Justice 4 EI Misconduct: Supreme Court Update
Disclaimer: This site contains the Personal Opinions of Canadian Citizens. All Claims are being Tested in Court. Until then, everything is for Entertainment Purposes only.
Last Updated: 2026-08-20 @1245h
Contact Info: J4EIM@outlook.com
Brief Status Update
We at J4EIM sincerely appreciate everyone who has been following and sharing this important legal case. Your continued time and support have been invaluable. Today, we are providing a comprehensive status update outlining where we currently stand and what developments are forthcoming. This update also incorporates key info previously shared in Notes #1 (2026‑03‑17) and #2 (2026‑04‑19).
As a brief reminder, this case seeks to expose – and obtain justice for – the roughly 450,000 Canadians whose livelihoods were profoundly harmed by the unlawful pandemic‑related mandates. The issues we raise are significant, national in scope, and continue to carry deep consequences for individuals & families across the country.
Case Overview
This section provides a short summary of the major elements of this case to refresh readers’ understanding. We also recognise that new people are encountering this info for the first time. This overview ensures that everyone can quickly get up to speed without needing to consult prior materials. Those already familiar with the details may proceed to the next section. (Jump to: Federal Court of Appeal)
Here is a brief two-minute video outlining this $13B Employment Insurance Scandal.
Here is our one-page Press Release that outlines this case, with links to the evidence:
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Public-Interest/J4EIM-Press-Release-1S.pdf
Short Link: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-PR-1S
Since 1993, Parliament has required that all E.I. Benefits Decisions be grounded in ‘Just Cause’ Analysis. Section 29(c) of the Employment Insurance Act sets out fourteen specific circumstances under which a worker’s decision to “leave or take leave” from their employment is considered justified and therefore eligible for benefits.
Among these legally-protected reasons are situations where:
an employer’s practices are contrary to law (§29[c][xi]), and
an employer imposes unilateral, significant changes to the terms or conditions of employment (§29[c][vii/ix]).
This reflects Parliament’s long‑standing Legislative Intent: EI Benefits must be paid when workers face unlawful conduct, coercive changes to their employment contracts, or other circumstances that reasonably compel them to “leave or take leave.”
Here is a brief list of how these requirements were historically understood & applied:
Before the pandemic (2013-19): 544 Cases contained §29(c) Analysis. (195 Allowed)
‘Misconduct’-specific (2013-19): 216 Cases contained §29(c) Analysis. (80 Allowed)95 Cases specifically used ‘§29(c)(xi/vii/ix)’ Analysis pre-pandemic (2013-2019):
[i.e.] ‘Contrary to Law’ or ‘Contracts Changed’ Analysis. (38 Misconduct)
And hypocritically, 93 Cases used ‘§29(c)(xi/vii/ix)’ Analysis during the pandemic.
During the mandate period (Fall 2021 to June 2022), employers across Canada were financially & legally incentivised (coerced?) into altering work contracts or imposing ‘health measures’ that broke established labour law & Supreme Court precedent. In many cases, workers were terminated – or placed on ‘unpaid administrative leave’ – for “refusing to comply” with coercive medical mandates. These actions triggered exactly the types of circumstances Parliament identified and protected in EI Act §29(c).
Independent research indicates that, had the required ‘Just Cause’ analysis been properly conducted, around 450,000 Canadians would have qualified for EI Benefits. The resulting financial impact – estimated at ~$13-billion within a matter of months – would have drawn down nearly half of the $26‑billion EI Operating Account, placing the sustainability of the program at risk.
