charges, but during the PR hype about the drug’s promising outlook, some execs of the company actually sold their own personal shares—1,154,161 shares worth $39.9 million—turning a very nice profit for themselves, before the stock price crashed.

A shareholder-lawsuit like this can be quite a strategy against drug companies (or any publicly held company). The shareholder, a part-owner of the company, is “working from the inside.” He’s “trying to protect the company from the harmful actions of its bosses.” Even if he only owns one share, he can sue.

In this case, Rickey Ely is directly suing several NewLink executives. That always tends to get execs’ attention.

They lock their office doors. They call their lawyers. They spill coffee. They have conversations with their spouses. They put personal plans on hold. They make lists of people they can blame. They make sure their secretaries are screening phone calls. They undertake a deep inventory of their…money.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The stunning secret behind the thousands of Xarelto lawsuits

by Jon Rappoport

May 8, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

(A note to my readers. My site, NoMoreFakeNews.com, is still down. We’ve pinpointed the problem, and we’re working to fix it. My blog, where I publish all my articles, is fine. And so is my email list. Feel free to sign up. Thanks for your patience and continued support. My work, as always, continues.)

Welcome to the circus, boys and girls. Parades, animals, acrobats, clowns, all colluding to approve lethal drugs for public use! Watch people take the drugs and fall down, watch them carted off in colorful cars to hospitals, where the doctors will have no idea what’s causing the life-threatening injuries! It’s wild, it’s crazy, and it’s brought to you by drug companies and their enablers at the FDA! It’s all covered by insurance. We’ve got cotton candy, popcorn, ice cream for the kiddies, and everybody can get in under the big tent! It’s the biggest game and the biggest hustle in town!

Recently, I wrote about the 18,000 lawsuits against Xarelto. Here is a quick recap:

The first court test of Bayer/J&J’s billion-dollar bonanza, blood-thinner, Xarelto, is coming up in New Orleans next week. The outcome will influence how the 18,000 lawsuits behind it will be handled.

The plaintiff in the first suit is Joseph Boudreaux. “While Xarelto was supposed to help cut his stroke risk, Boudreaux says it instead caused internal bleeding that required a week-long hospital stay in the intensive-care unit, several blood transfusions and multiple heart procedures. ‘I don’t want anybody else to suffer like I have from that drug,’ the part-time security guard says,” reports the Chicago Tribune.

Lawyers for Bayer and J&J will argue, in the main, that Xarelto was approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

This is the normal front-line strategy. “Well, the government says our drug is safe and effective, so what else do you want from us? We’ve done our duty. We’re off the hook.”

All right, that’s my recap.

BUT suppose the drugmaker and the government (FDA) both cheated and lied and committed multiple crimes, during the clinical trials of the drug leading up to its approval for public use?

It turns out someone has been investigating those clinical trials of Xarelto, and he has uncovered stunning secrets. His name is Charles Seife. He is a professor of journalism at New York University.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the 18,000 lawsuits against Xaraelto, take notice. This is information you want to have at your fingertips. Seife can provide many details—here I’m just presenting his overview.

Buckle up.

Professor Seife writes, at Slate, about the four human clinical trials of Xarelto. These were called the RECORD trials; RECORD 1, 2, 3, and 4:

“The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire RECORD study to be ‘unreliable.’ Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes. This means that physicians around the world are basing life-and-death medical decisions on a study that the FDA knows is simply not credible.”

Seife is pointing out that the FDA never alerted The Lancet that the published report on the Xarelto clinical trials was false through and through.

Seife continues: “RECORD 2, for example, was nearly as awful as RECORD 4: Four out of 10 sites that the FDA inspected showed evidence of misconduct, or other issues grave enough to render the site’s data worthless—including clear evidence of data falsification at one site. In aggregate, these problems raise serious doubts about the quality of all four key rivaroxaban (Xareltio) studies—and, by extension, doubts about how seriously we should take the claim that rivaroxaban is safe and effective. The FDA is keeping mum, even as wrongful-death lawsuits begin to multiply.”

