Over the course of the past eighteen months, it has become chillingly apparent to myself and the rest of the team who have been amassing prima facie evidence of genocidal fraud against the Four Horsemen and their accomplices that UK Government policy effectively turned Britain’s care homes into death camps, where the over 65’s, the sick and the disabled were dispatched with lethal doses of Midazolam and Morphine.

As the new updated criminal court papers entered the final stages of preparation, on Saturday morning we received a copy of a formerly confidential UK Government report written in July 2017, known as the Pandemic Influenza Briefing Paper.

This has transpired because of a successful FOI request for the information be made public, for the purposes of which, here lies a brief summary of the damning paper.

Suspension of Care
In section 4.4 of the UK Government’s briefing paper, the following were earmarked for prioritising within the NHS, in the event of a ‘pandemic’, under the heading Primary Care Suspensions and Priorities:

Managing infections such as Sepsis, Cellulitis, Meningitis and Influenza.

Acute and urgent illnesses and trauma, such as fractures and acute abdominal pain.

Palliative, Pain Management and End of Life Care.

Conversely, in the list marked for suspension were:

All routine Dentistry and Optometry services.

Management of Chronic Disease.

Low level Mental Health Care [including treatment of patients with Learning Difficulties].

Routine Diabetes Screening.

Musculoskeletal Care.

Preventative Care [including ‘vaccination’, which is the only element of the plan which was not implemented in March 2020 by the UK Government, upon the advice of Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson].

Dementia Diagnosis and Old Age / Frailty Management.

Decision Making
In section 5.0 on Decision Making, the briefing paper summarizes how the process of deciding when the suspension of the foregoing services and treatments would take place, as well as who would be denied them:

The Secretary of State for Health and other Ministers will be asked to decide that population triage can be enacted. This will allow NHS England to allow clinicians in local hospitals to make appropriate decisions about providing care to those patients who will benefit the most in a situation where the system is under extreme and unprecedented pressure.

The request for such a decision will be informed by insight from NHS England, NHS Improvement, the frontline and DH, as well as specialist advisory bodies established in response to a pandemic. Consideration will need to be taken as to whether such a decision is made at England level or nationally across all four UK countries.

Such a decision to move to population triage will effectively be an extension of the usual routine and daily clinical decisions made by clinicians regarding admissions and discharges. However, rather than decisions being made on a basis of triage by clinical outcome, triage by resource availability will also inform the decision.

From which we can easily glean that Matt Hancock [when he was still the secretary of state for the DHSC] and the government ministers in the Cabinet Office were asked to enact ‘Population Triage’ upon the advice of NHS England, NHS Improvement, civil servants within the DHSC and SAGE [which naturally included Neil Ferguson, Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance].

Furthermore, the section also states that clinical decisions by clinicians on matters of admission and discharge would be based upon the treatment / service resources available, rather than ‘a basis of triage by clinical outcome’.

Ethics
Section 5.1 of the report states that the ethical framework underpinning the policies recommended was developed by the Committee on Ethical Aspects of Pandemic Influenza and published by the Department of Health in 2007 as guidance for dealing with ‘Pandemic Flu’, which in turn states that:

Equal concern and respect is the fundamental principle that underpins the ethical framework. This means that:

* everyone matters
* everyone matters equally – but this does not mean that everyone is treated the same
* the interests of each person are the concern of all of us, and of society
* the harm that might be suffered by every person matters, and so minimising the harm that a pandemic might cause is a central concern

* The ethical framework section was developed by the Committee on Ethical Aspects of Pandemic Influenza and first published in 2007. It was revised by the Department of Health and Social Care in 2017.

In other words, whilst the framework insists that ‘everybody matters’, that ‘the harm suffered by every person matters’ and that ‘the harm that might be suffered by every person matters’, it also inserts the fatal caveat that this ‘does not mean that everyone is treated the same’.

Which is another way of saying that the harm suffered by some people [the over 65’s] is less important than the suffering endured by other people [the under 65’s]; which is akin to implicitly targeting a specific section of the population for elimination by denial of critical treatments and services.

