Some more interesting things related to the Anthony Fauci Pardon…

Dr. John Reizer

In this post, I’m taking a look at how the US Constitution protects some pretty bad people:

So, I asked Google AI the following questions:

1. Why is Anthony Fauci still protected from criminal prosecution if his place of employment was at the NIH, which is located in Bethesda, Maryland?

2. How does a presidential pardon, which insulates, for all intents and purposes, scumbags and crooks from federal prosecution and conviction, still apply to crimes committed by an individual who was working in one of America’s fifty states, and in Fauci’s case, the state of Maryland?

Google/ AI Overview:

Washington, DC, is not a state but rather a federal territory and, for all intents and purposes, a legal sanctuary for people who work for the United States of America, Incorporated.

The presidential pardon protects pardoned individuals from prosecution and conviction for federal crimes. It’s really not difficult for these crooks to protect themselves from any wrongdoing, regardless of where they operate, because all they have to do is designate the location where a crime is committed as a federal enclave, and then they walk away Scott-free.

In my view, this place is a rigged casino in many instances, and if we unthinkingly assume that the laws are always in place to protect innocent citizens and the public at large, we might want to rethink our assumption.

Our Constitution working

against and not for Americans:

In 2020, our federal government issued complete immunity to Big Pharma and Big Medicine as those two entities set out, in my opinion, to intentionally murder innocent people and cover up crimes against humanity through a vaccination scheme, under the guise of what I believe was a fake public health emergency.

Doctors, nurses, vaccine makers, scientists, and others were granted permission to create, deliver, and administer untested and unsafe vaccine products to American citizens, while falsely claiming through deceptive language that the FDA fully approved the products.

The American health regulatory agency used the phrase “FDA Authorized” repeatedly during the pandemic years to convince people that unsafe drug products were fully tested and approved by the government, when in fact the label “FDA Authorized” meant the complete opposite of safe and fully tested products.

The Constitutional laws of the United States allowed our government to distribute and administer untested and unsafe experimental vaccines to an unsuspecting public because the medical profession claimed there was a sufficient number of SARS-CoV-2 cases in existence to declare a pandemic.

Those case numbers were registered and recorded by, in my opinion, rigged diagnostic tests that were known to be unreliable for detecting the virus, according to the PCR test creator who mysteriously died a month before the outbreaks of COVID-19 began to spread around the world.

Then, after everything has settled and the pandemic is over, the  “guy” who was portrayed as the leader of the pandemic management team is suspected of gross wrongdoing and is granted a presidential pardon that was autosigned by a commander in chief who, at the end of his presidency, looked like a person exhibiting serious signs of cognitive decline.

Is this how our forefathers intended our Constitution to work for American citizens?


The One-Hour Diner

Prologue

The police station was a well-lit building that stood out from most of the others. It had been designed and constructed over the last several years and featured a more modernist architectural style than the surrounding structures in the small Montana community.

They entered through the front entranceway and approached the reception area, announcing to the desk sergeant their intention to report information on a previously unsolved crime.

Renee Hudson sat beside Bryan Dawson on a hard, metallic chair. She hadn’t said much since they parked outside. Neither had he. They had been exhausted from everything that had transpired and were conserving their energy for what was to come.

The clock above the reception desk read 3:25 a.m.

Time had kept its promise; it was still moving right along.

Bryan, a handsome middle-aged man with a slender build and brown hair, exhaled slowly, his dark eyes drifting toward the glass partition separating them from the front desk. A tired-looking officer was rifling through some paperwork behind it, unaware of everything they had endured in the last hour.

Renee, an early-thirties brunette and easy on the eyes, shifted uneasily in her seat beside him.

“Once we start,” she whispered, “we don’t get to stop and change our minds.”

Bryan nodded. “I know that.”

She glanced at him, her expression serious. “I just want to say everything right.”

“There isn’t a right way,” he said gently. “There’s only the truth.”

Renee’s fingers flexed. “That’s what scares me.”

A door buzzed and opened somewhere down the hall. Footsteps approached them, and a plainclothes detective appeared in the hallway. He conferred with the desk sergeant briefly, muttered a few words to him, then glanced over at Bryan and Renee.

“Can I help you two?” he asked, his tone overly friendly.