So, rather than applying the long‑standing ‘Just Cause’ framework, Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) developed an entirely new, discriminatory & error‑ filled benefits‑qualification process – in secret – spanning multiple federal agencies. (Service Canada [SC], the Employment Insurance Commission [CEIC], and the Social Security Tribunal [SST]) And these new processes only applied to claimants under pandemic‑ mandate-related situations. (Every other case used the proper framework.) Finally, EI Decision‑Makers (ADMs) were required to follow this new decision tree, despite its many errors and legal problems, and faced potential consequences for deviating from it. (Interesting Fact: The SST lost 28% of its Members during this period. Any correlation‽)
This precedential case challenges the lawfulness of that ‘process engineering’ itself, and seeks accountability for their systemic departure from Parliament’s laws…
For more details, please watch our detailed Case Presentation (1:43 hr). Each timestamped chapter contains links to the key evidence & legal arguments.
https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Presentation AND https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Slides
Federal Court of Appeal
(NB: We have a digital recreation of our FCA Hearing posted below. It’s an excellent way to learn about the weaponised ‘process engineering’ that occurred in E.I. during the pandemic…)
(( [1:23 hr] https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Hearing-YT OR https://youtu.be/rOtgtLStsbM ))
Our case exposes 15 Errors across 7 Categories – and [at least] 4 are ‘Matters of First Impression’. 1 (Subjects never argued in Federal Court before, that will set future precedents.)
This includes a Rizzo Analysis of the EI Act (§29-§33: Just Cause & Disqualification) and relevant Parliamentary Hansards. (from: Bills C-21 [1989], C-105 [1993] & C-113 [1993])
It takes a significant amount of time and space to fully, fairly argue everything needed to expose this multi-agency Employment Insurance Scandal (considering the complexity of the processes & systemic precedents being set in these circumstances). It violates Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness to deny us this opportunity. Yet, this happened. Twice.
Censorship Problems
Our Judicial Review before the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) encountered serious procedural problems throughout the legal process. For now, we will highlight two situations that raise concerns about potential censorship.
These are just two of many procedural violations that occurred during this process.
One day, after this case is finalised, we look forward to sharing the full story…
Unrequested Publication Ban
After a successful Status Review in early 2025, we filed our full Applicant’s Record (Rule 309) on April 23 (Docket #56). Given the scale of the systemic issues involved (15 different errors), our Factum required ~180 pages to fully argue. This was the first time that all our arguments & evidence were formally placed before the Court (and the AG).
Throughout earlier stages, the Attorney General (AG) provided no indication that our submissions were being substantively reviewed. Their responses remained generic and templated, relying on reasoning from other unrelated mandate cases. (Cecchetto, Lance, Francis, etc.) 2 They completely ignored the systemic problems we identified with the unlawfully-engineered EI adjudication processes (and prewritten Atrium Templates).
Despite the complexity and national public importance implications, our informal request for a page extension was denied and we were Ordered to file a “compliant memorandum” by June 5 (#65). This required an 84% reduction in arguments, which significantly limited our ability to fill out the complete record. But we complied.
Then, on June 2, before we filed our compliant 30-page Factum, a new docket entry appeared (#71). It stated that a “Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record” had been filed “on behalf of the Applicant” seeking a ‘Confidentiality Order’. If issued, this would prohibit us from publicly discussing our case & evidence – and expose us to potential contempt proceedings for violating it.
We are pro se (self-represented) – there is nobody acting “on our behalf” – and we did not attempt to file anything on the docket: Motion, Notice, or otherwise. The appearance of this unsolicited, unauthorised, non-existent filing raises serious Justice concerns.
(And it did not appear until after everyone knew what we were arguing – and could prove…)
Docket Timeline:
2025-04-23: Applicant’s Record with 183-page Factum. First Full Record (#56)
2025-04-24: Respondent’s Letter Requesting Rejection as Non-Compliant (#57)
2025-05-15: Judge’s Order: New Deadline of 06-05 with a 30-page Factum (#65)
2025-06-02: Unrequested, Unexplained Confidentiality Order [Cancelled] (#71)
2025-06-05: Applicant’s Record Refiled with our 30-page Factum (84% Cut) (#72)
2025-07-03: Judge’s Order: Accept New Applicant’s Record [#72] on Docket (#74)
(NB: After our Applicant’s Record was Accepted, the DOJ changed the lawyer assigned to our Case – replacing one person with a dedicated team of litigators & paralegals – for six months.)
