Emanuel's Petition Seeking Review of OSHA Vaccine Mandate For Large Employers

Case: 22-3009 Document: 1-1 Filed: 01/06/2022 Page: 1 (1 of 41)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540
Deborah S. Hunt POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE Tel. (513) 564-7000
Clerk CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 www.ca6.uscourts.gov
Filed: January 06, 2022
Mr. Emanuel McCray

2700 Caples Avenue
P.O. Box 3134
Vancouver, WA 98668
Re: Case No. 22-3009, Emanuel McCray, et al v. OSHA

Originating Case No. : OSHA-1 : 2021-0007
Dear Mr. McCray,
This case has been docketed as case number 22-3009 with the caption that is enclosed on a
separate page. Please review the caption for accuracy and notify the Clerk's office if any
corrections should be made. The appellate case number and caption must appear on all filings
submitted to the Court.
As the petitioner, when you submit motions, briefs or any other documents to the Clerk's
office, send only 1 original, which you have signed. Copies are no longer necessary. Do not
staple, paper clip, tab or bind pro se motions or briefs sent to the Clerk's office -- these
documents are scanned and staples etc. create paper jams. You must mail opposing counsel
a copy of every document you send to the Clerk's office for filing.
Respondent's counsel will docket pleadings as an ECF filer. Check the ECF page on the
court's web site for additional information about ECF filing if you are not familiar with it. The
following forms are due by January 20, 2022.
Respondent: Appearance of Counsel
As the petitioner, you have until January 20, 2022 to pay the full $500.00 appeal filing fee to
the Clerk, Court of Appeals, or to file a motion in this court asking that the fee be waived, and
including the financial affidavit that is enclosed. Failure to do one or the other will result in
the dismissal of this case without further notice.
The Clerk's office cannot give you legal advice but if you have questions about appellate
procedures, please contact the office for assistance.
Sincerely yours,
s/Leon T. Korotko
Case Manager
Direct Dial No. 513-564-7069
cc: Mr. Adam C. Jed

Mr. Martin Totaro
Enclosure
OFFICIAL COURT OF APPEALS CAPTION FOR 22-3009
EMANUEL MCCRAY, As an Individual Employee and as an Independent Contractor to

Amazon Logistics, Inc.; GOD LOVES YOU, INC.
Petitioners
v.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR
Respondent
In the United States Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
No. _______________
EMANUEL MCCRAY, As an Individual Employee and

as an Independent Contractor to Amazon Logistics, Inc.,
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ex rel. Emanuel McCray,
GOD LOVES YOU, INC., ex rel. Emanuel McCray,
EMANUEL MCCRAY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,

Petitioners,
v.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent.
EMANUEL MCCRAY
2700 Caples Avenue
P.O. Box 3134
Vancouver, WA 98668
(360) 433-7391
[email protected]
Pro Se
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ii

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ...........................................................v
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT.........................................................................................................................4
I. NO JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION CAN SAVE THE ETS ..........................4

A. The ETS Is Beyond Any Power Given to the Federal and
State Governments….................................................................................................4
B. The ETS Is An Attempt To Consolidate the Overthrow of the Government

of the United States… ............................................................................................. 15
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................... 31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................... 32
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bond v. U.S.
564 U.S. 211 (2011) ......................................................................................................1
Bond v. United States
572 U.S. 844 (2014) ............................................................................................... 1, 13
Califano v. Yamasaki
442 U.S. 682, 700 (1979) .............................................................................................1
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute
448 U.S. 607, 612 (1980) .......................................................................................... 29
Muskrat v. United States
219 U.S. 346, 361-62 (1911) ........................................................................................5
United States v. Chapple
251 Fed.Appx. 553, 559 (10th Cir.2007) (unpublished) ....................................... 14
United States v. Hale
762 F.3d 1214, 1224-1226 (10th Cir. 2014) ........................................................... 13
United States v. Keyser
704 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir.2012) ............................................................................ 14
Statutes
U.S. Constitution
Tenth Amendment ......................................................................................................1
18 U.S. Code
§2 ................................................................................................................................. 13
§3 ................................................................................................................................. 13
§4 ................................................................................................................................. 13
§35 ............................................................................................................................... 13
§111 ............................................................................................................................. 13
§112 ............................................................................................................................. 13
§113 ............................................................................................................................. 13
§114 ............................................................................................................................. 13
§118 ............................................................................................................................. 13
§119 ............................................................................................................................. 13
§175 ......................................................................................................................... 4, 13
§175b .......................................................................................................................... 13
§175c ........................................................................................................................... 13
§371 ......................................................................................................................... 2, 13
§1038 ................................................................................................................... 2, 4, 13
§1038(a)(1) ....................................................................................................................4
§1111 ........................................................................................................................... 13
ii
§1112 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§1113 ......................................................................................................................... 413
§1114 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§1116 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§1117 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§1991 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§1992 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§2280 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§2280a ......................................................................................................................... 13
§2281a ......................................................................................................................... 13
§2283 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§2332 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§2332a ......................................................................................................................... 13
§2339 ........................................................................................................................... 13
§2339A........................................................................................................................ 13
§2339B ........................................................................................................................ 13
§2339C ........................................................................................................................ 13
29 U.S. Code
§ 651............................................................................................................................ 15
§ 652............................................................................................................................ 15
§ 652(4) .........................................................................................................................1
§ 652(8) ...................................................................................................................... 29
§ 653............................................................................................................................ 15
§ 655(c)(1) .................................................................................................................. 29
§ 655(f)...........................................................................................................................1
§ 669a .......................................................................................................................... 15
§ 670............................................................................................................................ 15
§ 671............................................................................................................................ 15
§ 671a .......................................................................................................................... 15
42 U.S. Code
§ 203............................................................................................................................ 15
§ 247d ......................................................................................................................... 15
§ 247d-6 ...................................................................................................................... 15
§ 247d-6a .................................................................................................................... 15
§ 247d-6b.................................................................................................................... 15
§ 247d-6d ................................................................................................................ 4, 15
§ 247d-6e .................................................................................................................... 20
§ 262...................................................................................................................... 15, 20
§ 262a .......................................................................................................................... 20
iii
§263a ........................................................................................................................... 20
§264 ............................................................................................................................. 20
§280e-11 ..................................................................................................................... 20
§§5121 through 5207 ................................................................................................ 20
50 U.S. Code
§841 ................................................................................................................................1
§§ 4501 through 4568 ............................................................................................... 20
Ohio Revised Statute

Title 29 §2903, et seq. ................................................................................................. 10
Title 29 §2903.09 ....................................................................................................... 10
Oklahoma
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 21-1266.1 ...........................................................................2
Pennsylvania
Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2702 ........................................................................................... 10
Washington (Revised Code of Washington)

