PUB To Appeal After PCP Judge Dismisses Expert Testimony As ‘Hearsay’
We have finally received an order from the Deputy Chief Magistrate in PUB’s Private Criminal Prosecution against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson for pandemic fraud, dismissing the case without a hearing, on the ludicrous ground that there is no evidence the defendants have acted dishonestly, whether for material gains or with prior knowledge that their actions would cause catastrophic loss. In doing so, the judge also set aside comprehensive expert witness testimony as mere “hearsay”, which is the exact opposite of the truth.
However, according to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [infinitely more reliable than Black’s], hearsay evidence is exactly what the UK Government’s COVID-19 policies [and therefore the decision of the judge] are founded upon:
HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 1. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.
2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.
In substantiation of this critical point, Chris Whitty admitted to the House of Lords inquiry into the nature of COVID-19 by the Science and Technology Committee on 24/04/2020 that:
“…the very first point at which anybody outside China knew about this was on 31 December last year, when they notified the WHO. I had my first discussion about it with my deputy, Jonathan Van-Tam, on 2 January. We both agreed that it was something to watch. […]
My view was basically dichotomous: either this was something containable, in which case the UK would contain it, or it was uncontainable, in which case no country could contain it, including the UK. […] Once it became clearly a global pandemic, recognised formally by the WHO, but clearly heading that way a bit before that, it was going to come in from multiple sources. A lot of it came into the UK from Italy, but it could have come from elsewhere; it was just the sequence of events.”
In other words, Whitty unwittingly confessed that China [Chinese Community Party] told the WHO [World Health Organisation] on 31/12/2019 about the purported pandemic, before persons unnamed at the WHO told Whitty, who first discussed the matter with Van Tam on 02/01/2020 – the dictionary definition of hearsay evidence.
Furthermore, the Bouvier’s definition also reveals that the sworn expert witness testimony we adduced in the PCP is incapable of being considered hearsay, on the basis that none of it contains anything other than that which relates to things they know themselves, rather than what they have heard from others.
Were it not for conflicting signs which preceded his decision, when it appeared the Deputy Chief Magistrate was acting like he possessed enough integrity to allow the case to proceed, this would just be more of what we have already learned to expect from the rigged just-us system, whilst fighting mortgage fraud in the courts over more than a decade.
Nonetheless, whether he was nobbled, lost his bottle or he is just another criminal in ermine, these points of law and fact will form the basis of our imminent appeal to the High Court, in an application to have the judgment overturned.
Whilst the DCM appears to faintly recognise the possibility of dishonesty in both the false statements and the non-disclosures relied upon by the defendants, he fails to recognise the evidence supporting the allegations as anything more than hearsay or opinion, despite the expert witness credentials of three doctors, two professors, a dental surgeon, a mathematician, a probate solicitor, a retired senior nuclear submarine data analyst, an independent data analyst and an ex CID fraud detective.
He also doesn’t seem to understand that the Fraud Act 2006 is incorporated into and a reflection of the Common Law, as he insists it a only a statutory offence, when the Fraud Act is unequivocally the Common Law of Fraud codified in a statute, as Bouvier’s affirms:
FRAUD, contracts, torts. Any trick or artifice employed by one person to induce another to fall into an error, or to detain him in it, so that he may make an agreement contrary to his interest. The fraud may consist either, first, in the misrepresentation, or, secondly, in the concealment of a material fact. Fraud, force and vexation, are odious in law.
Moreover, it is well established that the absence of a definition of fraud in the 2006 Act resulted in the courts continuing to rely upon the Common Law definition of fraud in criminal cases, as they did before it was enacted by Parliament, which Anand Doobay, Partner in the Fraud and Regulatory Department, Peters & Peters Solicitors, confirmed in an overview of the Act, shortly after it came into force and effect:
“Section 1 introduces the offence of fraud which can be committed in three circumstances that are, in the Act’s own terms, where a person is in breach of sections 2 to 4. However, no statutory definition of fraud is provided leaving the Act open to criticism on the grounds of generality, open-endedness and potential criminalisation of trivial disputes. It is too early to tell how far prosecutorial discretion can address these criticisms.”
