As the long winter of COVID-1984 finally came to an official end in Britain yesterday, when all the restrictions imposed since the spring of 2020 expired, the wheels of the Private Criminal Prosecution [PCP] of the Midazolam Murderers continued to roll towards the decision of a district judge, as to whether the warrants we have applied for will be issued.
All being well, we should receive her assessment of the evidence adduced within the next 14 days.
Whilst there have been unforeseen delays in getting our barrister’s legal opinion signed off and delivered to the court, due to the sheer volume of evidence we have asked him to review, we now expect it will be completed and duly dispatched directly to the presiding judge within the next few days.
Furthermore, since the papers were initially laid at the Magistrates Court on 21/12/2021, four additional witness statements from the relatives of yet more Midazolam murder victims have been submitted to us.
This additional testimony is currently being incorporated into a revised Statement of Case, which will be delivered to the court with the written legal opinion of our barrister, who has practiced as a Senior Crown Prosecutor in three countries.
Those documents would also have been submitted to the London Met, for the purposes of their investigation into the criminal complaint made by Mark Sexton and his team on 20/12/2021, were it not for the announcement this week that it has been terminated before we had the chance to deliver our evidence bundle.
Nevertheless, when a team of CID detectives were assigned to investigate within days of the complaint being made, it initially appeared that the Met Police were committed to investigating the criminal allegations made in relation to the UK Government’s COVID-19 response.
Shortly after the complaint was filed, I emailed the senior detectives leading the case, explaining that, without prejudice to the PCP, we were going to present both our barrister’s legal opinion and the evidence he has assessed in reaching his conclusions, as soon as they were ready to review.
Within 12 hours, one of the detectives replied, asking me to clarify how the Midazolam Murders evidence is relevant to their investigation into the government’s response to COVID-19.
So I responded by explaining that we have official documents in evidence which prove beyond doubt that, before the restrictions expired, it was government policy to prescribe Midazolam to those diagnosed as having the ‘virus’, as well as those considered likely to contract it and die in the future.
However, as I alluded to above, the time it has taken our barrister to assess the ever-mounting evidence thoroughly has prevented us from being able to provide it and his written opinion to the Met investigation before it was terminated a few days ago, by suspected Common Purpose operative, acting as the lead Superintendent.
Given we were previously informed by Met insiders that the investigative team at Hammersmith have been so inundated with evidence from members of the public supporting the complaint that it will take years to conclude their investigations, this gives rise to reasonable suspicion that the course of justice has been deliberately obstructed.
We nevertheless remain committed to working with Mark and his hard-working team, who are all just as determined to make sure that justice is seen to be done.
BoJo Declares End of COVID-1984
Coincidentally, the news of the Met whitewash came in the same week that Boris Johnson declared the end of COVID-1984.
He did so almost two years after he achieved the ignominious accolade of becoming the first British Prime Minister to lead a government which unforgivably purported to suspend the unalienable birthrights of the People, which are guaranteed by Constitutional Law in all sets of circumstances.
This has been effected by the partial suspension of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which the bill’s sponsors, the now disgraced former health secretary, Matt Hancock, and Lord Bethell, insisted was absolutely necessary to deal with the government sponsored lurgy, on the alleged ground that the statutory basis for the emergency regulations did not exist.
Moreover, in Hancock’s own infamous words, the government needed the Coronavirus Act to protect the NHS, save lives and flatten the curve of the ‘virus’ [which is yet to be isolated or purified], on the spurious ground that the legislative basis for the regulations they planned to implement didn’t exist.
Somewhat paradoxically, one of the tiny minority of MP’s who raised any objection to the draconian regulations, Steve Baker, in a blog post on 23/02/2022, wrote that the 2020 Act was never used to introduce the regulations imposed:
“The Prime Minister has stated that he will allow all remaining temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act to expire on 25 March 2022 as is written into the Coronavirus Act. I welcome this announcement.
There has been a great deal of confusion about the Coronavirus Act and how the Government has used it. The Coronavirus Act did give the Government sweeping powers to introduce measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic such as closing businesses, schools, and restricting gatherings. However, these powers in the Coronavirus Act were not used by Government to implement lockdowns and restrictions. Furthermore, the powers to do these things under the Coronavirus Act were removed by Government last year.
Overwhelmingly, significant restrictions introduced in response to Covid-19, including lockdowns, restrictions on social gatherings, the closing of businesses and mandatory mask wearing, have been implemented under the Public Health Act 1984.“
However, if it really is true that the government introduced the regulations by way of the Public Health Act 1984, Lord Sumption would not have been so outspoken on that very subject in 2020 and 2021, when he eloquently argued in the mainstream media that there was nothing Johnson’s government could not have done under the 1984 Act.
