Corona Investigative Committee, 124th session on September 30th, 2022

Prof. Deana Pollard Sacks (Law Professor and Author)

(Original language: English)

[Transcript from Team + Ed]

Viviane Fischer: [02:56:25]
…we have with us Deana Pollard Sacks. She is an attorney at law from America, and she’s going to… can you hear us?

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD:
Yes I can. How are you.

Viviane Fischer:
Okay, fantastic. Yeah sorry for– you know, we just had to– I don’t know if you followed the… previous presentation. it’s– I think it’s mind-blowing; it’s very important. But we also wanted to make room for you, because you also have a very important topic, and a very exciting one. I have, I mean not exciting in a good way, but like I mean sort of emotionally so, I mean whatever… irritating topic. Yeah, maybe could you just introduce yourself with a few words so people will know who you are.

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD: [02:57:07]


Yeah. My name is Deana Pollard Sacks. I’m from Gig Harbour, Washington, and I’m here for my 40th high school reunion today. which is actually tomorrow. So here I am sitting in Gig Harbor as I speak to you. I went to University of Washington after that and USC on a scholarship to law school. Then I want to Berkeley for a second law degree and became a law professor.
In that capacity, I specialize in the liberty clause, teaching constitutional law as well as tort law. Sexual misconduct is one of my areas of expertise, and how the brain processes information, cognitive learning theory and things like that. So all these things have come together. Of course the first amendment as well, which is partly why I studied cognitive learning theory, on how the brain intakes information, assimilates information and forms ideas about people and concepts. And so in first amendment law, we need to understand how speech affects the brain, to understand whether or not it’s fairly being considered or sneaking up on us without us knowing and affecting us without us knowing, because the latter is not protected by the Constitution.

So in this capacity I end up writing books, sorry, writing many articles about constitutional law and tort law and got into the topic of sexual misconduct, which is sort of a growing field, because Americans are– deal with a very high level of sexual disease. Our country is off the charts for sexual disease, like 8 times higher than Europe, any European country, you know, 12 times higher than Canada, something like that. The statistics are all in my articles; it’s mind blowing.

So in that capacity, I started writing a book called Sex Torts, about the law of liability for sexual misconduct– not criminal liability, but tort liability, paying damages to people. And I ran across a case called Coudera vs. Epstein out of New York. And I thought, “Well, what is this?”, because this man, I’m sorry, this woman– well it was a man who became a woman, a model. And she’s transgender, and she claimed, she sued Victoria’s Secret and I knew from xxxxx: you can’t sue Victoria’s Secret; you can’t sue a store, right?

So she’s suing Jeffrey Epstein, Les Wexner and Victoria’s Secret. So that drew me into the whole Jeffrey Epstein, you know, debacle. And at that time, in May of 2018, no one had heard of him. And I asked probably 25 lawyers and law professors; no one had heard of this man. So I started getting into it more and more and seeing how odd everything was. The same lawyers kept popping up: Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Goldberg, the same– you know, David Boyd. And I thought, what is going on here? There’s like a few men the top, these lawyers, who are protecting these sexual predators. We had prosecutors involved, who were protecting the sexual predators, like Cy Vance in New York. Governors who were projecting the predators, Andrew Cuomo in New York.

And so I end up writing a whole separate book for the public. And that became two books. So it’s The Godfathers of Sex Abuse, book one and book two.And the first one is Jeffrey Epstein, just… Jeffrey Epstein. And the second one is Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and the #MeToo movement. But what Ifound so interesting about Jeffrey Epstein, that was the way he was involved with market manipulation, and his ties to Israel, and certain things he was able to do that no one else was able to do. For example, the day before the 2016 election, he was in one of his private jets. And he flew over Saudi Arabia and the signal just went out. This doesn’t happen. Every plane has a signal, and that signal cannot just go out. It– every single plane is tracked. But his did. So this man has some ability to do things that other people can’t do, very high-tech, things our own, you know, CIA aren’t supposed to be able to do. so this led me to really wondering: what is this man, and what role DID he play?

So let’s talk a little bit about how he got into so much power. Because he was born the son of an electrician. He did not have money. In fact, that’s the same story with Harvey Weinstein and… Bill Cosby. They all came from very modest means. They all became extremely wealthy, and they all became extraordinary sexual predators. And we’re seeing sort of similarities here. Jeffrey Epstein had a high school degree and somehow got a job at Dalton School in Manhattan. The Dalton School is extraordinarily exclusive. The teachers there normally have PhDs or ivy-league degrees, or a mix of all the above. He had a high school degree.

So how did he get a job at Dalton to begin with? That’s weird. From there– he was fired for coming to classes is wearing a low-cut shirt open with gold chains, you know, leering at the girls who were 14-, 15-year-old girls, getting complaints. He was fired from the Dalton school. But before that, he met someone named Allen Greenberg. Allen Greenberg was the chairman of Bear, Stearns on Wall Street. And Allen Greenberg hired Jeffrey Epstein for Bear Stearns.

Well he got fired from Bear Stearns as well, for chicanery, is what they said. But by then he’d already met Les Wexner, and he’d met some other billionaires. So Les Wexner was the one who really, I think, empowered Jeffrey Epstein, in terms of the multimillion dollar money that came through his hands. He actually stole about, something like 50 million dollars from Les Wexner. And Les Wexner’s family didn’t even notice, that’s how much money they have. They eventually did notice. By then, Jeffrey Epstein had turned that into a Ponzi scheme and made so many millions of dollars he was able to pay them back. So we did pay the Wexners back, but what’s so interesting about this man, to me, is that every step of the way, somebody gave him a leg up that he shouldn’t have had. And you have to ask why. This guy looks sleazy. I mean, he looks creepy. But what it– I think what it comes down to is: he was providing sex to people, young girls, young boys, and himself. Ghislaine Maxwell, for example, was someone he latched onto, to ride up in the New York social scene. Of course, Ghislaine Maxwell’s father owned I think the Daily Mirror, one of the big media companies in Europe, and actually stole something like 400 million pounds from that media company, stole the pension fund. And so the people who worked there for 10, 20, 30 years did not ever get their full pension.

