Doctors sue the Government about the NAV

[David Merrill]

An interesting development in the case is Larry BeCRAFT painting an admission that the behaviors of the federal medical community are criminal, in a civil suit. Larry is dismissing defendants from having to answer to - Count 7 on the indictment, er... Complaint. I thought it might be interesting to find Count 7 in the Complaint.

In the initial Doc 1 Petition for Injunction we find a Defendant 7:

7. Julie Bloom (Julie), of Huntsville Alabama, is the mother of two
children ages 10 and 16, and the mother of one young adult age 21. Julie has
researched the experimental COVID-19 vaccines and also fiercely opposes
their use in healthy children of any age. She knows that her own beloved
children are placed at immediate and irreparable risk of harm by extending
the EUAs for the experimental COVID-19 vaccines to adolescents. Julie is
well aware that there are safe and effective alternative treatments readily
available and she adamantly opposes the suppression of those treatments in
favor of experimental and potentially life-threatening agents. Julie’s duly
executed Declaration is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.
Julie seeks an immediate temporary restraining order to halt the extension of
EUAs for the experimental COVID-19 vaccines for any and all children 17
years old and younger.

But I felt it much more likely Defendant 10, like this physician was having his career trashed for joindering:

10. Steven M. Roth, MD (Dr. Roth), of Alabama, has been a
practicing emergency medicine physician for 13 years. As part of his practice,
Dr. Roth sees patients of all ages. He is aware of the risks and benefits of
these investigational agents as well as the current vaccine schedule for other
diseases. Based on the most recent numbers from the CDC from May 5, 2021,
anyone under the age of 16 has statistically NO risk of dying of Covid-19.
Dr. Roth has not seen a COVID-19 patient in many months, but he is
currently seeing many patients who come to the emergency department as
post-COVID-19 injection patients. All of these patients came in with COVID-
19 like symptoms that occurred within 48 hours of the injection. All these
Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 19 of 80
patients required hospital admission. Several of these patients progressed to
death, caused by the vaccine.
Dr. Roth’s concern is that based upon what he is seeing in the
community, and because of the schools asking that students take the
experimental COVID-19 injections and putting obstacles around those who
do not take it, young people are being pressured to take an experimental
injection, and many are succumbing to that pressure. This is deeply
disturbing to Dr. Roth, because it is universally known that children virtually
never die from COVID-19 and given that children have a very strong immune
system, they are more likely than adults to have an over-reaction to the shot.
This means that there is not only no benefit, but also an increased risk for
children who receive the experimental COVID-19 injections. Also, with all
prior viruses and vaccines, it has been accepted in the medical community
that natural immunity is superior to vaccination, and there is no basis to
believe that would be different with SARS-CoV-2. Because of these factors, it
is actually not preferable to give the vaccine even if it was definitely safe,
which these are not.
In addition, Dr. Roth is extraordinarily concerned that there have
been no animal studies, nor long-term studies, of the COVID-19 vaccines,
especially since prior coronavirus vaccines all caused death in the animals
subjected to them.
Dr. Roth is aware of many thousands of physicians who agree with
him, but who are under great pressure to say nothing. Dr. Roth has
chosen to speak out now, at great personal cost to himself, because the
alternative is unbearable. Dr. Roth could not live with himself if he stood
by and allowed these experimental COVID-19 injections to be inflicted
upon children universally, resulting in death and destruction over the
Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 20 of 80
years. He considers it immoral and unconscionable that this
experimental therapy will be given to children. Not only are children
NOT at risk of death from COVID-19, but they are also NOT mini-adults.
Their organs are still forming, and they are even more vulnerable than
adults to developing auto-immune disease in this situation.
Dr. Roth would be deeply and directly affected by a change in FDA
guidelines regarding vaccines for young people, and as a result he is
imploring this Court to grant an immediate TRO to halt the approval of the
infliction of the experimental COVID-19 injections upon children. In addition
to the direct threat of irreparable harm posed to Dr. Roth’s young patients,
an additional unwelcome consequence of using coercion to mandate or
pressure the participation of healthy young people who are statistically at
NO risk is the risk of sharply reducing the public trust in all vaccines. This
would also create what can only be described as irreparable harm to the
public generally. Dr. Roth’s duly executed Declaration is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit I.

It would appear that the terminology arises from Page 4 of Doc 1:

Plaintiffs will bring suit in the near future. The case will challenge the
EUAs for the injections on several counts. It will be made clear to the Court
in that case, based on the law and well-founded scientific evidence, that: the
EUAs should never have been granted, the EUAs should be revoked
immediately, the injections are dangerous biological agents that have the
Case 2:21-cv-00702-CLM Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 4 of 80
potential to cause substantially greater harm than the COVID-19 disease
itself, and numerous laws have been broken in the process of granting these
EUAs and pushing these injections on the American people.

This at least sounds like a formal legal challenge and indictment. I compare to a related (in geopolitical social engineering) criminal case, the use of COUNT as a legal charge.



So you might see where I am going with this. Larry BeCRAFT is painting a civil suit like a criminal case by dismissing a "COUNT". The Defendants would hesitate objecting to the dismissal of any count against them but by remaining silent tacitly admit that the remaining accusations are a criminal indictment of COUNTS. If they object to Larry portraying them as criminals then they appear for the COUNTS as Defendants, set up for a counterclaim in criminal court.

In the exhaustion of COUNT searches, I find in Doc 10:

7. The DHHS Secretary has failed to meet the “conditions of authorization” mandated by § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A). Healthcare professionals administering the Vaccines and Vaccine subjects alike are being deprived of basic information regarding the nature and limitations of the EUAs, the known risks of the Vaccines and the extent to which they are unknown, available alternative products and their risks and benefits, and the right to refuse the Vaccines. Not only is this information not being presented, it is being actively suppressed. There is no reliable system for capturing and reporting all adverse events associated with the Vaccines. The Defendants have created a new reporting system dedicated to the Vaccines parallel to VAERS, and Plaintiffs have been unable to obtain any information from this system.

Since the VAERS system of reporting is DHHS this might be indicating the deletion rate - that some of the defendants reported adverse events that were deleted from the record. The VAERS system is reputed to be only reporting 1% of deaths - and reports are that you can see a fresh death report and refresh your screen and it will be deleted. If true we near one million vaccine related deaths.

So Dismissing Item 7. might make some sense. However that still leaves that Larry is painting Item 7 of a civil suit Complaint like it is a criminal charge by calling it COUNT 7 in his voluntary dismissal.