Is Vaccine Coercion An Act Of Domestic Terrorism?

Since I am a lawyer, I try to keep up on the legal issues of the day. One the biggest ones that people face involves coercion to take the vaccine by governments and businesses alike, not to mention schools, medical institutions and family members who have bought into the common narrative.

Generally I try not to opine on or interpret the law for public consumption. There are so many issues involved in any claim that it’s hard to fairly treat them from the view of an outsider, much less one not fully versed in the individual facts of each instance or even the many statutes and legal standards of the different jurisdictions involved.

For instance, the law in the U.S. is not necessarily the same as in the individual states, nor is it the same as in Canada, the UK, or the European countries. However, there are common threads that may run through all of them.

The one I’m looking at today arises under US (federal) laws incorporating aspects of the Nuremberg Code relative to the experimental use of vaccines and other treatments on human beings. It doesn’t reference vaccines per se, but it does talk about experimental medical treatments.

Nuremberg Requirements for Medical Treatments

–“Permissible Medical Experiments.” Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg October 1946 – April 1949, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office (n.d.), vol. 2., pp. 181-182.

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential (emphasis added). This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury disability or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required by him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject. 

These stemmed from the experiments of Dr. Joseph Mengele on prisoners of the 3rd Reich (Nazi Germany). You may recall the movie, “The Boys from Brazil,” based on efforts to capture him and stop him from raising clones of Adolf Hitler. In case you haven’t seen it, here it is (also available for rent or purchase on YouTube):

It’s a great movie starring Gregory Peck, and I highly recommend it for background. Still, it is a bit afield of today’s discussion, so let’s move on to the meat of today’s matter.

The Legal Arguments

As you know governments around the world, both directly and through their “suggestion” or coercion of businesses under their jurisdictions, imposed mandates to try to force citizens into taking the vaccine. Whether you did or not is only tangentially relevant to our discussion. Your reasons are your own.

Neither a declared state of medical emergency nor mandates issued thereunder are valid reasons to overcome the need for consent of those who got vaccinated; that consent must be voluntarily given, generally with full and informed consent to accept all the possible risks that came with it. Superimpose upon that coercion the fact that these vaccines are all experimental, with no proven track record of safety or efficacy, and that coercion becomes even more pronounced.

Forget for a moment that Pfizer and the FDA/CDC all withheld evidence of pre-release testing that showed significant dangers from the vaccine, evidence that is still being released in the court-ordered document dumps now underway. This just muddies the waters even further and points to a widespread conspiracy of the players involved to hide the harm from the public’s eyes, even while cajoling, bribing and eventually coercing them to take it through lockdowns, travel/activity restrictions, and mandates.

Also forget that the government also prevented access to off-label treatments by medications approved by the FDA for other purposes, treatments which have long been permitted in modern medicine. I am specifically referring to hydroxychloriquine and ivermectin, two ionophores that help transport zinc into the nucleus of cells where it can ward off infection and promote healing.

What we’re concerned with most is the incorporation of the Nuremberg principle into law, and its implications for those imposing or resisting the mandates.

The Proposed Outline for Attorney General Lawsuits

I draw your attention now to a document prepared as a guideline for attorneys general around the US to use as a guide in suing the feds for their criminal actions both criminally and civilly. Entitled “Attorney General Document,” it raises some interesting allegations relative to these issues. You can read it at It’s on the website of David Martin, who I believe was the author.

It’s not a complaint, but a short paper detailing a few of the issues they may want to consider. It looks to me to need more in the way of citations and discussion the issues, but who am I to criticize their efforts to get these important issues in the public eye?

To briefly highlight the issues, I’ve included the proposed caption of the case so you can see the different counts.

It includes two different causes of action for domestic terrorism, conspiring to commit a criminal commercial activity, funding and creating a biological weapon, market manipulation, lying to Congress, having interlocking directorates, and a seditious conspiracy.

Personally, I don’t think what they’ve presented is sufficient, either in stating the elements necessary to be proven for each offense or offering sufficient detail of the facts demonstrating it (there’s more they need to say). It also doesn’t speak to my question whether a vaccine (it’s really a gene therapy for which different rules apply) should be considered experimental when it has not undergone extensive testing and is only approved for use on an emergency basis (granting immunity to the drug company for damage), or the additional issue of whether that immunity can be pierced for fraud, misrepresentation or whatever.

Still, their outline is a good conversation starter, and they raised some issues that deserve further investigation and research.

Besides investigating the details of the allegations they present, I would suggest those who want a fuller picture also expand their research to include the work of Naomi Wolf ( and

as well as that of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich (

In closing

Just in case you think I’m trolling for legal work, don’t. I’m retired. So if you suffered an injury or other damages, I recommend you consult with an attorney on possible vaccine-related crimes and liability, just not me.

My reason for bringing it up today is not whether these counts, or others not raised, will stand up in court; that remains to be seen, since there are many factors involved, including the court’s willingness to hear the case (lack of jurisdiction and standing are often used to dismiss cases they don’t want, as was seen in the 2020 election cases where the courts basically told concerned citizens they had no recourse available to contest election fraud).

Rather, it’s because we seem to be settling into two diametrically opposed camps on the vaccine, neither of which seems to be able to communicate with the other, much less agree on whether such a process as was followed was even legal in the first place.

Whether the vaccine was safe and effective is not the issue of this moment. It is whether we as supposedly free citizens of some of the supposedly freest countries that ever existed on the face of the earth can investigate, prosecute and hold accountable those responsible for the harms inflicted upon individuals and society. And that starts with an objective examination of the evidence surrounding the vaccine’s release and implementation.

In bringing it up now, I encourage you to join in open discourse of these important issues, along with the underlying one of whether government serves us, or abuses its power to benefit those who wield the power and their friends. In the case of the vaccines, it certainly looks to me like they overstepped their bounds.

You’re a conscious being. What do you think?

John Dennison
Follow me
Latest posts by John Dennison (see all)
Spread the love