By issuing a criminal indictment against Dr. Kirk Moore, did he US Attorney in Utah give the anti-vax movement in America the greatest gift ever?

[Adaeva]

Utah plastic surgeon gave kids saline shots instead of COVID vaccine

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/01/19/utah-plastic-surgeon-gave-kids/

The US Attorney in Utah issued a criminal indictment against Dr. Kirk Moore for “running a COVID-19 Vaccine Scheme to Defraud the Government and CDC.”

But what if Dr. Moore was actually saving lives instead and is a hero?

Since this is a criminal proceeding in federal court, Dr. Moore cannot be denied discovery to show that the vaccines are deadly.

This is relevant due to the opportunity for jury nullification where a jury has the right to issue a “not guilty” verdict if they believe the law is unjust.

If the judge denies Moore the discovery, he can appeal because there is no country in the world that has correlated the death-vax data and released the records for public analysis. They all keep it hidden behind closed doors and all attempts to get that data have been rebuffed.

Updates

+1 y

What is jury nullification? Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. fija.org/.../what-is-jury-nullification.html

[Anonymous]

I hope Dr. Moore doesn't end up in prison. The government doesn't like to play fair when they are defrauded. Forget the rest of us; we can be defrauded by anyone and everyone and the government doesn't give a flying F. But as soon as it is them; they pull out all of the stops and go about making an example of people.

[PointTaken]

He should be praised. The government was pushing the Vax so he will be punished though he was doing good. The Vax was a joke and killed more people than covid ever did for the last 300 years or so.

[abc3643]

Once again, let's do our due diligence first before answering the question.

The Federal indictment has to come from the US Department of Justice, so let's go there and see what they said they indicted him for.

www.justice.gov/.../utah-doctor-and-co-defendants-charged-running-covid-19-vaccine-scheme-defraud-government
Utah Doctor and Co-Defendants Charged for Running a COVID-19 Vaccine Scheme to Defraud the Government and CDC

Here's a copy of the actual indictment in Federal District Court, The District of Utah.
storage.courtlistener.com/.../...td.137139.1.0.pdf

This is the case name:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PLASTIC SURGERY INSTITUTE OF UTAH, INC.;
MICHAEL KIRK MOORE JR.;
KARI DEE BURGOYNE;
KRISTIN JACKSON ANDERSEN;
AND SANDRA FLORES,
Defendants.

They are charged with:

VIOLATIONS:
Count 1: 18 U. S. C. § 371,
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

Count 2: 18 U. S. C. §§ 371 and 641,
Conspiracy to Convert, Sell, Convey, and Dispose of Government Property

Count 3: 18 U. S. C. §§ 641 and 2,
Conversion, Sale, Conveyance, and Disposal of Government Property and Aiding and Abetting


These are links to those statutes:
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I—CRIMES (§§ 1 – 2725)

CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 1 – 27)
18 U. S. Code § 2 - Principals
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2
CHAPTER 19—CONSPIRACY (§§ 371 – 373)
18 U. S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

CHAPTER 31—EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT (§§ 641 – 670)
18 U. S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641

===============
Now that the due diligence is out of the way, let's talk about the case.

You wrote:
"But what if Dr. Moore was actually saving lives instead and is a hero?"

That's irrelevant. He's charged with a crime and that's it. If there were exceptions, they'd be codified.
For instance, if a soldier shoots someone in wartime, that's not murder and is codified as such.

As for the rest of what you wrote, Dr. Moore will be allowed to defend himself, of course. And, if he successfully nullifies the jury and the judge permits that, then more power to him. This is unlikely to happen because of a likely mistrial or the judge instructing the jury to deliberately "consider points of law" (my words - not sure how else to word it) thus instructing them that they can't nullify. If they do, then they have a mistrial.

However, jury nullification will fail in this case.
The reason is he, pure and simple, defrauded the United States and his patients who sought those vaccines. If he believed he was "actually saving lives" (your words), then he should not have administered the vaccine. But, not only did he administer it, he CHARGED the government for it!

