- Michael O'Bernicia Retweeted
People talking about “I’m getting the vaccine cause I did the research”
Bro what research? It’s an experimental vaccine. You are the test subject dummy.
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]
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. https://www.thebernician.net/papers-laid-alleging-pandemic-fraud-against-hancock-whitty-vallance-ferguson/.
We are also asking for a moratorium on the UK flu and COVID ‘vaccinations’ programmes to be declared for period of at least 90 days, in order to definitively establish whether it is COVID-19 or ‘vaccines’ that are killing people at a minimum mortality rate of 377 per 100,000 healthy adults, as per the leaked WHO approved ‘vaccine’ safety study which we are adducing into evidence.
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 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.
moratorium
- a temporary prohibition of an activity.
- A private criminal prosecution is being brought against individuals that acted against the Govt declared status of covid 19 as being a high coonsequence infectious disease in March 2020, and literally fast tracked the UK , along the US plan of world mass vaccination.
Status of COVID-19
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.
R [PUB] v Hancock & Others [2021] | Public Notice of Intended Prosecution
![R [PUB] v Hancock & Others [2021] | Public Notice of Intended Prosecution](https://i0.wp.com/www.thebernician.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/stop1-1.jpg?resize=473%2C473&ssl=1)
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 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 which 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 which 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 is 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
PCP Papers Laid Alleging Pandemic Fraud Against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance & Ferguson
PCP Papers Laid Alleging Pandemic Fraud Against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance & Ferguson
At 16:23 pm this afternoon, one year after the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens’ decision to reclassify COVID-19 as no longer being considered a High Consequence Infectious Disease was published by Public Health England, the papers were laid electronically at a south London Magistrates Court, in the People’s Union of Britain’s momentous Private Criminal Prosecution against Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson for pandemic fraud.
Early next week, the court will receive a 1,200 page bundle of evidence, which includes expert witness statements from two professors, three doctors, a dental surgeon, a probate solicitor, a mathematician, a retired nuclear submarine data analyst, an independent data analyst and a former CID fraud detective, who is acting as a trustee of the PUB in bringing this most serious of prosecutions to the criminal court.
Declaration Sought
In addition to the charges of fraud by false representation and non-disclosure, in material breaches of sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, we are informally applying for a declaration, under the inherent powers of the court, which states that autopsies are to be carried out for all alleged COVID deaths, which will be held as evidence in the forthcoming trial, on the ground that we have expert witness testimony of the falsification of death certificates, as per UK Government policy.
We are also asking for a moratorium on the UK flu and COVID ‘vaccinations’ programmes to be declared for period of at least 90 days, in order to definitively establish whether it is COVID-19 or ‘vaccines’ that are killing people at a minimum mortality rate of 377 per 100,000 healthy adults, as per the leaked WHO approved ‘vaccine’ safety study which we are adducing into evidence.
Boatload of Prima Facie Evidence
They told us they wanted more prima facie evidence when we made the last application in late 2020, seeking the arrest of Matt Hancock for fraud by non-disclosure over the declassification of COVID-19 by the ACDP.
Well, now they have a veritable boatload of the stuff heading their way, so prepare yourselves for the inevitable shitstorm on the near horizon, after the defendants’ QC’s tell them that their only defence is to plead gross negligence. However, the evidence is so emphatic that they knew exactly what they were doing that the jury will almost certainly convict them as charged.
Nevertheless, don’t expect the defendants to be wheeled off in handcuffs to Belmarsh by tomorrow morning. Whilst it is just about conceivable that the court’s legal department could make an initial assessment of the case by the end of next week, even if it happens that swiftly, the matter will then be passed to the Chief Magistrate of the UK’s legal department, which will probably take at least another week to make their assessment.
Potential Turnaround
In the event all of that is turned around within the next two weeks, the case would then be passed to a senior district judge, who must then decide whether to grant the applications for the summonses and the declaration, whether on paper or at a hearing.
If the summons application is granted, a pleading hearing would then be listed to take place within the next couple of weeks. This would take us to 28 days from now and probably represents the earliest time that the defendants will be summonsed to plead in the Magistrates Court. The informal application for the declaration would also be dealt with at that hearing.
Given the seriousness of the charges and the urgency of the situation, with clear evidence of fraud with murderous consequences already adduced into evidence, we will then ask the court to list a trial by jury at the very earliest opportunity, which will almost certainly take place at the Old Bailey.
If and when all of that transpires rests on the judgment of a single district judge, who will necessarily have experience dealing with such serious charges. However, it is the considered opinion of the former CID fraud detective and the team behind the scenes who have supported me every step of the way that the Statement of Case is “monumental”, “truly historical” and:
“Regardless of the judiciary’s response to it, once the information is in the public realm/consciousness, along with the cited evidence, it will be incendiary. The accused will squeal like the little swines they are.”
Banged To Rights
Well it’s been a long month already, to say the least, which is why I haven’t really posted much online for the past three weeks. So I’m going to keep this post relatively brief.
Before I sign off, to reflect on the truly extraordinary progress we have made during the course of the past dystopian year, it seems somewhat fitting to leave you with this.
If I’d had the evidential weight we have in this case in my family’s High Court actions against Bank of Scotland, it would have taken a year to beat them, instead of almost a decade.
Suffice to say, in the words of Vinnie Jones’ character in Lock Stock & Two Smokin’ Barrels, a film which reminds me of when I was living and working in swinging nineties London, when these ancient lands were still a place where even a committed recalcitrant like myself could live freely in relative peace and prosperity – it’s been emotional.
Posted in Critical Thinking and tagged Ferguson, Hancock, Pandemic Fraud, PCP, Private Criminal Prosecution, Vallance, Whitty.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.