Deactivation of Care & Expansion of ‘Good Deaths’
In a table called Activation and Deactivation of Primary and Secondary Care Activities, the briefing paper lays out the detailed plan for dealing with every aspect of every severity level of any kind of ‘pandemic’, in which it is stated that in the event of a moderate outbreak, End of Life Facilities should be supported and expanded, concurrent with the reduction of non-urgent services such as general, ENT and vascular surgery, as well as reducing cardiac and cancer surgery ‘as the situation develops’.

Furthermore, it is also recommended that, in the event the outbreak escalates to emergency level, the care patients receive should be determined by the resources available, rather than upon the health requirements in each individual case.

Mass Murder By Government Policy
All of which is starkly reminiscent of this three minute video, in which Dr Luke Evans MP introduces his questions for Hancock [in the House of Commons April 2020 inquiry into COVID-19] with the following statement:

“A Good Death requires three things…”

Those three things which Evans says every ‘Good Death’ requires are having enough syringes, enough Midazolam and Morphine and enough staff to administer the fatal doses of the drugs prescribed, within a supposedly ethical framework which repeatedly recommends scaling up End of Life Care, whilst denying critical care to the very people who were forced to sign Do Not Resuscitate notices before they were incapacitated with opiates and Midazolammed into premature death.

Nevertheless, it is immaterial whether they call it ‘A Good Death’ or not because what it all amounts to is yet more prima facie evidence of mass murder by UK Government policy, all of which substantiates the allegations in PUB’s Private Criminal Prosecution of the Four Horsemen and their accomplices.

Over the course of the past sixteen months, whilst building the case for pandemic fraud against the Four Horsemen of COVID-1984, the PUB team has been concurrently amassing evidence of mass murder by government policy in UK hospitals, care homes and hospices.

Now, in the aftermath of the inherently void decision of the Deputy Chief Magistrate [DCM] to dismiss our Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson for pandemic fraud, we have more than enough incontrovertible prima facie evidence to lay a case for mass murder of the very people the UK Government’s health policies are supposed to be protecting.
====================
VIDEO - Midazolam, Morphine & Mass Murder By UK Government Policy
====================

Moreover, we have now established a comprehensive database of evidence which exposes every individual in the supply chain of Midazolam, Morphine and the Flu and COVID vaxxes, from Hancock down to the ‘medical officers’ who administered them, to criminal prosecution for mass murder.

The Elements of Murder
According to the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] website, subject to three exceptions, the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

* Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
* unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
* any reasonable creature (human being);
* in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs – Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
* under the Queen’s Peace (not in war-time);
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

Intent
Murder cannot be proven in a court of law unless it can be demonstrated that the accused acted with intent. The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case – R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

Causation
The prosecution must show a causal link between the act/omission and the death. The act or omission must be a substantial cause of death, but it need not be the sole or main cause of death.

It must have “more than minimally negligibly or trivially contributed to the death” – Lord Woolf MR in R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344.

It does not matter that the act/omission by the defendant merely “hastened” the victim’s death: R v Dyson (1908) 1 Cr App R 13.”

The defendant must take his victim as he finds him under the ‘egg-shell skull’ rule: R v LeBrun (1991) 4 All ER 673.

As a result, any pre-dispositions or inherent weaknesses or vulnerabilities of the victim are deemed irrelevant, for the purposes of proving causation.

Confession
The most shocking evidence we have in our possession is the House of Commons video confession by Dr Luke Evans and Matt Hancock, which unequivocally confirms that the primary cause of death among those deaths attributed to the 1st and 2nd waves of COVID deaths in the spring and autumn of 2020 was a lethal cocktail of Midazolam and Morphine.

Especially when considered alongside our December 2020 predictions of how many people would die during the Flu and COVID ‘vaccine’ roll-outs, with a 98% degree of accuracy.