If the DCM doesn’t know that the 2006 Act derives from the Common Law of Fraud [misrepresentation and non-disclosure at the expense of another party], how does that reflect on his ability to discern whether all of the elements of fraud are in place in the PCP? Not very well, is the best that can be said.
Prima Facie Evidence Ignored
Essentially, the judge is arguing that there is no prima facie evidence that the Four Horsemen intended to make material gains [even if they relied on dishonest statements which serviced the agenda to maximize ‘vaccination’ uptake], when he should know very well that such gains are often received long in advance of frauds being committed or by an accomplice in the aftermath of the crime, which we have abundant evidence of in this case.
He also elected to ignore the critically important fact that Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson were all directly involved in the 2014-16 Ebola scamdemic. Indeed, Whitty and Ferguson dictated almost identical lockdown policies to the government of Sierra Leone, whilst Vallance spearheaded GSK’s development of an Ebola ‘vaccine’, which was promptly heralded as the only route out of the West African lockdown.
In the above-linked article, written by Whitty and six other authors, including Ferguson, in Nature Magazine, on 06/11/2014, they wrote of the situation in Sierra Leone:
“One proposed strategy — giving families information and basic personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize transmission while nursing patients at home — is problematic. Using PPE safely is difficult even for professionals, as infection rates in health-care workers demonstrate. And identifying cases and training families requires staff that Sierra Leone does not have. This approach is acceptable only as a desperate humanitarian measure when there is no space available in health facilities. It is not a good strategy to reduce transmission. […]
We hope that in the coming months, safe and effective vaccines will be produced at large enough volumes to stop this outbreak, but thousands are dying now. Qualitative, quantitative and clinical sciences, and the ability to adapt and learn from mistakes, are urgently needed to reduce community transmission.”
Simply put, this is prima facie evidence that Whitty and Ferguson were promoting GSK’s Ebola ‘vaccine’ the month before it was fast-tracked into production by Vallance, from which it is reasonable to deduce that they were at least collaborating five years before the latter left GSK for the second most senior scientific position in the UK Government in 2018. But not before forming an on-going partnership between GSK and the Gates Foundation, which continues to this day.
It also proves that they knew PPE “is not a good strategy to reduce transmission”, yet they imposed mandatory masks, hand sanitizers and isolation gowns upon the British people, allegedly to minimize transmission – acts which benefited nobody except the companies to which Hancock awarded government contracts, including corporate entities owned by the Secretary of State’s friends and family.
Furthermore, Ferguson became the head of Gates-funded WHO’s Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling in April 2019, since when he has been responsible for predicting pandemics and devising the government policies the WHO recommends worldwide. From which it is logical to deduce that it was Ferguson who informed Whitty [and the UK Government] of the supposed emergence of a ‘pandemic’.
Having spent most of his professional career at Imperial College, in a department which is almost entirely funded by the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, the other primary business partner of GSK, it is no surprise that Ferguson recommended to the UK Government in his infamous Imperial College Model [also funded by Gates] that the only way out of lockdowns is to maximize ‘vaccination’ uptake:
“In the absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, we assess the potential role of a number of public health measures – so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – aimed at reducing contact rates in the population and thereby reducing transmission of the virus. […]
The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed.”
These were the same policies recommended to the Sierra Leone Government by Ferguson and Whitty, the latter having received £31 million from the Gates Foundation in 2012, when he was Professor of Public and International Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Principal Investigator of the ACT Consortium, for the purposes of research and development of Malaria ‘vaccines’, about which he said at the time:
“We are delighted. There have been great strides forward in developing new drugs. We now have to start to get them to the people who need them. The funding by the Gates Foundation to these studies on four continents, but concentrating on Africa, will help determine how best to achieve this.”
On January 01 2020, following the integral role he played in the formation of the Gates-funded Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation [CEPI] in 2017-18, Whitty was appointed to the Gates-funded WHO’s Executive Board, the month after the board formally recommended to governments that the maximization of ‘vaccination’ uptake worldwide should be made a matter of public policy.
