Google+

P.U.B.
THE PEOPLE'S UNION OF BRITAIN

TAKING BACK SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH COMMON LAW

Feel like supporting our work? Click on the yellow button: Many Thanks! 

Update of Prosecution and Preventative Measures

The Timeline of the Prosecution and fight back starting from the latest update

Mark Devlin speaks with Michael O'Bernicia

Podcast GVP #201 - featuring UCT, PCP, Midazolam Murders, Treacherous harpies and much more 

Share This Page!

Treason most brazen

PUB Treachery & Murder Attempts
|04-10-21

Murderous Attempt By Three Duplicitous Traitors      
To Steal PCP Evidence

Can anybody remember the name of that Irish DJ posing as a serious journalist, who crawled up PPE importer Simon Dolan's arse, said I was full of shit and the PCP evidence we had amassed would go nowhere, shortly before disappearing into obscurity because his audience turned on him for being such a treacherous bastard?

No, me neither. The furthest I get is Bitchy Fallen.

Well, the same bullshit allegations are currently being bandied about by three duplicitous traitors who claimed to be working towards the same ends as UCT and the PCP team, one of whom recently survived an attempt to murder him with poison, shortly before an event in August, which they all attended.

Same Shit, Different Decade
However, whilst we don't have any hard and fast evidence of malice aforethought [yet], each one of the three women concerned is now deeply implicated in a criminal conspiracy to steal the evidence we have amassed in the case against the Midazolam murderers, to derail my three notice processes to stop mandatory vaxxes in care homes and vaxxing in schools and to murder at least one of the three core PCP team members.

It naturally follows that these people are either working for the secret services, Common Purpose or the Rothschild cartel, in which case they are unequivocally not to be trusted and should be immediately blocked, unfollowed and unsubscribed to with immediate effect, in the event you have been supporting their work.

According to an establishment renegade who has reached out to us, it is agents of the Rothschild cartel who are at work, as there are powerful people within MI5 who want to help us bring down the cartel because they've been shafted by Lloyds and other protected banks.

Devlin Podcast & Exposing Controlled Opposition
Whilst the updated PCP evidence substantiating allegations of mass murder by government policy is still being drafted - which proves that anybody saying we don't have a case is full of shit because it hasn't even been written yet - we are aiming to file the papers by the end of next week.

Given the events described in the foregoing, it's perfect timing that Mark Devlin and I will record another Good Vibrations Podcast later today, which will be published across all our channels soon afterwards.

Needless to say, Mark, as always, will ask all the right questions, in what promises to be another explosive interview about whatever feels most appropriate and prescient.

Nonetheless, in words nobody could fail to comprehend, from Save Our Rights to UK Freedom Project, Guardians 300, Stand In The Park and Lawyers of Light and Liberty, if it weren't for controlled opposition, they wouldn't exist, let alone dominate the newsfeeds and get on BBC television - the broadcasting arm of MI5.

Which is the reason why every one of the revolving procession of Common Purpose graduates and MI5 field agents in those groups either ignores my work or tries to subvert or discredit it.

Cause & Effect
So I'm putting every one of them on notice that the consequences of their duplicitous breaches of trust have placed their liberty and solvency in the utmost peril.

From henceforth, they can't say they haven't been warned that their arrogance, myopia and foolishness have led them into a corner from which they can only emerge in ignominious, infamous and shameful defeat.

However, if I were in the shoes of 'Sam', 'Michelle' and 'Clare', I would do what all the wisest people who've fucked with me have done - run for the hills and never come back, otherwise the full extent of the lies they have told to their followers will be permanently exposed.

Lest They Forget
For a breakdown of the potential price of failing to cease and desist in their treachery, just ask James Crosby, the former 'untouchable' CEO of Lloyds, who is still on the end of a stayed PCP alleging institutional mortgage fraud in the criminal court, eight years after the case was laid in North Shields Magistrates Court.

That case is due to proceed to trial by jury at the end of COVID-1984, following a successful Common Law damages claim for £207M from Crosby's legal estate in 2019.

Alternatively, you could just watch The Great British Mortgage Swindle, to see for yourself why every CEO of every UK bank soils their undercrackers at the mere mention of my name.

However, in the event the predictable and tedious spouting of gobshite on social media unfolds in the wake of this post, the traitors will only have themselves to blame when an army of my loyal friends and supporters descend upon them to vent their fire and brimstone, in defence of the only real opposition to the tyranny which still abounds on these shores.

Midazolam as Government murder weapon

PUB And The Case
Of Government Murder Policy
|27-09-21

Overwhelming Evidence of Midazolam Murders By Government Policy

When the British people know the truth about the Midazolam murders and that those crimes were the result of government policy that is tantamount to targeted euthanasia, which is still a crime in this country, there will be nowhere for the Four Horsemen of COVID-1984 and their army of accomplices in white coats to hide from justice.

In relation to which I will elaborate by way of this PCP update, in an attempt to convey in words the indescribable, gut-wrenching horrors of the prima facie evidence we have now assimilated into PUB’s Private Criminal Prosecution against everybody in the murderous Midazolam supply chain, which we will lay in a Magistrates Court at the earliest opportunity.

For the purposes of which, please watch the short video below, whether you’ve already seen it or not, so that you can fully appreciate the deservedly precarious positions which each of the defendants now finds themselves in.

Especially when we can now prove beyond reasonable doubt that, in the nefarious game of COVID-Cluedo, it was Hancock et al, in the cares homes, hospitals and the victims’ families’ properties, with syringes and syringe drivers full of Midazolam, the infamous benzodiazapine, which is used to varying degrees of success in lethal injections of Death Row prisoners in the US.

We also have an incendiary peer reviewed study which records that medical professionals within the NHS were reporting trends of fatal adverse events prior to the start of COVID-1984, after three patients died following overdoses of Midazolam between just 5 and 12mg.

Given that since then elderly and sick people have been injected with up to 60mg a day, only a fool could fail to see the plainly murderous intent of the defendants.

Anatomy of Genocide
During the second weeks of the scamdemic, Hull & East Riding Prescribing Committee distributed guidance on treating COVID symptoms, which stated that:

“For patients with distressing breathlessness at rest and unable to take oral medications, please consider starting continuous subcutaneous infusion via a syringe driver of:

Morphine sulphate 10mg + Midazolam 10mg subcut / 24hrs

OR if severe renal impairment (eGFR<30 mL/min): Oxycodone 5mg + Midazolam 10mg subcut / 24hrs (doses may need to be increased if severe symptoms; please ring palliative care team for advice).

NOTE: patients can still have additional PRN medications as required”

Fatal Symptom Management
In summary, they recommended giving subcutaneous 10mg doses of Morphine and Midazolam to patients suffering from severe breathlessness, using syringe drivers if they were not able to take the deadly drugs orally.

This is why so many of those who died as a result were first induced into comas, in order to prevent the administration of medicine by mouth; and almost always after they were forced to sign a Do Not Resuscitate notice, as their last conscious act and almost always without having any contact with their loved ones before their premature death.

Furthermore, the following passages are taken from the Hull & East Riding Prescribing Committee’s recommendations for assessing people with suspected COVID symptoms, which were in reality caused by the graphine oxide in the masks, the tests and the vaxxes imposed upon them prior to their diagnosis.

Symptom assessment and rationale for selected management should be clearly documented. For patients approaching end of life, non-pharmacological management and care for the person/their family along with clear and compassionate discussions are key. Remind carers of the non-drug measures that can help symptoms – some suggestions included below. Please refer to local guidance and documentation for care of the dying person.