Except, of course, extend the regulations for six months at a time because section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 requires a new Parliamentary vote on emergency regulations made under it every 28 days.
Therefore, if Baker is correct, the government stands in multiple breaches of the very Act upon which it purported to rely for the purposes of bringing in the CONVID restrictions.
Whereas, if he is mistaken and the government did bring in the restrictions via the 2020 Act, then the statute was used to avert having a new Parliamentary vote every 30 days on whether the restrictions should be retained.
A totalitarian power grab by another name, which has at least now been partially renounced.
Millions of Damages Claims Incoming
Nevertheless, Baker’s blog clearly marks a demonstrable shift in the UK Government’s legal position, which appears to be in preparation for the onslaught of damages claims relating to the huge number of adverse events suffered by the British People during the CONVID vaxxine roll-outs.
Now I know that the common perception is that the Coronavirus Act granted indemnity to the vaxxine manufacturers and distributors but in reality it only indemnified NHS staff from being sued by those who suffer adverse events within a reasonable time after being injected.
Big Pharma were, however, already theoretically indemnified by way of Article 5(3) of EU Directive 2001/83, which requires that Member States lay down provisions so that marketing authorisation holders, manufacturers and health professionals are not subject to civil or administrative liability for any consequences resulting from the use of an unauthorised medicinal product, or from the use of a product otherwise than in accordance with its authorisation, when such use is by the licensing authority in response to (among other things) the spread of pathogens.
This requirement was implemented into UK Law by EU Regulation 345 and Brexit did nothing to change that.
EU Regulation 345
What Regulation 345 very conveniently purported to do was to transpose into UK law that key actors in the medicines supply chain cannot generally be sued in the civil courts for the consequences resulting from the use of an unlicensed product, or a new use of a licensed product, that a national licensing authority is recommending in order to deal with certain specific health threats.
However, whilst the principle of providing immunity from civil liability derives from the directive, some of the critical detail is left to individual EU States and countries outside the EU that are implementing this provision.
Therefore, as per section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1997, such indemnification is forfeited in the event that anybody suffers an adverse event as a direct result of being jabbed with catastrophically defective and harmful unlicensed products:
2 Liability for defective products.
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this Part, where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product, every person to whom subsection (2) below applies shall be liable for the damage.
(2)This subsection applies to—
(a)the producer of the product;
(b)any person who, by putting his name on the product or using a trade mark or other distinguishing mark in relation to the product, has held himself out to be the producer of the product;
(c)any person who has imported the product into [F1 the United Kingdom] in order, in the course of any business of his, to supply it to another.
Drums For A War That Can’t Be Won
No wonder Big Pharma’s stakeholders are attempting to mitigate their potentially bankrupting losses in settling millions of COVID ‘vaccine’ adverse events damages claims, by ordering all their puppet governments to take the world to the brink of a war they have deliberately manufactured in Europe, which they know very well can’t be won.
It’s not just the demonstrable fact that the Ukraine Government is a proxy National Socialist regime of NATO, which Vladimir Putin has formally made allegations of genocide against, with considerable prima facie evidence in support.
Or the fact that NATO has been steadily deploying its forces in the Black Sea and on the Ukraine-Russia border since Obama was US President, in a series of deliberate acts of provocation, years before Putin deployed Russian forces and in breach of multiple well established and hard won international treaties.
Or the fact that, whilst NATO forces could potentially outnumber Russia’s, the Russian air force is second to none and is capable of obliterating all of her adversaries, as well as protecting Russian airspace from NATO attacks.
Putin Is No WEF Puppet
More than any other reason, such a war could not be won by NATO because Putin’s government is fully committed to protecting the nations borders from the real perpetrators of the Crimes Against Humanity he stands falsely accused of, by the same puppet governments and controlled mainstream media who brought us COVID-1984.
However, in reality, NATO has no intention of being obliterated by Russian air strikes and superior military tactics, as they were in Syria, when Putin stepped in to prevent them from doing to that country what they did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, without showing the slightest inclination towards imperialism.
Nonetheless, the rogue governments which make up NATO’s membership and the media whores who would sell their soul for a viral broadcast needed an enemy to replace CONVID because fear porn generates short term profits for those unscrupulous enough to seek material gain from it.
Putin knows this very well, so he took the opportunity to talk ‘live’ on RT for an hour without a script about the reasons why Russia is prepared for all eventualities and that the West’s allegations against him are nothing short of fallacious.
Watch the speech below and decide for yourself whether Putin is the aggressor in this totally avoidable conflict.