In other words, if you’re over 65 and the vaxxes don’t kill you, you’ll be listed to be Midazolammed on opiates at the earliest opportunity, to save money that might otherwise be spent keeping you alive for many years to come.

It therefore cannot be sensibly argued that what Evans and Hancock said under oath in the three minute video below does not constitute emphatic proof that they intended to kill everybody they injected with Midazolam and Morphine, to give them “a good death”.

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.

Justice Miscarried
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.

Gates Connections
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.

Adverse events: GSK pandemic influenza vaccines

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.

Gaping Hole

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.

Resolutely Undaunted

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.

Shocking new expert witness testimony from a scientist who used to work in a GSK lab, which has been submitted to the prosecution in PUB v Hancock & Others, alleges that Patrick Vallance had prior knowledge that his former company’s ‘vaccines’ cause adverse events in a significant proportion of those injected.

Furthermore, the case’s latest expert witness claims that Vallance knows about the likelihood of severe adverse events occurring after GSK ‘vaccines’ [including up to 50% fatalities, in the case of the Vallance approved ‘vaccine’ against Dysentery, which was widely distributed in West Africa just before the 2014 Ebola scamdemic, for which, of course, GSK had already manufactured a different ‘vaccine’].

However, Vallance’s open suppression and cover-up of the relevant safety studies did not prevent those facts becoming common knowledge at the lab where our whistle-blower worked, which resulted in her resignation shortly afterwards, when Vallance refused to comply with a demand that the manufacture and distribution of the potentially fatal chemical treatments be suspended with immediate effect.

Needless to say, this utterly compelling testimony will be added to the evidence bundle in the PCP and I will elaborate further in a future post.

PCP Update
In response to the voluminous inquiries relating to the Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] of Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson for multiple counts of pandemic fraud, here is a brief update on the latest state of play.

Patiently awaiting the final decision of the presiding judge, as to whether he issues summonses for the defendants to answer the charges laid at Westminster Magistrates Court, we contacted the court to ascertain what stage the Deputy Chief Magistrate had reached in his deliberations.

Happily, we were deeply encouraged from the warm response we received, within just half an hour of the email of our request for an update.

Ongoing Consideration Upon The Evidence
Having been contacted by our ever-helpful liaison officer between Bromley and Westminster Magistrates Courts, we were informed that the judge requires more time because of the sheer weight of the evidence that is now before him. Naturally, we responded with our sincere gratitude for the speedy update.

Within ten minutes, the judge, who has already demonstrated his integrity by honouring our informal request that he set aside his initial decision to dismiss the action, when all he had before him was the Statement of Case, promptly sent us another message.

Noting that he is incapable of considering electronic evidence contained on a portable hard drive in the evidence files, the judge asked us to provide him with a hard copy of the leaked WHO flu ‘vaccine’ safety study [initially received on a hard drive], upon which we based our calculation of the flu vaxx mortality rate with 98% accuracy last Autumn.

An Integrous Judge in Troubled Times
However, not only does this constitute another example of the integrity of the judge deciding the destiny of the case, given that he could so easily have ignored the absence of the leaked study, arguing that it would not be enough to substantiate the allegations of pandemic fraud; it also comprises a dazzlingly positive indication that he intends to make his mind up upon the evidence alone, without fear or favour.

Therefore, despite the fact that the whole process has already eaten up the better part of the past six months, we have reasons to be cautiously optimistic that the case against the Four Horsemen of COVID-1984 is in the hands of a man who believes in the unalienable right to prosecute wrongdoers under the Common Law, irrespective of political office.

Moreover, the Deputy Chief Magistrate might well go on to prove that we do, at the very least, have one integrous senior judge left in this country, who fully comprehends that justice does not exist in a nation state where government officers cannot be held to account for their crimes against the People in a court of law.

In The Judge’s Shoes
If I were in his shoes, the very fact that somebody separated the Statement of Case from the three evidence files would have already convinced me that some very powerful people feared the result of proper consideration of both the statement and the substantiating documents.

