‘DIVOC’…

Notice of Intended Criminal Prosecution

Notice of Intended Private Criminal Prosecution by the Trustees of the People’s Union of Britain [PUB], alleging mass murder by UK Government policy, has been served by recorded mail and email upon Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care…

Following many painstaking months of evidence gathering, the prosecution has posed the most serious kind of questions which could ever be asked of government ministers, in relation to the ever-growing abundance of prima facie evidence, which shows that Midazolam has been used to commit murder by government policy in UK care homes, under the cover of ‘a deadly pandemic’.

However, in the absence of an appropriate and timely rebuttal of our allegations with material evidence [not mere hearsay], we will finalize our evidence files and lay charges of mass murder by government policy in a Magistrates Court, demanding that every chief police officer immediately opens an investigation into all care home deaths since March 2020…

Rt. Hon. Mr Sajid Javid,
Secretary of State,
Department of Health and Social Care
39 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0EU
Also by email

Date 16th August 2021

Dear Mr Javid,
Please ensure that this document and all its questions are circulated to all of the
following for full answers, namely:
Matt Hancock and all staff who worked for him during the time- period January
2020 to 26th June 2021
Duncan Selbie – Chief Executive, Public Health England.
Professor Stephen H Powis – National Medical Director of NHS England
Sir Simon Stevens – former NHS chief executive
Amanda Pritchard – current NHS Chief Executive
June Raine – CEO MHRA
Neil Ferguson
Patrick Vallance – Government Chief Scientific Adviser
Chris Whitty – Chief Medical Officer

NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
MASS MURDER BY GOVERNMENT POLICY…

Continue reading Here

Jabberwonky…

*

The bunker phone was black and sleek-sided. Its ring was  a cross between the old-fashioned police car bells and the Avon-Lady… It rang now, insistently…

Teigue-the-Fool contemplated the insistent, sleek-sided, black thing, and the corners of his mouth flicked into a smile. His eyes danced as he lifted the receiver from its cradle and placed it against his ear, “Yaas?” he said.

“What’s the problem?” growled Big Bee, clearly irate that his ‘sabbatical’ had been interrupted.

“No problem, sire,” smoothed Teigue, “just an update…”

“Well, get on with it then,” snapped Big Bee.

“The double-jabbed hospital cases are not getting better,” drawled Teigue, and then paused waiting for the truth-bomb to hit home…

“What, they’re dying?” blustered Big Bee.

“Dying, or being sent home paralysed.”

“Do we know why?” asked Big Bee, gloomily.

“We should do,” retorted Teigue, “it’s been sound medical practice never to jib-jab during an outbreak for many years now.”

“What do you mean?” asked Big Bee, back in bluster mode.

“I mean, that the jabs cause the variants which are also resistant to the jabs,” said Teigue.

“Bugger!” exclaimed Big Bee, “what can we do?”

“We can drop the wonky jabs and revert to safe, effective, traditional treatments which are already on the market.”

“Gulp,” said Big Bee, swallowing air.

“You’ll need to come back to do that. Where are you anyway, I forgot to ask?”

“Click-click-drone…” Big Bee’s line went dead.

“Oh, and your popularity has flat-lined,” said Teigue-the-Fool into the empty receiver…

*

 A Questionable Science:

Love and Death in the Time of COVID 

by Stuart France and G. Michael Vasey

‘The Gallows and Gibbet Inn’, proclaimed the sign, which singular nominal ought really to have aroused, if not my shackles then, at least my suspicions. 

Too late, Anu was already tugging me over the threshold into the warmth, and the light, and the sound of voices, and music…

…They were all in there!

Black Jack Davey… Teigue-the-Fool… The Miller’s Son… The Sorcerer’s Apprentice… H.R.H. the Lord of the Elements, and one-hundred-and-one other far less savoury characters.

Most of them in their cups. Reprobates all! And what a tale they had to tell.

If you have ever wondered why all the public houses are shut.

