CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

EMANUEL MCCRAY
400 W McLoughlin Blvd Apt 5
Vancouver, WA 98660
(360) 448-3563
emanuel.mccray@hotmail.com

July 16, 2021

NOTICE OF ABSENCE FROM JURY DUTY AND LEGAL EXCUSE

Clark County Jury Administration

PO BOX 5000
Vancouver, WA 98666
Tel: (564) 397-2049
Email: juries@clark.wa.gov

Dear Honorable Jury Administrator:

Notice is hereby given of my absence from jury service pursuant to Article

VI, Clause 2, and Amendments I, IV, V, IX, X, and XIV of the Constitution of the

United States; and the Federal laws codified under 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d and 21

U.S.C. §360bbb–3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), until after the Secretary of Health and Human

Services and the State of Washington stands down from their Declarations of a

Public Health Emergency regarding SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

My legal reasons are stated as follows:

1. I am exercising the rights I believe I possess during this pandemic. On

or about July 16, 2021, I received “REVISED COVID-19 SAFETY

PROTOCOLS” (“Protocols”) from the Clark County Jury Administration. The

Protocols required verification of my vaccination status or the mandatory wearing

1
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

of “face coverings”, but without being afforded the extra precautions of viral and

antibody testing, and social distancing from individuals not wearing face coverings

based on their “fully vaccinated” status.

2. On information and belief, on or about May 27, 2021, the CDC

updated its vaccination guidance to include the following confusing scientific

explanations, among others:1

“Data were added from studies published since the last update that
further demonstrate currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines are
effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection….
Data were added from studies published since the last update that
further demonstrate people who are fully vaccinated with a currently
authorized mRNA vaccine are protected against asymptomatic
infection and, if infected, have a lower viral load than unvaccinated
people….
A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated
with an mRNA vaccine …are less likely to have asymptomatic
infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others….
At this time, there are limited data on vaccine effectiveness in people
who are immunocompromised….”

The confusion is clear. The CDC claims the approved vaccines “are

effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection…[; and] are less likely to have

asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others…[; but vaccinated

individuals,] if infected, [will] have a lower viral load than unvaccinated

people….” This scientific explanation can only mean that fully vaccinated persons

1
Available from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html.

2
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

remain capable of becoming infected, and in turn, capable of transmitting to others

in the community, the virus causing the infection, including during jury service.

2. Our State Supreme Court’s “FIFTH REVISED AND EXTENDED

ORDER REGARDING COURT OPERATIONS”, No. 25700-B-658, filed

February 19, 2021,2 provided that:

“Any summons issued for jury trials must provide a process for
excusing or delaying jury service by individuals who are at higher risk
from COVID-19 exposure based on their age or existing health
conditions, or those of a household member.”

The Protocols issued by the Clark County Jury Administration, do not take

into considerations my age, over 65, and my preexisting conditions, Type II

diabetes and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (“G6PD”) deficiency. In emails

dated April 15, 2020, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx affirmed to Olivia Troye, who asked

for their opinion regarding a medical article3 that suggested individuals with G6PD

deficiency were among those at higher risk for COVID-19 illness and death:

2
Available from https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/25700-B-658.pdf.
3
Dan J. Vick MD, DHA, MBA, CPE. Does G6PD Deficiency Relate to COVID-19 Infection? MEDPAGE Today.
April 13, 2020. Available from https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/85929.

3
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

3. When codifying 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d(b)(8), Congress completely

preempted State laws:

“During the effective period of a declaration under subsection (b), or

at any time with respect to conduct undertaken in accordance with
such declaration, no State or political subdivision of a State may
establish, enforce, or continue in effect with respect to a covered
countermeasure any provision of law or legal requirement that—
(A) is different from, or is in conflict with, any requirement applicable
under this section; and
(B) relates to the design, development, clinical testing or
investigation, formulation, manufacture, distribution, sale, donation,
purchase, marketing, promotion, packaging, labeling, licensing, use,
any other aspect of safety or efficacy, or the prescribing, dispensing,
or administration by qualified persons of the covered countermeasure,
or to any matter included in a requirement applicable to the covered
countermeasure under this section or any other provision of this
chapter, or under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.].”

4
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

4. On information and belief, on or about January 8, 2021, the HHS

Secretary, and the HHS Secretary’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”)

determined “the PREP Act to be consistent with a ‘complete preemption’ statute”,

as stated in the OGC’s Fifth Advisory Opinion:4

“The sine qua non of a statute that completely preempts is that it

establishes either a federal cause of action, administrative or judicial,
as the only viable claim or vests exclusive jurisdiction in a federal
court. The PREP Act does both.”