Respondent-Initiated Hearing Reduction
On May 23 (#67), after being Ordered to reduce our written arguments by 84%, we filed our Hearing Requisition, seeking “[no longer than] 2 Days.” Because our full submissions (which they then possessed) required compression (read: paring) to a 30‑page memorandum, it was understood that the remaining arguments would need to be presented orally. Neither the AG nor the Court objected to this request at the time.
However, on October 28, the AG sent an email to the Chief Justice (CJ) seeking to reduce our Hearing time from two days to two hours, stating: “The Respondent asks that this matter be scheduled for two hours. Given the nature of this Application, one hour of argument for each party should be sufficient.”
(This request came six months after their review of ~180 pages of arguments, a ~50‑page affidavit & ~1,050 pages of evidence, including over 175 pages of Parliamentary Hansards proving their Legislative Intent for the EI Program – that specifically addressed ‘Just Cause’.)
As Self‑Represented Litigants (SRL), we were compelled to respond directly to the CJ, citing binding Supreme Court precedent (in: Cardinal v. Kent Institution, 1985 SCC 23, ¶23), arguing that further restricting our oral submissions – after already limiting our written ones – would constitute serious procedural unfairness, requiring a new Hearing.
The Court ultimately granted a minimal increase, extending the Hearing from two hours to three. While appreciated, this still reduced our available argument time by roughly 77% compared to the two‑day hearing originally requested. (3h / 6.5h x 2 days)
These events represent only two of the procedural obstacles encountered: that appear designed to prevent our full arguments and evidence from entering the public record.
Matters of First Impression
(NB: For those interested in digging deeper, these are the new dispositive legal issues we raise that have never been addressed in the Employment Insurance context, before any Court…)
FCA Hearing (2026-02-25)
Because of the severe restrictions imposed on both our written and oral submissions, we were forced to adjust our strategy for the upcoming FCA Hearing on February 25. To maximise what would be placed on the record, we prepared a lengthy, structured, prewritten statement designed to present as many errors and legal arguments as possible within the 90 minutes allotted to us.
These constraints required us to omit substantive discussions of Just Cause, statutory interpretation & Parliament’s intended benefits-eligibility-qualification framework – the foundational elements of our case – although we did appeal for them to ‘carefully consider’ our written submissions on these issues. Instead, we focused on the unlawful process‑engineering that occurred throughout the EI decision‑making pipeline.
Copies of this statement are linked down below. For those who wish to understand (or experience) the full scope of this matter, we also [re]created a video of our Hearing and the Judges’ Bench Decision using screen‑reading software. The contrast is stark. We presented eleven distinct errors, each supported by detailed documentary evidence. Yet none of them were discussed in their Decision, much less answered with reasons.
This continues an unbroken pattern: every party who has touched this case – ESDC Decision‑Makers (ADMs), SST Tribunal Members (TMs), all government lawyers (both CEIC & AG), and now three Federal Judges – has refused to engage with, analyse the merits of, or even acknowledge the systemic issues we have raised. (Some being criminal…)
On the bright side, our informal request for a McKenzie Friend (or ‘Support Person’) was granted by the Court. The National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP) provides helpful Canadian resources discussing this important concept. (Blog, Guide, [More])
Oral Arguments (+Documents)
Here are links to the prewritten arguments we read during our Hearing.
Oral Arguments: Part #1 (Intro + Overview)
Short Link: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Arguments-1 3
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Hearings-FCA/FCA-Hearing-1-Arguments_[1].pdf
Oral Arguments: Part #2 (Legal Analysis)
(NB: We were forced to skip this key section due to our time restriction. However, most of these arguments & evidence were docketed in our Reconsideration Record [under Rule 397].) 4
Oral Arguments: Parts #3-#5 (Systemic Errors)
Short Link: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Arguments-3
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Hearings-FCA/FCA-Hearing-1-Arguments_[3-5].pdf
After our presentation, the Court only asked one question: (summarised, not exact quote)
Court: “Mr. Arnold, you mentioned several FCA Decisions in your submissions, some of them coming from Judges sitting here in front of you today. Surely you know that we are bound by our past Decisions. We have to follow our own precedents. […] With so many recent decisions, we couldn’t have gotten them all wrong, could we‽ That puts this matter out of our hands and makes it a problem for higher Courts – or a change in the legislation – but what can we do about it‽”
We responded by citing Vavilov (2019 SCC 65) [¶18-22] – the controlling Administrative Law case. In it, the Supreme Court majority admitted they were previously wrong, and held that sometimes real Justice means overruling your own past precedent.