Yorkshire and the Humber End of Life Care Group drew up the regional guidance for the NHS, which became the guidance for dealing with ANYBODY they said had COVID symptoms, complete with the following disclaimer for insurance purposes:

These guidelines are the property of the Yorkshire and Humber Palliative and End of Life Care Group. It is intended that they be used by qualified medical and other healthcare professionals as an information resource, within the clinical context of each individual patient’s needs. The group takes no responsibility for any consequences of any actions taken as a result of using these guidelines. Readers are strongly advised to ensure that they are acting in line with current accepted practice and legislation, as these may change. These include, but are not limited to, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the NICE guidance on the prescription of opioids, the British National Formulary (BNF) and the Palliative Care Formulary (PCF). No legal liability is accepted for any errors in these guidelines, or for the misuse or misapplication of the advice presented here. In difficult situations, please seek advice from your local specialist palliative care service.

The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have produced a central rapid guideline: Managing COVID‑19 for the management of individuals with COVID‑19 in all care settings (including end-of-life care).”


Midazolam Safety Warning
Neither Hull & East Riding Prescribing Committee nor NICE have any sustainable excuse for not knowing that Yorkshire and Humber HIEC and Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group published a report in January 2013, which drew urgent attention to the following Midazolam overdose warning, when it was being used as a component in anesthetic:

“In 2008 the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) issued a rapid response patient safety alert to reduce the risk of overdose with midazolam injection with adults (NPSA, 2008). This followed the receipt of 498 reported midazolam safety incidents between November 2004 and November 2008, whereby 3 patients died and a further 48 were moderately harmed.

Since the release of the alert, a further 417 incidents have been reported relating to wrong dose/strength errors, many (203) of which were related to administration of the medicine from a clinical area, and some (14) of which were related to monitoring/follow up (NPSA, 2012). The NPSA guidelines indicate that for adults, the intravenous injection of midazolam should be given slowly at a rate of approximately 1 mg in 30 seconds.

In adults below the age of 60 the initial dose is 2 to 2.5mg given five to 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. Further doses of 1mg may be given as necessary. In adults over 60 years of age, debilitated or chronically ill patients, the initial dose must be reduced to 0.5-1.0mg and given five to 10 minutes before the beginning of the procedure. Further doses of 0.5 to 1mg may be given as necessary (Roche Pharmaceuticals, 2008).”


Nevertheless, Hull & East Riding Prescribing Committee and its equivalent in every borough nationwide followed government approved NICE guidelines, which stipulated that the initial dose should be 2.5-30mg of Midazolam for symptoms of severe breathlessness, agitation or delusion, in any suspected COVID case, whether they be adult or child.

Moreover, those 3 deaths in 498 Midazolam safety incidents reported within the NHS extrapolates into a mortality rate of 0.6% [600 deaths for every 100,000 injections].

NICE Palliative & End-of-Life Care Guidelines
As alluded to above, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence dictated that these guidelines be adopted by every health authority nationwide, to treat what they very broadly term agitation, restlessness and insomnia, in people of any age suspected of having or being likely to catch the government lurgy, all of which were experienced by the majority of Britain during the lockdowns.

“Agitation/terminal restlessness: Consider reversible causes (for example hypercalcaemia, constipation, urinary retention) and non-drug management If panic, anxiety and restlessness predominate – use benzodiazepine [of which Midazolam is one].

For altered sensorium with delirium, hallucinations, disorientation and disturbed sleep/wake cycle – use antipsychotic..

Oral: Haloperidol 500microgram to 1.5mg 4 hourly PRN Lorazepam 500microgram sublingual PRN (maximum 2mg in 24 hours).

Buccal: Midazolam can be used under specialist advice.

Subcutaneous: Haloperidol 1.5mg stat or 1.5 to 5mg/24 hours in a driver.

Levomepromazine 12.5mg stat or 12.5-50mg/24 hours in syringe driver.

Midazolam 2.5-5mg stat or 10mg -30mg/24 hours in syringe driver.

Higher doses of both drugs can be used under specialist advice.

Benzodiazepines may cause a paradoxical increase in agitation.

Midazolam 2.5-5mg stat or 10mg -30mg/24 hours in syringe driver” for agitation, restlessness or insomnia. Higher doses under specialist advice.”


These UK Government approved guidelines were drawn up and issued by NICE in full knowledge of the National Patient Safety Agency warning about the lethal dangers of over prescribing Midazolam in amounts above 0.5 – 2.5mg across all cohorts.

Given Hancock’s sworn confession to the House of Commons COVID inquiry, in which he confirms that he had procured, ordered and engaged enough Midazolam, Morphine, syringe drivers and the NHS staff to administer the lethal doses, in order to give the murder victims what Dr Luke Evans MP called “a Good Death” – a term which is synonymous with euthanasia – it’s no wonder that he was thrown to the lions in the aftermath of these undeniable facts being publicly exposed, in addition to the high court judgments against him for handing lucrative PPE contracts to his friends and family.

However, I hereby preemptively prescribe that the lives of the former secretary of state, the other three of the Four Horsemen and their endless stream of conspiring accomplices are about to become a whole lot more agitated, restless and sleepless, on the basis that we now have prima facie evidence which proves every single element of the most serious crimes that have ever been perpetrated.

Preemptive Prescribing at the End of Life
Indubitably, NICE has emphatically shown that they are about as far from nice as one could possibly be [yet another Sabbatean inversion], by laying down what can only accurately be described an instruction manual for placing people of any age on the end-of-life pathway, before they are showing any signs of shuffling off this mortal coil.

Moreover, according to the Cygnus Report, this is the direct result a UK Government policy driven initiative to save as much money as possible on keeping people alive, when they are preemptively considered unworthy of that which they mistakenly believed they had a legal right to receive and arbitrarily placed on the end-of-life pathway to lethal injection.

“PRE-EMPTIVE PRESCRIBING AT THE END OF LIFE

These are a guide for prescribing for patients not currently requiring opioids or antiemetics. For other patients, please seek advice. More information can be found in guidance associated with My Care Plan.

Morphine sulfate 10mg/mL injection 2.5 to 5mg sc hourly PRN

For pain or dyspnoea Supply 10 (ten) x 1mL ampoules

Midazolam 10mg/2mL injection 2.5 to 5mg sc hourly PRN

For agitation, distress or dyspnoea Supply 10 (ten) x 2mL ampoules

Hyoscine butylbromide 20mg/mL injection 20mg sc hourly PRN

For respiratory secretions or colic Supply 10 x 1mL ampoules Seek advice over 120mg/24 hours

Haloperidol 5mg/mL injection 500microgram to1.5mg sc 2 to 4 hourly PRN max 5mg/24 hours For nausea or agitation/delirium

Supply 5 x 1mL vials Seek advice over 5mg/24 hours”


Pre-emptive prescribing of Midazolam and Morphine to people not currently requiring them means prescribing in advance of either empirical diagnosis or the onset of symptoms, using the same drugs Dr Luke Evans MP stated [before the House of Commons COVID-19 inquiry in April 2020] were required for ‘a good death’, thereby guaranteeing the premature exit of many thousands of people.

Since we can adduce similar policy documents for every borough nationwide, the evidence of a thirteen year conspiracy to create an efficient administrative infrastructure to euthanize targeted demographics is now simply overwhelming.

Harrying of The North II
By way of a shocking example of that documentary evidence, the extract below is taken from the 2016 Palliative and End of Life Care Guidelines for Northern England, where there has been prolific Midazolam prescribing during COVID-1984, following five years of quietly implementing this genocidal policy of anticipating the onset of illness to justify the prescription of lethal pharmaceuticals.

“ANTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT

• Massive haemorrhage is often preceded by smaller bleeds. Oral/topical treatment may help (see below). When planning ahead, agree an Emergency Health Care Plan.

• Review risk: benefit balance of anticoagulants. Correct any coagulation disorder if possible.

• Consider referral for radiotherapy or embolisation if patient has an erosive tumour.

• Review resuscitation status and treatment options with patient and family. Document carefully.

• Dark towels should be available nearby to reduce the visual impact of blood if haemorrhage occurs.

• Prescribe anticipatory midazolam (10mg IV/IM/SC/buccal/sublingual) as a crisis one-off dose.