Renee and Bryan stood up. “We need to report something important,” Bryan said. His voice sounded nervous and cautious. “It’s about a previously unsolved crime.”

The detective’s eyebrows raised slightly. “Okay,” he said. “Let’s step into an interview room.”

They followed the man down a narrow hallway, the walls lined with flyers for missing people.

The interview area was tiny, with a small table and four chairs. A small camera was mounted on a wall in the corner of the room.

The policeman gestured for them to sit, then closed the door. “I’m Detective Calloway,” he said, taking the seat across from them. “Take your time and start wherever you need to.”

Renee nodded.

Bryan glanced over at her, then nodded as well. “I’ll start,” he said.

He told the policeman everything that had happened as plainly as possible.

Detective Calloway didn’t interrupt. He took notes, his expression unreadable.

When Bryan finished, the silence was deafening.

Renee picked up the conversation without looking at Bryan and gave her accounts of everything.

After Renee finished, Detective Calloway set his pen down on the table. “Do you two understand the seriousness of what you’re telling me?”

“Yes,” Renee said.

“Yes,” Bryan added.

Calloway leaned back in his chair, studying them. “Why confess now?”

Bryan thought about the question for a few seconds before responding. “Because the guilt of keeping all this in over the past several years never left our sides,” he said.

Renee nodded. “We tried to bury it, but that didn’t work.”

Calloway exhaled through his nose. “There was a homicide connected to this case,” he said. “Your statements could reopen a lot of doors.”

“We know,” Bryan said.

Renee closed her eyes briefly. “We’re not asking for leniency.”

The detective watched them for a long moment, then stood up and walked over to where the camera was mounted on the wall. He reached up and turned on the device. A red light appeared on the front of the camera.

“Okay,” he said. “Then we’re going to do this the right way.”

Pre-order Now!

Releasing July 4th, 2026

About the Book

Over sixty minutes in an isolated roadside diner in rural Montana, two strangers are forced to confront suppressed and traumatic memories, discovering that time, guilt, and truth are far more dangerous than the authorities awaiting them.

Click here to read the author interview!

Visit johnreizer.net


Coming to DirecTV soon!

Watch It For Free!

Inventing a cancer cure was their first mistake!

Click on the Image to Watch the Movie

Sometimes fiction is not an escape from reality, but rather the only way to talk about it.

–John Reizer


Truth Engines

Pre-order Available at Select Retailers

What if fiction reveals the truths modern society refuses to face?

Truth Engines is a bold collection of science fiction shorts that acknowledges the hidden realities currently affecting humanity. Blending imagination with clever storytelling, these writings explore a wide range of important subjects currently impacting all human beings.

Releasing September 1st, 2026

Pre-order Now

Science fiction has traditionally been a way for writers to discuss difficult ideas safely. It has allowed authors to examine dangerous possibilities before they become reality. Sometimes fiction entertains us, sometimes it warns us, and sometimes it says the necessary things that otherwise couldn’t be said.

These stories are not meant to preach or claim absolute answers. They are meant to encourage thought. They will hopefully inspire readers to ask questions about power, truth, freedom, artificial intelligence, corruption, media influence, medical ethics, surveillance, and the future direction of humanity itself.

Some readers may see these stories as pure fiction. Others may recognize pieces of the modern world hidden inside them. That choice belongs to you, the reader.

The goal of my writing is twofold: to entertain while also encouraging people to think more deeply about the systems shaping human life behind the scenes.

Whether these stories inspire agreement, debate, curiosity, or discomfort, I hope they stay with you long after the final page.

Sometimes fiction is not an escape from reality, but rather the only way to talk about it.

–John Reizer


Beta Reviews

It’s an amazing read! The stories in Truth Engines were born and live in the spaces between the 88 black-and-white notes on a piano keyboard. If you’re a fan of The Twilight Zone, you’ll really love this book!

A Beta Reader

Truth Engines is an incredible reading experience!

A Beta Reader


The Big Pharma Conspiracy Movie

Inventing a cancer cure was their first mistake!

Critical Reviews

“Rachel Alig is terrific as Donna while Justin Ray as Clyde also manages to impress. Combining witty commentary with a constant threat to life, script writers Palo and Reizer develop a narrative that is funny and charming while ensuring that none of the thrill and danger is lost in the process.”