[¶18]: “…we wish to acknowledge that these reasons depart from the Court’s existing jurisprudence [] in certain respects. Any reconsideration such as this can be justified only by compelling circumstances, and we do not take this decision lightly. A decision to adjust course will always require the Court to carefully weigh the impact on legal certainty and predictability against the costs of continuing to follow a flawed approach…”
[¶20]: “Nonetheless, this Court has in the past revisited precedents that were determined to be unsound in principle [] or that had attracted significant and valid judicial, academic and other criticism. Although adhering to the established jurisprudence will generally promote certainty and predictability, in some instances doing so will create or perpetuate uncertainty in the law. [] In such circumstances, “following the prior decision because of stare decisis would be contrary to the underlying value behind that doctrine, namely, clarity and certainty in the law”.” 5
[¶22]: “…The principled changes set out below seek to promote the values underlying stare decisis and to make the law [] more certain, coherent and workable going forward.”
This important admission clarifies the work ahead. We must ensure that the Supreme Court hears – clearly and unmistakably – our significant and valid criticism of what occurred during the pandemic mandate period, particularly within the Employment Insurance system. The integrity of a national program was compromised, and the consequences affected hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
Bench Decision (FCA+CanLII)
Following our presentation, the Court indicated that it did not intend to hear from the Attorney General. This raised immediate concerns about transparency and fairness. Preventing the Respondent from addressing the arguments presented (in a packed courtroom)6 shields their position from scrutiny and eliminates any opportunity to expose the irrelevancy, weaknesses, or contradictions in their attempted defence.
Shortly after the morning break began, we were informed that it was being extended from 15 minutes to 45 minutes, ultimately lasting close to an hour.
This sequence aligns with a broader pattern observed in other COVID‑Mandate Misconduct (C19‑MM) Cases: the issuance of immediate Bench Decisions that rely on prior mandate‑related rulings as ‘binding precedent’, while avoiding engagement with the substantive evidence and arguments before the Court.
We challenge any rationally-minded person to read (or watch) this Bench Decision immediately after our Oral Arguments. (Our video recreation is also linked below…)
2026 FCA 41: Arnold v. Canada (Attorney General) [FCA Case: #A-63-24]
CanLII: https://canlii.ca/t/kjg1n
FCA: https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/521791/index.do
Hearing Recreation (1:23 hr)
https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Hearing-YT OR ( https://youtu.be/rOtgtLStsbM )
Reconsideration (2026-04-30)
Reasons: Reconsideration Motion
On March 8, we filed our Notice of Reconsideration Motion (under Rule 397) with the FCA, asking the Court to address a ‘critical issue’ that was ‘overlooked’ in its Decision. (Our full Motion Record was filed on March 30 & our Reply Representations on April 13.)
This critical issue specifically concerns our ‘Just Cause’ arguments under EI Act §29(c) – arguments that every ADM & Judge refused to consider at every stage of this case. These 14 legal considerations form the foundation of EI law and cannot be disregarded.
Under binding Supreme Court case law (Vavilov, ¶102-104), Courts & Decision‑Makers must provide written reasons that meaningfully address the core legal issues raised. So we explicitly requested those reasons in writing.
A proper Just Cause Analysis requires determining whether an employer ‘acted contrary to law’ or imposed unilateral, ‘significant changes’ to the employment contract. This analysis was routinely applied hundreds of times before the pandemic (even during it),7 yet was ‘process-engineered out’ (read: intentionally removed) from the EI adjudication process for mandate-related cases – despite being required by statute and precedent.