You had better pull up a chair…

*

Now available in paperback and Kindle formats on Amazon

‘Billy-Gate-Guff’…

The Thoth Tarot

*

William Grundy (18 May 1923 – 9 February 1993) was an English television presenter and host of Today, a regional news programme broadcast on Thames Television. In the latter role, he gained national attention for his interview with the Sex Pistols in 1976 during which he contemptuously encouraged a barrage of profanity while supposedly intoxicated on public television…

*

… The rock group Queen had been booked for the Today show of 1 December 1976 but cancelled their appearance at the last minute due to vocalist Freddie Mercury needing emergency dental surgery. They were replaced by the Sex Pistols, the punk band, appearing at short notice accompanied by their entourage. The show was broadcast live and uncensored on weekdays in the early evening, a time when spoken obscenities were forbidden.

The interview with the Sex Pistols began with Grundy introducing the band, stating “they are as drunk as I am… they are clean by comparison,” although Grundy later denied being intoxicated during the interview to the press. The interview resumed following the playing of the music video for the song, Anarchy in the UK.

Grundy said (to camera) “I am told… that that group… have received £40,000 from record company… Doesn’t that seem, uh, to be slightly opposed to your anti-materialistic view of life?” The response to this were two comments: One was an indecipherable syllable (or two) from one band member, while Glenn Matlock (bassist) responded with “No, the more the merrier.” When Grundy asked the band to explain further, what followed would be the first example of profanity during the interview, when Steve Jones (lead guitar) quipped: “We fuckin’ spent it ain’t we?” Grundy did not comment on the profanity but responded “I don’t know, have you?” Matlock confirmed that the money had all gone “down the boozer.” Grundy then asked the band “are you serious?” in reference to their music, comparing them to musicians such as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and Brahms. Johnny Rotten (lead singer) sarcastically replied “They’re all heroes of ours, ain’t they?”. When Grundy inquired further, Rotten went on, stating “Oh yes, they’re wonderful people, they really turn us on!” Grundy responded with, “What if they turn other people on?” to which Rotten dismissively remarked, “That’s just their tough shit!” When challenged by Grundy, Rotten said, “Nothing, rude word! Next question,” asking Grundy to go on with the interview. Grundy insisted that Rotten repeat what he had said. When Rotten did so, Grundy retorted, “Good heavens, you frighten me to death,” to which Rotten called him “Siegfried” as Matlock muttered that Grundy was “like [a] dad… or [a] granddad.”

Grundy then turned his attention to the female members of the band’s entourage, known as The Bromley Contingent appearing with them and which included Siouxsie Sioux, later lead singer of Siouxsie and the Banshees. He asked, “What about you girls, behind? Are you worried, or are you just enjoying yourself?” To which Sioux responded, “enjoying myself”. Grundy responded “Are you?” to which she and Simone Thomas chorused “Yeah.” Grundy responded “Ah, that’s what I thought you were doing.” That prompted a large exhalation from a band member. Sioux said, “I’ve always wanted to meet you”, to which Grundy responded by saying, “Did you really? We’ll meet afterwards, shall we?” Interpreting this as a sexual comment, Jones began openly insulting Grundy, calling him a “dirty sod” and a “dirty old man.” Grundy further provoked Jones to “say something outrageous”, a challenge that Jones met by calling Grundy a “dirty bastard” and a “dirty fucker”. Grundy responded, “What a clever boy!” and Jones added “What a fucking rotter!” As the show ended and the credits rolled, Grundy mouthed, “Oh shit” as the band began dancing to the closing theme…

The interview effectively destroyed Grundy’s career, elevated the Sex Pistols to notoriety, and signalled the arrival of mainstream punk rock.

*

In 1978 another punk rock group, The Television Personalities, released a song which celebrated the interviewer sarcastically entitled, Where’s Bill Grundy Now?

Something that today we could well ask about our friend and yours ‘Billy-Gate-Guff’…

 

 

Failed Attempt To Sabotage PCP…

*

Having fought numerous miscarriages of justice in the courts over more than a decade, I am well versed in determining when my legal adversaries are engaged in the dark art of sabotage.

From lightweight forms such as pretending they didn’t receive notices which were sent by recorded mail, to conspiring to have me declared bankrupt and subjecting me to an Extended Civil Restraint Order – which effectively banned me from issuing proceedings in every court – the depths to which desperate saboteurs will sink are often bottomless.