Chapter 9A.32............................................................................................................ 10
Chapter 9A.36............................................................................................................ 10
§38.52.010(2)(a) ......................................................................................................... 28
§43.20.050(2)(f).......................................................................................................... 28
Washington Administrative Code (WAC)

§ 246-101-010(11) ..................................................................................................... 28
§ 246-101-010(21) ..................................................................................................... 28
iv
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Petitioner Emanuel McCray is the sole Director of God Loves You, Inc., which
is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
Petitioners certify that, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and
Sixth Circuit Rule, 6 Cir. R. 26.1, no publicly traded company or corporation has an
interest in the outcome of this case or appeal.
v
INTRODUCTION
We, the Petitioners, pursuant to our individual power reserved in the Tenth
Amendment, and our power as a group acting as a class pursuant to 29 U.S. Code §
655(f), 29 U.S. Code § 652(4),1 Bond v. U.S., 564 U.S. 211, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011), Bond
v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 134 S. Ct. 2077 (2014),2 Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S.
682, 700, 99 S. Ct. 2545 (1979),3 and the fact that the Emergency Temporary Standard
(“ETS”) operates nationwide, hereby challenge the constitutional authority of the
Respondents to wage, with impunity, a deadly “Information Operation”
(“IO”)/“Information War” (“IW”) against us on behalf of foreign Powers.
Included among these foreign Powers are the Communist Party of China
(“CPC”), also known as the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”), and the Communist
Party of the United States of America (“CPUSA”).
Petitioners further believe, and are possessed with 100% confidence, the virus
identified and named “SARS-CoV-2”, was propagated, and continues to be
propagated, in furtherance of the International Communist Conspiracy (“ICC”),
which has been codified as a criminal enterprise by Congress,4 and the State of
1
“The term “person” means one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, legal
representatives, or any organized group of persons.”
2
Holding that: “‘An individual may ‘assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that
federalism defines.’”
3
Holding that “class relief is appropriate in civil actions brought in federal court, including those seeking to overturn
determinations of the departments of the Executive Branch of the Government in cases where judicial review of
such determinations is authorized…. Indeed, a wide variety of federal jurisdictional provisions speak in terms of
individual plaintiffs, but class relief has never been thought to be unavailable under them.”
4
Aug. 24, 1954, ch. 886, §2, 68 Stat. 775 (50 U.S.C. §841) (2019). Available from
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title50/html/USCODE-2019-title50-chap23-subchapIV.htm.
1
Oklahoma.5 Congress and Oklahoma stated the goal of the ICCC is the “overthrow
of the government of the United States.”
Petitioners believe, and are possessed with 100% confidence, the virus
identified and named “SARS-CoV-2”, is an actionable criminal and civil biological
hoax and conspiracy proscribed under 18 U.S. Code §§1038, and 371.
Petitioners further believe, and are possessed with 100% confidence, the virus
identified and named “SARS-CoV-2”, only exists in the form of “data”; the expert
and skillful manipulation of “data”; and the exceptionally clever, talented,
premeditated, intentional, asymmetrical, and unlawful use of intelligence,
counterintelligence, espionage, terrorism, propaganda, psychological warfare, and the
“fog of war”.
The vaccines the ETS seeks to mandate are based on “data” provided by the
ICCC. On or about December 11, 2020, Yasemin Saplakoglu (“Saplakoglu”), a writer
for Live Science,6 reported that the “COVID-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer and
Moderna” are based on “data” from Communist-controlled China:
“On Jan. 10, Chinese researchers first published the genetic sequence
(“data”) of the novel coronavirus on a preprint online; within a week,
Weissman and his team at the University of Pennsylvania were already
developing synthetic mRNA against the virus and both Moderna and
Pfizer licensed this team’s formulation from The University of
Pennsylvania, according to a perspective posted on Sep. 3 in the journal
JAMA. Within 66 days of the sequence (“data”) being published,
5
Laws 1955, p. 189, § 1. 2021 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §§ 21-1266.1. Available from
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os21.rtf.
6
Yasemin Saplakoglu. COVID-19 vaccines: The new technology that made them possible. Live Science. December
11, 2020. Available from https://www.livescience.com/mrna-vaccines-future-vaccine-development.html.
2
Moderna, in collaboration with National Institute of Allergy and

Infectious Diseases, developed a vaccine and kickstarted the first U.S.
clinical trial to test it against COVID-19.”
On or about March 25, 2021, Jon Gertner of the New York Times reported:
“It’s typically the case, for instance, that a pharmaceutical company

needs samples of a virus to create a vaccine. But once the sequence
(“data”) was in the public realm, Moderna, an obscure biotech company
in Cambridge, Mass., immediately began working with the National
Institutes of Health on a plan. ‘They never had the virus on site at all;
they really just used the sequence, and they viewed it as a software
problem,’ Francis deSouza, the chief executive of Illumina, which makes
the sequencer that Zhang used, told me with some amazement last
summer, six months before the Moderna vaccine received an
emergency-use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration. The
virus’s code (“data”) also set the testing industry into motion. Only by
analyzing characteristic aspects of the virus’s genetic sequence could
scientists create kits for the devices known as P.C.R. machines, which
for decades have used genetic information to formulate fast diagnostic
tests.”7
Both articles make clear they are talking about “(“data”)”, and not specimens of
the virus. These facts doom the ETS.
The fact that “SARS-CoV-2” only exists in the form of “data” was oddly
confirmed by Kayvon Modjarrad, Director of the Emerging Infectious Diseases
Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), Silver Spring, MD 20910,
in a pre-print science article released on or about March 25, 2021: 8
7
Jon Gertner. Unlocking the Covid Code. The New York Times. March 25, 2021. Available from
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/25/magazine/genome-sequencing-covid-variants.html.
8
Joyce MG, King HAD, Naouar IE, et al. Efficacy of a Broadly Neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 Ferritin Nanoparticle
Vaccine in Nonhuman Primates. Preprint. bioRxiv. 2021;2021.03.24.436523. Published 2021 Mar 25.
doi:10.1101/2021.03.24.436523. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33791694/;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8010721/;
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.24.436523v1.full.pdf+html.
3
“The Spike Ferritin Nanoparticle (SpFN) vaccine was designed as a

