COVID-1984 PCP Update | Prima Facie Evidence of Pandemic Fraud
Over the course of the past month, we have amassed a plethora of prima facie evidence, which proves that the defendants in the Private Criminal Prosecution are responsible for COVID-1984 and are guilty of multiple acts of pandemic fraud.
Whilst we are more than confident that we now have enough evidence to justify the issue of either a warrant or a summons, we are still waiting for key FOI responses, which are due to be received no later than today.
In the event we receive the responses due, we will be aiming to lay the new information before Christmas. If all the key the responses don’t come in, we will be forced to wait until the new year.
However, in the meantime, here lies a summary of the allegations we can prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The defendants knowingly relied upon the following dishonest statements for material gain, in breach of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006:
a. 510,000 people would perish due to Sars-Cov2 in the UK alone, if the draconian measures imposed had not been introduced.
b. Sars-Cov2 is an airborne High Consequence Infectious Disease [HCID], worthy of being declared a worldwide pandemic, as well as a Public Health Emergency.
c. Sars-Cov2 has been isolated and purified, and therefore, proven to exist.
d. Masks are a safe and effective method of preventing the spread of Sars-Cov2.
e. The policies introduced were entirely founded on the latest scientific data available.
f. PCR tests detect the presence of Sars-Cov2 in the human body.
In breach of section 3 of the 2006 Act, we have prima facie evidence that shows the defendants have also knowingly failed to disclose that:
a. Two days after the WHO declared a worldwide pandemic on 11/03/2020, which was also the day that the inflated Imperial College predictions were pre-published and disclosed to the WHO, Sars-Cov2 was reclassified as not being an HCID on 13/03/2020.
The WHO’s declaration was founded upon Neil Ferguson’s computer-generated Imperial College Model released on 16/03/2020, which falsely predicted that there would be 510,000 Covid deaths in the UK, if the strict lockdown restrictions were not imposed. He did so on the same day of the 1st reading of the Coronavirus Bill 2020, sponsored by Matt Hancock.
b. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, the Department of Health & Social care [DHSC] and Public Health England [PHE] unanimously agreed that Sars-Cov2 should no longer be classified as an airborne HCID, before the 1st reading of the 2020 Act on 16/03/2020. Three days later, on 19/03/2020, news of the reclassification was published by PHE, which was six days after the decision to reclassify the supposed pandemic.
Yet, on the 23rd of March 2020, BoJo decreed the first lockdown, which was given the force and effect of the legislature on 26/03/2020, despite the fact that Neil Ferguson had reduced the Imperial Model predictions from 510,000 to 20,000 deaths by no later than 24/03/2020 – the day after the initial lockdown decree and two days before the 2020 Act was passed.
Moreover, the so-called undisclosed ‘science’ relied upon by the defendants was and remains the Imperial College model, the credibility of which had been emphatically destroyed before the Coronavirus Bill was enacted, along with the purported legitimacy of the Public Health Emergency declared by the secretary of state, upon the advice of other defendants to this action.
c. It is well established that Sars-Cov2 has never been isolated or purified and has therefore never been proven to exist. In fact, no supposed strain of Coronavirus ever has been.
d. The defendants have all materially gained or stand to gain from long-standing commitments to maximise vaccination uptake in the UK, for the purposes of which they engaged in engineering an entirely fraudulent pandemic, in order to justify a mandatory or compulsory vaccination agenda.
e. PCR tests have been scientifically proven to detect human RNA sequences, not viruses or disease, whilst a Portuguese court recently declared that the tests are useless in relation to detecting the presence of a virus or disease.
f. It is also alleged that the WHO approved flu vaccines that have been administered from 2019-20 in the UK, which kill 377 of every 100,000 healthy people who take them and have never been tested on the sick and the vulnerable; and that these flu vaccines have been responsible for many of the deaths which have been dishonestly recorded as Covid deaths, in accordance with the 2020 Act, which provides for the falsification of death certificates.
Since the new Covid vaccines have never been subjected to rigorous and empirically controlled safety tests and because they contain many, if not all, of the same ingredients, it can be reasonably presumed that all the deaths due to the administering of all of these vaccines have been falsely recorded as Covid deaths, on the basis that no vaccine mortalities have been recorded in the UK this year, as far as we are aware.