“The sworn purpose of the FDA is to protect the public health, to assure us that all the drugs on the market are proven safe and effective by reputable scientific trials. Yet, over and over again, the agency has proven itself willing to keep scientists, doctors, and the public in the dark about incidents when those scientific trials turn out to be less than reputable. It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception.”

Basically, Seife is stating that the FDA found horrendous distortions in the clinical trials of Xarelto—and yet the agency approved the drug, as safe and effective, for public use.

—And then people taking the drug began to experience dire “adverse effects,” like uncontrolled bleeding.

And now we have 18,000 lawsuits against Xarelto’s parents, Bayer and J&J.

What about lawsuits against the FDA? That’s a tougher hill to climb for lawyers. Because the FDA is “the government.”

I’ve written many articles about the criminal agency called the FDA (article archive here). For stark revealing light, consider an interview relentless medical reporter, Martha Rosenberg, conducted with an FDA employee, whose job was reviewing new drugs and offering an assessment of their safety and efficacy, prior to agency approval or rejection.

Here is what I wrote in one piece:

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

Kavanagh: “…widespread [FDA] racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

That’s what I wrote, and considering what has happened in the case of Xarelto, Kavanagh’s statements take on very specific meaning:

The FDA colludes with a drug manufacturer to hide the dangers of a new drug that should never have been approved.

The drug is approved.

The drug assaults people and causes grievous harm.

Based on this article, and many others I’ve written exposing the FDA, I would say the agency is in charge of internal and domestic chemical warfare against the American people.

There. Is that clear enough?

Update—the first lawsuit against Xarelto, in New Orleans, has just been decided by a jury. They have ruled in favor of the drug companies, Bayer and J&J, and against the plaintiff, Joseph Boudreaux.

The major (narrow) issue in the case seems to have come down to this: did the drug companies failed to warn physicians about bleeding risks associated with Xarento?

The jury said Bayer and J&J DIDN’T FAIL TO WARN.

End of story.

The madness continues.

This is what happens when plaintiffs’ lawyers are too dim to see the big picture I presented in this article—or when a presiding judge keeps denying the right to introduce relevant evidence against a drug.

What about the 18,000 Xarelto lawsuits against Bayer and J&J that are waiting in the wings? Right now, the plaintiffs’ lawyers are scrambling to re-think their strategies.

It’s possible that, eventually, all 18,000 cases will be settled, not tried in court. If that happens, the people who have been damaged by Xarelto could each receive a minimal payout for their suffering.

NOTE TO PLAINTIFFS’ LAWYERS: Reveal, in court, the criminal collusion between the FDA and Bayer and J&J. Expose the crimes they committed in order to get the highly dangerous Xarelto approved for public use in the first place—when it should have been rejected and all the stocks destroyed.

Put THAT in front of a jury.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Blood-thinning drug Xarelto faces 18,000 lawsuits

by Jon Rappoport

April 26, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

The first court test of Bayer/J&J’s billion-dollar bonanza, blood-thinner, Xarelto, is coming up in New Orleans next week. The outcome will influence how the 18,000 lawsuits behind it will be handled.

The plaintiff in the first suit is Joseph Boudreaux. “While Xarelto was supposed to help cut his stroke risk, Boudreaux says it instead caused internal bleeding that required a week-long hospital stay in the intensive-care unit, several blood transfusions and multiple heart procedures. ‘I don’t want anybody else to suffer like I have from that drug,’ the part-time security guard says,” reports the Chicago Tribune.

Lawyers for Bayer and J&J will argue, in the main, that Xarelto was approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

This is the normal front-line strategy in cases where the drugmaker believes it can’t be accused of purposely concealing a medicine’s dangers from the FDA.

“Well, the government says the drug is safe and effective, so what else do you want from us? We’ve done our duty. We’re off the hook.”

It’s called shift the responsibility.

The last time I looked, the FDA doesn’t develop, manufacture, and sell drugs. Pharmaceutical companies do. If their drugs kill people and maim them, why shouldn’t they shoulder the blame, regardless of what a government agency says?

A simple change in law would remedy this situation: irrespective of what the FDA claims or doesn’t claim, ultimate accountability for a drug’s effects lies with the company that created it.

If you own a business that makes a product, and 18,000 people are lined up to sue you because they claim the product seriously harmed them, you’re the one who’s going to have to go to court and try to defend your actions.