And Mr Maxwell was found floating in the Canary Islands not far from his yacht. So he might have fallen in, but I think it’s more likely that someone finally got him for what he did to others. So here was really, really bad people, sociopathic people, and yet they managed to become friends with presidents like Bill Clinton, Hillary clinton, people with enormous power. I personally do not believe Jeffrey Epstein is dead. I think if he’s alive. I think that he definitely wouldn’t commit suicide, because he was into transhumanism with Bill Gates. And Bill Gates, by the way, always denied the relationship, denied he was on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane. And then the flight records show he was on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane. At that point, he wouldn’t even answer questions, but his PR rep said Oh, well he didn’t know he was on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane. He just got on a plane; he didn’t know whose it was.

I mean, the lies these people tell are so blatant and so obvious. And yet our people, Americans, have been programmed to the point that, you know, whatever they hear over and over again in our media, they just, it tends to take hold, and that’s exactly what cognitive learning theory would say. When you hear something over and over again, you tend to believe it.

So Jeffrey Epstein was a con artist and fraud every step of the way. He was able to get people compromised sexually, so they had to keep their mouths shut. He also put in cameras in his house, as enormous house in Palm Beach, Florida. I went to the house; I didn’t get in. I just drove by it to see it. You know, ery beautiful, very, very expensive house. He then bought an island in the Caribbean, which is known as Pedophile Island or PO Island. There’s a lot of different names for it. Orgy Island. And he would fly these little girls, young girls 14, 15, in from all over the world and bring in people like Bill Clinton, movie stars, all sorts of people.

And he had cameras everywhere on the island. He wasrecording everything. And so he and Ghislaine Maxwell would say they had an insurance policy. No one could ever do anything to them, because they had video tapes. And they had photographs. And they were visible; people, you could see who they were. And so even in his bathrooms in his Palm Beach, Florida house, he had, you know, videotaping in the bathroom. So you couldn’t, people didn’t know they were going to the bathroom, they were being videotaped.

So he did all this and always said, “No one can ever do anything to me, because I have dirt oneverybody.” And these were very powerful people. The former prime minister of Israel, for example, is one of them. His name is Ehud Barak. Various– I mean, world leaders.

So the first question I had when I started seeing this was: how did these people, with so much power, just accept this man into their lives? This person who comes from nothing, with a high school degree, who was fired from Bear Stearns, fired from Dalton, terrible track record, never finished anything. He actually got into a good college, but he didn’t finish that either. And then he gets xxxx xxx to Harvard. And Harvard gave him a visiting scholar position– at Harvard, which normally would require at least a PhD or a JD, some kind of the doctorate degree.

So there was this pattern with Jeffrey Epstein, and the people around him, where no matter what they do, they– it’s like Teflon: nothing sticks to them. He was also caught in an enormous Ponzi scheme, and his partner went to prison for eighteen years. And his partner told the prosecutor, “Well it was Jeffrey Epstein and me who put this together.” But for some reason Jeffrey Epstein was just untouchable.

So a lot of people believe Jeffrey Epstein worked for the Mossad and was a Mossad agent, as well as an agent for the United States and possibly also England and the crown. Remember, he was friends with Prince Andrew. And Prince Andrew was caught when Virginia Roberts Giuffre came forward and finally talked about how she was in Mara Lago, which was Trump’s property– see the tie? All the people being tied together– She worked at Mara Lago. She was only barely 16. She had turned 16 like three or four days before that.

And Ghislaine Maxwell snuck on the property– you cannot go to Mara Lago without having a membership; you’re not allowed on the property; you can’t go to the restaurants, nothing unless you have a membership. Well for some reason, Donald Trump allowed Jeffrey Epstein on without a membership. And he the next will literally snuck on the property– because she heard there was a really pretty towel girl. And she found Virginia Roberts and took her back to Jeffrey Epstein. And Virginia became the favorite sex slave for Jeffrey Epstein, and was with him for numerous years.

These people are just so bizarre. Jeffrey Epstein
was going to start a new human race, a superior human race in his mind, using his own sperm. So he bought a huge ranch he named Zorro out in New Mexico, and he was going to impregnate 20 or 30 girls at the same time, and have a whole bunch of kids at the same time. Kind of like what a king would do. And he would tell people he was like royalty or he was like a king. You know, he can do these things.

So and… if you look at the ties, the people he was involved with, they were a lot of the same people who are involved right now with the vaccine scam, and the world banking issues, and the manipulation of the markets. So Jeffrey Epstein, is a prime example of what is going on right now. All the same components are in play. You know, getting in with big people, knowing the richest people. Somehow connecting or bonding on some sociopathic level, having durham him sexually, getting them compromised and… you know, everyone hiding everything from the public, and owning media companies. I think at one point, Jeffrey Epstein was trying to get a, you know, some things, properties and what not, and others were also trying to get. And he didn’t actually get… the contracts.