Demonstrable Material Gains For Big Pharma
Furthermore, in January 2019, Hancock met with Gates in a ministerial meeting, three weeks after he met with the leaders of the World Economic Forum [WEF]. The meetings are still subject to FOI requests, but it is recorded on the government’s website that Hancock discussed health technology with the WEF and ‘anti-microbial resistance and research’ with Gates.
Hancock has, of course, gone on to tirelessly promote the notion that maximizing ‘vaccination’ uptake is the only way out of lockdown, just as Gates has stated in innumerable television interviews since the start of COVID-1984, as per the agenda of Gates-funded GAVI, into which the UK Government invested £330 million a year for five years, in April 2020.
Ministerial records also show that Hancock held multiple meetings with GSK, the Wellcome Trust and just about every other Big Pharma player in the UK during 2019, many of whom have already procured significant material gains from the UK Government’s subsequent COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ contracts with GSK-Sanofi, Oxford-AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna, as well as the manufacturers’ indemnification against potential damages claims.
Whether the defendants knowingly relied upon the false statements in the Imperial College Model for their own material gain, or those of other parties, is irrelevant for the purposes of proving fraud by false representation and it is an unequivocal fact that the UK Government’s COVID-19 policies they recommended have provided PPE companies and Big Pharma’s primary stakeholders with significant financial gains from government contracts.
Which naturally comprises prima facie evidence that the frauds alleged were perpetrated to maximize PPE and ‘vaccination’ uptake, which walks hand in hand with maximizing Big Pharma profits, in material breach of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
Prior Knowledge of Inevitable Catastrophic Consequences
The year before Sierra Leone locked down on the ‘advice’ of Whitty and Ferguson, the country’s GDP grew by more than 20% to $5 billion. However, Sierra Leone’s GDP dropped from $5 billion to $3.67 billion from 2014-2016, as a direct result of adopting the pandemic policies recommended, which we now know as the recommendations of Ferguson’s plainly fraudulent Imperial College Model – the entire basis for WHO and UK Government COVID-19 policy.
It is therefore beyond reasonable doubt that Whitty and Ferguson knew from their wrongdoings in Sierra Leone that the UK economy would contract, as it did by 11.3% in 2020, according to official government data, as a result of their lockdown policies being imposed upon Britain.
That constitutes having prior knowledge that the consequences of those policies would cause significant losses, which created the legal obligation to disclose to the British people the catastrophic financial cost of locking down Sierra Leone on their advice, which the defendants never did, in material breach of section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.
As far as proving that Vallance has known about the likelihood of potentially fatal adverse reactions to the ‘vaccines’ he has brought to the world, one needs to look no further than the link below, which was released by the British Medical Journal after the BMJ’s editor gained access to GSK’s pharmacovigilance report, relating to the 2009 H1N1 scamdemic.
The GSK document states that the Pandemrix influenza ‘vaccine’ safety study showed that three out of every million ‘vaccinated’ were likely to die within 28 days of being injected with it, whilst 75.9 out of every million would suffer serious adverse reactions, to an emergency chemical treatment, developed with Vallance’s direct involvement and approval.
It therefore cannot be seriously argued that Vallance had no knowledge that the flu and COVID jabs he has tirelessly promoted have the potential to kill and seriously harm those who are injected, or that he has not personally profited from the government’s deal to bulk-buy 60 million doses of the experimental GSK-Sanofi COVID ‘vaccine’, given that he left the company with £600,000 worth of shares.
Since Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson comprise the three most senior advisors to the UK Government on ‘COVID-19 pandemic’ policy, we can naturally presume that Hancock was briefed as to the effects of lockdowns, before he presented the bill which enabled them [the Coronavirus Act 2020] to Parliament.
We can also safely assume that Vallance briefed Hancock, Whitty and Ferguson about his prior knowledge of the potentially fatal adverse events of the ‘vaccine’ roll-outs, which expert witness testimony from a former GSK scientist alleges he was fully aware of whilst president of the company.
