This reply is a combined effort from @GibMessenger, a private attorney, the work of Vicky Bula and @DOTS –
UPDATE – What’s the Deal with Gibraltar’s Vaccine Supply?
The Government of Gibraltar signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UKGOV Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which represented the UKGOV in its contract with Pfizer.
Here are PDFs of the two documents:
-
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Gibraltar and the UK Government’s BEIS. HMGoG UKGOV-BEIS Document.pdf (1.2 MB)
-
Terms and conditions for the supply of centrally procured vaccines between Pfizer and the UK Government’s BEIS. (Open with Preview or Download at https://tinyurl.com/ym4pk3tw)
The MOU between GoG and BEIS was obtained through a Freedom of Information Request by Vicky Bula, Administrator of Vaccine Awareness Gibraltar. She posted the document on 1 October 2021. Vicky deserves a great many thanks for what she is doing for Gibraltarians, in keeping them informed.
Here is an image of what most of the pages look like:
TAKEAWAYS:
A private attorney kindly looked over the documents to help with these takeaways and explanations:
1) The Memorandum of Understanding cannot be understood because literally everything has been redacted. The redaction in itself is beyond suspect. It is unethical and is the exact opposite of transparent.
This begs the question, “why is The Government of Gibraltar and the UK Government interested in protecting Pfizer over their own people?”
2) In the document everything clearly states the vaccine is experimental.
This begs the question, “How can any Government mandating an experimental drug not be in clear breach of Nuremberg Code and The Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights?”
3) It appears The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [hereafter the “Authority [BEIS]”] is in privity of contract with Pfizer [hereafter the “Supplier [Pfizer]” and then the Authority [BEIS] is in privity of contract with the Government of Gibraltar.
This begs the question, “Why isn't the Supplier/Pfizer in direct privity of contract with the Government of Gibraltar rather than having the Authority/BEIS act as an intermediary between the Supplier/Pfizer and the Government of Gibraltar?”
Possible answer: The relationship has been set up to create an "arms length transaction" to provide an additional shield against liability, or, more importantly, damages and costs for the Supplier/Pfizer. The Authority first takes ownership of the product and then distributes the product to the Government of Gibraltar.
In a products’ liability lawsuit, one would sue the entire chain so the more “links” in the chain, the more the risk of liability, and more importantly damages and costs can be shared amongst multiple defendants. Therefore one would sue the Government of Gibraltar, The Authority [BEIS], and the Supplier [Pfizer].
However, even if one were to prove the Supplier/Pfizer is liable [despite all of its fancy agreements]... the Supplier/Pfizer is still most likely indemnified by the Authority/[BEIS], and by extension, the Government of Gibraltar via indemnity agreements.
It appears The Authority [BEIS] has agreed to step in and [indemnify], aka pay for any and all damages, against the Supplier/Pfizer in the event there is proven liability all the way back to the Supplier/Pfizer.
But essentially the taxpayers will end up paying for any and all damages a court might award.
Unfortunately, the specifics of any shared indemnity agreement between the Authority [BEIS] and Government of Gibraltar would most likely be covered in the entirely redacted MOU.
Chief Minister Fabian Picardo’s response to questions about liability seem to be in line with BEIS taking full responsibility as long as Gibraltar follows the contract exactly.
Picardo is asked in the interview: "What happens should a member of the community have a severe adverse reaction or in the event of vaccines offered in Gibraltar resulting in disability or death? What compensation scheme is the government going to implement?"
Picardo: "That's a very good question, because it's actually something that is outside the norm of the position here. And one of the things you may recall happened in 2020 umm, when, when Boris Johnson appointed Kate Bingham to be the head of the Task Force in the UK to produce the vaccines, one of the things th.. that Ms Bingham did was give the vaccine companies the UK government was pre-buying from - they hadn't even developed the vaccine - but they were prepaying based on the basis that they would be developing a vaccine and immunity. In other words, the UK government would absorb the liability from any claims that arose against those vaccine companies as a result of the vaccine causing..."
He is interrupted by the interviewer: "She mentions the Vaccine Damage Act, which doesn't apply to Gibraltar."
Picardo: "That's right. That's an UK Act, but what has happened is under the relationship between the United Kingdom Government Department of Health and the Overseas Territories in the supply of that vaccine, the UK government has extended the immunity to the Overseas Territories so long as the Overseas Territories handle the vaccine in the way that is provided for.
And so there was a contract signed by our administrator for health that provides explicitly for the handling of the vaccine; and in how, in handling that vaccine, we stay within the United Kingdom's Immunity in this respect.”
And we know Gibraltar took great care to receive the vaccines, aided by the RAF, which helped to distribute them to other Overseas Territories.
"Immunity" is a special legal protection irrespective of any responsibility/"liability" for harm.
Example: If we played ball. I may be liable for breaking your foot, but you granted me immunity before we agreed to play sports together. Naturally, there is always an exception. Whether I acted in bad faith, was reckless and indifferent with knowledge and intent to harm you, etc.; in that case, you may be able to pierce my "immunity". Yes, you knew there might be a risk of injury playing sports with me, but you never would have granted me immunity had you known I was going to intentionally break your foot during the game. Of course, it is sports, so you are going to have a difficult time convincing an unsympathetic jury it wasn't just an innocent accident on my part. Proving malicious intent is rarely easy.