Especially when the potential consequences of my arguments being sustained are lengthy prison sentences for members of the privileged class, who genuinely believe they are unaccountable to the people they cheat, exploit and destroy for their own private material gains.

Judicial Sabotage 101

Generally speaking, the critical element of sabotaging a legal case is convincing the judge that either some crucial piece of evidence is missing, or that the arguments submitted are somehow misconceived and therefore ‘totally without merit’.

However, in the so-called superior civil courts, where judges so often consider themselves to be beyond both the law and reproach, I’ve lost count of the number of times I have witnessed high ranking members of the judiciary become aggressive advocates for my opponents, who simply have to turn up at court and spin their unsubstantiated sophistry to go home with the judgment and a hefty costs order in their favour.

Given the ultimate seriousness of laying charges of pandemic fraud against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson and their mistakenly perceived unaccountability as officers of the UK’s criminally rogue government, it was certainly no surprise that myself and the former CID detective I am working with detected the first sign of sabotage, within two weeks of the case being filed.

Hidden In Plain Sight

As already documented the Statement of Case was filed electronically at Westminster Magistrates Court on 19/03/2021, along with a covering letter informing the court that our substantive evidence bundle would be sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery the following week, including hard copies of the Statement of Case and the covering letter.

On 26/03/2021, the three case files were received and signed for by the court… We were then informed by Westminster Magistrates that the papers were being checked by the court’s legal department and that we would be notified of the case’s progression in due course.

After not hearing anything for a couple of weeks, we made further inquiries and were told that the papers had been sent by Westminster to Bromley Magistrates Court’s listing department for processing and that they were undergoing final check’s by the Kent court’s legal department.

Moreover, we were told the files had been sent to Bromley because that is the judicial venue to which all Private Criminal Prosecutions filed at Westminster are sent for processing and listing, once the latter court’s legal team have completed their initial assessment of the papers laid.

Deputy Chief Magistrate

However, a few days later we received an email from the Westminster court, letting us know that the case had been passed to the Deputy Chief Magistrate [DCM] for consideration and his decision was enclosed as an attachment.

Despite what we had been told about the three evidence files being processed by the Bromley court’s legal team and listings department, the judge purported to dismiss the case on the emphatically unsustainable ground that we haven’t cited enough prima facie evidence for the case to proceed.

Nevertheless, the DCM stated in his judgment that he had given very careful consideration to “126 pages” of evidence, when the final page count in the three case files was in excess of 800 pages [condensed from more than 1,000 pages], which included 11 expert witness statements in support of the serious allegations made.

It was then that we realised that the judge’s decision was based entirely on the 126 page Statement of Case and that he clearly hadn’t had sight of the copious prima facie evidence contained in the three evidence files.

As Void As The Dodo

Whilst the judge clearly believed that, in the absence of the corroborating expert witness statements, there was not enough evidence for the case to proceed, his decision to dismiss it was as void as the Dodo, albeit seemingly through no fault of his own.

Needless to say, we called Bromley Magistrates to check whether they knew anything about the decision having been made and were somewhat surprised to discover that the court’s legal team had sent the case [including the three evidence files] to the DCM for consideration and that we should receive his decision in due course.

Naturally, we gave those concerned the benefit of the doubt and provisionally assumed that the legal teams of both courts realised that an obvious error had been made and that the initial decision would be disregarded.

However, a few days later we received an email from Bromley letting us know that the judge had already decided the matter and dismissed the case in the order we had already received from Westminster.

We therefore logically concluded that there had been a very subtle attempt to sabotage the case by separating the electronic filing of the Statement of Case from the hard copy evidence files which arrived by Special Delivery the following week.

Reconsideration Trumps Sabotage

Without delay, upon our polite request, Westminster Magistrates was informed by our liaison at Bromley Magistrates that, through what appeared to be no fault of his own, the DCM’s decision was void, on the ground that it was merely based upon the Statement of Case and did not take into account the prima facie evidence adduced.