ferritin-fusion recombinant protein for expression as a nanoparticle.
Briefly, the Spike (S) protein sequence was derived from the Wuhan-Hu-
1 genome sequence (GenBank accession number: MN908947.3).”
To state differently, OSHA, through the ETS, is mandating/encouraging the
use of a product the enemies of the United States have mandated the world use as a
national security countermeasure under penalty of large fines.
ARGUMENT
I. NO JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION CAN SAVE THE ETS.
A. The ETS Is Beyond Any Power Given to the Federal and State
Governments.
The Petitioners searched the Federal Constitution and were unable to find an
exception for a pandemic created by the Communist-controlled People’s Republic of
China (“PRC”), in furtherance of the International Communist Criminal Conspiracy
(“ICCC”).
The lack of a constitutional exception converts the ETS into an overt act in
furtherance of the ICCC in violation of 18 U.S. Code §§1038(a)(1) and 175.
The ETS is based entirely on “data”, and a “narrative”, both approved by the
ICCC, that the virus named “SARS-CoV-2”, originated in the PRC, a country
founded in furtherance of the ICCC on October 1, 1949, following the formal
Proclamation of Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
Petitioners found no credible evidence from any Nation, including the United
States, that the virus named “SARS-CoV-2”, as a fact, originated in the PRC.
4
Petitioners found numerous “switchpoints”, or deviations from the history of
the United States and their Federal Constitution, that exposes the ETS’ conflicts with
the “fundamental law”, and thus requires a judicial declaration of the validity of the
ETS as a delegation of power given to Congress by the People of the United States.
See, Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 361-62 (1911) (“[Such] a proceeding [is]
against the Government in its sovereign capacity, and concerning which the only
judgment required is to settle the doubtful character of the legislation in question.”).
Chief among the switchpoints found by Petitioners is the fact that the entire
world, in intentional unison, waited for the ICCC to release the code/genome
sequence of the virus named “SARS-CoV-2”. This created a switchpoint which led to
Petitioners finding that no one in the entire world has taken responsibility for the
birth of “SARS-CoV-2”, nor has any person in the entire world claimed to have
handled or isolated the virus named “SARS-CoV-2”.
Another major switchpoint found by Petitioners is the fact that the ETS seeks
to displace Federal and State criminal laws by clothing the ICCC and the makers of
COVID-19 vaccines with immunity to commit the premeditated mass murder of
nationals of the United States. This created a “material switchpoint” which led to the
Petitioners discovering the fact that the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(“HHS”) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) had
instructed public health authorities and other users of the National Vital Statistics
System (“NVSS”) to falsify COVID-19 Death Certificates by: (1) eliminating SARS-
5
CoV-2 infection as the “UNDERLYING CAUSE OF DEATH”, among other
things.
Petitioners further found that in or about April 2021, Pfizer, Inc., in a
“CONFIDENTIAL” document titled “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization
Adverse Event Reports” (“CAPAERs”), informed the Food and Drug administration
(“FDA”) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”), that Pfizer
had received a total of 42,086 cases containing 158,893 adverse events of special
interest (“AESIs”), most of which were received from the United States. 9
The WHO, relying heavily on guidance from the FDA, defined AESI in its
Safety Surveillance Manual for COVID-19 Vaccines as one of “scientific and medical
concern”.10
Pfizer further informed the FDA and CBER that the AESIs after
administration of its COVID-19 vaccine was “highest among females (29,914),
compared to males (9,182), and that there were 1,223 deaths.11 Public Health Ontario
(“PHO”), Canada found a similar disparity between females and males during its
9
5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received
Through 28-Feb-2021. Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency. November 17, 2021. Available
from https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/; https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-
experience.pdf, paragraph 3.1.1 at page 6.
10
COVID-19 Vaccines: Safety Surveillance Manual. World Health Organization. (Undated). Available from
https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/Module_AESI.pdf. See also, Characterising the background
incidence rates of adverse events of special interest for covid-19 vaccines in eight countries: multinational network
cohort study. BMJ 2021;373:n1435 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1435 (Published 14 June 2021). Available
from https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1435.
11
Id., Table 1 at page 7.
6
surveillance of adverse events following immunization (“AEFIs”) conducted from
December 13, 2020 to December 19, 2021: (female (12,118); male (4,147)).12
Complicating Pfizer’s April 2021 “CAPAERs” is the fact that the Member
States of the WHO, including the United States, have intentionally excluded “sudden
death” following immunization from the uniform “AESI list”, which alone, or
collectively with other AESIs and AEFIs, creates the potential for widespread vaccine
hesitancy among communities and groups of individuals.13
In Appendix 4.1 to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
Standard Operating Procedures for COVID-19 (“VAERS SOP”), OHSA had details
available to the agency as to how AESIs and AEFIs are reported to and received by
the Federal Government on a daily basis.14
To state differently, OHSA intentionally refused to fully inform the public
regarding the extremely dangerous nature of the vaccines being forced upon them
through the mechanism of the ETS, and instead elected to promote falsely the
number of COVID-19 infections and deaths in furtherance of the ICCC.
12
Weekly Surveillance Summary. Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFIs) for COVID-19 in Ontario:
December 13, 2020 to December 19, 2021. Public Health Ontario, Canada. Available from
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?sc_lang=en.
13
COVID-19 Vaccines: Safety Surveillance Manual. World Health Organization. (Undated). Available from
https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/Module_AESI.pdf. See also, Gold MS, Balakrishnan MR,
Amarasinghe A, MacDonald NE. An approach to death as an adverse event following immunization. Vaccine. 2016
Jan 4;34(2):212-217. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.11.018. Epub 2015 Nov 19. PMID: 26608326. Available from
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26608326/; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264-410X(15)01638-2.
14
VAERS Team. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for
COVID-19 (as of 29 January 2021). Immunization Safety Office, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion
National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Available from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/VAERS-v2-SOP.pdf.
7
Of legal significance is the fact that AESIs and AEFIs are known medical and
scientific “risks” and burdens that are based on lessons learned from previous
vaccination programs, and “were originally selected based on a theoretical rationale
for a possible association with COVID-19 vaccines.”15
The pregnancy related AESIs among COVID-19 vaccinated mothers included
abortion spontaneous, uterine contraction during pregnancy, premature rupture of
membranes, abortion, abortion missed, foetal death, and infant/child exposed to
vaccine via breastfeeding.
Petitioners found the United States has recorded in the VAERS only one
percent, of all COVID-19 vaccine-associated AESIs. A search of the VAERS through
“CDC Wonder” for “death” after being administered Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine
returned “4,420 total events” as of December 24, 2021. Samplings of these deaths are
shown here:16
15
TECHNICAL BRIEF: Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESIs) for COVID-19 Vaccines Surveillance. Second
revision: 07/22/2021. Available from https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-
/media/documents/ncov/vaccines/2020/12/covid-19-guidance-aesis.pdf?la=en. See also, Ramya. Adverse event of
special interest (AESI). Pharmacovigilance. November 13, 2020. Available from
https://allaboutpharmacovigilance.org/adverse-event-of-special-interest-aesi/.
16
United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service (PHS), Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) / Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS) 1990 - 12/24/2021, CDC WONDER On-line Database. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html on
Jan 4, 2022 4:07:41 AM.
8
A search of the VAERS through “CDC Wonder” for “death” within “one day”
after being administered Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine returned “412 total events” as of
December 24, 2021. Samplings of these deaths are shown here:17
To state differently, when President Biden ordered Respondent OHSA to issue
the ETS, President Biden was aware, or reckless or extremely negligent in not making
17
Id. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html on Jan 4, 2022 4:09:08 AM.
9
himself aware, that some Americans were dropping dead within hours after Pfizer’s
COVID-19 vaccine was administered.
Homicide and assaults are crimes in the United States, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Washington. See e.g., Title 29, Ohio Revised Statute §2903, et seq., and particularly,
§2903.09 (Unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy); Pennsylvania Statutes Title
18 Pa.C.S.A. Crimes and Offenses §2702 (Aggravated assault); and Revised Code of
Washington Chapters 9A.32 (Homicide) and 9A.36 (Assault—physical harm).
In Appendix 1 to the CAPAERs, Pfizer provided nine pages of COVID-19
AESIs to the FDA and CBER, ranging from “1p36 deletion syndrome”, to “Zika
virus associated Guillain Barre syndrome.”
According to National Center for Biotechnology Information (“NCBI”), U.S.
National Library of Medicine (“NLM”) “1p36 deletion syndrome” presents with over
105 Clinical features, including “aggressive behavior”; “blepharophimosis”; “primary
dilated cardiomyopathy”; “constipation”; and “cleft upper lip”.18
On or about September 16, 2021, Public Health and Medical Professionals for
Transparency (“PHMPT”) commenced an action against the FDA seeking the release
of documents regarding Pfizer’s Biologics License Application (“BLA”).19 On or
about December 6, 2021, the FDA asked the Court in the PHMPT case to grant leave
to produce the requested documents over a period of 75 years.
18
Chromosome 1p36 deletion syndrome. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Available from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/medgen/334629.
19
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth), CASE No.: 4:21-cv-01058-P. Filed: 09/16/2021.
10
The PHMPT’s members include Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP,
FACC, FCCP, FAHA, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA (“McCullough”). On information and
belief, in October 2021, one or more members of the ICCC caused Elsevier B.V., a
business of RELX PLC, formerly known as “REED INTERNATIONAL P.L.C. and
“REED ELSEVIER PLC, to fraudulently and maliciously censor and withdraw a
peer-reviewed study conducted by Jessica Rose (“Dr. Rose”), PhD, MSc, BSc,
Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge, Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) and
Dr. McCullough, Truth for Health Foundation, Tucson, AZ, involving myocarditis
adverse events (“AEs”) in the U.S. VAERS in association with COVID-19 injectable
biological products.20
Drs. Rose and McCullough reported in their study the fact that 83% of the
11,449 myocarditis/pericarditis AESIs they found in VAERS were reported by the
vaccine manufacturers and government health authorities.
In their abstract, Drs. Rose and McCullough reported a “conclusion that the
COVID-19 biological products are deterministic for the myocarditis cases observed
after injection” and involved youths between the ages of 13 to 23, with ∼80%
occurring in males. Six individuals in this group died (1.1%) and of these, 2 were
under 20 years of age, and one was 13.
20
Rose J, McCullough PA. WITHDRAWN: A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse
Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products [published online
ahead of print, 2021 Sep 30]. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2021;101011. doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101011. Available
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483988/; and
https://web.archive.org/web/20211002192421/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8483988/.
11
To state differently, the VAERS worked precisely as it was designed by
providing the Government early warning and notice of AESIs associated with
COVID-19 vaccinations. Drs. Rose and McCullough also performed their duties
pursuant to their authorities and provided the Respondents with a peer-reviewed
study involving VAERS and the AESIs they studied. The ICCC did not want this
study in public circulation. Thus, censorship of this study unconstitutionally deprived
the People of the United States their right to know what their government is up to.
From, in or about November 2007, the CDC has listed SARS coronaviruses
among the “Category C”/“Class Three” agents under the classification of
“bioterrorism type” agents.21
The CDC defines “Category C”/“Class Three” agents as “[e]merging infectious
diseases such as Nipah virus and hantavirus, and has listed this category of agents as
the “[t]hird highest priority agents [among] emerging pathogens that could be
engineered for mass dissemination in the future because of availability; ease of
production and dissemination; and potential for high morbidity and mortality rates
and major health impact.”22
Should any of the Respondents prove, through evidence satisfactory to this
Court, that “SARS-CoV-2” is truly a virus that originated in China, such proof will
surely convert “SARS-CoV-2” into a bioterrorist weapon under the CDC’s