In Pfizer's case, it will argue it was acting in good faith to save the world from a pandemic and the product was granted emergency use authorization under exceptional circumstances, etc. As it stands, the courts already grant broad immunities to big pharma because they do not want to discourage the industry from, "Doing their best to help the general welfare and public health interests". Too many successful lawsuits would create zero incentive for industry innovation in helping find cures for diseases, etc., particularly in a pandemic. That said, even if one were to pierce this immunity, there is then indemnity.
“Indemnity” is when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been [or might be] incurred by another individual.
Like in the sports example, an addition to you granting me immunity [prior to playing sports] “someone else” (i.e. a gym owner) has promised to indemnify me against any damages [I may be liable to you for]. So even if you can somehow prove I acted with malice and intent to harm while playing sports with me, so that the court pierces my “immunity” and awards you damages for all your hospital bills, pain and suffering, etc. I simply hand the bill to “someone else”.
Where it gets interesting is what did this “someone” agree to indemnify me from? Perhaps the indemnification agreement between the gym owner and me was put in place specifically because this gym owner knows I enjoy breaking people's feet from time to time, but I also bring so many paying customers to his gymnasium that it is worth it for him to cover the cost of the occasional broken foot.
It appears that governments, including the UK, have indemnified Pfizer against any future liability.
A look at the BEIS’s contract with Pfizer:
Dated 12 October, 2020. Entitled TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SUPPLY OF CENTRALLY PROCURED VACCINES.
See Schedule 2 [General Terms and Conditions] under "Contents"
Section 6. is "Passing of risk and ownership"
Section 13. is "Indemnity"
Section 14. is "Limitation of Liability"
Section 15. is "Insurance"
Section 6 states: 6.1 Risk in and ownership of the Goods shall pass to the Authority when the Goods are delivered by the Supplier, to the delivery point at the Authority Facility. For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the provisions of Clause 7 of this Schedule 2, the Authority shall be responsible for all post-delivery expenses in relation to the Goods, including, without limitation, post-delivery storage and distribution costs.
Clause 7 basically gives the Authority the right to reject the supply before taking receipt otherwise the Authority takes "ownership" and becomes responsible.
The other sections [13, 14, and 15] however, have been entirely redacted.
IN CONCLUSION:
All of the important bits that might help the general populace understand “The what and why” of how their government entered into a shady deal with the Supplier of an experimental drug have been entirely redacted.
The fact the taxpayers are most likely on the hook for any and all future damages that may be awarded against Pfizer for its experimental drug [without any informed consent] is beyond rational thought [@GibMessenger i.e. insane].
[@GibMessenger – Please take special note and be, and always remain, aware that the government that has offered Pfizer indemnity does NOT have ANY money, other than what it steals from the population through various means of taxation and fines . So, they are stealing the taxpayers’ money to pay to indemnify Pfizer against claims by the taxpayer for compensation for damage caused by their products. So, the taxpayer is paying for his own compensation.
You really couldn’t make this insanity and confidence-trick up, unless you’re a politician or solicitor, which most politicians are.”]
And in her post, Vicky concluded with her own assessment,
“This is a recorded agreement that clarifies certain respective roles, processes, procedures and agreements between participants that include regard to the Introduction, overview, title, risk, quality and compliance, cooperation, governance, variation reviews and confidentiality for the supply of these vaccines to Gibraltar and most of the information has been withheld which I believe to be wrong on so many levels ....
The simple fact that this contract has not even been mentioned raises even more concerns and questions into this vaccination program and the liability .....as more and more vaccines are rolled out...... and the longer these areas of importance are blacked out the longer this vaccination program lacks the transparency needed that should already be transparent to the public of Gibraltar.“
Background on UK Departments Involved:
Department of Health and Social Care – with Sajid Javid as Secretary of State – currently lists its first priority to include protecting the public’s health through the health and social care system’s response to COVID-19.
Responsibilities include:
• accountability: we make sure the department and our arm’s length bodies deliver on our agreed plans and commitments
• acting as guardians of the health and care framework: we make sure the legislative, financial, administrative and policy frameworks are fit for purpose and work together
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
Boasts of building a stronger, greener future by fighting coronavirus, tackling climate change, unleashing innovation and making the UK a great place to work and do business.
Responsibilities include:
• fight coronavirus by helping businesses to bounce back from the impacts of COVID-19, supporting a safe return to the workplace and accelerating the development and manufacture of a vaccine
• tackle climate change: reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050
• unleash innovation and accelerate science and technology throughout the country to increase productivity and UK global influence
Interesting Developments:
But it can never be an 100% guarantee if fraud is discovered – Former Blackrock executive says Big Pharma’s liability shields could be at risk if fraud is discovered
Looks like Italy may be getting prepared for lawsuits. Italy: Compensation Fund for Corona Vaccination Side Effects - Archyde