We asked the Federal Court of Appeal to provide Canadians with clear, written reasons explaining this omission – or why it was not applicable in pandemic-mandate cases. This explanation is essential both to address this widespread injustice and to ensure a proper record for our forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
[Unfortunate] Expected Results: Nothing to See Here
Our Reconsideration Motion was formally Accepted and Docketed on April 13. On April 30, the Court Dismissed it without providing reasons, stating only that its existing precedent was sufficient and that it did not intend to address the merits on the record.
AND WHEREAS [] the Court is not convinced that any matter that should have been dealt with in the Original Decision was overlooked or accidentally omitted, and the Court’s silence on certain of the Appellant’s submissions leading up to the Original Decision should not be understood as indicating that they were overlooked or accidentally omitted;
AND WHEREAS other submissions by the Appellant on the present Motion seek reasons (or better reasons) for this Court’s conclusions, which likewise is not the purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration;
[THEREFORE:]
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Motion for Reconsideration is Dismissed.
This Reconsideration Decision is the final ruling that the Courts are legally required to provide in this matter. From this point forward, any further progress requires Leave – or permission to proceed – and that will not be granted without substantial Public Interest and engagement.
We now enter the stage where public awareness & support are essential. We need your help…
Reconsideration Motion (Documents)
Here are both the Shortened & Full Links to our Reconsideration Motion documents:
Reconsideration: Notice of Motion (2026-03-08)
https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Reconsider-Notice
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Hearings-FCA/FCA-Reconsider-Notice.pdf
Reconsideration: Motion Record (2026-03-30)
https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Reconsider-Record
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Hearings-FCA/FCA-Reconsider-Record.pdf
Reconsideration: Reply Brief (2026-04-13)
https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Reconsider-Reply
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Hearings-FCA/FCA-Reconsider-Reply.pdf
Reconsideration: Court Decision (2026-04-30)
https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-FCA-Reconsider-Decision
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/Hearings-FCA/FCA-Reconsider-Decision.pdf
Supreme Court Filing (In Progress)
Each year, the Supreme Court (SCC) grants Leave to Appeal in fewer than 100 cases – and only where a matter raises clear issues of National Public Importance. From the outset of this case in 2022, we have structured our arguments to meet that standard.
This scandal affected an estimated 450,000 Canadians and involves about $13-billion in EI Benefits that were unlawfully denied during the pandemic. That impact alone places our case squarely within the National Public Interest. But to ensure the Court fully understands the scope and seriousness of what occurred, we need your help.
We are calling on every Canadian who cares about Employment Insurance – and everyone who seeks accountability for pandemic‑era government ‘misconduct’ – to Print & Mail our Public Interest Letters to the relevant government bodies, including the Supreme Court of Canada. When Canadians speak collectively, Courts listen.
Help Us: Public Interest & Interveners
We need your power – your voice. Canadians across our great land must demand Accountability & Justice for the scandal that destroyed nearly half a million livelihoods during a national crisis. (And that only accounts for EI. What about the Mandates‽)
This is especially important if you, or someone in your household, was denied EI Benefits due to these Mandate ‘Misconduct’ Decisions. For those directly affected, we have included a Personal Impact Statement that allows you to formally add your own experience and case information to this precedent‑setting matter.
However, every Canadian has a stake in this case. EI is a public program, and what occurred compromised the integrity of the system for everyone. This needs reform. And the outcome of this case may also influence future class‑action litigation once the Supreme Court addresses these central issues.
For most Canadians, completing and mailing the Public Interest Letters takes only 15–20 minutes. For those personally impacted, it may take closer to an hour – but that hour can help change the course of Justice in Canada.
You can make a real difference by sharing this simple but powerful action with others. The more letters we send, the harder it becomes for Decision‑Makers (ADMs) to ignore our collective call for Justice on this issue.
If you know someone who was denied EI or affected by the mandates, invite them to join us. Or, if you care about the future of this ‘social safety net’ program, ask others to ensure that every Canadian knows about this case…
You can even host Public Interest Letter‑Writing Gatherings – a chance for friends, families, and community groups to print, prepare, and mail their Letters together.
These Letters form the foundation of our case. They are the single most impactful way you can help obtain Justice for all Canadians. Without them, our case will be denied in silence – just like all the previous ones – but with them, it will be difficult for our Supreme Court to justify turning this injustice into future binding precedent.