But these people always seek to own media companies so they can control the dialogue, control what the public is hearing. Because we know from cognitive learning theory… that when you hear something multiple times, you’re, it’s going to take hold in your brain. You’re going to believe it. And you’re going to act on it. That’s why stereotypes are so dangerous: because people hear them so many times. And then they’re sitting on a jury one day, and they don’t realize they’re applying stereotypes in convicting or whatever with the criminal defendant.
So I asked a very high profile person from one of the most well known families in the country, you know, why you would hang out with Jeffrey Epstein. And he said that he didn’t hang out with him. Buthe would be at parties, you know, New York, and there was Jeffrey Epstein hanging out as well. He told me that Jeffrey Epstein walked right up to him and said, “I work for Wall Street, but I don’t make a trade unless I have inside information.” And I said to this man, he’s a lawyer, you know, and has a lot of pride in his reputation. Why would you put up with that? Why… wasn’t he immediately escorted out of this party after bragging about being a criminal, you know, securities, you know, violator? And he didn’t have an answer.

So what I’m getting from the people I know– and I know some people who are from very prominent families, people are very rich, and of course Bill Gates from this area, and he’s from Sea Island xxxx Gig Harbor, about 40 miles south of Seattle– is that they just don’t ask a lot of questions. You know, something about the uber rich, you know, social circles where they just– they do– and it’s something, they just look the other way, in a way that we don’t. You know, we’re… from a small town called Gig Harbor. We don’t put up with anything. We ask [questions]. We don’t care who it is; we ask questions.

So something is going on with the rich or uber rich culture, where they just don’t question things. I think… if they did, they’d get ostracized. I think it’s just sort a… mindset and a cultural value they have. And this is one of the problems we’re dealing with, is people are not asking the right questions, they’re not… holding people’s feet the fire.

And so then we have this group that comes about, that’s supposed to be helping us, you know, I call it the anti-vaxxers, because that term doesn’t bother me. I’m proud to say I’m an anti-vaxxer, you can call me whatever you want. I am completely against the covid shots. I, I’m at that point now where had I known then what I know now, I never would have vaccinated my son against anything, knowing now what I know.

But the thing that has been so striking to me is: I’ve watched for a year and a half the lawyers on our side fail on the course, right and left. And fail for reasons they shouldn’t, you know, they shouldn’t fail at all. They do not know the law. They are not qualified. They’re getting millions and millions in donations. Some of the people, like Dr. Simone Gold promised the donors, “I will hold their feet to the fire.” I mean, I heard a speech she gave in San Francisco: we’re going to hire a legal eagle team. She said all these things about how we’re going to get the right lawyers together and really go after them. And then she hired lawyers who had no background in constitutional law, not really. They weren’t scholars in xxxxxx jurisprudenceence, like I am. They… weren’t– I mean, you can see it by their resumes and curriculum vitae. They’re not the people you have to have in this fight, because the other side is the Department of Justice. The other side are the state Attorney Generals. These people generally come from top law schools and are top of their class. They know what they’re doing. And constitutional law is just filled with landmines. It’s been set up that way, so that plainness rarely get to a jury trial. You almost never get to a jury trial in a civil rights case, because of all the pitfalls along the way and because most lawyers just can’t handle the incredibly difficult, complex procedural problems that arise in these cases.

So some of us got together, who know what we’re talking about, and said we’ve got to do something. So we’ve been working almost for free for two years now, and we’re finally getting some support. I was able to write a brief for the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, explaining in detail why every lower court has gotten the wrong constitutional test. They have applied a very different test called “rational basis review” to the vaccine mandates in this country. And that review standard, I mean, the government always wins. The standard that should have been applied is called strict scrutiny, and that is– in my opinion, absolutely, positively the correct standard. Because the right to reject medication goes all the way back to the 1200s in his country. I mean we’ve got–back to English common law, ancient law, all the way through American common law, and early constitutional law. We’ve always had the right to reject medication. It comes from the natural right not to be touched, that you own your own body.

So this is just filed, about a week ago. This is just happening. The third circuit notified us the day before yesterday that they are going to accept my amicus brief. It’s called an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief, and amicus briefs are filed by experts who tell the court, “This is what you should do, and this is why.” And we’re helping the court. We’re a friend the court, to tell the court what you need to do here, and what the law is to apply, and why you should go this way with the law.

And so I’m asking the third circuit to make a ruling that all the lower courts were incorrect. They applied the wrong standard, because they didn’t trace the history of the right. And let me just, here for one second let me explain why abortion is so different than the right to inject medication. The court has said for decades now, and in particular a case called Washington vs. Glucksberg in 1997, the court has said, if you want to declared a right fundamental– because you have to declare a right fundamental to get strict scrutiny– so
declaring a right fundamental is absolutely critical at the get-go of a civil rights case. If you don’t declare a right fundamental you don’t get that stringent strict scrutiny test. And they call it “strict in theory, fatal in fact”, because the government almost always loses when strict scrutiny is applied to the government action, which in this case is covid shot mandate.

So in Glucksberg they were considered an… older case from the ’90s as well, called Cruzan. In this case, a lady was brain dead, and her parents wanted to stop the treatment because they were just keeping her alive like a vegetable. And the court was considering a law in the state, Missouri, that said: you have to prove what the… person, the unconscious person, would have wanted by clear and convincing evidence. The parents said no, you should only have to prove it by a lower standard, called preponderance. Well anyway, the Supreme Court said they agree with Missouri: it’s okay to require that higher standard, because if you’re wrong, the person’s dead forever, so it’s okay. But they did not address directly when it was a fundamental right to die, to allow someone to die. And… it’s complicated, because it’s not a typical substantive due-process case. And substantive due process just means liberty clause analysis, as opposed to procedural due process.