But rather than appealing the decision to the High Court on that ground, we suggested that it would be better for all concerned if the judge was willing to set aside his initial decision, despite the fact that we have never known any judge in either the criminal and civil domains to even countenance such an action once a decision has been made.

Nevertheless, within a little more than 24 hours, we were informed that the Deputy Chief Magistrate had decided to grant our request for reconsideration, as if the order dismissing the case had not been made.

Furthermore, the judge indicated that he will be reconsidering the case upon all the evidence adduced at the end of next week, with his final decision to follow shortly afterwards.

As Rare As Hen’s Teeth

In other words, the DCM appears to have shown that he possesses that increasingly rare quality among the judiciary – integrity – given that he could so easily have passed the buck to a dodgy High Court judge by forcing us to appeal his void decision in a rigged proceeding, instead of admitting the error and reconsidering the case on its merits. It certainly wouldn’t have been the first time we experienced such blatant judicial corruption.

Moreover, even if he committed the error of judgment because of foul play by a government stooge working at Westminster Magistrates Court, the judge’s reconsideration of the case emphatically trumps the duplicitous attempt to sabotage it.

However, rest assured that no matter what the outcome of the judge’s second decision, we have no intention of backing down until the Four Horsemen of COVID-1984 and their accomplices are held to account for their crimes, for the purposes of which we are fully prepared to challenge any miscarriage of justice we are handed in the interim, as the foregoing account unequivocally affirms.

The Bernician

‘To Vaxx or not to Vaxx’…

*

“Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. The drug companies are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine.

This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards.[1] And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.

And that is not what this is. Moderna and Pfizer have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, “What other treatments are there?”

The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARSCOV2. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology – it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.

So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine.  I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say, “we are going to fight the vaccine”. If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine.

80% of the people exposed to SARSCOV2 are asymptomatic carriers. 80% of people who get this injected into them experience a clinical adverse event. You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immuno-transmissive response. In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything.

When the paymaster for the distribution of information happens to be the industry that’s doing the distributing, we lose. Because the only narrative is the one that will be compensated by the people writing the check. That goes for our politicians… and our media – it has been paid for – if you follow the money you realize there is no non-conflicted voice on any network.”

– Dr. David Martin, Jan 5th 2021.

Big Bee’s Bible?…

*

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ― Ayn Rand

‘The Cavalry’?…

*

‘I remember when I was with Special Forces…

Seems like a thousand centuries ago…

We went into a camp to innoculate the children.

We left the camp after we had innoculated the children for Polio, and this old
man came running after us, and he was crying, he couldn’t say…

We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every innoculated arm.

There they were in a pile… A pile of little arms.

And I remember…I …I …I cried… I wept like some grandmother.

I wanted to tear my teeth out.

I didn’t know what I wanted to do.

And I want to remember it.

I never want to forget it.

I never want to forget…’

Colonel Kurtz, Apocalypse Now!

COVID-1984 PCP Update | Final Review of Statement of Case

*

This is just a quick update, for all those who are waiting for news about the laying of the papers, in the Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson for pandemic fraud.

First and foremost, the final draft of the statement of the case is currently being reviewed, whilst we wait for several expert witness statements to be executed and returned to us. Once we have received them, the papers will be laid and there are no further foreseeable hold-ups on the horizon.

Nevertheless, patience may still be required because it could take days or even weeks for the court’s legal department to assess the papers before the applications are put before a judge, who will then decide whether we have cited enough prima facie evidence to proceed.

If every pledge we have received is fulfilled [and we have no reason to believe they won’t be] we will be filing expert witness statements from a professor, five doctors, a solicitor, a mathematician, two data analysts, and an independent researcher, along with seventy-nine exhibits in support of the prosecution’s charges of fraud.

It goes without saying that additional evidence will be added to the file, as and when it comes in, during our continuing investigations into the crimes alleged.

However, we already have way more prima facie evidence than the court requires to issue summonses for the defendants to plead before a senior judge, in which case the PCP will be listed to be heard by a jury at the earliest opportunity…

Therefore, it seems appropriate to end this somewhat eclectic update with the following review of the 107-page statement of the case I have compiled for the PCP, from one of our crack team of legal scholars and researchers, delivered just after he finished reading the 1st draft:

“Its immense strength comes through its stark logic… That is the mark of how powerful it is – a distillation down to bare, cold facts… It is a ticking time-bomb. A hand-grenade down the pants of each defendant.”

