A new 47-page motion filed on Tuesday by Jan. 6 detainees segregated in a dedicated wing called the D.C. Central Treatment Facility (CTF) alleges J6 are being cruelly penalized because of their vaccination status. Being treated differently because of vaccine status, says the complaint, amounts to “medical apartheid.” This motion discusses the many conflicting lines drawn in the sand during the “pandemic.” It serves as a microcosm of the confusing, lived experience of so many in this country over the last two years.
Kelly Meggs and Kenneth Harrelson allege that “when voluntary vaccinations are refused, and with no process for exemption requests, penalties are imposed amounting to cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth Amendment.” As a result of their refusal to take the experimental jab, the defendants request a motion for “release to home confinement.”
The motion states that of the 38 Jan. 6 prisoners being held for pre-trial cases, only four have agreed to be vaccinated—and some may have caved due to pressure. It seems that some detainees have been manipulatively coerced to take the jab so they could enjoy privileges allegedly associated with being vaccinated.
The double standards to which these prisoners are being subjected are not “normal,” and the double standards are not limited to the treatment they receive while incarcerated. Even the precepts under which they are held without bail show these detainees may have, in many cases, been treated differently.
Nevertheless, many housed at CTF have class three misdemeanors, no prior criminal record, and are not a threat to society. Many have been held, awaiting pre-trial deliberations, while historically, others with similar profiles would have been released on bail to home confinement.
“In any normal case, defined by the absence of double standards, these Defendants would have been released on bail,” states the lawsuit. The complaint then cites the example of the protesters who stormed the Kavanaugh hearing in 2018 to highlight the contrast in treatment between the two groups of protesters. These protesters:
“in a clearly orchestrated, pre-planned conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings in Congress stormed the Supreme Court, attempting to enter forcibly by banging on the front doors. Additionally, Capitol Police and Congressional staff locked themselves inside their offices. However, in stark contrast to the treatment of J6 protesters, those storming the confirmation hearing were merely charged with demonstrating and released the same day (after being held for about five (5) hours) upon paying a $35 fine.”
In contrast, J6 detainees have been incarcerated for months, awaiting trials that continue to be delayed with no end in sight. Not one has been charged with treasonous activity or insurrection. Even more egregious is the way these detainees are being treated. Some have been reportedly put in solitary confinement, and many are being treated like hardened criminals, actively posing threats to society at large. The treatment is arguably out of proportion to the offenses with which they have been charged. One example of their treatment is cited below:
“These Defendants alternate in lockup for 25.5 hours and 11.5 hours, separated by 5.5 hours in an alcove area. When “locked up,” it’s isolation in a bare, estimated 8′ x 12′ cell with a 4-inch slit for a window.”
At the heart of the motion is the mRNA vaccine. The complaint provides a deep dive into the pandemic and vaccine, comprehensively covering almost every aspect of its roll-out and the myriad issues associated with it. The motion is evidence-based, looking at everything from clinical trials and data to obfuscating FDA and administration information and precedent-setting court cases. It discusses the potential harm from the experimental EUA mRNA vaccines and why informed consent is impossible.
It is “an indisputable fact,” says the complaint, “That all of the truly reliable data for both short-term and long-term negative side effects have yet to be collected.” The complaint goes on to say; the roll-out has effectively been “a mass human experiment in which humanity is participating unwillingly.”
The dearth of long-term data and lack of informed consent goes to the heart of the Defendants’ argument. Imprisoned in crowded conditions, they are exposed to a potentially lethal virus with zero access to doctors who would satisfy their most basic questions about the vaccine’s efficacy and safety. Because they refused to get the jab, they are being treated differently and inhumanely, while those who are allegedly coerced to take it enjoy special and rare privileges.
The Defendants also argue rightfully that once jabbed, “a person cannot be un-vaccinated.” Many individuals receiving experimental vaccines risk irreparable injury.
In light of the strength of natural immunity and available preventative and curative treatments, argues the complaint, why take a “vaccine” for which there is no true informed consent? And, why take a vaccine when you are not allowed to discuss with your doctor its potential harm to your individual biology and health condition—a human right that might at least afford at least a weak semblance of informed consent.
The complaint also explains the apparent games played strategically by the FDA and its collaborators, exposing the entire sham argument that “FDA approved Comirnaty” is safe, which may or may not be true. Either way, the lawsuit explains that the alleged clever bait and switch scheme, when examined closely, shows that Comirnaty has yet to be made available to the U.S. market. So, then what product are people unwittingly receiving? And, why, asks counsel, are EUA vaccines being administered when there are proven preventative measures and effective early treatments for those affected with a virus from which 99 percent of people recover?
The lawsuit also explains the multiple legal standards for pre-trial detention for those “who are presumed innocent” as well as the rights of those in federal custody to refuse medical treatment, especially when the treatment is “experimental” in nature. It appears those standards are not being followed.
The often-cited 1905 Jacobson v Massachusetts case regarding “compulsory vaccination requirements in an attempt to quell a smallpox epidemic” is also considered. Arguing that while attorneys may attempt to use Jacobson to justify mandating vaccines, the case has been overturned by the Nuremberg Code, and few have anticipated the level of tyrannical overreach the U.S. government and its co-conspirators would have imposed on the American electorate with this mRNA vaccine. The motion argues Jacobson has been rendered obsolete because of the tyrannical way the mRNA roll-out has been achieved.
This motion touches every corner of the injustices faced by everyday Americans during the pandemic. It serves as an evidence-based microcosm of what has transpired in the country writ large. With great care to detail, it summarizes every facet of the mRNA vaccine and its plausibly duplicitous roll-out, from the ever-shifting debates associated with natural immunity and transmission to the complete and seemingly coordinated effort to suppress early treatment options (p.17) to its potential harms and informed consent. It speaks of the often obscured data, coercive messaging, and the bait and switch game being played with the approved but unavailable Comirnaty Pfizer product. The evidence cited is substantive and compelling.
Essentially, Meggs and Harrelson emerge as The Everyman. The injustices they have endured and continue to face, exemplify almost everything a curious person needs to know about the dangers of government overreach in the lives of an unsuspecting, fear-driven public.