If resuscitation is inappropriate

• Try to remain calm. This will help a dying patient to achieve a peaceful death.

• The priority is to stay with the patient, giving as much reassurance/explanation as possible to patient and family.

• Use dark towels to absorb blood loss.

• Consider the use of crisis midazolam (10mg by appropriate route) to relieve distress in a patient that may be imminently dying.

RESTLESSNESS, AGITATION AND/OR DELIRIUM AT THE END OF LIFE

Consider and treat common causes of restlessness: eg urinary retention, faecal impaction and pain.
Support a calm environment, familiar voices and faces, gentle and usual routine.

Patients on regular or long term benzodiazepines should continue to receive a benzodiazepine. Give midazolam by SC infusion to prevent rebound agitation/withdrawal.

The doses given here are a guide. In complex situations seek specialist advice.
If patient is distressed or agitated, use midazolam.

Where there is delirium or to avoid excess sedation, use haloperidol.

Levomepromazine is an alternative for delirium, though more sedating.

Renal failure: Midazolam is a good first choice, as toxin accumulation increases seizure risk.

Anticipatory (Just in case) prescribing

Planning ahead is important even if a patient is not currently symptomatic: it is a risk in the dying phase.

Prescribe either midazolam 2.5mg SC 1-hrly as required (up to QDS), or Haloperidol 1.5mg SC 1-hrly as required (up to BD).

Doses should be titrated or regular treatment prescribed as below if symptoms develop.”


COVID-1984 Minority Report
All of which proves that it was and remains government policy to prescribe Midazolam [and Morphine] to people, with or without any symptoms of COVID-19, on the anticipatory presumption of a man or women in a white coat that they will in future contract and die from a cause of death which doesn’t exist and might never arise.

In other words, this is akin to witnessing a real life version of Minority Report, only instead of predicting crime and locking people up before they commit it, they are predicting death and murdering people who would otherwise live for days, weeks, months and years.

“Review within 24 hrs

If breakthrough doses needed, increase midazolam syringe driver dose by the equivalent of the extra doses given.

If midazolam dose > 30mg/24hrs – consider adding haloperidol 1.5 – 5mg/24 hrs SC or levomepromazine 25mg/24 hrs SC.

Continue breakthrough doses of midazolam 5mg SC 1-hrly as required.

Common dose range midazolam 10-60mg/24hrs (above this dose, seek advice).

Unresolved or severe symptoms

A few patients become extremely agitated when they are dying. This can be a very difficult situation and may require very high doses of medicines. Specialist advice should be sought. It is vital that patients are not left in distress.”


From which we can reasonably conclude that, in the event a patient becomes extremely agitated when they are preemptively placed on the end-of-life pathway, after testing false positive [or negative] for COVID-19, they are silenced with enough Midazolam to kill them.

That’s straight out of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. However, rather than being the responsibility of a few errant health professionals, it is the direct result of a dictatorial government policy of eliminating the most resistant to their murderous ends, as well as the most vulnerable to such lethal preemptive prescriptions.

WHO Needs UK Needs Rounds
The WHO approved UK Needs Rounds policies were tested in Australia and when nobody realised in time to stop them proceeding unencumbered, its architects deemed it a success and it was imported here, as per the cartel’s plan.

Nevertheless,what the agenda amounts to is clearly mass murder by government policy, dressed up as a programme of social justice, care and compassion, so it’s about as heinous as one can get.

“Poor end of life care exposed by the pandemic

Covid-19 has had devastating effects on care homes across the UK. Disproportionate numbers of excess deaths have been recorded amongst care home residents and there are increasing reports of people dying alone. Discriminatory responses have included transferring older adults from hospitals to care homes, pressure to use do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) / CPR orders, rationing according to age, and a lack of testing and PPE. This has significant justice and human rights implications, including the right to life, to health, and to non-discrimination.

Whilst issues of death and dying have undoubtedly been amplified by Covid-19, the need to improve care for people in their final weeks and days has been a priority for some time. Prior to the pandemic, up to 56% of care home residents died within the first year of admission and it is estimated that by 2040, care homes will be the most common place of death in the UK.

Yet, care home residents often experience poor end of life care as a result of avoidable hospitalisations, unmanaged symptoms, and inadequate communication, interdisciplinary working and advance care planning (ACP). This can be extremely distressing for residents and their relatives and must be urgently addressed.”


Damning 2020 Midazolam Study
However, despite the government policy of treating “unmanaged symptoms”[in hospitals, care homes and residential properties] with overdoses of Midazolam since April 2020, this damning study, published three months earlier, warned that the drug takes much longer to be cleared from the bodies of the elderly and the seriously ill to whom it has been routinely prescribed.

“One report in adult palliative sedation found mean midazolam doses of 29 mg/day (median: 30 mg, range: 15–60 mg/day).81 A recent study in an Israeli hospice found average doses of midazolam up to 79 mg/day.82 Mercadante and coworkers found mean doses were 23–58 mg/day.83 Midazolam is useful for palliative sedation in the home setting for pediatric patients.84 Initial doses were in the range of 0.02–0.08 mg/kg/h.84 Mean dose was 0.02–1.0 mg/kg/h.84 In treating terminal restlessness and agitation, Bottomley and Hanks15 used continuous infusion of subcutaneous midazolam in 23 advanced cancer patients in hospice. The investigators achieved symptom control in 22 of 23 patients using initial doses of 0.4–0.8 mg/h. The mean maximum dose was 2.9 mg/h. Dosing varied between patients highlighting the need to individualize dosing. Midazolam along with droperidol or olanzapine remains a treatment option for agitated patients in the emergency room.85

Adverse effects

Besides somnolence, most adverse effects are of low frequency.68 Clinical trials show that midazolam is safe to give with opioids for the treatment of dyspnea in advanced illness.69,70 Hiccups occur with an incidence of approximately 3.6%.71 Benzodiazepines cause disinhibition reactions to occur in both adult and pediatric patients, and midazolam is no exception.72 However, benzodiazepines in combination with antipsychotics help control delirium.73 Vorsanger and Roberts reported two cases of athetoid movements after receiving midazolam as a premedication.74 Physostigmine reversed the movement. Midazolam can cause prolonged anterograde amnesia.75–77

Advanced illness

Terminally ill patients experience significant physiologic changes affecting drug disposition. Loss of body weight and cachexia can lead to a decrease in Vd (volume of distribution). Decreasing Vd leads to increases in drug concentration and effect for lipophilic drugs like midazolam.32 Low albumin levels, commonly seen in advanced illness, decrease the clearance of midazolam.33

Elderly

Midazolam clearance decreases in the elderly. Prolonged elimination of half-life occurs in the elderly.34 Liver blood flow decreases with age, and midazolam is a drug with a low hepatic extraction (0.3), so elimination prolongs in low hepatic blood flow states.32,35″


Those last two paragraphs are very important, as the study concludes that Midazolam remains in the bodies of the most vulnerable cohorts for much longer than the other cohorts, which means that it takes much less to kill them than it does a healthy adult or child.

Nevertheless, the overdoses prescribed are pretty much identical to those recommended by the UK Government as a matter of public health policy, despite Midazolam never having been licensed for manufacture and distribution by the MHRA. In fact, the drug remains a ‘controlled substance’ under UK law.

But all they had to do to achieve their genocidal targets was put the old and sick on the end of life pathway, get them to sign a DNR and give them the recommended doses on the hour, until they were dead.

Which amounts to joint enterprise conspiracy to commit criminal fraud and mass murder by government policy.

A Nefarious Alibi For Mass Murder
Having said that, in this case we don’t have to prove fraud to proceed before a jury in a Private Criminal Prosecution any more because we are laying murder charges.

Nonetheless, the evidence we are adducing amply demonstrates that the fraud of COVID-1984 was concocted to provide the perpetrators of these truly heinous crimes with a plausible deniability.