21
Bioterrorism Agents/Diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. November 9, 2007. Available from
https://web.archive.org/web/20071109165207/https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp.
22
Bioterrorism Agents/Diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. December 25, 2021. Available from
https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp.
12
bioterrorism regulations and 18 U.S.C. §175; reduce this virus to “treason”, an “act of
war”, or an “armed conflict”; and extinguish any power or authority to issue the ETS.
On the other hand, should any of the Respondents prove, through evidence
satisfactory to this Court, that “SARS-CoV-2” is not a virus that originated in China,
such proof will surely convert “SARS-CoV-2” into a biological hoax actionable under
18 U.S.C. §1038; reduce this virus to “treason”, an “act of war”, or an “armed
conflict”; and extinguish any power or authority to issue the ETS.
To state differently, the Respondents face a wall of premediated criminality
involving violations, and or potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§3, 4, 35, 111, 112, 113,
114, 115, 118, 119, 175, 175a, 175b, 175c, 371, 1001, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116,
1117, 1991, 1992, 2280, 2280a, 2281a, 2283, 2332, 2332a, 2339, 2339A, 2339B, 2339C,
and 2.
The existence of these numerous mutual crimes leaves no other legally
acceptable rationale, as explained by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Hale, 762 F.3d
1214, 1224-1226 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Hale”).
In Hale, the Tenth Circuit reversed Hale’s conviction for making a materially
false statement under oath in a bankruptcy case and sustained Hale’s conviction for
perpetrating a hoax regarding the transmission of a biological agent under 18 U.S.C.
§§175 and 1038(a).
The Tenth Circuit further noted the differences in facts to Bond v. United States,
572 U.S. 844, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2090, 2092 (2014), and the similar facts of “sending”
13
fake biological agents in United States v. Keyser, 704 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir.2012) and
United States v. Chapple, 251 Fed.Appx. 553, 559 (10th Cir.2007) (unpublished).
To state differently, the Members of the United Nations (“UN”), which
includes Communist-controlled China and the United States, and the Members of the
World Health Organization (“WHO”), which includes Communist-controlled China
and the United States, have sent a Class Three “bioterrorism type” agent around the
world, and the United States has sent the same Class Three “bioterrorism type” agent
around the United States and its territories, which has caused deaths and economic
harm to churches, military ships, cruise ships, private businesses, military bases,
residential households and local communities.
In the alternative, the Members of the United Nations (“UN”), which includes
Communist-controlled China and the United States, and the Members of the World
Health Organization (“WHO”), which includes Communist-controlled China and the
United States, have falsely claimed to have sent a Class Three “bioterrorism type”
agent around the world, and the United States has falsely claimed to have sent the
same Class Three “bioterrorism type” agent around the United States and its
territories, which has caused deaths and economic harm to churches, military ships,
cruise ships, private businesses, military bases, residential households and local
communities.
Any proof that the virus exists will surely place the Respondents in dire straits
given the fact that President Trump was, and the judges and employees of the Sixth
14
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Justices and employees of the U.S. Supreme Court
are, “officers and employees of the United States” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1114,
and each employed active security countermeasures to avoid becoming a victim of
homicide or biological assault by Communist China and the ICCC’s “SARS-CoV-2”.
Whether a virus exists or does not exist, creates similar outcomes for the
manufacturers of vaccines as countermeasures to the virus and or the disease caused
by the virus and its variants.
On or about March 27, 2021, an Application Instituting Proceedings in the
International Court of Justice (“Application”), captioned as United States of America vs.
Peoples Republic of China, which was mailed to the Registrar of the International Court
of Justice (“ICJ”) and the United States Embassy, both located in the Netherlands. In
furtherance of the ICCC, the Application has not been acted upon by these entities.
The President of the ICJ is Joan E. Donoghue, a national of the United States,
who had previously represented the United States in the ICJ during the “Iran-Contra
Affair” in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.
United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14.
B. The ETS Is An Attempt to Consolidate the Overthrow the Government of the