The Bernician

R [PUB] v Hancock & Others [2021] | Public Notice of Intended Prosecution

R [PEOPLE’S UNION OF BRITAIN] [PROSECUTION]

V

MATT HANCOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DHSC [1ST DEFENDANT]

CHRIS WHITTY, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER [2ND DEFENDANT]

PATRICK VALLANCE, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER [3RD DEFENDANT]

NEIL FERGUSON, IMPERIAL COLLEGE [4TH DEFENDANT]­___________________________________________________________________

FAO: MATT HANCOCK, CHRIS WHITTY, PATRICK VALLANCE & NEIL FERGUSON

Served by email at 21:02:21 on 21/02/21.

NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Dear Sirs,,

RE: R [PUB] v HANCOCK & OTHERS [2021]

You are hereby served NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, in relation to the following charges of fraud by false representation and non-disclosure, pertaining to the statements you and the other defendants made, regarding the purported ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’.

SUMMARY OF CHARGES AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS

FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION

For all the elements of fraud by false representation to be in place, under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, the following must be proven:

a. Party A knowingly relied upon a false statement.

b. Party B was caused by Party A to rely on that false statement.

c. Party A did so with the intent of causing losses to Party B or for the purposes of procuring material gain.

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that the defendants have knowingly relied and caused Parliament and the British People to rely upon multiple false statements during the ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’, with the intent of securing the maximisation of UK ‘vaccination’ uptake, as well as past and future material gains.

a (i) You knowingly and falsely claimed that COVID-19 [SARS-CoV-2] is “the most serious public health threat since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic”.

(ii) Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that statement is plainly false because expert witness testimony and FOI requests show that neither SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 have ever been empirically proven to exist and therefore cannot be the cause of a genuine pandemic.

b (i) You knowingly and falsely claimed that “without the social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members”, 510,000 British people would die from COVID-19.

(ii) Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that it is an indisputable matter of fact that this prediction has been mathematically proven to be false by the expert witness testimony adduced in this case.

c (i) You knowingly and falsely claimed that the UK Government’s COVID-19 policies “…will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available”.

(ii) Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that this statement is demonstrably false, on the ground that an obviously viable alternative was treating the unproven Coronavirus in accordance with pre-existing public policy, without adopting any of the lockdown policies imposed, thereby avoiding the unconscionable suspension of civil liberties and devastating financial losses to the taxpayer.

All of these false statements are contained in the summary of the Imperial College Model, written and published by the 4th defendant on 16/03/2020, on the Imperial College website. However, additional evidence shows that the defendants began relying upon the erroneous computer-generated data on or before 01/03/2020, when the COVID-19 Battle Plan was announced by the 1st defendant and quickly implemented by the UK Government, without public scrutiny or meaningful parliamentary debate.

It is alleged that, in causing both Parliament and the British People to rely upon these plainly false statements, the defendants acted dishonestly, knowingly conspiring to maximise ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK, whatever the cost, in order to secure past and future material gains.

Thereby causing public sector borrowings, charged to the UK taxpayer, to rise to 100.8% of UK GDP [as of 20/11/2020]; and the house arrest of the entire population, which was all done by government diktats, each of which was founded on the plainly dishonest statements contained in the 4th defendant’s fraudulent Imperial College Model, which was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [which, for the sake of brevity, we will refer to as the Gates Foundation].

Since there are public records that reveal the material gains secured by the defendants’ mutual commitments and contributions to the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ in the UK [and the rest of the world], the prima facie and circumstantial evidence in support of these serious allegations amply demonstrates that all the elements of section 2 fraud by false representation are in place and that the defendants should be indicted as charged.