In other words, they needed to manufacture the fake public health emergency so they could falsely claim everybody murdered with doctor prescribed Midazolam in the hospitals, care homes and in their own beds died ‘from’ or ‘with’ COVID-19, rather than from the potentially fatal illnesses they already suffered from, or didn’t, as the case may be.

Which necessarily means they needed the Coronavirus Act 2020 to lock the condemned inside care homes and their own domiciles, as well as to suspend autopsies on all suspected COVID deaths, otherwise the resulting postmortems would have revealed the killer drug’s abundant presence in the blood of the murder victims.

A profoundly nefarious alibi for mass murder, if ever there was one.

Heartfelt Gratitude (A message from Michael O'Bernicia)
Despite the heavy subject matter of this post, I can’t put a full stop on it without paying tribute to everybody who has supported my work over the past eighteen months, in whichever ways you have been able to.

Not only have you assisted in dramatically expanding of the reach of my content, which is currently seen by millions of people every month across all platforms, you have also helped keep all my content ad and paywall free for everybody, with the generous tips you have thrown in the Tips Jar, for which you will all soon receive an invitation to claim an equally generous reward in a new credit-based cryptocurrency [which is on the brink of launch] to show my appreciation.

In addition to all of that, this blog now has more than 15,000 subscribers, with a collective average engagement rate of 82% and an average IQ of at least 125; whilst my various social media platforms currently have in excess of 100,000 followers between them and the continue to grow rapidly every month.

Considering that we are living in an real life Idiocracy, in which critical thinking is bordering on a criminal offence, I am both honoured and humbled by the fact that so many critical thinkers are engaging in the increasingly wide dissemination of the eclectic and heavily censored work of a notoriously blacklisted, subversive Geordie recalcitrant, such as myself.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you to each and every friend, follower and subscriber. Never underestimate how essential your support, in whatever form it comes, is integral to the success of our mutual struggle to end the tyrannies which continue to abound on these ancient shores.

In The Names of The Midazolammed
No matter how much effort it requires, one day, sooner than you might think, we will all wake up in a land where the unalienable rights of the individual are protected from the tyranny of collective government.

In such a land, governed under the Common Law of Do No Harm But Take No Shit, the administration of the COVID-1984 Genocide would be a lawful and practical impossibility, which is why the Trustees of Universal Community Trust and myself will do all within our capability to bring about that outcome peacefully.

Nevertheless, to do so we must first indict all the defendants we allege have committed joint enterprise mass murder by government policy of an estimated 136,000 people, from April 2020 to June 2021.

For the purposes of which, please share this post far and wide, telling everybody you know that justice must and will be done, in the names of the victims who were #Midazolammed by UK Government policy

Original article published on The Bernician here

Share This Page!

Vaxxing children

PUB AGAINST JABBING |19-09-21

PUB’s Three Notice Process To Stop Care Homes Mandating Vaxxes

By popular and urgent demand, here lies PUB’s three notice process to deal with the clear and present threat that UK care homes will be insisting that their employees take the experimental COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to continue working.

For a Word Document download click here

Notice of Conditional Acceptance
Once you have filled in the relevant information, the Notice of Conditional Acceptance should be sent to the directors of the care home which has indicated that you must be ‘vaccinated’ in order to continue working there, conditionally agreeing to grant your consent in the event they can provide you with the material evidence you ask for.

Moreover, you can engage in this process acting as a Trustee of the People’s Union of Britain [PUB], in order to establish their legal protection, under the provisions of the Treaty of Universal Community Trust.

Each missive must also be sent by recorded mail or special delivery and all mailing receipts must be retained, so that it can proven that every notice was duly served upon the intended recipients.

NAME OF EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE’S ADDRESS / EMAIL ADDRESS

FAO: NAME OF CARE HOME DIRECTORS
ADDRESS OF CARE HOME
28/08/2021

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: CARE HOME VACCINE POLICY.

In relation to UK Government COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’ Policy, under the protection of the People’s Union of Britain, you are hereby served notice that I conditionally accept that you have the right to mandate COVID-19 ‘vaccinations’ for all your staff, provided you deliver to me the following:

1) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ are incapable of harming me.
2) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ have undergone rigorous double-blind placebo safety studies.
3) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that I will not die, suffer or develop any adverse reactions including, but not limited to, neurological problems, blood clots, blindness, nerve damage, deafness, autoimmune disease, anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions, allergies, fertility complications, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, etc and/or suffer any other form of harm, complication, or die as a result of or because of being injected with any COVID-19 ‘vaccine’.
4) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ approved for emergency use by the MHRA provide immunity from either SARS-COV-2 or COVID-19.
5) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the care home has sought legal advice on whether it is lawful to mandate the ‘vaccination’ of your staff and that you have performed an appropriate risk assessment.
6) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that you have employed the Precautionary Principle when deciding whether or not to ‘vaccinate’ staff at the care home.
7) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that you have informed your public indemnity insurers if there is any possibility that serious or fatal ‘vaccine’ adverse events might ensue upon ‘vaccination’ of myself or any other staff, in which case you would be liable for gross negligence and perhaps even manslaughter.

Please deliver to me these reasonably requested items within seven days of your receipt of this notice, given the seriousness of the matters raised and the apparent imminence of the care home adhering to the UK Government policy of mandating the COVID ‘vaccines’ for all UK care home staff.

I look forward to hearing from you without delay in signed writing.

In sincerity and honour, without ill will, frivolity or vexation,

NAME OF EMPLOYEE
Trustee of People’s Union of Britain
All Rights Reserved under the Treaty of Universal Community Trust
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Notice of Opportunity To Cure
Given that the evidence you will be asking for does not exist, in the extremely likely event you don’t receive what you asked for within seven days, the Notice of Opportunity To Cure should be sent, reiterating the terms of the first notice, giving the care home directors another three days to respond appropriately.

However, the only acceptable responses would be either providing you with the material evidence requested, or an agreement to cease and desist in their ‘vaccination’ plans.

NAME OF EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE’S ADDRESS / EMAIL ADDRESS

FAO: NAME OF CARE HOME DIRECTORS
ADDRESS OF CARE HOME
04/09/2021

NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: CARE HOME VACCINE POLICY.

Following your failure to respond to my notice dated 28/05/2021, in relation to UK Government COVID-19 Vaccine Policy, under the protection of the People’s Union of Britain, you are hereby served notice that you have a further three days to deliver to me the following:

1) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ are incapable of harming me.
2) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ have undergone rigorous double-blind placebo safety studies.
3) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that I will not die, suffer or develop any adverse reactions including, but not limited to, neurological problems, blood clots, blindness, nerve damage, deafness, autoimmune disease, anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions, allergies, fertility complications, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, etc and/or suffer any other form of harm, complication, or die as a result of or because of being injected with any COVID-19 ‘vaccine’.
4) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ approved for emergency use by the MHRA provide immunity from either SARS-COV-2 or COVID-19.
5) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the care home has sought legal advice on whether it is lawful to mandate the ‘vaccination’ of your staff and that you have performed an appropriate risk assessment.
6) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that you have employed the Precautionary Principle when deciding whether or not to ‘vaccinate’ staff at the care home.
7) Material evidence, not hearsay or opinion, which proves beyond reasonable doubt that you have informed your public indemnity insurers if there is any possibility that serious or fatal ‘vaccine’ adverse events might ensue upon ‘vaccination’ of myself or any other staff, in which case you would be liable for gross negligence and perhaps even manslaughter.

Please deliver to me these reasonably requested items within three days of your receipt of this notice, otherwise I will hold you all personally liable for any adverse events which arise from the care home adhering to the UK Government policy of rolling out the COVID ‘vaccines’ for car home workers.

I look forward to hearing from you without delay in signed writing.