So now we’re going to jump up to 1997. And here in Washington state, where I’m sitting right now, a law came before the court that did not allow people to commit– did not allow doctors to help someone die. It was a euthanasia argument. The… plaintiffs said, “I have a right to die, because Cruzan, this– they call it the right-to-die case, with a woman who was unconscious and, you know, vegetable. But the court didn’t say that. The court didn’t say it was a fundamental right to die.

But what the court in Glucksberg said in 1997 is: even if there was a fundamental right to die, there is no fundamental right for a doctor to kill you. It’s different. One is rejecting medication; that I feel quite strongly is a fundamental right, to say “Don’t touch me.” But to seek medication to die, to seek euthanasia, or to seek an abortion, is on a different level, because you’re asking for the government to say you have a right to a certain medical procedure that is not grounded in history and tradition. In fact, euthanasia and abortion have been illegal throughout this country’s history and English common law.

So I’m not concerned about Dobbs vs. Jackson, which just reversed Roe vs. Wade a few months ago, because a whole different– a different, it’s a different right being considered. And in fact, I think Dobbs helps us, because we’re saying, you know, using the court test from Dobbs and from Glucksburg, we can trace the law back to 1200s, and we can say we’ve always had this right; therefore it’s a fundamental right.

So I expect to win there. And if we lose, Dana– Dana is the… plaintiff for the nurses who were fired for refusing the booster after getting sick after two shots. Dana we fors in New Jersey; the clients are in New Jersey; I’m the amicus curiae council, so it doesn’t matter where I am. We’re in the third circuit, and Dana thinks we’re going to lose in the third circuit, because we’ve lost before. However, because it– we were denied an injunction and… all the courts have gotten it wrong, all the lower courts. But the Supreme Court has not ruled on a… vaccine mandate since 1905, in a case called Jacobson. But that case does not help them. Everyone is saying it does, but it does not. And I’ll get to Jacobson in just a minute.

But I want to finish what’s going on right now, because in the next couple of months, the third circuit, sitting in Pennsylvania, is going to rule on our, on Dana’s appeal of the denial of the injunction for the vaccine mandate for the booster in New Jersey. And there’s only thirteen circuits in the country, so the… third circuit governs numerous states, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania. That’s why the court’s in Pennsylvania but the client’s in New Jersey.

Now whoever loses is likely going to appeal. I know Dana will; we’ve talked about it. Dana is going to appeal to the US Supreme Court. I’m a member of the US Supreme Court; I just moved the court for Dana to be a member of the US Supreme Court, and I’m sure that will be… granted. And when you’re going up on an emergency hearing for the Supreme Court, each justice assigned to an area. Our justice is Justice Alito, so we’re really happy about that. We think Justice Alito will circulate the petition. [It’s a] very important thing. I mean, we’re asking the courts to change the test for reviewing these covid mandates and to apply the correct test; and they’ll all be struck down.

Once we get the correct test applied, they’ll all be stuck down. And I said this in the grand jury proceeding with the Corona Committee about a year ago, in the opening statement to the United States. So… if for any reason Justice Alito does not circulate our petition, and I think he will– and if we win, I think the New Jersey attorney general will appeal. So one way or another, we’re going to get before Alito, and then if for some reason he doesn’t circulate our position, we have one more shot. And I believe Dana will probably go for Justice Gorsuch, because Justice Gorsuch in my opinion is teriffic. He has his head on straight. He’s very matter-of-fact; he’s very straight up; he applies the law.

In fact one of my other friends just did the mercy petition and lost with Amy Barrett. This is James Fetzer, who’s also known as the conspiracy guy, in the United States. He has a whole bunch of podcasts. He was a professor at Minnesota for years. And now he talks about all the, you know, the government fraud on our people, from 9/11 to the Columbine… not Columbine, the Sandy Hook shootings all that stuff. He’s, that’s what James Fetzer works on.

Anyway, Gorsuch did circulate his petition, because they found him liable for 400 thousand dollars– and this is just a professor, retired professor– for statements he made about Sandy Hook. And they wouldn’t look at the evidence, so he really does have a good claim under the First Amendment. So we’re.. on it. We are very close to getting to the Supreme Court. I think it’s time; the Supreme Court knows it’s time.

Keep in mind, the OSHA mandate and the healthcare worker mandate– well first of all, OSHA went our way. Supreme Court, six to three, in January of ’22 decided that OSHA didn’t have the authority to pass a covid shot mandate. The healthcare worker mandate went the other way. It went five to four, but no liberty clause claim was brought. So the efficacy and safety of the vaccine were not considered at all. They were looking at statutory construction, and the non-delegation doctrine, which has nothing to do with the evidence, the scientific evidence.

And in fact, in Thomas’ defense, the last, you know, few sentences of that defense said, “We are not looking at the importance or the safety of this vaccine. I want to make that clear. We’re just looking at whether or not the Secretary of Health has the authority to issue mandates to protect patients from healthcare workers, and they do.

So still it was five to four; it was still a close decision. But I think we’ve got– I think we’re gioing to win, at the Supreme Court. I mean, I want to believe that, of course. But it– but what’s happening is so wrong. The courts have been so, so wrong. And I’m going to just very quickly tell you about Jacobson, and I’m going to, you know, ask if there’s any questions.

But Jacobson vs Massachusetts came down in 1905. It was the only case in which the United States Supreme Court considered the vaccine mandate. This was a smallpox epidemic, killing hundreds of millions of people internationally. The vaccine had been around in one form or another for a hundred years. Started with cowpox and moved into a real vaccine, you know, real– unlike the covid shots, which are not a vaccine at all. And what happened was the law at hand said either all residents of Massachusetts have to get vaccinated, or they have to forfeit five dollars. So that was right in the statute. You either get the vaccine or forfeit five dollars, which today is about 166 dollars.

