Could I be wrong?

Answering a really good question about the Pfizer contracts that challenged my interpretation of the clauses within them.

A member of my discussion group posted me the following:

Hmm let me say that I feel the concerns here. I’m trying to help by looking at this as a lawyer, and that includes playing devil’s advocate. As such, I would like to challenge the idea that any government (executive) signing one of these contracts, in doing so has overstepped its authority to act. In most national states - I’m quite sure - signing big (and sometimes unfavorable) contracts is something that’s legally done all the time by high rank civil servants on behalf of their ministries, fully in compliance with their respective mandates. Why would this be different in this case?

And this is what I’ve answered:

Thank you for that wonderful challenge!

Take two examples: a huge reserve of gas was discovered next to the shores of Israel. The company who found it now wanted to extract it, and went into negotiation with the government, who gave them WAY more than they should have got.

HOWEVER, they had to pass it via parliament because the contract included obligations which were long term.

OF course the government can make a commitment for long term, as long as it is defined in the budget definitions that the parliament had voted on it, and if the contract does not have any clauses which are against the law of the county, for example liability. If that is the case, it does requires passing a specific legal conditions that will allow it to be legal, if not existing in the law.

Governments all around the world have made a commitment they will do so, and they never informed parliament on it. This is a sin against our democracies.

Here we have a TOTALLY new situation, a special case, a pandemic, with an experimental vaccine that the manufacturer itself tells you, IN THE CONTRACT, that it does not know if there will be long-term effects for the vaccine. We are talking about a long term commitment on such a thing, and our governments think they have the right to hide the details of such contracts? What's next? Today it is indemnification to a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and tomorrow it can be indemnification to international forces that will come and rule your land. They took this new treatment, and they have committed that even if a judge would rule against the contractual agreement, or if parliament will legislate a local law, this contract and its indemnity clauses and all the other commitments will remain valid? This is not how democracies are supposed to work.

It is the extremeness of these clauses that makes them so powerful and therefore so problematic when it comes to a confidential contract. If you are a government that signs an agreement with a foreign entity that dictates to you the rules of their business exchange with you, you are not a government of a sovereign state, and it is your duty to inform the citizens of the country that this is the case.

Second example: take a look at the UK and BREXIT. The government tried to run things by executive decision and they were told by the supreme court they must pass it via the parliament. Governments don't make the rules, and here, in this contract, the government committed to make the rules in accordance with a foreign entity.

It didn't happen once, or twice. It happened EVERYWHERE around the world, according to Pfizer with each and every country they signed contracts with to manufacture and supply the vaccines. Our leaders are nothing but puppets, and this contract exposes them.

I understand it is a lot to grasp, as for most people we really believe our leaders decide, but I invite you to see the video I shared a while ago with the ex-Facebook executive, about who runs the world.

Right now those who run the world decided they want to take over our democracies.

This is beyond normal.

This is a betrayal of our trust.

The problem with the contract is that it sets up a situation where the government, which committed to such obligations, are in a position it want to fulfil its obligations, and therefor it gives it incentives to make sure that

Welcome to the elites vs. the rest of humanity, final match. This is the big one!

Truth always wins. The alternative is hell, and people do not want to be in hell. This is our best shot to show people how much they cannot trust not only their government, but of governments all around the world.

It is time for us to unite.

Welcome to “A New Hope”, 2022 edition hahaha

Ehden

I love being challenged, Please, challenge me more!

Love

Ehden