In sincerity and honour, without ill will, frivolity or vexation,

NAME OF EMPLOYEE
Trustee of People’s Union of Britain
All Rights Reserved under the Treaty of Universal Community Trust
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Notice of Default
If the directors propose that you should enter reasonable discussions before they take a position on the issues you have raised, this process should be suspended pending the outcome of further communications. The same would apply in the event this happens at an earlier stage.

However, if you don’t receive what you have reasonably requested and the care home directors refuse to cease and desist in their plans to mandate ‘vaccinattion’, the Notice of Default should be sent, notifying them of the potential civil and criminal liabilities they have incurred.

NAME OF EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE’S ADDRESS / EMAIL ADDRESS

FAO: NAME OF CARE HOME DIRECTORS
ADDRESS OF CARE HOME
07/09/2021

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: CARE HOME VACCINE POLICY.

Following your failure to respond to my notices dated 28/08/2021 and 04/09/2021, in relation to UK Government COVID-19 ‘Vaccine’ Policy; under the protection of the People’s Union of Britain, you are hereby served Notice of Default.

Please be advised that your silence on this very serious matter has given rise, by tacit procuration, to your agreement that:

1) There is no material evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ are incapable of harming me.
2) There is no material evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ have undergone rigorous double-blind placebo safety studies.
3) There is no independent material evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that I will not die, suffer or develop any adverse reactions including, but not limited to, neurological problems, blood clots, blindness, nerve damage, deafness, autoimmune disease, anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions, allergies, fertility complications, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, etc and/or suffer any other form of harm, complication, or die as a result of or because of being injected with any COVID-19 ‘vaccine’.
4) There is no material evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the COVID ‘vaccines’ approved for emergency use by the MHRA provide immunity from either SARS-COV-2 or COVID-19.
5) There is no material evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that that the care home has sought legal advice on whether it is lawful to mandate the ‘vaccination’ of your staff and that you have performed an appropriate risk assessment.
6) There is no material evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that you have employed the Precautionary Principle when deciding whether or not to ‘vaccinate’ children at the care home.
7) There is no material evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that you have informed your public indemnity insurers that there is any possibility that serious or fatal ‘vaccine’ adverse events might ensue upon ‘vaccination’ of my child, in which case you would be liable for gross negligence and perhaps even manslaughter.

Please be advised that the People’s Union of Britain will issue any and all necessary legal proceedings to hold you to account for your complicity in what would be a crime ancillary to genocide, in the event you do not immediately abandon the plan to mandate the emergency use COVID ‘vaccine’ for all staff at [add name of care home].

I will also be holding you jointly and severally liable for any and all civil damages claims, in the event I comply with such a mandate under protect and duress for the sole purpose of retaining my employment at the care home and I suffer any injury or harm as a result.

In sincerity and honour, without ill will, frivolity or vexation,

NAME OF EMPLOYEE
Trustee of People’s Union of Britain
All Rights Reserved under the Treaty of Universal Community Trust
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Next Steps
Unless the care home directors abandon their plans to mandate staff ‘vaccination’ with an experimental, DNA-altering toxic-soup, PUB will hold them criminally liable for acts ancillary to genocide against care workers, in multiple breaches of well-established international law and conventions.

Furthermore, using a Common Law Lien process developed over the course of the past thirteen years, the injured parties will be able to obtain damages secured against the personal legal estates of the care home directors, for the injuries caused by their gross civil wrongdoings.

Needless to say, the templates for that non-judicial process of obtaining damages payouts will be posted here in due course, along with a webinar which will cover any question and queries people are likely to have.

However, it is anticipated that many of the care home directors who are served the preceding three notice process will either suspend or terminate any and all plans to mandate staff ‘vaccination’, rather than risk both bankruptcy and prison by ignoring or dismissing the serious issues raised.

Furthermore, the process can also easily be adapted to meet the needs of anybody who is under threat of losing their job for refusing to be jib-jabbed.

Share This Page!

Vaxxing children

PUB AGAINST JABBING |09-09-21

PUB's Three Notice Process To Stop Schools Vaxxing Children

Here lies PUB’s three notice process to deal with the clear and present threat that UK schools will be offering the experimental COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to 12-17 year olds, despite the JCVI’s recent u-turn on its 15/07/2021 assessment that the risk outweighed the benefits of vaxxing anybody under 18.

Notice of Conditional Acceptance

The Notice of Conditional Acceptance should be sent to the governors of any school which has indicated that they have plans to facilitate the ‘vaccination’ of your child, conditionally agreeing to grant your consent in the event they can provide you with the material evidence you ask for.

Moreover, every parent should engage in this process acting as a Trustee of the People’s Union of Britain [PUB], in order to establish their legal protection, under the provisions of the Treaty of Universal Community Trust.

Each missive must also be sent by recorded mail or special delivery and all mailing receipts must be retained, so that it can proven that every notice was duly served upon the intended recipients.

Full article and templates here at The Bernician

A complete Word template is found here

Comorbidity with Covid

PUB v UK GOVERNMENT |25-08-21

Notice of Intended PCP For Mass Murder By Government Policy

The following Notice of Intended Private Criminal Prosecution for mass murder by UK Government policy is an amended version of the notice served upon the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care last week, which will also be served by email and registered post.

NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
MASS MURDER BY GOVERNMENT POLICY

1. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus”. However, the genome sequence for SARS-COV-2, released in January 2020, proved that the test to identify its presence was created in the absence of virus samples (1). We therefore contend that no virus isolate of SARS COV 2 exists, and that a disease called Covid 19 has not caused excess deaths in the UK.

2. Our assertion is supported by public documents confirming that no pure isolate of the virus exists (2). Furthermore, publicly available death data proves that the so called “first wave of COVID”, and excess deaths in England, only occurred ONCE the pandemic was announced and lockdowns commenced on 23/03/2020, and that a “virus” which was not a HCID, may have been in circulation as early as October 2019.(3

3. On 3rd March 2020, the UK Government scientific advisor echoed the Prime Minister, when he said: “Let me be absolutely clear that for the overwhelming majority of people who contract the “virus”, this will be a mild disease from which they will speedily and fully recover as we’ve already seen”. In line with this, on 13/03/2020, the threat from the virus was officially downgraded from a HCID to a NOID by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens [ACDP].(4).

4. However, this decision to downgrade from HCID to NOID was highly controversial because of the WHO’s declaration of a worldwide High Consequence Infectious Disease [HCID] two days previously on 11/03/2020, upon the advice of Neil Ferguson of Imperial College. In other words, the downgrading is an implicit contradiction of Ferguson’s triggering of a worldwide health emergency.

5. Remarkably, following the private announcement of the downgrading on 13th March 2020, and the subsequent public announcement of the downgrading on 19/03/2020, there appears to have been a premeditated decision to use this unproven ‘pandemic’ as justification to impose measures and medication which went on to kill people. This was in turn used to justify the lockdown measures, which themselves were one of the driving forces of the deaths they claimed to be trying to avoid. This premeditation to cause deaths of course amounts to mass murder by government policy.

