Armed Forces

Esteemed AGs and Armed Forces Committee members – there is no statute authorizing the DoD the right of exemption from the informed consent requirement of 10 U.S.C. 1107a.  This is precisely why the FDA informed the DoD in 2005 that, “Refusal [to participate in an investigational drug] may not be grounds for any disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Refusal may not be grounds for any adverse personnel action.”  Furthermore, Lt Gen Place, Director of Defense Health Agency, clarified the right of service members to refuse a COVID-19 experimental substance by notifying military departments that, “(service members) have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product and are free from any consequences of refusing administration of the product.” (DHA-IPM 20.004 (1)(d)(3))

Hence, by what authority are the aforementioned leaders allowing service members to incur consequences for refusing to volunteer for medical experimentation? The Department of Justice lawyers cite non-existent legislation by claiming an experimental substance can be legally treated as an approved drug if they share the same formulation. Such a claim in courts borders on insanity. No judge will allow statutes associated with an approved drug to be used interchangeably with laws associated with an experimental substance at the whims of plaintiffs. The FDA informed the DOJ that both substances have legal distinctions: in classification and respective labeling. Clearly, the legal representation for the DOJ is subpar, considering they are choosing to argue claims without statute. No law exempts the DoD from complying with 10 U.S.C. 1107 and or 1107a. NONE!

The above mentioned civilian and military leaders are legally required by DoDI 6200.02 to develop medical protocols for EUA substances, including instructions for implementation and policy adherence. The statutes also require each service commander to be cognizant of the informed consent rights of service members.  The Surgeon General of the Army is obligated to abide by the USAMRDC ‘2018 Common Rule’ regulations when developing implementation medical protocols for EUA vaccines.  One such requirement is to ensure the DoD does not “coerce,” apply “sanctions,” or engage in activities construed as “undue influence,” when offering an EUA vaccine to service members.  Army SG LTG R. Scott Dingle failed in executing these mission requirements.  DoDI 6200.02 requires the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) to be legally responsible for adherence to informed consent requirements of service members.  Mr. Cisneros failed to fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities of his office leading to the gross maltreatment of service members.

The doors are now open for 2.1 million service members to file suit against the DoD because they were denied the right to give their legally effective informed consent.  Additionally, only those who refused to volunteer for Pfizer’s BioNTech experimental substance were penalized.  As a direct result of political activists willfully violating the 14th Amendment rights of service members to be treated equally before the law, a legal storm is about to be unleashed upon the federal government.  You are encouraged to visit CovidPenalty.com for resources to better understand these violations.

In closing, State Attorneys General, the men and women in uniform swore to die for you and me so that we might live.  You have the legal authority and moral obligation to bring justice by challenging the unlawful actions of these civilian-appointed leaders hell-bent on destroying their careers, dreams, and lives.  There would be no greater honor than protecting those sworn to protect you and me.