So Jacobson was an immigrant, I think from Sweden, and he just was adamant that he had the liberty interest not to be vaccinated. He had gotten sick as a child, getting vaccinated. And also not to pay five dollars, for not being vaccinated. So the issue before the court was whether he gets his five dollars back. There was no issue of coercive vaccination. And in fact what no one knows– until my recent brief to the Third Circuit, because I didn’t even know. I looked at the transcript, finally got the transcript in Jacobson from, you know, 1903, which [they were working with] the Supreme Court.

And what happened was he appealed in the criminal matter. He was criminally prosecuted. He was found guilty, and he was fined five dollars. That was the penalty. And when he appealed that, the Court of Appeal said, well if Jacobson and the government disagree about the vaccination, the government could never make him get vaccinated. The worst that could happen to him would be a five-dollar fine. That’s exactly what the court said. I quoted in my brief to the Third Circuit, to say, look, even back then the judges realized you can’t force-vaccinate people. You can’t coerce vaccination. The worst that could happen would be a five-dollar fine.

And so the US Supreme Court said, “You know, the five-dollar fine, under the circumstances, with all these people dying, 93 percent of babies dying in certain areas, 93 percent of babies dying in certain areas that got the smallpox illness, the court said the five-dollar fine is acceptable under our liberty clause.”

That was the case. There was no coercive vaccination, there was no, you know, hundred thousand dollar fine, or loss of your job, or loss of your house. That case does not support the other side. So all these law professors in general, and all these lawyers, and… government lawyers have been using that case: “and the case shows you can force-vaccinate people.” No, it doesn’t.

The intellectual dishonesty has been unbelievable. I mean, have they really just not read the case? Do they not know this case? I don’t know the answer. And I happen to have specialized in this area, so I knew the case very well. But it is such an… exercise of… dishonesty, what’s gone on in this country, and the court.

And in fact a man named Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law in Houston wrote an article that came out in Buffalo Law Review, just a few… months ago, and it’s called The Irrepressible Myth of Jakobson vs. Massachusetts. And this article is so phenomenal because he did with the… covid mandate challenges would I do with the the school mandate challenges. Mine came out in Florida State University Law Review just a couple months ago as well.

But Josh Blackman went through every single covid-19 shot mandate challenge in the United States. And he showed with, you know, painful, you know, scrutiny how the courts have just made false statements about the facts, about the law, about the holding of Jacobson, about things the Supreme Court justices have said.

And so we… now finally have, you know, two law professors– I’m… I resigned, so I’m not technically a law professor right now, but I was for many years. Josh still is a tenured professor. So we finally have two who are coming forward and saying, “This is wrong; what’s happening?” Because most law professors, like most doctors, have gag orders essentially. If they come out, and come out against big pharma and the technocrats and the billionaires– you know, there’s ways to force out people with tenure.

And so everyone’s afraid. And thankfully, I’m not the only one. We have Josh Blackman now too. So I am so pleased to have that, and I cited him in my brief to the Third Circuit, and it will also be in the Supreme Court brief. So I think we’re, I think things things are finally looking up. But had we known that these big organisations– who said they were going to protect us all from this– were going to fail miserably, we might have gotten on the ball a little faster.

We thought we had good people. We– you know, millions came in. Millions and millions in donations came in, the public trying to support these entities, America’s Frontline Doctors, Children’s Health Defence, to get, you know, to thwart the lawyers. And they turned around and hired lawyers who just simply were clearly not qualified. One lawyer they hired went an unaccredited on-line law school. I mean, the rest of them went to third- and fourth-tier law schools. I mean, you don’t have to be a law professor to know if you’re fighting the government, Department Justice, you better have top-notch lawyers from top law schools who were top of their class. And who specialized in this area of law. Because that’s what we’re up against. And if you don’t have that on our side, there’s no chance of winning. So we finally have some people on our side who are very serious about winning this, and I think we will.

And the fact that July 6th, on July 6th a ruling was issued by a Florence court, an Italian judge, a lady judge, ruling that the covid booster mandate was unconstitutional under the Italian constitution– and also the German constitution, just kind of threw that in– obviously was xxxxxx. But she said this– we don’t even know what’s in it, she said. It’s killing so many people. It doesn’t work. Said you can’t require this. A psychologist in that case had been terminated for not getting the booster. And she reversed all that and said that’s unconstitutional. So we have that, thankfully that precedent. But I would have liked to see our country– this country of liberty and freedom, supposedly, the Statue of Liberty, you know, in the middle of New York– I would have liked to see our country be the first to declare these covid shots unconstitutional. But we weren’t; but hopefully we’ll be the second. So that’s where we’re at right now. And I’m happy to answer any questions.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: [03:28:26]
Thank you very much for… it’s a big story you’ve presented. … You showed us how… people get under pressure, how you put people under pressure to do what they normally would not do. And you showed us also that it’s very inhomo… the justice in different parts of your country are not the same. You have different… courts that act in a different way. And it’s very interesting to compare these. I think it’s much more, there is much more chances to win somewhere in your, in one of your states and to have… good decisions by you some judges who are… not bribable, who are not dependent on some xxxxxxx real so on.

In Germany it’s much more difficult, it seems. I think in Germany, we have the… people who are employed by… the, yes by the court, the judges and xxxxxx attorneys. And so they are, the state attorneys are dependent on the ministers of justice, politicians. And they– if the Minister says, “Don’t follow this case”, then they don’t follow. This is possible in Germany, and this is horrible.