There is support for this argument when we look at government policy decisions, which simply put, make no sense. On 17/03/2020, 4 days after the private downgrading mentioned above, the NHS wrote to all hospitals asking them to free-up the maximum possible number of beds by urgently discharging any patients they could.1
Many of these patients were discharged to care homes, some of which were given ultimatums forcing them to take more patients than they were equipped to provide care for. In addition, the NHS cancelled all ‘non-urgent’ treatments.
Why was this policy invented at all given scientific advice on 03/03/2020, and why was it not reversed, given the downgrading on 13/03/2020 by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens?
It is our contention that the excess deaths in the first wave occurred AS A RESULT of the relentless implementation of this policy, which was coupled with the inappropriate use of respiratory depressing medications such as Midazolam during the same period. This is how the excess deaths occurred. They were NOT because of a novel virus, isolation of which, according to long held standards, has never occurred.
Our extrapolated data on community Midazolam prescribing supports the above allegation, along with the data on how and where deaths during this time period occurred.
Following the letter of 17/03/2020 from the NHS, bed occupancy in England reduced from the usual 90% to an average of 63% in the spring quarter of 2020. In addition, there was no influx of ‘large numbers of inpatients requiring respiratory support’. Accident and emergency (A&E) departments saw a huge decrease in attendances and overall admitted patient care decreased significantly during the same period.
Of those patients who were admitted to hospital and residents who were discharged to care homes, the outcomes can only be described as devastating. We assert that those outcomes were engineered. When we look at mortality, figures show that hospital and care home death ratios increased during the “first wave” lockdown period2.
Shockingly, 91% of “with COVID” deaths during the first lockdown were of people with any sort of disability3. It is impossible for a ‘virus’ to discriminate in such a manner, and therefore we contend these deaths must have been as a result of very nefarious policies. These policies were blanket DNRs and mandatory prescribed medications, two factors which have contributed to most other “non disability” deaths during the first lockdown period.
Data proves that up to 13/05/2020, deaths in care homes from all causes were 159% higher than at the start of “the COVID-19 outbreak”4. In April 2020, the ratio of excess deaths in English care homes was almost three times that of the prior five years’ average. It is not a mere coincidence that during the same month, prescribing of Midazolam increased by more than 100%5. There is a clear correlation between policy, prescribing of Midazolam and deaths, which simply cannot be overlooked.
Further,more during the period 2 March to 12 June 2020, 18,562 residents of care homes in England died, supposedly “with COVID-19”, including 18,168 people aged 65 and over. This represented almost 40% of all deaths involving “COVID-19” in England during this period 6
In addition to the above, during the first lockdown there was an unbelievable policy change in care homes7. The change restricted access for residents’ families. This removed crucial oversight of treatment along with safeguards. Also, support services such as SALT, chiropody, physiotherapy and in house GP visits, were removed.
Simply put, care homes were turned into death camps and their inmates were targeted for elimination. Staffing levels dropped due to a policy of self-isolation for anything akin to a sniffle, and this further pressured care homes who then had a ratio of staff to patients that was unworkable.
We contend this was not an accident, and instead was done by design. Only a fool, or perhaps a madman, would implement such policies and not realise the inevitable consequences. Only a fool or a madman would say they were necessary after the down grading of Covid 19 from an HCID to a NOID on 13/03/2020.
As we have already stated, we assert that the above were premeditated policies, to cause excess deaths in care homes (as well as in the community generally). It is without doubt that family surveillance in care homes, at a time when staff limits were stretched, could have stopped avoidable deaths. Furthermore, had support services been available, we very much doubt that the over prescribing of respiratory depressing medication would have been either necessary, or allowed to transpire.
Bizarrely, in addition to the above, all official inspections were suspended during the first lockdown, leading to less and less oversight. Very worryingly, the use of blanket DNRs,8 (now acknowledged as a fact by Matt Hancock), as well as do not admit to hospital orders, were imposed, and undoubtedly led to countless avoidable deaths.
Lockdown restrictions eased at the start of June 2020 and up to the start of the second national lockdown, there was NEGATIVE excess deaths in care homes (a ratio of 0.96 versus expected levels). This fall in deaths occurred in the absence of any ‘vaccines’ or alternative treatment for so called Covid 19.
We therefore contend that the initial wave of deaths during the first lockdown were driven by policy decisions by this government and Midazolam prescribing. These deaths were in fact accelerated deaths, rather than excess deaths, and these accelerated deaths were created for political and policy gain, to feed a narrative of a deadly pandemic which simply did not, and still does not, exist.
Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor, has labelled lockdowns “the single biggest public health mistake in history”9. 95% of hospital COVID-labelled deaths occurred DURING lockdown. How is this possible if lockdowns save lives?  

CV Deaths in NHS

We contend that lockdowns kill, but moreover that they are designed to do so. However, lockdowns alone do not provide the significant number of deaths needed to create the illusion of a pandemic. This is the primary reason we have looked at Midazolam prescribing during this period.

It is a well-known fact that Midazolam is a respiratory depressing drug1. It creates the very respiratory symptoms of so called “COVID-19”. Used in copious amounts in conjunction with lockdowns, Midazolam led to premature deaths. The data we have extrapolated on community Midazolam prescribing supports this, along with the pertinent observations above, about where and how accelerated deaths occurred.

Given our assertions that government policy and Midazolam prescribing have caused accelerated deaths, and our assertion that this was designed and premeditated by certain individuals within and advising this government, we have some questions that we wish to put to you.

Our allegations described above are of the most serious kind. In the absence of satisfactory answers from you to our questions and given the supporting evidence we are presenting with this notice, we wish to make clear that we will assume you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, that what we have asserted about a government premeditated policy of mass murder is false.

Let us be clear, this is your chance to answer the questions posed and give proof that our allegations and assertions are wrong. If you can do that by bringing evidence to the contrary of ours, we will accept that we have perhaps misinterpreted our evidence, albeit in good faith.
However, you will need to produce sufficient material evidence to rebut our allegations, and in the absence of the same, we will pursue a Private Criminal Prosecution based on the statements made herein.
Of the 50,335 deaths which occurred in March to June 2020 involving COVID-19 in England and Wales, 45,859 (91.1%) had at least one pre-existing condition, while 4,476 (8.9%) had none. It is for those people and their families that we so urgently seek a just outcome in this the most serious type of criminal proceedings imaginable.

Questions About Allegedly Murderous UK Government Policy
How much 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were used in England between March and May 2020?

Of 1mg in 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules used between March and May 2020, where were they prescribed, and in what proportion, i.e. what went into the community, and what went into hospitals?

What was the UK stock of 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules held for the months October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020?

How much 1mg 5ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were left in the UK in October 2020?

What was the UK stock of 10mg 2ml Midazolam in the months October 2019, November 2019, December 2019, January 2020 and February 2020?

How much 10mg 2ml Midazolam Hydrochloride ampules were left in the UK in October 2020?

Who ordered the 22,000 extra packs in May 2020? Was it the DHSC, and if so, which minister signed off the order? If it was not the DHSC please specify who it was?

What was the cost of the order of the 22,000 packs?

Moving on to the Health and Social Care Committee. Oral evidence: Preparations for Coronavirus, HC 36, Friday 17/04/2020, ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 17/04/2020, what does Dr Luke Evans mean when he says, “a good death”?

Does he mean euthanasia, which this term commonly refers to?
Assuming he does mean this, why did Dr Luke Evans openly discuss government policy of causing “a good death” by administering fatal dose of drugs like Midazolam and Morphine, via hypodermic syringes, when to do so is tantamount to an implicit confession of mass murder by policy?

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are both illegal under English Law. Assisted suicide is illegal under the terms of the Suicide Act (1961) and punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances, euthanasia is regarded as either manslaughter or murder.

Are Dr Luke Evans’ remarks a result of the Confidential Pandemic Influenza (CPI) briefing paper dated 08/09/2017, which states, and we quote: “There is significant discussion in the paper about ceasing or changing care to patients in the HRG categories; however a decision may more appropriately be taken to treat patients in the listed HRG groups rather than influenza patients, dependent upon likelihood of survival……… Total excess death rate would be in excess of 7,806 per week of the peak of the pandemic if all these services were stopped. So, in the peak six weeks of a pandemic (recognising the typical profile of increasing and decreasing case numbers either side of the peak weeks), 46,836 excess deaths could be expected. On the one hand, this is likely to be an underestimate as it only considers the top 14 HRG codes and it does not consider additional deaths occurring particularly in the elderly and frail across primary care where HRGs are not coded.”

Give the CPI and Dr Luke Evans’ remarks, is there a culture within government, Public Health England and indeed the NHS to enact the supposedly defunct Liverpool Care Pathway, to end lives at the behest of the treating doctor, which of course is illegal as described above?