You’re not going to be able to claim it was your second cousin’s fault or the man in the moon’s responsibility.

Even if we assume the FDA is honest and thorough and honorable (laughable, I know), they’re simply offering their assessment. It doesn’t matter that they’re the only body that can certify a drug for public use. That’s not a reason to exonerate a drug company.

Drug companies try to make hay from the fact that the FDA is certifying their medicines. “Don’t blame us. The FDA liked our drug. Blame them. And good luck with that.”

This would be like a mother saying, “Yes, I was in the park with my child, and yes, I wandered away to talk to an ice cream vendor, and I came back a half hour later to find her with a broken leg, but you see, it was my husband’s fault. He decided I would be competent to take care of our children…”

Forget all about the clinical trials of new drugs, and the published studies, and the back-and-forth between the pharmaceutical company and the FDA, and the FDA certifications.

It’s far simpler. It’s the sign in the store that says, “You break it, you pay for it.”

You break people, you pay.

The only ones who don’t understand that are criminals.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

NoMoreFakeNews Exclusive: lawyers’ emails revealed in the Monsanto vs. Maui lawsuit

Monsanto/Dow still refuse to open up secret court documents

by Jon Rappoport

April 23, 2015

(To join our email list, click here.)

Think about it. You’re locked in a high-stakes lawsuit against major corporations, and you can’t see document-material the corporations have filed in order to make their argument with the Judge.

The Judge has seen the redacted blacked-out material, and she will, in part, base her ruling in the case on it. There is no jury.

But you can’t see the blacked-out material, you can’t argue your position with full knowledge.

Welcome to a rigged process.

As my readers know, I exposed the fact that, in the Monsanto/Dow vs. Maui lawsuit, the corporations filed documents with the court that contained large amounts of blacked-out redacted material.

The lawyers representing the people, whose vote to block Monsanto/Dow experiments in Maui was suspended by this lawsuit, have not yet seen those redacted lines and paragraphs.

Therefore, they can’t argue their case from full knowledge.

In the last few days, one of the lawyers, Sharon Kim, who represents the Shaka Movement against Monsanto/Dow, made a request to Nick Kacprowski, a lead attorney for Monsanto/Dow, to see the redacted material (Case 1:14-cv-00511-SOM-BMK Document 5-3 Filed 11/13/14: Declaration of Sam Eathington [Vice President of Global Plant Breeding, Monsanto]).

Their exchange of emails concludes with Kacprowski writing:

“We should note that nothing in this message should be construed as conceding that Shaka has any right to access the sealed information. For example, Plaintiffs [Monsanto, Dow, and others] are concerned by the hostility that Shaka has shown toward the [GMO] seed companies in the past and thus by the risk that it will use this confidential and sensitive information publicly for improper purposes.”

Absurd. How Shaka “would use this material” is a speculative hypothetical. The material’s relevance to the lawsuit can only be assessed by allowing Shaka’s lawyers to read it.

The Judge in the federal case, Susan Oki Mollway, should long ago have ordered that the redactions be removed.


Here is the email exchange. The first email is from attorney Sharon Kim, representing the Shaka Movement. The reply is from Nick Kacprowski, representing Monsanto/Dow. His reply is dense with legalese, but you’ll get the point of it.

Nick,

This email is serves as a request for unredacted copies of the documents that were filed under seal in Civ No. 14-00511. As you are aware, our Opening Brief for the Ninth Circuit Appeal is due on April 30, 2015, and we need the unredacted documents to aid in the preparation of our Opening Brief. Thus, we are requesting copies of the unredacted documents by Wednesday, April 22nd. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Sharon

Sharon A. Lim
Bays Lung Rose & Holma

From: Nick Kacprowski […]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Sharon A. Lim […]
Subject: Re: Ito v. County of Maui

Dear Sharon:

This will respond to your request that Plaintiffs provide Shaka with unredacted versions of the sealed documents in this case by April 22. As you know, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Vacate the Expedited Briefing Schedule on your appeal, Case No. 15-15641. As our motion notes, your appeal of the preliminary injunction order will be mooted when the Court rules on the merits of the pending summary judgment motion, which it has indicated it will do by the end of June. If the Ninth Circuit grants the Motion to Vacate, Shaka will have no need for the unredacted documents in the near future, and possibly never, in order to pursue an appeal in this case.