And the judges are dependent whether they… can climb up the ladder of… their profession. So it’s, I think we have to do a lot with our… system. And we may learn a lot of what’s going on now. And we can compare what’s going on in… United States and compare what’s going on in Europe. And I think this will be very interesting if we want to shape a new system of… law, and a new system of justice in our states and Europe. So thank you very much for your. examples and for this great, yeah, your great knowledge. Bring those things together, and I find it very interesting.

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD: [03:28:28]
I just got lucky. I mean this was the area of law that I was interested in. I spent, you know, hundreds of hours studying liberty clause. I published an article in 2008 called Elements of Liberty, describing how the court handles liberty clause cases, how to determine whether a right is fundamental or not. And no lawyer in any of the cases has gone through that analysis, because they don’t know. They just don’t know. And you have to do it. Now this– could the courts do it themselves? Sure, the clerks could have done it themselves, but they didn’t. And we… as lawyers really are the responsible parties for bringing that authority to the attention of the court.

Now one thing that I keep getting… I keep getting these questions, “Why now? It’s over, isn’t it? The shots are over. The mandates are like no longer in effect.” I say, first of all, this is precedent that must be slammed down… This… precedent needs to be reversed, because it sets a horrible– it’s unprecedented whats going on. You’ve got to… we need to reaffirm the right to reject medication.

Let me give you one example. At USC– USC is a, I went to law school there. They gave me a scholarship there. I mean, I had a lot of positive feelings for USC until recently. USC is making all of their students take all the vaccines, I mean the vaccine, all of their shots, and the booster. And then they threw in the flu shot. So now the– they never had a flu shot mandate at USC. I went to law school there. Now they’re adding more and more vaccine mandates, because they got away with it, with the covid-19 shots. You see what’s coming? Next you know, it’s going to be something else. They can put anything in this. They can call anything a vaccine. And I had this, not an argument, I had a disagreement with… well, I mean, the lawyer I’m working with now, out of New Jersey. and also another case coming up, called Griner vs. Biden, out of, coming up through the Utah court, through the Tenth Circuit.

And what the lawyers keep saying is that this isn’t a vaccine; therefore Jacobson doesn’t apply. And I keep telling them, “No no no no no, that’s not what you want to say. Because you say that, they can call anything a vaccine and get within this [mutually interrupting] …a vaccine is a medical treatment. It is subject to strict scrutiny. Anything you put in the body is subject to strict scrutiny. I talk about cases where they want to dig a bullet out of a suspect’s body, because he shot the shopkeeper, and the shopkeeper shot him back. And he had a bullet lodged. And the court said, you can’t take the bullet out of him to prove your case. You can’t go into his body. They kept saying, you can’t go beneath the skin, beneath the skin. It’s in US Supreme Court, Winston vs. Lee.

The only thing that’s been allowed in this country is blood drawing from an unconscious motorist in like a one-car accident where the cops can smell alcohol. the court said: because blood drawing has no risk. That’s why we can draw blood, even without consent. But the court talked in detail about the risks involved in extracting the bullet. And… the court said if the risks are… high, or if they’re unknown– if there are unknown risks, you can’t dig into someone’s body. So this is, these are the authorities I’m using to try to persuade the Third Circuit and the US Supreme Court you can’t do this.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: [03:33:30]
You can cite the xxxx of Bayer… in Germany, who told the managers that were gathering there in the World Health Summit, they told them that for sure this is a gene therapy. The boss of the biggest pharmaceutic enterprise, he told them publicly, of course it is a gene therapy. And two years ago, nobody would have accepted it. [mutually interrupting]

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD:
But Ana Garner gave me the Moderna SEC filing. And in that SEC filing, the– Moderna called it gene therapy throughout. No place was it called a vaccine. In no place in the entire SEC– I mean, mult– I mean, dozens of pages, it was called gene therapy. So even the manufacturers were calling it gene therapy. They started calling it a vaccine to trigger the public’s cognitive association between vaccines and good health. You see what they did? And again, only because my background in constitutional law and how language affects the brain and the thought processes did I know this. It’s almost like, I feel like I’ve been guided my whole life in these various… areas of research that have all come together. To use speech to persuade people, to speech to fool people, to use pressure like Facebook– they say if you’re a good person, you get– you do the right thing, get vaccinated. And one of my friends’ mother said to me, “Yeah, I got vaccinated, because I wanted to do the right thing”, I said, “the right thing for who? For the pharmaceutical company?

Wolfgang Wodarg MD:
In solidarity with the pharmaceutic industry.

Viviane Fischer: [03:35:09]
Can I… ask a few questions with regards to this Jeffrey Epstein?

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD:

Viviane Fischer:
Yeah. So I was wondering… So Jeffrey Epstein, of course, he cannot have influenced or like whatever, let’s say compromised every politician in the world. But I mean maybe, do you know, with these celebrities or like these high- high-strung people that got to be on his island, maybe so he… you know, got influence or… like had… power. If you assume this idea is correct that he… really has this insurance policy by compromising these people, like collecting photographs of, like compromising situation so whatever.

So he, of course he would be like a hotspot of… power with regards to maybe bribing them into going into a certain direction. But do you think he, I mean he cannot have been like the string puller, because like what kind of, do you know, in what… would he then have told them what to do, like in a certain situation. I mean, who’s behind him, then, using these kinds of, you know, activities or like using these kind of, that compromising material in order to get these people to do something? And could that also have some sort of, you know, if we look at this whole corona thing happening, how important do you think these may be, you know, these… this problematic path of some of the people involved? What kind of role could have that have played?