This case is a slam-dunk for the prosecution because it follows this recipe:

He said he did X.
He submitted an invoice for doing X.
He received payment for the invoice to do X.
Yet, he never did X.

>>> That's fraud and theft.
PERIOD.

[abc3643]

I want to be clear that, to me, this case has nothing to do with COVID-19 vaccines but everything to do with healthcare fraud which, unfortunately, is somewhat common. It's a major reason why healthcare is so expensive in the USA.

[abc3643]

Oh, I see. He also SOLD cards without giving the vaccines.
Yeah, doing that with undercover agents doesn't help.
Fraud is fraud.

[Adaeva]

Chief Justice John Jay—the first Chief Justice of the United States—instructed the jury as such:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

That is the law and has not been changed by an amendment to constitution. The fact that corrupt judges tell juries they must follow whatever he says is law, does not change the law.

I realize federal criminal trials are now Star Chambers that would make Stalin proud, that courts will select juries pools that are ignorant of law, and that the judge will be extremely partial to the prosecution. As such, I have no confidence he will receive a fair trail. Therefore, the outcome you predict is not unlikely.

[Adaeva]

Hopefully, justice prevails and the jury nullifies. If the judge declares a mistrial and the next jury also nullifies, the criminals in charge will not risk the embarrassment of a third jury nullification, because the last thing those evil people want is for the public to be informed of their rights.

[abc3643]

I have no real comment on jury nullification. Indeed, perhaps it should be justified at times.

However, I don't understand your war against the Federal Government. At 14, the only explanation for that is that you've been groomed for that. Federal trails are not "star chambers" and that completely fails to understand the trial process.

You know, as a citizen, you are allowed to be in the gallery for most trials including even witnessing the US Supreme Court "oral arguments" (*). Since you are homeschooled, consider having your parents or some other adult take you to the closest county courthouse and witness how a trial is done. Hopefully, you can even witness the voir dire process.

(*) I starred Supreme Court proceedings because something good came out of COVID-19 lockdowns...
The Supreme Court does not allow its oral arguments to be televised. But, in spring 2020 when we were in lockdown, the Supreme Court justices were quarantined too, so their oral arguments were teleconferenced... like a Zoom meeting. The Supreme Court allowed the live teleconference of oral arguments to be simulcast so we could hear the same things they heard and said. It was fascinating! Well, since then, the Supreme Court allows simulcasts of oral arguments. So, every day the Supreme Court is having oral arguments (usually Mondays and Wednesdays), you can follow along.

www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

However, it helps to know the schedule and any artifacts associated with a case, and, for that, SCOTUSblog. com is a great website - one of the best on the web.

https://www.scotusblog.com/

[abc3643]

For justice to prevail, there'd be a conviction.
They didn't just steal from Uncle Same.
They stole from YOU.

They are thieves, pure and simple, and they got caught doing it.
Sadly, this sort of thing is frequent.

[abc3643]

You might be interested...

Every Supreme Court term runs from "The first Monday in October" to roughly the end of June.
That term is referred to as the "October [year of the start of the term] Term". So, right now, we are in the October 2022 Term and that's abbreviated OT 2022.

OT 2022 oral arguments end at the end of April. Any other cases will be heard in OT 2023 (or later, if at all).

Here's an unheard case which I think you will be very interested in.

The case is "Counterman v. Colorado" and the oral arguments for this case will be next Wednesday, Apr 19, 2023.

With every case, there is a summarization of the issue... that is, what is the question that the Supreme Court needs to resolve.

This is the "Issue" for this case:

Issue: Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence.

>>> That's going to be a very important case regarding the First Amendment and may even play into Donald Trump's fate should he go on trial for the January 6 Capitol riot.

Here is the case at SCOTUSblog:
www.scotusblog.com/.../
and SCOTUS:
www.supremecourt.gov/.../22-138.html

(more)

[abc3643]

This essay at SCOTUSblog discusses the case for laypersons like you and me.
www.scotusblog.com/.../

TITLE: What mental state is required for making a prohibited “true threat”?
By John Elwood on Nov 30, 2022 at 11:01 am

... It is well known that the First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes a “true threat.” But the court has never said all that clearly what a “true threat” is.