If the answer is “no”, can you please explain why the NHS drew up the CPI and included within it plans to withdraw hospital care from people in nursing homes in the event of a pandemic, which also included refusal to treat those in their 70s and instead offer “support” to use so-called “end of life pathways”.

The CPI states that the Health Secretary (at the time) could authorize medics to prioritize some patients over others and even stop providing critical care altogether. Was such a decision taken by the Health Secretary at the time, (Matt Hancock), in relation to care home, hospital and community residents over a certain age?

Government ministers have repeatedly insisted that care homes were not abandoned by the NHS during the coronavirus crisis, despite more than 42,000 residents in England and Wales dying during the “pandemic”. Given this, what is your proof that this was not because of decisions made by the DHSC, and/or PHE and NHS chiefs, which then resulted in thousands of needless deaths?

Care homes were asked by NHS managers and GPs to place DNR’s on all residents at the height of the “pandemic” to keep hospital beds free – in breach of guideline 3. Blanket DNR’s were also imposed on people with learning disabilities “who were not near the end of their lives”, showing a concerning disregard for disabled people. Who made the decision to ask care homes to do this, and were these decisions taken because of the CPI?

In making his remarks at the Health and Social Care Committee, Oral evidence: Preparations for Coronavirus, HC 36, Friday 17 April 2020, why did Dr Evans and indeed all those present, completely ignore the declassification of COVID-19 from an HCID to a NOID on 13/03/2020, meaning that such nefarious measures as those mentioned in the CPI were never necessary?

Moving on, we attach a selection of graphs regarding the prescribing of 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules for various years and months. Can you please explain why the enormous increase in Midazolam prescriptions for 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules coincide with implementation of the UK Government’s COVID-19 Battle-plan in March 2020?

How much 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules, were held in the UK in January 2020, and what wholesalers held them? How does the DHSC, PHE and the NHS keep track of what stock it has of 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules, and indeed all other Midazolam products?              

Midazolam Prescriptions
Total Midazolam Prescriptions

52. We attach a final graph comparing all-cause mortality but distinguishing between NON “COVID-19” deaths and deaths “with COVID-19” for the period March 2020 to April 2021, compared to Midazolam prescribing for the same period. Can you please explain why there is such a tight correlation between the “COVID-19” deaths in April 2020, and the prescribing of Midazolam 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules?       

Covid -19 and non Covid deaths stacked

53. As Midazolam is not a treatment for “COVID-19”, and the prescribing in April is, in the main, into the community, and NOT hospitals, can you please answer if it is in fact the case that 10mg 2ml Midazolam hydrochloride ampules were prescribed and used to end the lives of people in care that had a chance of surviving, and those deaths were then labelled as “COVID-19”?

54. For the avoidance of doubt, the appropriate answers to the above questions must be delivered without prevarication, obstruction, or unnecessary delays, whilst we reserve the right to lay this information in a criminal court without further notice, for the purposes of preventing any more harm being done to the People by UK Government policy.

References
1 Eurosurveillance | Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR

2 FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever – Fluoride Free Peel

3 ‘Plausible’ evidence that Covid may have been circulating in Italy in October 2019 (telegraph.co.uk)

4 High consequence infectious diseases (HCID) – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

5 20200317-NHS-COVID-letter-FINAL.pdf (england.nhs.uk)

6 Excess mortality in England, week ending 03 July 2020 (phe.org.uk)

6 out of 10 people who have died from COVID-19 are disabled | The Health Foundation

7 Care homes have seen the biggest increase in deaths since the start of the outbreak | The Health Foundation

8 Number of prescriptions for the drug midazolam doubled during height of the pandemic | Daily Mail Online

9 Number of prescriptions for the drug midazolam doubled during height of the pandemic | Daily Mail Online

10www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorenglandandwales/deathsoccurringupto12june2020andregisteredupto20june2020provisional/relateddata

11 Care homes: Visiting restrictions during the covid-19 pandemic (parliament.uk)

12 Third of UK hospital Covid patients had ‘do not resuscitate’ order in first wave | Coronavirus | The Guardian

13 Lockdowns are ‘the single biggest public health mistake in history’, says top scientist (telegraph.co.uk)

14 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7457966/

15 Unrevised (parliament.uk)

16 Pandemic-Influenza-Briefing-Paper-NHS-Surge-and-Triage.pdf(Shared)- Adobe Document Cloud

17 Care home residents put on ‘do not resuscitate’ orders without consent (telegraph.co.uk)

Midazolam Correlation

PUB v Hancock & Others |01-08-21

UK Government Policy Turned Care Homes Into Death Camps

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.

PUB To Lay Charges of Mass Murder 
By Government Policy

Midazolam Correlation

PUB v Hancock & Others |16-07-21

PUB To Lay Charges of Mass Murder By Government Policy

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.

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”.

Midazolam, Morphine & Mass Murder By UK Government Policy

PUB v Hancock & Others |22-6-21

PUB To Appeal After PCP Judge Dismisses Expert Testimony As 'Hearsay'

We have finally received an order from the Deputy Chief Magistrate in PUB’s Private Criminal Prosecution against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson for pandemic fraud, dismissing the case without a hearing, on the ludicrous ground that there is no evidence the defendants have acted dishonestly, whether for material gains or with prior knowledge that their actions would cause catastrophic loss. In doing so, the judge also set aside comprehensive expert witness testimony as mere “hearsay”, which is the exact opposite of the truth.

However, according to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [infinitely more reliable than Black’s], hearsay evidence is exactly what the UK Government’s COVID-19 policies [and therefore the decision of the judge] are founded upon:

HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 1. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.

2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.

In substantiation of this critical point, Chris Whitty admitted to the House of Lords inquiry into the nature of COVID-19 by the Science and Technology Committee on 24/04/2020 that:

“…the very first point at which anybody outside China knew about this was on 31 December last year, when they notified the WHO. I had my first discussion about it with my deputy, Jonathan Van-Tam, on 2 January. We both agreed that it was something to watch. […]

My view was basically dichotomous: either this was something containable, in which case the UK would contain it, or it was uncontainable, in which case no country could contain it, including the UK. […] Once it became clearly a global pandemic, recognised formally by the WHO, but clearly heading that way a bit before that, it was going to come in from multiple sources. A lot of it came into the UK from Italy, but it could have come from elsewhere; it was just the sequence of events.”

In other words, Whitty unwittingly confessed that China [Chinese Community Party] told the WHO [World Health Organisation] on 31/12/2019 about the purported pandemic, before persons unnamed at the WHO told Whitty, who first discussed the matter with Van Tam on 02/01/2020 – the dictionary definition of hearsay evidence.

Furthermore, the Bouvier’s definition also reveals that the sworn expert witness testimony we adduced in the PCP is incapable of being considered hearsay, on the basis that none of it contains anything other than that which relates to things they know themselves, rather than what they have heard from others.

Were it not for conflicting signs which preceded his decision, when it appeared the Deputy Chief Magistrate was acting like he possessed enough integrity to allow the case to proceed, this would just be more of what we have already learned to expect from the rigged just-us system, whilst fighting mortgage fraud in the courts over more than a decade.

Nonetheless, whether he was nobbled, lost his bottle or he is just another criminal in ermine, these points of law and fact will form the basis of our imminent appeal to the High Court, in an application to have the judgment overturned.

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.

Share This Page!

PCP Update- It's Game On, Not Game Off

Brilliant Dissection of  Attempted Sabotage of Case

PUB Airwaves Podcast

Catch a regular podcast, hosted by Jonathan Trapman on all things around the case, the way forward, the Sovereign Era and everything you need to know about  taking our lives forward

Pub to Victory

Share This Page!

PUB v Hancock & Others |09-6-21
An Integrous Judge & Vallance’s Prior Knowledge of Adverse Events

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 PUB, so stay tuned for all future updates.

PUB v Hancock & Others |Failed Attempt To Sabotage PCP By Persons Unknown
15 May 2021

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.