FRAUD BY NON-DISCLOSURE

For all the elements of fraud by non-disclosure to be in place, under section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, the following must be proven:

a. Party A failed to disclose certain information to Party B.

b. Party A was under a legal duty to disclose that information to Party B.

c. Party A did so dishonestly, intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that the defendants knowingly failed to disclose information you had legal obligations to disclose to both Parliament and the British People, with the intent of maximising ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK, in order to secure past and future material gains, at the devastating cost of civil liberties and the solvency of the nation.

a. You knowingly failed to disclose that the so-called science and data relied upon by the World Health Organisation [WHO], in declaring SARS-CoV-2 to be a worldwide ‘pandemic’ on 11/03/2020, was none other than the discredited Imperial College Model.

b. You knowingly failed to disclose that SARS-CoV-2 was no longer classified as a High Consequence Infectious Disease on 13/03/2020 – before the 1st defendant presented and commended the Coronavirus Bill 2020 to the House of Commons, on the 19th and 23rd of March 2020, respectively.

c. You knowingly failed to disclose that the supposed latest science and data you relied upon to justify a declaration of a Public Health Emergency was Neil Ferguson’s unscientific Imperial College Model; and that it was known by 24/03/2020 at the latest that said model had been wholly discredited, when the New Scientist published the 4th defendant’s admission, before the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, that he had reduced his prediction of 510,000 UK COVID deaths to 20,000, in the event his proposed lockdown policies were not imposed in the UK.

d. You knowingly failed to disclose that the executive agency the 1st defendant controls, Public Health England [PHE], received $500,000 from the US Government to “fast-track the COVID vaccine”, on or around 19/03/2020.

e. You knowingly failed to disclose that multiple WHO approved flu ‘vaccines’ are known to cause fatal adverse events in 377 out of every 100,000 healthy adults injected, whilst ‘influenza’ normally kills around 388 per year. [The ingredients in every UK licensed COVID ‘vaccine’ are believed to be very similar to these 2019-21 mRNA spiked flu ‘vaccines’, in which case they will have comparable mortality rates.]

f. You knowingly failed to disclose that none of the 2019-21 flu and COVID jabs are actually vaccines [they are mRNA treatments or gene therapies], which lays open the floodgates to future civil proceedings for misrepresentation, fraud, and damages [irrespective of the purported indemnity granted to ‘vaccine’ companies and those who administer their products in the Coronavirus Act 2020].

g. You knowingly failed to disclose that there is a direct mathematical correlation between the 2020-21 flu and COVID ‘vaccine’ roll-outs in the UK and the deaths which the defendants claim to be COVID deaths during the same period.

h. You knowingly and dishonestly failed to disclose this information, when you had legal obligation to disclose it to Parliament and the British public, and you did so in service of the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK and the rest of the world, for the purposes of securing their own material gains and those of their accomplices, knowing that the cost to the British People and the economy would be catastrophic.

i. You had a legal obligation to disclose these facts to the British People, on the ground that the 1st defendant, upon the advice of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants, pledged on 01/03/2020, in the UK Government’s COVID-19 Battle Plan, that: “Public safety is our top priority.”

The prosecution alleges that, had public safety been the defendants’ top priority, all of the foregoing information would have been disclosed to both Parliament and the British People, as soon as the information became available.

Moreover, in the mind of any reasonable person, knowing this information is essential to understanding that the entirety of the justifications given for declaring a Public Health Emergency were and remain founded on a series of profoundly dishonest statements, which have been relied upon by the defendants.

It naturally follows that the public disclosure of the information described, by either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd defendant at the UK Government’s daily press briefing, on or before 24/03/2020, would have been tantamount to a confession that there was no justifiable cause to declare a Public Health Emergency.

Furthermore, the public disclosure of 8 e could and should have resulted in the suspension of the National Influenza Immunisation Programme and a thorough investigation of the allegedly lethal WHO-approved mRNA spiked flu ‘vaccines’, which are considered all too similar to the substance of the COVID jabs subsequently licensed by the UK Government for mass administration.

However, it naturally follows that without a ‘Public Health Emergency’, it would not have been possible for the defendants to cause the lockdown of the nation “until a vaccine is found”, with the fatally flawed advice you gave in your official capacities as Secretary of State for Health & Social Care, Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, and the WHO and UK Government’s Senior Scientific Advisor on Pandemic Preparedness, Policy and Response.