– INDIE WRAP MAGAZINE

“Drama, thrills, comedy and so much more: Directors Andrew Arguello and MJ Palo’s Target List has all the fixings of a great movie. Combining a fantastic cast with the witty writing of MJ Palo and John Reizer, whichever way you flip this film, it lands on its feet with feline agility.”

– INDY REVIEWS

“The script by Palo with John Reizer, for the most part, rides that perfect balance between its more dramatic moments and perfectly placed moments of humor that never distract. While they’re probably not going to get invited to any big pharma conventions anytime soon, Reizer and Palo have a point, and they make it beautifully.”

“Target List is a great view for anyone who wants a compelling and suspenseful flick with a message that matters.”

– RICHARD PROPES – THE INDEPENDENT CRITIC


Gareth Icke – Derby, England

“Target List had me on the edge of my seat throughout. Not the least because of its believability!

GARETH ICKE – DIRECTOR OF THE DAVID ICKE WEBSITE

Click on the image below to visit the website!

Are Mandatory Vaccine Laws Protected by the Constitution?

By Dr. John Reizer

Many Americans have been recently asking the question: Are mandatory vaccine laws protected by the Constitution? If you type this question into a search engine on the Internet, you are going to be inundated with a plethora of legal opinions that thoroughly discuss the subject. The majority of the views will tell you that the federal government has a constitutional right to exercise mandatory vaccine laws.

The legal opinions referenced above are mostly made and influenced by a case that was decided by the SCOTUS on February 20, 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that an individual’s liberty is not absolute and subject to police powers.

The decision handed down stated, “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” and that “[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

The court also ruled that mandatory vaccinations are not arbitrary or oppressive so long as they do not “go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.”

Now, I want to preface my remarks about this case by stating I am not a lawyer (although I do have an online Juris Doctorate that I worked really hard on many years ago), and I am not an expert on legal issues and have never pretended to be one. But strictly from a layperson’s perspective, I have to write that I agree with Robert F. Kennedy’s position that mandatory vaccine laws are unconstitutional.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts was heard and decided by the SCOTUS in 1905. That’s a long time ago, and there’s been a lot of new information uncovered about vaccines and the devastating effects they have on human physiology. A new argument could and should be laid out to retest and reverse this old and antiquated legal decision.

I believe that Jacobson v. Massachusetts could be successfully challenged and overturned in light of some of the new, damaging evidence that has been turned up about the vaccine industry. There are over 150 chronic diseases that the FDA has attributed to vaccinations, and there is a specialized National Vaccine Injury Compensation Court that was expressly set aside to hear vaccine injury cases and limit their awards to $250,000 to protect the big pharma industry. In addition to this, the soon to be released Covid-19 vaccine will have complete liability immunity from any injuries the product might potentially inflict on human lives.

In my opinion, Jacobson v. Massachusetts would yield a much different decision if heard in the year 2020. And I have spoken with a few lawyer friends who unequivocally agree with me. The minority dissenters in the case, Justices Brewer and Peckham, would likely have had more support from the majority ruling justices who heard the case if they had been made aware of the real dangers associated with the oxymoron known as vaccine science.

I think it is time to retest Jacobson v. Massachusetts in a modern-day legal setting, and one that takes into consideration the full extent of the safety issues associated with vaccines. These products have become overly oppressive in nature for all human beings because they pose serious health threats to the general public they have, in theory, been designed to protect. The current health risks stemming from vaccine products extend far beyond what the justices in 1905 considered safe for the general public.

In my opinion, the federal government will not try to mandate vaccines in the future because they would be afraid to place Jacobson v. Massachusetts in the line of fire of a real test. It has been tested in limited capacities in the past, but not with the argument that takes into consideration the case I have laid out in this post.

I think the powers that be would love to keep this precedent-setting decision right where it lies. To open it up to a brand new, real test scenario is opening a can of worms they can’t afford to open. If the decision was ever reversed, the controllers would lose their leverage and ability to populate search engines with articles that tell us that the federal government’s right to impose mandatory vaccines is protected by the US Constitution.

I, for one, would love to see this case revisited and put through a new legal test using the argument I have outlined.  Any lawyers out there that have more expertise than me concerning this subject, please feel free to weigh in on the conversation.