... That brings us to this week’s new relist: Counterman v. Colorado. Over the course of two years, petitioner Billy Raymond Counterman sent a number of Facebook messages to C. W., a professional musician, which she found threatening. (Another disclosure: I represent Counterman.)

... Counterman was arrested and convicted under a Colorado law that prohibits “mak[ing] any form of communication with another person … in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress.”

Counterman argued at his criminal trial that while he was concededly “annoying” and “weird,” it was because he was mentally ill and not because he was trying to distress C. W. The prosecution, correctly summarizing Colorado state law, said that Counterman’s mental state was irrelevant: It was enough if a reasonable person would view his statements as threatening. Counterman was convicted and sentenced to four and a half years in prison. The Colorado court of appeals affirmed, and the state supreme court denied review.

In his petition, Counterman argues, supported by two amici, that there continues to be a conflict among the lower courts on an issue that the court deemed certworthy in Elonis. The state opposes certiorari, arguing that the split is “lopsided” and that the case is an unsuitable vehicle because Counterman might have been convicted for physical surveillance of C. W., which Counterman disputes.

[Adaeva]

They destroyed a deadly unproven so called vaccine that the criminal government wrongfully pushed onto people. In doing so, they saved lives and helped prevent the criminals ruling the USA from murdering citizens. Regardless of the law, that states it is a crime that is not a crime.

[abc3643]

They committed a felony by stealing from the United States.
That's a crime.

[Adaeva]

It will be interesting to see how the court rules in "Counterman v. Colorado." The problem with threats over a telephone or the media, is whether or not it is a thread depend on how important the person receiving the threat is. The tiniest inkling of a threat against the president, a judge, etc. is going to prosecuted. However, if a commoner get a telephone call and caller says, "I'm going to break your neck," the police will ignore it because their is no way to carry out that threat over the telephone. However, they would not ignore it if the recipient was a policeman.

[abc3643]

... and this court case could change that.

[Adaeva]

I won't hold my breath but I hope that will be the case.

[abc3643]

Make sure you listen next Wednesday!
It's both boring and exciting!
Think of it like a podcast, I guess.

Here is how Oyez summarizes this case:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-138

This is how Adam Liptak reported this case in February. He's the SCOTUS reporter for the NY Times:

www.nytimes.com/.../...book-stalking-colorado.html

TITLE: When Do Creepy Facebook Messages Cross a Constitutional Line?
SUBTITLE: The Supreme Court will hear arguments in April on a question it once ducked: whether intent counts in criminal cases based on online threats.

[Still-alive]

"At 14, the only explanation for that is that you've been groomed for that."

bingo. her parents must be poisoning her brain with this stuff. pretty sad

[Anonymous]

The only way this guy goes free is if there are anti-vax nut jobs on the jury. As far as the vaccine being deadly, I don’t believe evidence of that even exists. Sounds like a Hail Mary by the tinfoil hat crowd. When discovery turns up nothing, they’ll come up with a new conspiracy theory. Maybe Soros buried the evidence in his backyard? Lol

[Adaeva]

americafirstreport.com/.../

[Opinion Owner]

The fact that I only see this story reported on right wing propaganda sites leads me to believe it’s not true. However, no one has ever claimed that a small number of people won’t suffer serious side effects. That’s true of any vaccine or pharmaceutical that you can put in your body. Where is the evidence that the Covid vaccine is more dangerous than other vaccines on the market? Dubious stories on political propaganda sites aren’t evidence. Where is the research to prove what you’re saying?

[XiJinping]

He's a hero in my book. I hope the government as well as these pharmaceutical companies get sued heavily.

[Anonymous]

Was he giving kids medication without their parents consent?

My kids are unvaccinated for covid 19.

[Summeroflove]

Yeah justice will be served

[gorydetails]

Perfect. Let’s see how this plays out.