Supreme Court has ruled that vaccinated people are now products/patented goods, and according to US law, no longer human
https://t.me/ShellShQck/2419
https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf
one world undivided with liberty and justice for all https://twitter.com/verndewd https://www.bitchute.com/channel/UnlManuURgPw/
without a page and paragraph indicated,,,,, just saying, they may not have read it correctly
been removed.” Brief for Petitioners 49. They nevertheless argue that cDNA is not patent eligible because “[t]he
nucleotide sequence of cDNA is dictated by nature, not by
the lab technician.” Id., at 51. That may be so, but the lab
technician unquestionably creates something new when
cDNA is made. cDNA retains the naturally occurring
exons of DNA, but it is distinct from the DNA from which
it was derived. As a result, cDNA is not a “product of
nature” and is patent eligible under §101, except insofar
as very short series of DNA may have no intervening
introns to remove when creating cDNA. In that situation,
a short strand of cDNA may be indistinguishable from
natural DNA.9///// page 17
one world undivided with liberty and justice for all https://twitter.com/verndewd https://www.bitchute.com/channel/UnlManuURgPw/
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
[June 13, 2013]
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part and concurring in
the judgment.
I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion
except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even
my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied
the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here,
that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state
sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the
DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA
(cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in
nature.///// page 18