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD: [03:36:38]
Well, let me answer that by explaining a conversation I had with a friend of mine named Lisa Bath, the first lady I met in USC when I moved there twenty-some years ago in 2000. And her father, James Bath, introduced George W. Bush to the bin Ladens. Lisa’s dad owned Southwest Services, which is a jet refueling airport station in Houston. He knew everybody. He got the contract to refuel all the jets, the military jets. Very powerful man. He introduced the Bushes to the bin Ladens back in the ’70s. So this is someone who– Lisa should know about politics. Her dad was a very powerful, good friend of George W. B– in fact, Lisa’s dad was the one who snuck in and stole the eye exam, for them to get into the National Guard flight school, because neither George W. Bush, nor her father could pass the… eye test. This test was like this, you know that? Well they stole it, they memorized it. They went in the next day. They had it memorized. They got in. He admits it now. It’s in Fahrenheit 911 if you watch the movie by Michael Moore.

So getting back to your question, what Lisa said to me once, she goes, Deana, this is how it works in politics. Everyone is looking for dirt on everyone else. Ths huge matrix of this person knows something about this person, this person knows something about this person. And this enormous matrix is built, where if you have a problem with someone who is maybe three degrees of separation from you, someone you have dirt on knows his wife. And something like that. She said, “It’s all about how you barter in dirt on other people in politics.”

So back to Jeffrey Epstein. How could he possibly be an influence? I’m not sure, though what I do believe is that even if he only had direct dirt on let’s say Bill Clinton and some of these movie stars and what not, he now has you know, a card to play with Bill Clinton. And Bill Clinton has dirt on other people. So if he threatens Bill Clinton that “I’m going to show this photograph of you and a 12-year-old unless you do this for me”, Bill Clinton can then put pressure on the person he has dirt on. It’s like a domino effect. So there’s this enormous matrix of people in the top ranks of wealth, power and money. And they all know somebody that they can use to get to the person they want to shut up, or the person they want to do something for them. And she told me this is how it works.

And I was just blown away. I was young; I was 35at the time. So, but I think that that’s why these photographs and… videos of these various very powerful men can have a ripple effect throughout all of the billionaires, all of the world’s leaders, because there’s either a friendship there, or there’s something going on with all these people. And most of them are interconnected somehow. So that’s why I think Jeffrey Epstein’s influence goes so much further than just the many he has videos and photographs on.

Viviane Fischer: [03:39:35]
Wow. … I mean, do you think that, I mean there seem to be quite a few of these hot spots like, you know, what Jeffrey Epstein provided. Maybe he’s the most … exclusive, used to be like the most exclusive one, because like with this, I think it was also called Lolita Island, this place where he brought the girls and, to people. And so, but do you think they’re all interconnected? Like what would be happen– like for instance this Dutroux case that’s also very mysterious, since maybe there also seem to be lot of people involved in these kind of things going on there.

And so do you think it’s… all one giant network, or is it like this… these people just popping up by chance? There’s this Dutroux guy, for instance, you know. At least there’s rumors that it was obviously not him alone but like other people, a lot of other people involved. Or people did I think some, there’s also like some separate investigations on that case. So do you think it’s all a giant interconnected network?

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD:
I do. And let me tell you why– yes, I do. I think it’s a giant intersecting network, because I think that the, our country’s most prominent families have managed to maintain power in the same way that I’m talking about, having dirt of some kind on one another. Or ties and liaisons, or maybe even marriages. In some way, one way or another, they are connected. Now after I wrote the Jeffrey Epstein book, I got connected to some reporters who found me, four male reporters. And one of those men was Nick Bryant. Nick Bryant wrote a book called The Franklin Scandal, and this is like, gosh, 10 years ago. That was about the sex-trafficking scheme in the government in Nebraska.

And he said, you know, when I looked at your book the same names popped up. Well what amazing surprise. And the first few book– the first few pages of my first book on Jeffrey Epstein, I said one of the things that bothered me so much, the reason why I started digging harder on this issue was: the same names came up. Why is Alan Dershowitz involved in all these cases? Why is Ken Starr are involved in all these cases? I know he passed away last week. You know, why are these same– David Boies. David Boies was the one who took Bill Gates’ deposition, back in the day. And Kavanaugh, our I mean, you look, it’s the same group of men in– as lawyers, as the top, you know, business executives, whatever. And they’re all connected. And so I believe it’s a network, and– yes?

Wolfgang Wodarg MD: [03:42:12]
Isn’t there a competition? I– feels like there’s a network of service providers providing dirt. And isn’t there a competition? You can buy those guys who are… searching for dirt, will make photographs. They are enterprises, they are on the market. If you want to kill someone with that, you just hire someone like that. So there should be a competition. There should be, not a network, but maybe a competition of such firms. What do you think about that?

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD:
So you mean… the people who have knowledge, like the reporters, can be bought off? Is that what you’re saying?

Wolfgang Wodarg MD:
It’s a weapon… to find dirt on someone. You can xxxxxx. And the weapon dealers are those who make the photos, who make the, who try to the find out the dirt on some people. So I think you can hire them if you’re rich and you want to kill someone publicly you just hire such a person, and say, “Find something.” So–

Viviane Fischer:
Wolfgang, think that’s… two different things. That’s, I mean if you have, like someone to sort of, like looking through the dirty laundry in the past of someone. Or like– but this seems to be, I mean, this is more like a trap, like I mean, luring people in into such a situation. For instance, Epstein would invite people to, like a wild party and whatever. They get drunk and then they have a compromising situation where there’s, where they take photos of… I think that’s a maybe a little bit of a different setup, as I understand how this kind of the things work. Like from what Deana said. Is that right?