PUB v Hancock & Others | PCP Set To Be Listed For Hearing At Bromley Magistrates Court!

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.

PUB v Hancock & Others | The Breaking News of ALL Breaking News!

PUB v Hancock & Others | Service & Receipt of Evidence Bundle

We just received confirmation that the case files are with the court's listing department, who expect a hearing will soon be listed, after final checks by their legal team.

It has also been moved to the court which deals with all PCPs, so we are anticipating the fireworks will start going off very soon.

https://highlylikelynews.com/2021/04/12/noose-tightens-smell-the-victory/

Spread the Word - Share the Biggest News Story

PUB v Hancock & Others | Service & Receipt of Evidence Bundle

PUB v Hancock & Others | Service & Receipt of Evidence Bundle
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.... Read here is the full update

PCP Papers Laid Alleging Pandemic Fraud Against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance & Ferguson

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

Papers laid at 16:23 on 19/03/2021

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 [PUB] v Hancock & Others [2021] | Public Notice of Intended Prosecution

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

Taking Down the Old   Establishing The New

01

Taking the Government, one MP at a Time

The prosecution of the criminally fraudulent actions enacted by both members of the British Parliament and their aiders and abetters. An action led by The Peoples Union of Britain aims to expose the fraud, treason, genocide and mass murder perpetrated in this country, for agendas deeply nefarious, reflecting a global agenda of depopulation and a Global Reset of tyrannical proportions that ought to shock every human being

02

Building towards The Sovereign Era

Taking down always needs rebuilding, otherwise the void created allows chaos to ensue. Building towards a world where equity, peace and justice is at its heart, is such a build. Using the ever existing Common Law,  itself the expression of Natural Law has always overridden any lesser law structure. Now it takes its rightful place as the single just and rightful law for and of humanity. With the structure and globally acknowledged Universal Community Trust Treaty to shelter under, we enter the Sovereign Era

Major Update News

I

Papers laid in Court  19-03-21

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) full report here

II

JOIN THE PUB


The Peoples Union of Britain PUB - join the PUB and rally to the developments for the New Era

Full historical timeline of prosecution case  here

Heart of the PUB

Heart of The P.U.B

The Common Law has always been the bedrock of our land. A law that is bonded to Natural Law. No higher law can there be for humanity, yet for over 1000 yrs it has been ignored, usurped, covered and paid mere lip service, in the pursuit of one tyranny or another. The People's Union of Britain has one aim, and one aim only - to return these Isles to the protection and lawful covenant afforded by Common Law. Under the global protection of the Universal Community Trust Treaty we shall see the roll out and implementation of justice, peace, equity and unalienable rights of a sovereign People, across these isles.

PUB's Single Issue Is The Return of Common Law

The Power of the People is rising
In the North, South, East and West of these ancient isles
There is nothing criminal government can do to stop it
When the rallying cry comes 
We are ready as the People's Union of Britain.
#TotalitarianNonCompliance with tyranny
Nationwide #NonViolentDirectAction 
Under the protection of #MagnaCarta2020

!!!! IMPORTANT INFO !!!!

EMAIL ACTION

Whitelist us so you receive your emails
We are being attacked so you do not
Easy workaround HERE

DAILY UPDATES/NEWS

Taking the illegal government down is not a straight line but we will always feed you latest here so go check, even if there is no update!

Taking Appropriate Lawful Non Compliance Action

Your Right to Be Non Compliant
under the Common Law

------------------------
Solid Actions to Take
The Prosecution of Criminal Tyranny
What the Welsh are up to
How one German bus driver sorted it!
------------------------
Protest achieves nothing except to identify the most vocal opposition to government oppression.

A merry-go-round of the same speakers, saying the same things, without any realistic strategy being laid out is a recipe of disaster.

To make matters worse, the leaders of the fake resistance have almost all been hand picked by MI5, for the purposes of leading everybody into Common Purpose controlled 'real democracy', committed to achieving UN sustainable development goals, including dramatic population reduction.

So what strategies would have force and effect?

A whole nation refusing to pay taxes to the government that has betrayed them?
That's a different matter.
Every man, woman and child refusing to go to work, school and university, in a series of national strikes?
Now that would bring the wheels of tyranny to a halt.

Every government collaborator being held liable for crimes ancillary to fraud, treason and genocide?
That would give every unlawful oath keepers something to think about.

All government mail, bills and bank letters being returned to sender unopened?
That would create a big problem enforcing COVID fines, as well as fraudulent mortgage possession claims.

All violent Serco mercenaries, employed as fake riot police, tasting the Common Law right to self-defence?
That would make them hesitate before taking the next treacherous job they are offered.

Restoring the Common Law to this currently lawless land, using Magna Carta 2020 to remove criminal government from office and hold those responsible accountable?
That is the only realistic peaceful resolution to the tyranny of COVID-1984.

Do you have any really creative, all encompassing ideas as to how mass action along these lines could look like?
Let us know NOW! We are instigating the PUB



Are You Getting the Picture?

We follow the master disruptors!
Why recreate the wheel - just the target will keep everyone laughing till we free ourselves

The PUB is for the People Community at its best The PUB

TOGETHER WE WIN - JOIN US AT THE PUB

THE PUB IS MILLIONS STRONG

WHEN WE CO-ORDINATE MASS NON-COMPLIANCE, NON VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION WE RENDER THE DARK SIDE POWERLESS. ALL THEY HAVE ARE THEIR DIKTATS WE HOLD THE POWER TO SAY
NO! NOT IN OUR NAME!
JOIN US NOW 

Totalitarian Non Compliance in Action

What they can do in Germany we MUST do here in every sphere. You need no knowledge of German to understand the whole thing.

Glorious and we must all do it fearlessly, as only then do we show who has the power and pack all this idiocy into the toilet!
What do you suggest we do as a non compliant gesture of middle finger to all this? LET US KNOW here

Share This Page!

Share This Page!

Non Violent
Direct Action
Welsh Style

How the Welsh are treating this whole lunatic circus and showing what crazy stuff people get sucked into

Glorious and we must all do it fearlessly, as only then do we show who has the power and pack all this idiocy into the toilet!
What do you suggest we do as a non compliant gesture of middle finger to all this? LET US KNOW here

Share This Page!

Share This Page!

Private Criminal Prosecution of MPs | Mark Devlin Talks To MOB On The Good Vibrations Podcast

Here's a conversation I had with Mark Devlin this week on that very subject and much more. Please listen and share far and wide.

Share This Page!

The Antidote To COVID-1984 is Magna Carta 2020, a new Declaration of Rights. Please watch, like and share this video far and wide.

The Declaration of Rights
Magna Carta 2020

Come on Down the PUB
That is where the real action is

The Pub is a British institution, yet thisPUB (People's Union of Britain) will see us all free and released from lockdowns tyranny, institutions taking all rights and the bloody ridiculous - Join now and we'll give them Non Compliance like they never knew all perfectly peaceful and lawful but with the best British take on a middle finger.Got suggestions we can incorporate? Add them in the Message box!
IMPORTANT: Saves it ending up in Spam Bucket
Whitelist our email address for this form:
[email protected]

Share This Page!

Dreams and Realities A book for our time

01

Jonathan Trapman

Jonathan L Trapman is an author, creative writer and photojournalist who has spent the better part of his 45 odd years in public life, learning from his personal experiences, sharing them, listening to others, whose lives have allowed him to open his own mind to a beauty, even within horror, that is transforming and empowering. His written work endeavors to convey, through true tales and fiction, impressions thus garnered. Dreams and Realities can be purchased (signed by the author if wanted) here.

The Freedom Cycle

© 2020 The Freedom Cycle

Contact

Address: Glastonbury, Somerset UK
Phone: (UK)
+44 (0)1225 29 2333
Phone: (US)
+1 864-372-4820
[email protected]

Social