Nevertheless, as Deputy Chief Magistrate, that would render me even more determined to allow the case to proceed, given that the evidence before the court includes witness statements from eleven expert witnesses, all of whom unequivocally corroborate the allegations made in the Statement of Case.

With a fair wind, we will receive his decision within days rather than weeks and proceed from there. Either way, you’ll read about it all here at P.U.B., so stay tuned for all future updates.

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 unaccountablity 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 I have already documented here, our 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, as is shown by the slideshow at the top of this post. 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 integrous 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.

If you missed the last update, please read here before you continue reading this post, so that you are up to speed with all the latest developments in the case, which has now progressed from Westminster to Bromley Magistrates Court.

One week ago, we were informed by telephone that PUB’s PCP papers are now with the designated court’s listings department, who expect a case number will soon be issued, following checks by the legal team at Bromley Magistrates, to which it was transferred for processing and listing by the Westminster court where the case was laid last month.

Effectively, this means that the case files contained enough prima facie evidence of pandemic fraud for Westminster to transfer the case to Bromley, for the purposes of performing the final legal checks [the initial checks having been done by the south London court’s legal department] and listing the first hearing of the case at the Kent court.

Past Experience & Mansfield’s PCP
Experience has taught us, by way of the Hancock warrant application being dismissed at the end of 2020 [in the absence of enough prima facie evidence], upon the order of a district judge at Westminster Magistrates Court, who made his decision on paper [without a hearing], that we have already cleared the first major hurdle in the proceedings.

Moreover, were that not correct there is no realistic possibility that the case would have been transferred to Bromley’s listing department, especially given that particular judicial venue is where all PCP’s laid at Westminster are sent when sufficient evidence has been submitted to justify the listing of a hearing at Bromley Magistrates Court, which specialises in Private Criminal Prosecutions.

Furthermore, when renegade barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, acted for a retired Iraqi general in a PCP against former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and others, for crimes of aggression in Iraq, the papers were laid at Westminster Magistrates, where they were dismissed on the grounds that the accused are immune from prosecution and the offence is unknown to UK law.

Nevertheless, Mansfield ran a High Court appeal of the decision, on the ground that the evidence cited against the defendants was sufficient for the case to proceed to trial. However, the court refused the appeal and upheld the ground that the UK does not recognise the crime of aggression under domestic law as being an indictable offence.

R [Rabbat] v Blair & Others
In corroboration of the foregoing, on 05/07/2017, Owen Bowcott wrote the following on R [Rabbat] v Blair & Others in The Guardian:

“An initial application to launch the prosecution was dismissed at Westminster magistrates court on the grounds that Blair enjoys immunity and that the crime of aggression does not exist in English law.

The court was told that attempts to persuade the international criminal court to prosecute to the former Labour prime minister for invading Iraq have made no significant progress.

The crime of aggression was finally defined in 2010 by the ICC, the high court heard, but it has not yet been ratified by a sufficient number of states.

The high court appeal is being heard by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and Mr Justice Ouseley.

The current attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, has intervened in the case to argue that the crime does not exist in the statute book. “The crime of aggression is not known to English law,” James Eadie QC, for the attorney general, told the court.”

It was then reported in The Herald on 31/07/2017 that:

“Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the general’s application, saying there was “no prospect” of the case succeeding.

The case was brought after Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused to issue summonses in November last year on the grounds that the ex-ministers had immunity from legal action, and in any event the current Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, would have to give consent.”

Potential Reasons For Listing A Hearing
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the first hearing of R [PUB] v Hancock & Others is being processed by the legal department at Bromley Magistrates Court, for one or more of the following purposes:

To list a pleading hearing, in which case summonses will be issued to each of the defendants in due course [perhaps as early as this week].

To list a hearing of our informal application for a declaration that the autopsy moratorium on alleged COVID deaths be lifted and a moratorium be placed on all flu and COVID jabs [for a period of at least 90 days].

To list a preliminary hearing of the evidence adduced before a district judge, who will decide whether or not the case should progress to trial by jury on the charges laid.