United States.
The ETS mandates premeditated assault and murder of citizens of the United
States. The public and private sector employers who have mandated vaccination
against COVID-19, have mandated assault and murder.
15
To state differently, the ETS sides with murderers from Communist China and
members of the ICCC, rather than the innocent People of the United States. On the
day Jesus was crucified, the crowd sided with Barabbas, a known murderer and
insurrectionist. This was after Pontius Pilate had informed the crowd he had found
“no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; no, neither
did Herod, for I sent you back to him; and indeed nothing deserving of death has
been done by Him.”23
The ETS creates a unique material switchpoint which the Petitioners resolved
after following a trail that led to the United Kingdom as the primary origin of the
“data” representing the virus named “SARS-CoV-2”—which was found to be nothing
more than a modified version of the common cold and influenza viruses.
The Petitioners further found British virologists Sir Christopher Howard
Andrewes (“Andrewes”), David Arthur John Tyrrell (“Tyrrell”), and others associated
with these individuals, are internationally known for their investigation of viruses.
In 1933, Andrewes discovered the human influenza A virus. In 1957, Tyrrell
worked at the Rockefeller Institute in New York. From 1958 to 1990, Tyrrell led the
UK efforts at the Common Cold Research Unit, later known as the “Common Cold
Unit”.
In 1960, Tyrrell and his colleagues discovered the trick of successfully
cultivating what are now called rhinoviruses, which further led to discoveries of the
23
Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:38-19:16; and Matthew 27:15-26 (New King James Version).
16
multiplicity of serotypes of rhinoviruses, elucidation of their properties, their
epidemiological behavior, and the discovery of another family of common cold
viruses, the coronaviruses.
In 1965, Tyrrell and his colleague Malcolm L. Bynoe, discovered the first
human coronavirus, when they found they could passage a virus named “B814”. The
following year, Hamre and Procknow demonstrated the ability to grow a virus, “229E”,
with unusual properties in tissue culture.24 Both B814 and 229E were ether-sensitive
and therefore presumably required a “lipid-containing coat for infectivity”.
June Dalziel Almeida, a Scottish virologist, was a pioneer in virus imaging,
identification, and diagnosis. Her skills in immuno-electron microscopy earned her an
international reputation when she used this technology to identify the “coronavirus,
24
Kahn, Jeffrey S. MD, PhD; McIntosh, Kenneth MD. History and Recent Advances in Coronavirus Discovery, The
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal: November 2005 - Volume 24 - Issue 11 - p S223-S227
doi: 10.1097/01.inf.0000188166.17324.60, citing, Tyrrell DA, Bynoe ML. Cultivation of viruses from a high
proportion of patients with colds. Lancet. 1966 Jan 8;1(7428):76-7. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(66)92364-6. PMID:
4158999 and Hamre D, Procknow JJ. A new virus isolated from the human respiratory tract. Proc Soc Exp Biol
Med. 1966 Jan;121(1):190-3. doi: 10.3181/00379727-121-30734. PMID: 4285768. See also:
(1) Cueno ME, Ueno M, Iguchi R, et al. Insights on the Structural Variations of the Furin-Like Cleavage Site Found
Among the December 2019-July 2020 SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein: A Computational Study Linking Viral
Evolution and Infection. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:613412. Published 2021 Mar 10.
doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.613412. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987684/;
(2) Frutos R, Serra-Cobo J, Pinault L, Lopez Roig M, Devaux CA. Emergence of Bat-Related Betacoronaviruses:
Hazard and Risks. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:591535. Published 2021 Mar 15. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.591535.
Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8005542/;
(3) Sbaoui Y, Bennis F, Chegdani F. SARS-CoV-2 as Enteric Virus in Wastewater: Which Risk on the Environment
and Human Behavior?. Microbiol Insights. 2021;14:1178636121999673. Published 2021 Mar 15.
doi:10.1177/1178636121999673. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7968024/;
(4) Eguia RT, Crawford KHD, Stevens-Ayers T, et al. A human coronavirus evolves antigenically to escape
antibody immunity. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(4):e1009453. Published 2021 Apr 8. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1009453.
Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8031418/;
(5) Pluskota-Karwatka D, Hoffmann M, Barciszewski J. Reducing SARS-CoV-2 Pathological Protein Activity with
Small Molecules [published online ahead of print, 2021 Apr 5]. J Pharm Anal. 2021;10.1016/j.jpha.2021.03.012.
doi:10.1016/j.jpha.2021.03.012. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8020608/; and
(6) McIntosh K, Perlman S. Coronaviruses, Including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East
Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases.
2015;1928-1936.e2. doi:10.1016/B978-1-4557-4801-3.00157-0. Available from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151770/.
17
hepatitis B, HIV, and rubella.” “Today, most virology review articles and textbooks
contain her electron micrographs of viruses.” 25
Almeida’s “simple technique” of immune electron microscopy, which provided
visualizations of virus preparations that were mixed with antibodies raised in animals
or from human sources, made it possible for viruses to be seen clumped by antibody.
Almeida collaborated with Tyrrell. Not only were common cold viruses
identified, which could not be cultivated conventionally, but also new viruses were
recognized, including the coronaviruses, “which were a new cause of respiratory
infections. The more recently recognised SARS virus also belongs to this group.”26
Almeida also taught the NIH’s Dr. Albert Zaven Kapikian (“Kapikian”) the
technique of immune electron microscopy. On his return to the U.S. from the U.K.,
Kapikian used this technique to identify small round viruses causing outbreaks of
gastroenteritis, such as the “Norwalk agent,” now known as the Norovirus, which
causes nationwide outbreaks called winter vomiting disease. Almeida’s technique also
enabled workers at the NIH to visualise, for the first time, the hepatitis A virus.”27
To state differently, the United States obtained from Almeida the capability to
simultaneously identify hundreds of viruses, including any new viruses, without having
to wait for Communist China to release the “data” for the “SARS-CoV-2” hoax.
25
Almeida J. June Almeida (née Hart). BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1511. doi:10.1136/bmj.a434. Available from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440895/, and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440895/pdf/bmj-336-7659-obit-01511.pdf.
26
Id.
27
Id.
18
The Petitioners found this capability expressed in the National Center for
Biotechnology Information (“NCBI”) Virus database,28 which contains more than
24.5 million virus sequences associated with their human host, such as the Eggplant
latent viroid (“ELVd”)29 found in eggplants.
On July 1, 1902, Congress enacted ch. 1378, §§1, 32 Stat. 728, an act to regulate
the sale and interstate traffic of viruses, serums, toxins, and analogous products, 42