(Put differently: Ignoring an employer’s lawbreaking – or major contract breaches – to deny entitled claimants their EI Benefits will become a legal requirement going forward…)
Short Link: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Public-Interest
Note: This is the most important way you can use your voice to influence change.
Note: Please contact us if you have any questions about this process. (Phone#)
Note: If you know any groups that want to Join this Case (Intervene), Text Us.
Help Us: Journalism & Media Appearances
We need your help to ensure Canadians learn the truth. This case has the potential to expose pandemic‑era government misconduct in our Supreme Court – proven using their own evidence – but most Canadians do not yet know it exists.
Please help us share this information on social media. We have prepared posts and short video clips that are ready to be shared. Online censorship has made it difficult for this case to reach the public, and we cannot overcome that barrier without you.
If you have contacts in podcasting or independent media, please share this page with them and encourage them to reach out. We are prepared to discuss this matter with anyone – supportive or adversarial. Canadians deserve to know what happened, and they deserve to know that Justice 4 [Pandemic‑era] EI Misconduct is possible…
Short Link: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Clips
Short Link: https://tinyurl.com/J4EIM-Public-Relations
Judicial Notice: Pandemic Investigations
Considering how quickly our Courts took ‘Judicial Notice’ of the ‘safe & effective’ marketing slogan – without evidence – we are asking the Court to also take Judicial Notice of the following four proceedings: (while reasonably weighing the evidence)
Allison Inquiry: Canadian Parliamentary Inquiry into Vaccine-Injured Canadians
US White House: COVID-19 Origins Investigation & Declassification Project
US Senate: Committee Investigations into Anthony Fauci & Pandemic Responses
David Morens Indictment: Fauci’s Senior Advisor Pled Guilty to Evidence Destruction
Parliament: Allison Inquiry
Listening to Canadian COVID-19 Vaccine-Injured
Website: https://CovidTestimony.com ( Exhibits)
On September 8, 9, 10 and 11, 2026, the Allison Inquiry will be listening to the testimony of Canadians injured by a Covid-19 vaccine. The Inquiry will be broadcast live from Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The Allison Inquiry represents the first time that Canadian lawmakers will be listening to Canadians about their experiences with the Covid-19 vaccines.
The Allison Inquiry will be chaired by Member of Parliament Dean Allison and is non-partisan. Members of Parliament and Senators from all parties are eligible to sit as panel members. The Inquiry is being held with the cooperation of the Covid Testimony Association, a not-for-profit set up to assist in running the Inquiry.
White House: COVID-19 Portal
Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19
Website: https://COVID.gov
https://WhiteHouse.gov/lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19
The White House maintains this portal containing important reports, evidence, and declassified documents from various investigations into the Origins of Covid-19. 8
It provides evidence showing that certain individuals knew they were lying to the public – and the President – by hiding key evidence that contradicted their public statements.
US Senate: Committee Investigations (HSGAC)
The US Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs (HSGAC: Chairman Rand Paul) – along with its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Chairman Ron Johnson) – is conducting multiple investigations into various aspects of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Federal & State Governments’ Responses, Anthony Fauci’s Involvement, and the ‘Safety & Efficacy’ of mRNA Injections.