That being said, the third possibility is a now somewhat remote one because PCP’s generally only get transferred to Bromley Magistrates Court when they are deemed to have enough substantive evidence to proceed to trial.

It also naturally follows that the action would have suffered the same fate as the Hancock warrant application [and Mansfield’s PCP] without leaving the jurisdiction of Westminster Magistrates, in the event that the district judge presiding at the court did not think that the case has at least a realistic prospect of securing criminal convictions against the defendants.

Common Law Always Provides A Remedy
Whatever the wrongdoing, be it a criminal or civil offence, the Common Law always provides a remedy, no matter how grave the circumstances surrounding the case.

Since murder is the ultimate heinous crime, mass murder by whatever means is the most wicked of wrongdoings under the Common Law.

However, when mass murder is being carried out by government policy, it is always the case that the state-controlled police and public prosecutor refuse to investigate such allegations by members of the oppressed masses, just as we have witnessed in Britain over the past year.

Nevertheless, in treacherous and dangerous times such as these, the Common Law provides the People with the means of bringing the perpetrators of mass murder by government policy to justice in a Private Criminal Prosecution.

It therefore goes without saying that, when [if not before] the PCP against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson succeeds in securing criminal convictions for multiple breaches of the Fraud Act 2006, another private prosecution will lay charges of mass murder against the defendants and their accomplices.

For the purposes of neutralising the effects of plainly ludicrous and downright malicious claims by a few well-placed agent provocateurs on social media, the slideshow above documents the boxing up, service and delivery of the evidence bundle for PUB v Hancock & Others last week, including hard copies of the papers served by email on 19/03/2021.

As you can see for yourself on the Royal Mail Track and Trace page, from which the final picture has been taken, after entering the reference number on the mail receipt, the case files were received by Westminster Magistrates Court on Friday morning.

All being well, we will receive some kind of indication as to when we are likely to receive the initial response of the court’s legal department early this week. Needless to say, as soon as there is any news it will be posted on this blog and across all my social media platforms.

Critical Thinkers Unite
However, despite the fact that publishing those images should easily rescind the nagging doubts in the minds of those for whom seeing is believing, it is simply not realistic to expect the Common Purpose graduates who have been defaming my character and work to cease and desist just yet.

Especially when the only ammunition they have to fire at me comprises of nothing more than offensive ad hominems, empty-headed fallacies and malicious falsehoods, almost all of which are discharged behind my back, in the hope of convincing people that neither I nor the PUB are to be trusted.

In spite of the fact that, in the event the PCP succeeds, nobody involved stands to gain anything from the tens of thousands of hours we have spent mastering this most urgent of subject matters, other than the restoration of Common Law, justice and freedom, for the sake of our children and future generations.

That being understood, just for the seethingly ironic comedic value, here is a selection of the most common defamatory social media heckles, delivered by Common Purpose shills, alt-media gate-keepers and an assortment of government agents, over the course of the last thirteen years:

“He’s working for MI5 and he’s positioning himself as leader of the controlled opposition.”

As opposed to having been surveilled by MI5 since September 15 2001, after being placed on the ‘potential subversives’ list, when I interviewed the 1st 9/11 whistle-blower on a bugged telephone line.

“He’s a high ranking Freemason, secretly working for the House of Rothschild.”

As opposed to a stubborn working class autodidact, who refused to sell his soul for the guarantee of riches, fame and success in the film industry and went on to prove mortgage fraud in the high court against a Rothschild controlled bank, preventing his parents and sister, his bother-in-law and two nephews from losing their homes.

“He’s committed treason by telling people that Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 has never been law.”

As opposed to having proven with historical evidence that Magna Carta 1215 was formally replaced by Magna Carta Libertatum in 1216 [without Article 61] and that none of the Great Charter’s articles became English Law until 1225.

“He’s just Truther Industrial Complex, spinning another line for his handlers.”

As opposed to the most aggressively censored, notoriously self-governed, consistently cage-rattling, unapologeticly recalcitrant blogger on these tyrannised shores.