The data-based evidence adduced by the prosecution also shows that, on the balance of probabilities, the vast majority of the deaths recorded as COVID deaths since September 2020, were, in reality, fatal adverse events, caused by the, 2020-21 WHO and UK Government approved flu and COVID shots, in addition to those who died at home, in care homes and hospitals, who were denied palliative care “to save the NHS” from and “flatten the curve” of a ‘virus’ which has never been proven to exist.

Upon the evidence, the defendants committed section 3 fraud by non-disclosure, under the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006, on the basis that you knowingly and dishonestly failed to disclose information you had legal obligations to disclose to both Parliament and the British People, which you could and should have done in the House of Commons, as well as during the UK Government’s media briefings, at various times from 01/03/2020 to the present day, when you had ample opportunities to make public safety their top priority by fully availing Parliament and the British People of the latest science and data, as you repeatedly pledged to do, without ever actually delivering it.

Since there are public records that reveal the material gains secured by the defendants’ mutual commitments and contributions to the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ in the UK [and the rest of the world], the prima facie and circumstantial evidence relied upon in support of these criminal allegations amply demonstrates that all the elements of section 3 fraud by non-disclosure are in place and that the defendants should be indicted as charged.

URGENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE COURT

Given the unbridled seriousness of the allegations made, the prosecution is applying for summonses to be issued against the defendants without delay, to have you appear before a senior judge to plead, and for the case listed to be heard by a jury at the earliest opportunity.

A second application seeks a declaration, under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to act in the name of justice, that:

a. Upon the prima facie evidence adduced and in accordance with the opinion of Lord Sumption that the Coronavirus Act 2020 is constitutionally unlawful and therefore void and unenforceable, it is declared that, in the interests of providing finality to the families of those who are recorded as having died from or with COVID-19 and for the purposes of providing evidence in R [PUB] v Matt Hancock & Others, autopsies must be carried out and death certificates certified as if the 2020 Act had not been enacted.

b. For a period of at least 90 days, all flu and COVID ‘vaccinations’ are suspended, pending further criminal investigations into the allegation that the treatments concerned kill a minimum of 377 out of every 100,000 healthy adults injected.

For the avoidance of doubt, these proceedings are being brought in the absence of parliamentary, police or parliamentary intervention, without ill will, frivolity, vexation or malice, under the protection of the Treaty of Universal Community Trust.

In sincerity and honour,

Trustees of the People’s Union of Britain

All Rights Reserved – Errors & Omissions Excepted

PUB – ‘This coming week’…

*

COVID-1984 PCP UPDATE | Pandemic Fraud.

After yet more damning evidence arose last week, further additions had to be made to the court papers, which we are now aiming to lay in the coming week. The four defendants will be Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson…

As well as three counts of fraud by false representation and seven counts of fraud by non-disclosure, under sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, we can now also prove that the entire worldwide scamdemic originated on these shores.

In fact, we can show that, without the dishonest statements and non-disclosures of the four defendants we are initially proceeding against, COVID-1984 would not have transpired…

The motive for conspiring to commit the heinous crimes alleged was paradoxically simple, despite the complexity of the deceptions perpetrated – the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake, as per the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal of ‘immunising’ the entire world population.

Furthermore, evidence has also arisen which demonstrates that Facebook and Google met with the UK Government and agreed to censor any content which exposes this nefarious agenda. Which naturally means the individuals concerned are complicit in the conspiracy to commit the criminal frauds alleged in the PCP, as well as being jointly and severally liable for the consequences of them. Given that Facebook deleted my last PCP Update and banned me from posting for 24 hours, then went on to do the same for simply sharing my own blog posts on the TGBMS page, we will hold those actions as evidence of conspiracy to commit fraud, along with any other similar acts of censorship which precede and follow this public notice.

Nevertheless, I can promise that, even if it doesn’t happen as soon as we would all prefer, this Private Criminal Prosecution against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson will be laid, with enough prima facie evidence to nail guilty verdicts, ten times over, as soon as the papers and evidence bundle are ready…

The Bernician