Ron Johnson: Vaccines, Mandates & COVID-19 (Vaccine Injuries)
https://RonJohnson.senate.gov/issues/vaccines-side-effects-and-mandates
Testimony of Anthony Fauci: (HSGAC Hearing: 2026-07-29)
https://hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/testimony-of-anthony-fauci
COVID-19 Investigation: Reading Room (Documents Portal)
https://paul.senate.gov/readingroom
Ron Johnson: COVID-19 Investigation (Oversight Timeline)
https://RonJohnson.senate.gov/issues/covid
Press Releases: Anthony Fauci, COVID-19 & Vaccine Injuries
https://RonJohnson.senate.gov/news/?_s=Fauci%20OR%20COVID%20OR%20Vaccine
David Morens: NIAID Evidence Destruction Indictment
David Morens was the Senior Advisor to Anthony Fauci in the Director’s Office at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). On August 18, 2026, he pled guilty to Conspiring to Conceal Federal Records during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Specifically, he modified, hid & erased important evidence about the origins of COVID-19, to cover up that it likely came from dangerous ‘gain-of-function’ experiments that Fauci was funding in Wuhan, China. He received gifts for these crimes over three years…
Indictment (DOJ): https://justice.gov/opa/pr/former-senior-niaid-official-indicted-concealing-federal-records-during-covid-19-pandemic-0
Guilty Plea (DOJ): https://justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-senior-niaid-official-pleads-guilty-charges-connected-concealing-federal-records
David Morens Plea Agreement: US v. Morens (MDDC: 8:26-cr-00138-PX)
https://CourtListener.com/docket/73253136/36/united-states-v-morens
[ECF #1] Indictment || [ECF #36] Plea Agreement & [#36A] Stipulated Facts 9
(18 USC § 371): Conspiracy to Commit Offenses and to Defraud the United States
Statue (18 USC § 371): Justice Manual (US-DOJ), Legal Text (Justia)
[Bonus] White House: Election Integrity Portal
Website: https://WhiteHouse.gov/election-integrity
The White House maintains this portal containing important reports, evidence, and declassified documents from Election Integrity & Intelligence Community investigations.
Despite being categorised under ‘Election Integrity’ most of the declassified documents reveal evidence proving Trump’s “Weaponized Agencies running illegal Psychological Warfare Campaigns against the People” claims. 10
This portal is regularly updated with new declassified documents released by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), intended for use in the ‘RICO Grand Conspiracy’ Grand Jury Investigation running in FLSD. (USA: Jason Reding Quiñones)
– ### –
Public Interaction (Comments)
Provide your thoughts – and any #MeToo situations, specifically listing the Errors that applied in your own Cases… (Full List in Home Page)
Support Our Project: https://GiveSendGo.com/Justice-4-EI-Misconduct
We already distinguished and proved the inapplicability of these specific cases in our Factum at ¶196-¶211 (p.100-105)
https://Justice4EIMisconduct.com/assets/FCA-Factum-Full.pdf#page=100
We use shortened links to avoid the domain-based censorship we experience on certain technology platforms. Significantly fewer emails end up censored to Junk/Spam when using TinyURL links to bypass using “Justice4EIMisconduct.com” in emails & social posts…
We will include both versions here, to help people hesitant to use anonymously-redirected URLs.
See Reconsideration section, immediately below this section.
SCC citing: 1988 CanLII 22: R. v. Bernard (at: ¶51 or p.858)
Over 100 people attended in-person or registered to watch the Zoom Hearing live online.
I noticed that some of the source documents have been [re]moved from this portal. Several of them are now in the Election Integrity portal (listed below), while others are simply gone.
My best guess is that they are being used in the ‘RICO Grand Conspiracy’ Grand Jury Investigation currently happening in FLSD (USA: Jason Reding Quiñones), with supporting Special Investigations in D.C. and SDNY.
These Stipulated Facts contain important evidence proving that there was a multi-agency conspiracy to destroy evidence and obstruct ongoing investigations into COVID-19.
The same entities that likely caused the creation of SARS-COV-2, were covering up this fact so that they could profit from their solution – experimental gene therapy injections (aka ‘vaccines’).
Docket (ECF #36A): https://CourtListener.com/docket/73253136/36/1/united-states-v-morens
Plea Facts (PDF): https://storage.CourtListener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.603873/gov.uscourts.mdd.603873.36.1.pdf
Plea Agreement (#36): https://CourtListener.com/docket/73253136/36/united-states-v-morens
Date: 2023-06-14 | Place: Bedminster, NJ
Clip Timecode: @21:44-23:09 (1:27 min)
YT: https://youtu.be/gr57w1vcUXk?t=1304s
“…Don’t forget, this persecution is being done by the same weaponized agencies that for seven years have been running illegal psychological warfare campaigns against the American people, much as if they were trying to destabilize a foreign country […] it’s all been a battle of disinformation.”