“The PCP is a fantasy – completely made up – just like everything else he claims to have achieved.”

As opposed to the most important criminal case in British legal history, founded entirely upon demonstrable truth and enshrined in binding Common Law precedents, just like every other case in a 100% track record.

Nevertheless, the long running, truly pathetic and childishly spiteful hate campaign against me has been met with an indomitable shield-wall of spontaneous intellectual resistance, since I have an ever-growing, revolving phalanx of fearless critical thinkers covering my back, whenever and wherever necessary, for which I am eternally grateful.

United we stand, armed with the logical synthesis of the sustainable facts, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Common Law, which is best understood as Natural Justice In Action, the central tenet of which is the Golden Rule – Do No Harm.

Moreover, we now have in our possession the crucial data required to win the decisive battle in the COVID-1984 information war, against the most expensive propaganda and psychological warfare campaigns that any British government has ever waged against its own people.

PCP Week One Snapshot
Over the course of the first week, following the electronic laying of the information in the Private Criminal Prosecution against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson, we witnessed the following events:

The Gates Foundation removing links to evidence we cited in the papers from their website, the day after they were electronically laid at the court.
YouTube and Twitter censoring Mark Devlin’s channels, three days after he released an interview with yours truly about the electronic laying of the papers, when it had already attained in excess of 40,000 views.
Matt Hancock stuttering and stumbling, after being asked, in the Parliamentary Coronavirus Act ‘debate’ last Thursday, about existing data on fatal adverse events within three weeks of the COVID jabs.
The evidence bundle being served upon and received by Westminster Magistrates Court, as shown in the foregoing image gallery, the day after Hancock’s bumbling response to by far the most significant question asked by any MP since the first day of this treacherous Parliament.
Panic on the Streets of Whitehall
Since late 2020, I have been publishing information about the leaked WHO safety study, which recorded a 0.377% minimum mortality rate, within three weeks and a day of receiving UK MHRA licensed flu ‘vaccines’.

Therefore, it is somewhat unlikely that the question posed to a panic-stricken Hancock in Parliament last week can be set aside as merely coincidental to the Statement of Case being laid electronically at Westminster Magistrates Court six days earlier, arguing that the very same question demands an immediate answer from each of the four defendants [obviously including Hancock].

Especially when the minimum mortality rate for flu jabs is shown, by data correlations we have now adduced into evidence, to be almost identical to that of healthy adults injected with the COVID ‘vaccines’, within 22 days of getting the jabs.

Suffice to say, PCP Week One has been eventful, to say the least. So it seems more than fitting to end this post with the words which fellow outspoken recalcitrant, Mark Devlin, said to me last week, when he informed me about the interview being censored on his channels:

“Do you think we hit a nerve?”

At 16:23 pm this afternoon (19th March 2021), 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.
Michael O'Bernicia @ www.thebernician.net

This is a most appropriate way to serve the PCP
(so shut up all who say that is not)
Email from :
David Laity (on behalf of PUB)
Attachments
4:23 PM (2 minutes ago)
to Southlondonmc, bcc: me

Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached documents for an application for a PCP of four defendants.
All documentation required to proceed is attached,
Thank you for your kind assistance in this important matter,
David Laity BA Hons (Representative for PUB)

PS to the Courts: Have a nice weekend

We have filed a 1200 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.
In addition to the charges of fraud by false representation and non-disclosure, we are applying for autopsies to be carried out for all alleged COVID deaths, which will be held as evidence in the trial, as well as a moratorium of vaxxing for period of at least 90 days, to prove that it is is the vaxxes that are killing people at a minimum mortality rate of 377 per 100,000 healthy adults, not the non-existent government lurgy.
They wanted more prima facie evidence when we made the last application. Well, now they have a veritable boatload, so prepare yourselves for the inevitable shit storm, after the defendants' QC's tell them that their only defence is to plead gross negligence, but the evidence is so emphatic that they knew exactly what they were doing that the jury will almost certainly convict them as charged.

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 Part 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