Our proposal is that the parties stipulate to a protective order that provides that the sealed documents will remain sealed, without access for Shaka, unless the Ninth Circuit denies Plaintiffs’ motion that the briefing schedule should be vacated in Case No. 15-15641. It makes sense to defer Shaka’s request to access the sealed documents given that: 1) the sealed documents contain highly sensitive and proprietary information; 2) there is no protective order in place and there will be tricky issues to work out regarding what, if any, information in the documents Shaka should be allowed to access and what the restrictions governing the use of the documents will be; and 3) the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on the Motion to Vacate may soon moot the issue of needing those documents for the appellate record.

We realize that Shaka’s appellate brief is due on April 30, 2015, and that the Ninth Circuit may not rule on the Motion to Vacate before then. Therefore we are amenable to stipulating to extend the time to file Shaka’s appellate brief until 30 days after the Ninth Circuit rules on the Motion to Vacate. If the Ninth Circuit denies the Motion to Vacate, we can then meet and confer further about your request.

We should note that nothing in this message should be construed as conceding that Shaka has any right to access the sealed information. For example, Plaintiffs are concerned by the hostility that Shaka has shown toward the seed companies in the past and thus by the risk that it will use this confidential and sensitive information publicly for improper purposes.

Please let me know if you agree with this proposal, and we can prepare the draft protective order. If not, please let me know if there is a time tomorrow when we can meet and confer in person or by telephone about this issue.

Best Regards,
Nick


Justice? Transparency? Never heard of it.


power outside the matrix


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Exposed: the Judge in the Monsanto-Maui lawsuit is tainted

by Jon Rappoport

November 26, 2014

(To join our email list, click here.)

In a previous article, I ran down Judge Barry Kurren’s wife’s connections to big biotech in Hawaii.

Now I have more. Much more.

Judge Kurren is overseeing the Monsanto/Dow lawsuit against Maui, where the people recently voted to halt Monsanto/Dow GMO research.

Does the Judge have a conflict of interest?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Until at least the fall of 2011, Judge Kurren’s wife, Faye, was a trustee of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (twitter), a 6-billion-dollar environmental group.

TNC specializes in working with mega-corporations, who donate major money, in return for receiving TNC’s “good housekeeping seal of approval” as friends of the environment.

It’s all very cozy.

In 2011, TNC leveraged a blockbuster deal. Dow pledged a $10 million donation. In exchange, Dow could forthwith use the TNC logo on its site and all its products.

That’s like painting a cobra’s hood with Mr. Rogers’ face.

This would be the same Dow whose GMO/pesticide experiments on Maui the voters decided to stop.

The voter stoppage provoked the lawsuit from Dow and Monsanto.

Faye’s husband Barry is the Judge in the case.

Faye was a trustee at TNC, who took $10 million from Dow.

So…what are the chances Faye’s husband will step on Dow’s face in the lawsuit?

Getting the picture?

There’s more.


power outside the matrix


TNC’s business council includes luminaries like Monsanto, Coca Cola, and of course, Dow.

Among TNC’s corporate funders: again, Dow; Coke, DuPont, Pepsi.

Could the ban-GMO movement ask for more vicious enemies?

Search the extensive TNC website and try to find one negative mention of GMOs or toxic pesticides in their “championing of the environment.”

And what about the boss at TNC?

The CEO is Mark Tercek, former managing partner at what Matt Taibbi calls the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”:

Goldman Sachs.

Tercek is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the vampire squid’s brother.

Tercek writes: “We would also be smart to put more focus on making GMO technology available to lower-income farmers, given the potential benefits that climate-resilient GMO crops could bring to the developing world.”

“Climate-resilient.” Sure. What’s wrong with those damn crops that keep demanding decent weather? Fix them with new genes from Dow. Can’t wait for food that doesn’t need water or topsoil.

To repeat: Faye Kurren, Judge Kurren’s wife, was a TNC trustee.

Case closed.

Find a new Judge.

This one’s tainted.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com.