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD: [03:43:45]
Yeah. I mean, I think that the kind of money involved, sure they knock off people, they try buy off people. I think there’s– Nick Bryant, for example, he… never got another job in publishing. He was publishing for some the top The Atlantic, you know, big papers. And he couldn’t get a job in publishing. He lost… his condo in New York and he– it, they hurt him. I can’t be bought off. They know that, too. And… but my husband and I both face some unusual financial setbacks. I mean really unusual. Throughout our lives, we never had these issues, where they’re arising right now. So that’s weird. So I think that they try to put you down, one way or another. And if they can’t, and if you become powerful enough, yeah they’ll kill you. That’s what I think will happen, or can happen. But that’s why, for me, I– my religion is what keeps me going. I don’t believe that anyone can kill me unless… God allows it. That’s my opinion.

So, you know, that’s why I don’t… live in fear. I’m not afraid of any of these people. I– good luck. I mean I… think that they’re going to face the wrath of a much higher being if they… don’t understand that is what will happen in due course, that there’s no way around it, you know. I just got my yoga certification. I’m now a hot yoga teacher. And in the yoga world, we learn about karma. And there’s no way of stopping it. You can’t buy your way out of it. It is there. It is an accumulation of the energy you create through your actions, your thoughts and your… movements and speech. And so I– that’s what keeps me going. I… don’t know, you know, people have said, “You better watch your back.” And I said, well, the best I can. But I think they’ll do anything. Alan Dershowitz hired black cu– [sound cut] Harvey Weinstein… they were running people off the roads in Palm Beach, running the families of these girls off the roads, I mean literally.

So yeah, they’re doing all sorts of things. But I don’t know if I answered your question. I’m not really sure. In sum I would say they’re all connected, one way or another. They’re the elite group of people in this country. They think the rest of us are like cattle. They can fool as, prod us, push us in a certain direction, and that we– you know, we’re smarter than they are, too. I mean, these people aren’t that smart. And we– look at… how Bill Gates presents himself in front of a camera. The guy is– has no talent. I don’t know what his IQ test scores were, but I mean the guy’s missing a card in the deck, and there’s something wrong with him.

So they’re not smarter than us. The smartest people in this country are often just, you know, doctors lawyers or professors. We’ve got to change that. We’re talking about bringing back a meritocracy. And that’s something that US Freedom Flyers has been talking about, bringing back a meritocracy in this country. because right now, what we have is just, you know, the people– even the Rhodes scholars, they come from families who have wealth. You know, they’re not… those Rhodes Scholar positions aren’t going to people who have talent; they’re going to people who have the wealth. And that needs to change. So that’s something we’re working on, trying to break apart this network of… kind of mediocre people, who are putting down the real talent among Americans by wielding power and wealth over the rest of us.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD:

Viviane Fischer: [03:46:52]
I have one last question. So the, basically I mean, ok, when we now looking at these… folks involved, yeah? I mean, these people going to… this island and especially when we looking at like, maybe younger children, it’s… needs to have, I mean it’s a certain personality. I meanyou have to have like a, whatever, problematic personality to be even you know to be lured into doing something like that, or even looking for such an opportunity. Because that’s, I mean that’s really you know quite, something very terrible to do. So I was wondering you know, how do these… people that they can then compromise?

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD: [03:47:35]
Well, I think it’s a slippery slope. [sound dropout] originally drawn in by the power. They may be average people like me who just, yeah, they’re… viewed as someone who may be helpful to the bad guys. And so they say, “Here’s a… a person who knows a lot. Let’s bring her in. And the first thing they do is try to seduce you or something, get photos of you in maybe some kind of compromise position. And now you’re kind of stuck. And one thing leads to another. They slip… things in your drink all the time. I’ve personally had the date-rape drug put into my drink at least three times that I know of. Luckily, I got so sick, started throwing up, or literally had to go home. I was sick. I… knew something was wrong. I didn’t finish the drink.

But I’m saying this is really, really common, to use drugs to get women in compromise positions. and when use testosterone-based movies on the [lupies?] the women become very aggressive. They become like 18-year-old boys, aggressing sexually on all the men around them. Because it does that to you. and so they have footage of you approaching men, grabbing men. You see what they do? They find one way or another to draw you in and get something on you. Then they use that to get you to a higher level. That’s my opinion; that’s from what I’ve seen and from what I’ve heard; I don’t know.

But most people aren’t that strong. And if our people were stronger if they had more religion– and by religion I mean a set of values, doesn’t have to be Christian or Jewish. It has to be a set of values. If they were stronger with their set of values and had stronger of families and stronger communities, they may be able to withstand this pressure. But most people just aren’t that strong and that’s something we need to deal with too, and we talk about as well.

By the way, my client just asked me to join the call. I have to go and join him. But thank you so much.

Viviane Fischer:
…really impressive. Thanks so much.

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD:
Any time. You know, I’m German so any time. I’m German, so I’m dying to get over to Germany My mom was half German, so I’m… interested in going some time. I hope to meet you all in person some day.

Viviane Fischer:
That would be lovely.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD:
Thank you very–

Viviane Fischer:
Thanks so much.

Deana Pollard Sacks PhD:
Thank you… see you later. OK bye.

Wolfgang Wodarg MD:

Viviane Fischer: [03:49:42]
Thank you. Wow, I mean, that’s quite something


Imprint / Privacy Policy / Contact Send / support