U.S.C. §§141 to 148, now codified under 42 U.S.C. §262 (2019 edition).
Petitioners are 100% certain, that in creating the “Public Health Service”
(“PHS”) in 1944, codified in Chapter 6A, Public Health Service, 42 U.S.C. §§201 to
300mm-61, Congress did not vest in any person, including the President, nor any
Branch of the Federal Government, nor any State, nor any private sector employer,
any power whatsoever to participate in, or aid and abet, the ICCC’s overthrow of the
United States under the Communist Chinese feint of a worldwide biological
pandemic.
To the contrary, Congress enacted a statutory scheme designed to limit harms
to Petitioners caused by wars, natural disasters, and malicious and accidental acts of
humans:
(A) 29 U.S.C. §§ 651, 652, 653, 669a, 670, 671, and 671a;
(B) 42 U.S.C. §§ 203, 247d, 247d-6, 247d-6a, 247d-6b, 247d-6d,
28
NCBI Virus. National Library of Medicine. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/#/.
29
Fadda Z, Daròs JA, Fagoaga C, Flores R, Duran-Vila N. Eggplant latent viroid, the candidate type species for a
new genus within the family Avsunviroidae (hammerhead viroids). J Virol. 2003;77(11):6528-6532.
doi:10.1128/jvi.77.11.6528-6532.2003. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155007/.
19
247d-6e, 262, 262a, 263a, 264, 280e-11, 5121 through 5207; and
(C) 50 U.S.C. §§ 4501 through 4568.
On or about May 26, 2021, President Biden exposed the United States’
probable involvement in the SARS-CoV-2 bioterrorist attack and criminal hoax when
he admitted “task[ing] the Intelligence Community to prepare a report on their most
up-to-date analysis of the origins of COVID-19, including whether it emerged from
human contact with an infected animal or from a laboratory accident….” 30
Among the entities not mentioned by President Biden is the National
Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (“NBACC”).31 “Its work supports
intelligence assessments, preparedness planning, response, emerging threat
characterization and bioforensic analyses.” 32 Further, the NBACC’s laboratory space
includes two centers: the National Bioforensic Analysis Center (NBFAC), which
conducts technical analyses in support of federal law enforcement investigations, and
the National Biological Threat Characterization Center (“NBTCC”), which conducts
experiments and studies to better understand biological vulnerabilities and hazards,
and to support the investigation, prosecution and prevention of biocrimes and
bioterrorism.”33
30
Statement by President Joe Biden on the Investigation into the Origins of COVID-19. May 26, 2021. Available
from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/26/statement-by-president-joe-biden-
on-the-investigation-into-the-origins-of-covid-19/.
31
Available from https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/national-biodefense-analysis-and-countermeasures-
center.
32
Id.
33
Id.
20
On information and belief, the ETS does not rely upon any investigation
conducted by the NBACC, NBFAC, and NBTCC on any workplace. Moreover, there
is but uniform silence—from President Biden, all the way down to the lowest paid
Government employee. This dooms the ETS and the vaccines currently being forced
on Petitioners against their will in a manner similar to a criminal rapist forcing himself
on a child or an adult.
What equally dooms the ETS and the vaccines is the fact that the information
the public needs to inform their consent to vaccination is being intentionally withheld
by the HHS, the CDC and the FDA.34
On or about December 6, 2021, Hannah Rose (“Rose”), a UK lawyer,35 filed a
criminal complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court on behalf
of herself and others. The Applicants alleged five criminal violations of international
law,36 and named “Anthony Fauci” among the perpetrators of international crimes.
Within nine days of its filing, the criminal complaint was attacked by Logically
AI, Inc. as being “FALSE”, and as not having a snowball’s chance in fire “that the
ICC will open an investigation as a result of this document as there is no evidence that
34
See Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. Food and Drug Administration, 4:21-cv-01056-
P (N.D. Tex.), ECF Nos. 1, 20, 22, 26, 29 and 31; and Informed Consent Action Network v. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and Health and Human Services, 1:21-cv-01179 (W.D. Tex), ECF No. 1, filed December
28, 2021.
35
Available also from https://hannahroselaw.co.uk/icc-complaint-uk/.
36
Peoples of the United Kingdom v. Boris Johnson, et al., Office of the Prosecutor Reference No. OTP-CR-473/21,
filed December 6, 2021.
21
the U.K. has violated the Nuremberg code.37 The factchecker identified herself as
Rachel Muller Heyndyk (“Heyndyk”).38
On or about July 14, 2021, Logically AI announced its partnership with
Facebook.39 The Petitioners believe this partnership is responsible for factchecking
Rose’s criminal complaint. Moreover, Logically AI references a BBC News article that
was published on December 16, 2021, while the factcheck was published on
December 15, 2021, one day earlier.
Lyric Jain, founder and CEO of Logically AI, is followed on Twitter40 by
“Olivia Troye”,41 who served as White House Homeland Security, counterterrorism
and COVID Advisor to Vice President Pence. Olivia Troye also follows “Nick
Backovic”, a creative writer for Logically AI, Inc.42
Emerald Robinson (“Robinson”) is an actress, and was most recently, the
White House Correspondent for Newsmax T.V. before being sidelined by Newsmax
in or about November 2021 for “posting a baseless conspiracy theory over [COVID-
19] vaccines”.43 Twitter also permanently suspended Robinson’s Twitter account. 44
37
Rachel Muller Heyndyk. False. The U.K. government has violated the Nuremberg Code. December 15, 2021.
Available from https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/085e8549.
38
Rachel Muller Heyndyk. Available from https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/author/rachel-muller-
heyndyk.
39
Logically announces UK fact-checking partnership with Facebook. Available from
https://www.logically.ai/press/logically-announces-uk-fact-checking-partnership-with-facebook.
40
Available from https://twitter.com/Lyric_Jain?lang=en.
41
Available from https://twitter.com/OliviaTroye.
42
Available from https://twitter.com/nickbackovic; and https://www.logically.ai/articles/author/nick-backovic.
43
Ted Johnson. Newsmax Takes White House Reporter Emerald Robinson Off Air After Vaccine Conspiracy Tweet.
Newsmax Deadline. November 4, 2021. Available from https://deadline.com/2021/11/newsmax-emerald-robinson-
white-house-1234868176/.
44
Nikki Schwab. Newsmax White House correspondent fails to get her contract renewed after she was permanently
suspended from Twitter for repeatedly posting COVID vaccines misinformation. Daily Mail. December 7, 2021.
22
Petitioner McCray and Robinson followed each other on Twitter. During the
Summer of 2020, Robinson questioned Troye’s qualifications to serve as COVID-19
advisor to Vice President Pence “without any medical training”, among other things:
On or about November 8, 2020, The Washington Post reported that “Olivia
Troye” was a member of a “four-year movement to defeat Trump in 2020”.45
According to the Washington Post reporting, Troye admitted watching the “virus
Available from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10284933/Newsmax-White-House-correspondent-doesnt-