Nevertheless, the only way to know for sure what caused those deaths would be to conduct autopsies, which have been prevented by the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. Thus we are seeking a declaration from the court that those autopsies are conducted, under independent supervision, to determine how many of those people died shortly after being injected with this year’s vaccines.
g. A German court has recently ruled that unequivocal scientific evidence shows that wearing masks for long periods of time causes significant brain damage, via oxygen deprivation and carbon dioxide poisoning. Yet the UK government continues to mandate mask wearing in all public settings, including schools and universities, when there is no evidence of any benefit derived from mandating that they be worn.
In summary, we’ve nailed the charges with such an abundance of prima facie evidence that only the suspension of the criminal justice system is capable of protecting the accused from the consequences of their heinous crimes.
The Rigged System, Dolan’s Defeat & The Last Remedy Standing
During the past few weeks, many UK activists have declared, in the wake of the Hancock warrant being denied and Simon Dolan’s case being dismissed, that it is clear that there is no legal remedy possible in the courts, but they have done so without recognising the stark differences between the two cases, whether knowingly or unknowingly.
Firstly, the warrant application in the PCP was not dismissed as vexatious or without merit – we were merely told that we needed more prima facie evidence before a judge would issue either a warrant or a summons in the names of the defendants.
As expressed in the foregoing, we are on the brink of providing that evidence in a fresh application to the criminal court under the Common Law, as we prepare to move to the next stage in the proceedings.
Whereas Dolan has had his expensive case thrown out by the high court, the court of appeal and the supreme court, all of which presided in the civil domain, where the courts have long since been rigged to protect the establishment from the consequences of their crimes.
Nevertheless, even if the civil system wasn’t rigged, Dolan was always destined to lose because he was hopelessly arguing that he was entitled to his lost company revenues as a human right, which was allegedly denied to him by the government’s COVID-1984 regulations.
In other words, he was claiming that corporate revenues are a human right, when they are merely the result of successful business operations, all of which are conducted in the name of a corporate legal person, not a natural person or a human being.
Doomed To Fail
It appears everything else he alleged was mere window dressing, carefully designed to secure crowd-funding for nigh on half a million pounds worth of completely wasted legal costs, which one of the judges implied he didn’t have the funds to pay himself, at the outset of the application for permission to bring a claim of judicial review.
At least, that’s what I read in the transcript of his judgment and the summaries of the original claim being made, which I found in the public records of the case. The courageous solicitor I shared the judgment with wholeheartedly concurred.
No wonder Dolan spurned both my constructive criticism and my offer of collaboration, before proceeding to attempt to discredit our case on social media, on the fallacious ground that there was no such thing as a Private Criminal Prosecution, despite the fact that I ran one myself in the summer of 2013, alleging multiple breaches of the Fraud Act 2006.
Our Most Realistic Chance
Secondly, in the criminal domain, when there is sufficient prima facie evidence that proves indictable offences, such as fraud, have been committed, a single district judge decides whether the case is properly pleaded, with or without a hearing.
Whereas, in the civil courts, judges allow hearsay evidence that is inadmissible in the criminal courts, whilst they effectively preside as the sole arbiter of whether justice is done; which, my own direct and indirect experience has taught me, very rarely occurs in the civil domain.
Furthermore, in the event a summons or warrant is issued by a criminal court, the case then proceeds to a pleading hearing, before a trial is listed and the evidence is presented to a jury, which decides whether the defendants are innocent or guilty.
In the most simplistic terms possible, it is much harder to control the outcome of a decision made by a Common Law Jury, than it is to control a civil decision, which money almost always decides.
Suitably Cautious Optimism
However, even though we are much more likely to succeed by relying upon the ancient Common Law Jury Trial to see that justice is done, don’t for one moment think that I’m not fully availed of the certainty that the establishment was always going to do everything it could to derail the PCP, just as the banksters tried to do when I took them on and won, albeit after a nine year war of attrition.
Suffice to say, this occasion is no different in many respects. I am therefore well versed in decisively dealing with the predictable strategies of my adversaries, none of whom ever foresee even the remotest possibility that they will suffer the humiliating defeats they always incur in the end, as much of the content on this blog unequivocally affirms.
Having said that, I can’t guarantee what the eventual outcome will be at this precise juncture, but I’m cautiously optimistic enough to guarantee that the Private Criminal Prosecution we are running is the last remedy standing under the Common Law and that we will not relent in our struggle until justice is done, freedom is restored and our children’s future is secured, irrespective of the seemingly insurmountable problems we appear to face.