Exclusive series: The deceptions behind the injections (Part 3)

Exclusive series: The deceptions behind the injections (Part 3)

Exclusive series: The deceptions behind the injections (Part 3)

Did the federal government violate the rights of Americans – civilian and military alike – by mandating they take COVID-19 experimental "vaccines"? A researcher says by its own actions almost 50 years ago, Congress declared that an individual may not be administered an experimental drug under "sanctions," "coercion," or "undue influence."

Part 3: No legal justification for penalizing military

Parts 1 and 2 of this series address the legality of the federal vaccine mandates themselves – and what Brian Ward considers intentional actions by the government and vaccine manufacturers to convince Americans they are not being administered an experimental drug. Ward, founder of CovidPenalty.com, explains in this last of the three-part series why he is convinced the penalties being levied by the Department of Defense on service members who have refused the COVID-19 inoculation are illegal.

"Military commanders will not be able to point to a single order from [Secretary of Defense] Lloyd Austin, Secretary of the Army, Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness), and the Director of the Health Defense Agency, requiring the participation of service members in EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] products under threat of penalty," Ward begins.

But he contends many commanders have proceeded as if they indeed have such an order. In doing so, he says, they are "wholly violating" Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6200.02 (regulations governing EUA substances in the military) and The Belmont Report.

Liability attached to those in authority

But there's more: Ward says those commanders are also violating a direct order from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to use only full licensure drugs according to the product's labeling when they issue Letters of Reprimand to service members.

"Make no mistake about it," Ward emphasizes: "Service members are being punished because they are refusing to volunteer for experimental substances – and the legal community has taken a back seat to a radicalized political party [that is] destroying military readiness and service member morale."

He continues, stating that no statute or military regulation exists giving military commanders the authority to engage in their abuse of human rights.

"General Officers and Flag Officers never asked the simple question to Pentagon leadership of what to do if full licensure drugs are not available," he points out, adding that such a question "would have avoided the liabilities those officers now find themselves under."

In Ward's opinion, Secretary Austin is "hiding" behind his legally correct order. "But [the SECDEF] has made himself a co-conspirator in criminal activity by engaging in a dereliction of duty to require strict adherence to federal law and military regulations," he alleges.

The right to refuse – codified into law

Interestingly, nearly 20 years ago the FDA issued an EUA for an Anthrax experimental product – but Ward indicates the EUA clearly stated that an individual "may refuse anthrax vaccination under the EUA, and you will not be punished." Nor would any disciplinary action or adverse personnel action be taken: "You will not be processed for separation, and you will still be deployable," the EUA said.

In addition, no penalty or loss of entitlement would be assessed for refusing anthrax vaccination, according to the "Conditions of Authorization" pursuant to section 564 of the of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3.

So why haven't courts issued an emergency injunction based on these findings and other laws? Ward offers his theory, which he says applies to more than just the recent COVID epidemic:

"To date, no court has had the pleasure of hearing about The Belmont Report and how it and 45 CFR 46 grant Americans the authority to refuse experimental products without penalty," he explains.

"Since [those policies] were codified into law over 40 years ago, the legal community is wholly unaware of their existence and how they impact COVID-19 mandates – because no one in authority has ever been so bold as to require the use of experimental products under threat of penalty."

Ward states that section 564 of the FD&C Act provides all U.S. citizens the right to accept or refuse participation in an experimental product – and, in his opinion, protects those citizens from punishment should they refuse.

"State attorneys general are allowing dictators to penalize a federally protected right without judicial intervention," he concludes. "[And] this means that all other rights are now open to oppressive policies … because the guardians of our rights are sleeping at the wheel while the train is derailing."

He is hopeful trial law firms will pick up the mantle and "bring the Armageddon" in the COVID-19 legal battles.

Pentagon officials did not respond to a request for comment on this series of articles.

Part 1 of this three-part series

Part 2 of this three-part series

DOD COVID-19 Regulations per CovidPenalty.com