contract-renewed.html.
45
Philip Rucker, Dan Balz, Robert Costa, Amy B Wang and Cleve R. Wootson Jr. Voices from the fight: An oral
history of the four-year movement to defeat Donald Trump. The Washington Post. November 8, 2020. Available
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/trump-opposition-oral-history/;
https://web.archive.org/web/20201108130012/https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/trump-
opposition-oral-history/.
23
closely as it continued to spread in Wuhan”. Petitioners found no evidence Troye
informed Vice President Pence or President Trump of what she was watching.
News that Troye was a member of a “four-year” conspiracy against a sitting
President, and the fact that Troye served as Vice President Pence’s “COVID
Advisor” without having any “COVID” science, medical or virological experience,
created material switchpoints that were resolved by circling back to the viruses
discovered by Andrewes, Tyrrell, Almeida, and others, and immuno-electron
microscopy.
In or about 1989, Roger P. Ekins FRS, a British biophysicist and professor at
the Department of Molecular Endocrinology, University College and Middlesex
School of Medicine, London, UK, reported on a trend in the development of “’multi-
analyte’ immunoassay systems”, which enables the “simultaneous measurement of
tens or even hundreds of substances simultaneously in the same small sample”.46
In 2020, the FDA began the emergency use approval of several diagnostic tests
for SARS-CoV-2, including “multi-analyte immunoassay systems” similar to those
described by Ekins.47
An emergency approval for a multi-analyte immunoassay was issued to the
CDC on or about July 2, 2020, which was “intended for the simultaneous qualitative
46
Ekins RP. Multi-analyte immunoassay. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 1989;7(2):155-68. doi: 10.1016/0731-
7085(89)80079-2. PMID: 2488616. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2488616/; and
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0731-7085(89)80079-2.
47
In Vitro Diagnostics EUAs - Molecular Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2. Available from
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-
devices/in-vitro-diagnostics-euas-molecular-diagnostic-tests-sars-cov-2.
24
detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A virus, and/or influenza B
virus nucleic acid in upper or lower respiratory specimens”.48
On or about October 2, 2020, the FDA issued an EUA for a multi-analyte
immunoassay to BioFire Diagnostics, LLC. The BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1)
is more robust than the CDC’s multi-analyte immunoassay and is comprised of a
“multiplexed nucleic acid test intended for the simultaneous qualitative detection and
differentiation of nucleic acids from multiple viral and bacterial respiratory organisms,
including nucleic acid from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
(SARS-CoV-2)”.49 The BioFire RP2.1 test report is automatically displayed upon
completion of a run, as shown here:
The Petitioners 100% certainty that the ETS is an overt act in furtherance of
the ICCC is clear when the EUA for a multi-analyte immunoassay issued to BioFire
48
CDC Influenza SARS-CoV-2 (Flu SC2) Multiplex Assay. Available from
https://www.fda.gov/media/139743/download.
49
BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1-EZ (RP2.1-EZ). Available from https://www.fda.gov/media/142696/download.
25
Diagnostics, LLC. is juxtaposed the disease surveillance systems of the United States.
Shown here is Washington State’s recent four-year surveillance reporting:50
50
Washington State Department of Health. Available at
https://www.doh.wa.gov/DataandStatisticalReports/DiseasesandChronicConditions/CommunicableDiseaseSurveilla
nceData/InfluenzaSurveillanceData.
26
On or about April 5, 2020, Tracy Beanz (“Beanz”), investigative journalist and
Editor-in-Chief @UncoverDC and UncoverDC.com, reported similar statistics from
across the Nation gleaned from the CDC’s databases. Beanz further found the
possibility that “SARS-CoV-2” infections began as early as November 2019 with the
start of the annual flu season.51
51
Tracy Beanz. Could CDC Data Prove COVID-19 Infections in November 2019? April 5, 2020. Available from
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/05/could-cdc-data-prove-covid-19-infections-in-november-2019/.
27
When Communist China and the ICCC confirmed the full genome sequence of
“SARS-CoV-2” on January 11, 2020, seven of the top ten genomic sequencing
companies in the world, by revenue, were either based in the United States, or had an
active presence in the United States, including Communist China’s BGI Group,
formerly known as the Beijing Genomics Institute (“BGI”).52
The Petitioners found the disease surveillance facts; the existence of a massive
array of sequencing firepower; and the fact that President Biden and the “Intelligence
Community” “created a paradox where a paradox was unable to exist”, naturally
converted the rapid appearance of “SARS-CoV-2” into a “catastrophic incident”, and
its disease, COVID-19, into a “[d]isease of suspected bioterrorism origin”. The
sudden destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, also
pointed to a terrorist attack. This in turn, caused the current pandemic to be
converted into a “covert release of a biological agent” investigation under the primary
jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 53 The bioterrorist investigation in
Washington State is governed by RCW §§38.52.010(2)(a) and 43.20.050(2)(f), and
WAC §§ 246-101-010(11) and (21).
The State and national virus surveillance data absolutely dooms the ETS given
the fact that viruses and bacteria in the United States have never posed a threat to any
52
Mark Terry. Top 10 Gene Sequencing Companies by Revenue. BioSpace. November 29, 2019. Available from
https://www.biospace.com/article/top-10-gene-sequencing-companies-by-revenue/.
53
Testimony of J. T. Caruso, Deputy Assistant Director of FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, Before the Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information on the issue of the Federal
Government’s response to “bioterrorism”. November 06, 2001. Available from
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/bioterrorism.
28
workplace, other than those that handle and manipulate deadly viruses and pathogens,
such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology located in Communist China. This outcome
is consistent with Circuit Judge Larsen’s dissent where she found “doubt” in the
Secretary being capable of meeting the “test” in 29 U.S.C. §§ 652(8), 655(c)(1), and
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 612 (1980).54
On December 29, 2021, Justine Stimmel, an acquaintance of Petitioner
McCray, informed McCray the ICCC’s target on her back for exercising her
constitutional rights at her child’s school sporting event55 had been converted to a
criminal trespass prosecution. This probably departs from the ““principle of absolute
prosecutorial immunity”, particularly should evidence prove “SARS-CoV-2” is a
terrorist attack or a hoax. Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 135 (1997). A hearing is set
for January 6, 2022:
54
Mass. Bldg. Trades Council v. United States Dep’t of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Admin. (In re MCP
No. 165, Occupational Safety & Health Admin.), 21-4093, 43-44 (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 2021).
55
Justine Stimmel, Telegram. https://t.me/LaCenterLioness/66; https://t.me/LaCenterLioness/10;
https://t.me/LaCenterLioness/23; and
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=581667669554159.
29
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request the Court to declare
the ETS unconstitutional.
_____________________
EMANUEL MCCRAY
2700 Caples Avenue
P.O. Box 3134
Vancouver, WA 98668
(360) 433-7391
[email protected]
Pro Se
30
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This document complies with the type-volume limits of Fed. R. App. P. 27
because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), this
document contains 6,465 words.
This document complies with the typeface and type-style requirements of Fed.
R. App. P 27, Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5), and Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this
document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft
Word in 14-point Garamond font.
________________________________
Emanuel McCray
31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 5, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing
Petition with the Clerk of Court by using the Court’s Pro se litigants e-mail system in
PDF format to the following email box:
[email protected]
CM/ECF system. Petitioner has not been granted access to CM/ECF for this
Circuit and expects access will be granted by the Clerk in the normal course.
I further certify that on January 5, 2022, a true copy of this Petition for Review
was sent by regular mail and email as identified and addressed below:
Respondent:
Edmund C. Baird
Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health
Office of the Solicitor
United States Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210
[email protected]
[email protected]
________________________________
Emanuel McCray
32

