Discover more from Unacceptable Jessica
Brook Jackson is all of us.
I feel it is my duty to dissect CASE NO. 1:21-CV-00008-MJT: Pfizer's motion to dismiss Brook's complaint/case.
Please refer to Case number 1:21-CV-00008-MJT for details on the motion to dismiss the United of States of America (BROOK JACKSON - Plaintiff) versus Ventavia Research Group, LLC (Pfizer Inc.; Icon PLC - Defendants) here.
This motion to dismiss met with a judgement to allow the discovery needed to oppose the motion to dismiss so that maybe this case will go to trial.
[The judge] also recognized the power gap of so many big law firms on behalf of “you know who”. We move on, people! YES!! Brook Jackson
I am going to highlight some points of concern in this document, from my own non-lawyer point of view because, WE the people.
Please go to page 6.
I wrote a Substack piece analyzing hit pieces a while back and I am reminded of that now.
This paragraph is the very first paragraph following the Table of Contents. It even precedes the Introduction. If you are like me, you have no idea what a relator or a qui tam provision is. So the gist is the following. A relator is a private party. Brook is the relator in this case.
There is this thing called the False Claims Act1 and it is the oldest ‘qui tam’ law there is, and the most effective antifraud law we have apparently.2 ‘Qui tam’ allows persons and entities with evidence of fraud against federal programs or contracts to sue the wrongdoer on behalf of the United States Government. A whistleblower who exposes fraud on the government may bring a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the government and potentially receive a share of the recovery recovered by the government as a reward for bringing that action.3 The government is the plaintiff, not the relator, in a qui tam action.4
“Qui Tam” is shortened version of the Latin phrase “ qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” meaning “who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself.” The ancient writ allowed commoners to sue for economic damages that been inflicted against the King.5
"In qui tam actions, the government has the right to intervene and join the action. If the government declines, the private plaintiff may proceed on his or her own."6
So Brook is suing Pfizer on behalf of the government (and for the people of the United States of America) as a Whistleblower, and is doing so using a qui tam action that may entitle her to some of the Government’s recovery compensation if she wins. The qui tam action is set up this way as an incentive to potential relators to report fraud.
Pfizer claims that the case should be thrown out based on 3 reasons:
the complaint does not plead a false or fraudulent claim
its allegations were not material to the Government and
Brook may not pursue the claims against Pfizer without the Government first pursuing them in an administrative proceeding
Now, I am not a lawyer and know nothing of the validity of these reasons as reasonable bases for dismissing Brook’s claim but if the ‘government was in on it’, as claimed by Robert Barnes, then they are correct since the qui tam action would not be valid in that case. If I am understanding it properly. Perhaps, I do not.
But wait now, the government was in on it? In on what? The fraud? The cover-up of a lack of Good Clinical Practices at the clinical trial sites? Of the lack of sufficient thawing ability of the products? Of the discrepancies in Site and SiteID data in the Pfizer data released by court order? Of the fact that these products indeed bio-distribute heavily to the liver? Of the fact that they didn’t do any mutagenicity studies because ‘it wasn’t meant to be mutagenic’? Of the fact that there are literally millions of adverse event reports being ignored in VAERS including thousands of reports of miscarriages? That the cationic lipids used to create the lipid nanoparticles that deliver the modified mRNA payload are highly toxic? That the DMED data was ‘reorganized’ and reveals similar patterns revealed in VAERS? That babies are being injected without authorization by medical doctors? That COVID-19 is the number one reported adverse event in VAERS right now in the context of the COVID-19 injections?
Hey, ho, wait, whoa… I need to process this. Seriously. I am really confused here. My interpretation of this so far (and I have no yet gotten through the first paragraph) is that Pfizer threw the U.S. government under the bus to attempt to get Brook’s case dismissed. Am I right? But, isn’t the fact that both Pfizer and the U.S. government committed fraud on the American people way worse than bad clinical practices being witnessed at 2 clinical trial sites?
I also have many questions pertaining to who the U.S. government refers to. The Department of Justice? The Department of Defense? The President? The People? Because I thought the government was THE PEOPLE, and in this case, does the millions of dollars of American taxpayer monies handed over to Pfizer from the FDA render the American people complicit by proxy? I can barely stand how sneaky this is.
This is NOT how this is meant to work. What does the ‘government’ have to do with Pfizer have to do with the FDA have to do with The People have to do with VAERS have to do with fraud have to do with compensation have to do with restitution?
Man. I know one thing, I will follow this article up when I have the energy and when we know more on the outcome of the request to dismiss her. I know another thing, if her case is dismissed, then she is dismissed, the American people are dismissed, regulatory body function is dismissed, ethical law is dismissed, WE ARE DISMISSED.
31 U.S.C. Sections 3729 through 3733