5. On information and belief, on or about December 9, 2020, the HHS

Secretary made explicit in Section XI of his Fourth Amendment, Congress’

exclusive delegation of authority to the Secretary to fashion a single, “unified”

response nationwide, 85 Fed. Reg. at 79,190:

“There are substantial federal legal and policy issues, and substantial
federal legal and policy interests within the meaning of Grable &
Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng’g. & Mf’g., 545 U.S. 308
(2005), in having a unified, whole-of-nation response to the COVID–
19 pandemic among federal, state, local, and private-sector
entities….” 85 Fed. Reg. at 79,197-79,198.

6. The HHS Secretary made clear in his Fourth Amendment that his

emergency Declaration “must be construed in accordance with the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) Advisory

Opinions on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act and the

4
Advisory Opinion 21-01 on the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Scope of Preemption
Provision. Office of the General Counsel. January 8, 2021. Available from
https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/sites/default/files/hhs-guidance-documents/2101081078-jo-advisory-opinion-prep-
act-complete-preemption-01-08-2021-final-hhs-web.pdf.

5
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Declaration (Advisory Opinions)”, which are incorporated into the Declaration

“for that purpose.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 79,191 (col. b.).

7. Congress limited, under 42 U.S.C. §264, the jurisdiction of the

Surgeon General, to “apprehension and examination of persons reasonably

believed to be infected”, among other things, and further provided that State law is

preempted “to the extent that such a provision conflicts with an exercise of Federal

authority under this section or section 266 of this title.”

8. The Clark County Jury Administration’s mask mandate is flawed and

possibly unconstitutional under the Federal emergency Declaration authorized

under 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d(b), and Congress’ definition of a “covered

countermeasure”, set forth in 42 U.S. Code § 247d–6d(i)(1), which refers to the

individual’s right to “informed consent” and the “option” to forego the use of a

mask, set forth under 21 U.S.C. §360bbb–3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III):

“With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the

Secretary…shall…establish…(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to
ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are
informed…(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the
product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the
product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and
of their benefits and risks.” (Italics added.)

9. The consent and “option” mandated under 21 U.S.C. §360bbb–

3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) is equally applicable to the Clark County Jury Administration’s

mask mandate through the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution.

6
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

10. On information and belief, on or about April 4, 2003, the

Administration of President George W. Bush, in implementing 42 U.S. Code §264,

published Executive Order 13295 (Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable

Diseases) (“QCDs”).5 Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13295 listed “SARS” as

among the QCDs requiring “regulations providing for the apprehension, detention,

or conditional release of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission, or

spread of suspected communicable diseases”:

“Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which is a disease

associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other
respiratory illness, is transmitted from person to person predominantly
by the aerosolized or droplet route, and, if spread in the population,
would have severe public health consequences.”

11. On information and belief, on or about September 30, 1994, Congress

codified the law that provides protection against the human immunodeficiency

virus (“HIV”) under 18 U.S. Code § 1122, by prohibiting any person from

“knowingly” donating or selling, or knowingly attempting to donate or sell, blood,

semen, tissues, organs, or other bodily fluids for use by another, except as

determined necessary for medical research or testing or in accordance with all

applicable guidelines and regulations made by the Secretary of Health and Human

Services under section 377E of the Public Health Service Act. This law was last

amended by Pub. L. 113–51, § 3, Nov. 21, 2013, 127 Stat. 581.

5
Available from https://www.govinfo.gov/link/cpd/executiveorder/13295.

7
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

12. On information and belief, on or about October 22, 2009,6 Kathleen

Sebelius, in her official capacity as HHS Secretary, issued a rule that removed HIV

infection from the list of health conditions that prevent entry into the United States.

This rule further established that: HIV infection was no longer defined as a

communicable disease of public health significance; testing for HIV infection was

no longer required as part of the U.S. immigration medical screening process; and

HIV infection no longer requires a waiver for entry into the United States.

13. On information and belief, on or about July 31, 2014, the

Administration of President Barack H. Obama amended Executive Order 13295

with the publication of Executive Order 13674 (Revised List of Quarantinable

Communicable Diseases).7 The new Section 1(b) expanded the definitions of

“SARS” to mean “syndromes” that causes diseases, and capable of causing a

“pandemic” or death, among other things:

“Severe acute respiratory syndromes, which are diseases that are

associated with fever and signs and symptoms of pneumonia or other
respiratory illness, are capable of being transmitted from person to
person, and that either are causing, or have the potential to cause, a
pandemic, or, upon infection, are highly likely to cause mortality or
serious morbidity if not properly controlled. This subsection does not
apply to influenza.”

