As the elites get set to gather in Davos for their annual global policy fest, our two intrepid rebel reporters… scrape together enough dosh to buy themselves a ring-side seat…
As the long winter of COVID-1984 finally came to an official end in Britain yesterday, when all the restrictions imposed since the spring of 2020 expired, the wheels of the Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] of the Midazolam Murderers continued to roll towards the decision of a district judge, as to whether the warrants we have applied for will be issued.
All being well, we should receive her assessment of the evidence adduced within the next 14 days.
Whilst there have been unforeseen delays in getting our barrister’s legal opinion signed off and delivered to the court, due to the sheer volume of evidence we have asked him to review, we now expect it will be completed and duly dispatched directly to the presiding judge within the next few days.
Furthermore, since the papers were initially laid at the Magistrates Court on 21/12/2021, four additional witness statements from the relatives of yet more Midazolam murder victims have been submitted to us.
This additional testimony is currently being incorporated into a revised Statement of Case, which will be delivered to the court with the written legal opinion of our barrister, who has practiced as a Senior Crown Prosecutor in three countries.
Those documents would also have been submitted to the London Met, for the purposes of their investigation into the criminal complaint made by Mark Sexton and his team on 20/12/2021, were it not for the announcement this week that it has been terminated before we had the chance to deliver our evidence bundle.
Coincidentally, the news of the Met whitewash came in the same week that Boris Johnson declared the end of COVID-1984.
He did so almost two years after he achieved the ignominious accolade of becoming the first British Prime Minister to lead a government which unforgivably purported to suspend the unalienable birthrights of the People, which are guaranteed by Constitutional Law in all sets of circumstances.
This has been effected by the partial suspension of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which the bill’s sponsors, the now disgraced former health secretary, Matt Hancock, and Lord Bethell, insisted was absolutely necessary to deal with the government sponsored lurgy, on the alleged ground that the statutory basis for the emergency regulations did not exist.
Moreover, in Hancock’s own infamous words, the government needed the Coronavirus Act to protect the NHS, save lives and flatten the curve of the ‘virus’ [which is yet to be isolated or purified], on the spurious ground that the legislative basis for the regulations they planned to implement didn’t exist…
…Needless to say, as long as there is a world worth fighting to preserve for all our children, we will be undeterred in our quest for justice for the victims of the Vaxx-termination Programme and the Midazolam Murders, whatever happens in the Ukraine.
However, my gut tells me that were it not for this ostentatiously deadly game of Blind Man’s Bluff, the people of this and every other country where the government has lifted restrictions would be partying like it’s the end of COVID-1984.
Because it’s all over bar the civil litigation and criminal prosecution of the perpetrators.
Global Government policy continues to ignore the latest scientific research…
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
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
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…
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’…
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.
“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. 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.