Hence, the necessity for the government to indemnify everybody who develops, manufactures, distributes and administers the COVID jabs from potential damages claims and to suspend autopsies on all suspected ‘COVID-19 deaths’, by way of section 30 of the 2020 Act.
Therefore, the most gaping hole in the DCM’s judgment is that he alleges that even if the Four Horsemen lied and failed to disclose for the purposes of fueling the vaxx agenda, there is no proof they did it for material gain or knowing that significant losses would be incurred, which Vallance’s shares in GSK, Whitty and Ferguson’s money from Gates and the Wellcome Trust and the UK Government’s massive investments in the WHO, CEPI and GAVI, as well as Whitty and Ferguson’s prime roles in the locking down of Sierra Leone, blow wide open.
Furthermore, if, as he claims in his order, he does not have the jurisdiction to declare that emergency ‘vaccination’ must cease under the Precautionary Principle to prevent potential injury or death, or that autopsies must be carried out to give finality to the families of the dead, then the second highest ranking District Judge in the country does not have the authority to prevent further casualties of murderous government policy.
In other words, he is really telling us that the judiciary is not authorized to allow the People to prosecute government officers in the courts and HM Constabulary won’t investigate their crimes because we already live in an authoritarian police state, under Big Pharma’s unaccountable Bolshevik dictatorship, otherwise known as the Rothschild Cartel’s Cabinet Office.
War of Attrition
Given the circumstances, we must look at appealing this decision as a powerful symbol of resistance, in what is now going to be another bitter war of attrition, in which we will have the majority of the country on our side once they know the truth about the evidence of government crimes that is being suppressed, supposedly ‘for the greater good’.
In the meantime, how’s this for “hearsay”, taken directly from the Deputy Chief Magistrate’s void order:
“I am also satisfied that this application is intended as a means of reviewing the appropriateness of the government response to the ‘COVID virus’. I find that an attempt to bring a private prosecution, in any event, amounts to an improper purpose.”
Oh yeah? Where’s the prima facie evidence of that then?!? There isn’t any! So who is the one with an improper purpose, Mr Deputy Chief Magistrate?
Because it certainly isn’t the prosecution in PUB v Hancock & Others, as will be emphatically demonstrated by a forthcoming series of posts on this blog, which will document the compelling prima facie evidence he dismissed as “hearsay”, as we launch the appeal of his highly unsafe decision in the High Court.
However, as I have maintained from the start of these proceedings, having fought and overturned multiple miscarriages of justice in my family’s High Court case against Bank of Scotland, which resulted in the bank giving up its fraudulent claim for £2.5 million after nine years of fighting to enforce it, I was fully prepared for such an eventuality in the PCP before it transpired, as was the former CID detective I am working with on the case.
We will therefore continue in our unrelenting fight for justice, in a system rigged to protect our adversaries from the consequences of their crimes, resolutely undaunted by yet another unjust decision by a member of the judiciary.
Nonetheless, in a tyrannical system of control, justice is never willingly handed down by judges to the People; it will only ever be surrendered when there is no other possible course of action.
However, even if our initial application for permission to appeal is refused on paper, we will be entitled to ask that the matter be decided at a hearing before a single judge, which will almost certainly take place at the Royal Courts of Justice within the next few weeks.
Same Shit, Different Decade
Those of you who want to see for yourselves how we won an all-too-similar war of attrition against BOS and their LPA Receivers can watch The Great British Mortgage Swindle here for free.
If you have already have seen the film, you will already know that we fought miscarriages of justice for almost four years, before we won Summary Judgment in the High Court, arguing exactly the same points which had been dismissed as “totally without merit” by four senior judges, all but one of whom took early retirement in the aftermath of their unscrupulous defence of institutionalised mortgage fraud.
Just in case the implicit point I am making is unclear, we won’t be letting one or multiple void court orders prevent us from bringing the Four Horsemen of COVID-1984 to justice, no matter how long it takes to hold them to account for their crimes against the People.