6
Final Rule: Medical Examination of Aliens – Removal of HIV Infection from Definition of “Communicable
Disease of Public Health Significance”. November 2, 2009. Available from
https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/laws-regs/hiv-ban-removal/final-rule.html;
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/11/02/E9-26337/medical-examination-of-aliens-removal-of-
human-immunodeficiency-virus-hiv-infection-from-definition.
7
Available from https://www.govinfo.gov/link/cpd/executiveorder/13674.

8
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

14. On information and belief, the Members of the United Nations, and

the Members of the World Health Organization, including the United States, after

being fully informed of the dangerous nature of the “outbreak” in Wuhan, China,

intentionally placed the United States’ national security countermeasures in short

supply by intentionally allowing the virus from the China outbreak to enter the

United States and the other nations of the world, contrary to the United States’

responsibilities for persistent human etiologic agents and deadly viruses, prions

and viral agents, classified by “Risk Group” (“RG”), in Appendix B8 of the NIH

Guidelines.

15. On information and belief, on or about June 8, 2020, the Honorable

United States District Judge Valerie Caproni (“Caproni”), in her “Memorandum

Order and Opinion” issued in United States v. Rodriguez, 17-CR-157 (VEC),

(S.D.N.Y. Jun. 8, 2020), noted numerous instances where “limited supply”;

“resource scarcity”; “shortage of testing capacity”; “constraints on supply”; and

material and equipment “in short supply”, hampered [the Bureau of Prisons

(“BOP”)]’s ability adequately to protect inmates…from exposure”, and thus

warranted the early release of prisoners at risk from COVID-19. Judge Caproni

8
Appendix B, Classification of Human Etiologic Agents on the Basis of Hazard. NIH Guidelines for Research
Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (April 2019). Available from
https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019_NIH_Guidelines.htm. See also, Interim Laboratory Biosafety
Guidance for Research with SARS-CoV-2 and IBC Requirements under the NIH Guidelines. Available from
https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/interim-lab-biosafety-guidance-for-research-with-sars-cov-2/.

9
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

particularly noted these issues in footnotes 5 and 9, respectively, of her

Memorandum Order and Opinion.

16. Judge Caproni concluded that the issues beyond BOP’s control were

the result of “CDC guidance, that [] is itself the product of many missteps by the

federal government earlier in the process; missteps that have cumulatively resulted

in added risk to inmates being held in federal prisons.” Id. at 5.

17. On information and belief, on or about April 17, 2020, Tessa

Berenson (“Berenson”), a White House Correspondent from Time Magazine,

questioned President Trump about the virus that “likely came from a level 4 lab in

Wuhan”:9

Berenson: Thank you, Mr. President. U.S. intelligence is saying this

week that the coronavirus likely came from a level 4 lab in Wuhan.
There’s also another report that the NIH, under the Obama administration,
in 2015 gave that lab $3.7 million in a grant. Why would the U.S. give a
grant like that to China?

President Trump: The Obama administration gave them a grant of $3.7

million? I’ve been hearing about that. And we’ve instructed that if any
grants are going to that area – we’re looking at it, literally, about an hour
ago, and also early in the morning. We will end that grant very quickly.
But it was granted quite a while ago. They were granted a substantial
amount of money. We’re going to look at it and take a look. But I
understand it was a number of years ago, right? When did you hear - when
did you hear it was - the grant was made?

Berenson: 2015.

President Trump: 2015? Who was President then? I wonder.

9
Available from https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4970169/user-clip-reporter-intelligence-virus-lab-wuhan.

10
CONFIDENTIAL—NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Berenson’s claim that the “coronavirus likely came from a level 4 lab in

Wuhan” is a game changer, considering the fact that the United States intentionally

allowed the virus from China to enter the United States; the State of Washington

intentionally allowed the virus to enter the State; the County of Clark intentionally

allowed the virus to enter the County; and the City of Vancouver, intentionally

allowed the virus to enter the City where I currently maintain a permanent

residence.

In consideration of the foregoing, I respectfully request that I be excluded

from jury service until after this confusing “pandemic” is brought to a successful

political and legal conclusion.

Very respectfully submitted,

________________________________
EMANUEL MCCRAY

Copy to:
Clark County Council;
The Supreme Court of Washington;
Robert Watson Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington; and
Daniel J. Barry, Acting General Counsel, U.S. Health & Human Services

11