Emanuel's Petition Seeking Review of OSHA Vaccine Mandate For Large Employers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emanuel's Petition Seeking Review of OSHA Vaccine Mandate For Large Employers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 22-3009 Document: 1-1 Filed: 01/06/2022 Page: 1 (1 of 41)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: January 06, 2022

Mr. Emanuel McCray

Re: Case No. 22-3009, Emanuel McCray, et al v. OSHA

Dear Mr. McCray,

Respondent: Appearance of Counsel

cc: Mr. Adam C. Jed

OFFICIAL COURT OF APPEALS CAPTION FOR 22-3009

EMANUEL MCCRAY, As an Individual Employee and as an Independent Contractor to

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

In the United States Court of

EMANUEL MCCRAY, As an Individual Employee and

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ex rel. Emanuel McCray,

GOD LOVES YOU, INC., ex rel. Emanuel McCray,

EMANUEL MCCRAY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ii

I. NO JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION CAN SAVE THE ETS ..........................4

B. The ETS Is An Attempt To Consolidate the Overthrow of the Government

Ohio Revised Statute

Washington (Revised Code of Washington)

Washington Administrative Code (WAC)

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND

is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington.

interest in the outcome of this case or appeal.

(“ETS”) operates nationwide, hereby challenge the constitutional authority of the

Respondents to wage, with impunity, a deadly “Information Operation”

(“IO”)/“Information War” (“IW”) against us on behalf of foreign Powers.

Party of the United States of America (“CPUSA”).

identified and named “SARS-CoV-2”, was propagated, and continues to be

propagated, in furtherance of the International Communist Conspiracy (“ICC”),

of the government of the United States.”

identified and named “SARS-CoV-2”, is an actionable criminal and civil biological

and skillful manipulation of “data”; and the exceptionally clever, talented,

premeditated, intentional, asymmetrical, and unlawful use of intelligence,

counterintelligence, espionage, terrorism, propaganda, psychological warfare, and the

ICCC. On or about December 11, 2020, Yasemin Saplakoglu (“Saplakoglu”), a writer

Moderna” are based on “data” from Communist-controlled China:

Moderna, in collaboration with National Institute of Allergy and

“It’s typically the case, for instance, that a pharmaceutical company

the virus. These facts doom the ETS.

confirmed by Kayvon Modjarrad, Director of the Emerging Infectious Diseases

in a pre-print science article released on or about March 25, 2021: 8

“The Spike Ferritin Nanoparticle (SpFN) vaccine was designed as a

To state differently, OSHA, through the ETS, is mandating/encouraging the

national security countermeasure under penalty of large fines.

I. NO JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION CAN SAVE THE ETS.

exception for a pandemic created by the Communist-controlled People’s Republic of

China (“PRC”), in furtherance of the International Communist Criminal Conspiracy

furtherance of the ICCC in violation of 18 U.S. Code §§1038(a)(1) and 175.

founded in furtherance of the ICCC on October 1, 1949, following the formal

Proclamation of Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Communist Party of China (CPC).

Petitioners found numerous “switchpoints”, or deviations from the history of

judgment required is to settle the doubtful character of the legislation in question.”).

handled or isolated the virus named “SARS-CoV-2”.

COVID-19 vaccines with immunity to commit the premeditated mass murder of

CoV-2 infection as the “UNDERLYING CAUSE OF DEATH”, among other

Petitioners further found that in or about April 2021, Pfizer, Inc., in a

“CONFIDENTIAL” document titled “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization

administration of its COVID-19 vaccine was “highest among females (29,914),

surveillance of adverse events following immunization (“AEFIs”) conducted from

hesitancy among communities and groups of individuals.13