The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: Removed from YouTube..Untweetable on twitter..you need to hear this #Covid19 #PrivateProsecution Archived Message

    Posted by Gerard on March 26, 2021, 5:41 pm, in reply to "Re: Removed from YouTube..Untweetable on twitter..you need to hear this #Covid19 #PrivateProsecution "

    "Over the course of the past month, we have amassed a plethora of prima facie evidence, which proves that the defendants in the Private Criminal Prosecution are responsible for COVID-1984 and are guilty of multiple acts of pandemic fraud.

    Whilst we are more than confident that we now have enough evidence to justify the issue of either a warrant or a summons, we are still waiting for key FOI responses, which are due to be received no later than today.

    In the event we receive the responses due, we will be aiming to lay the new information before Christmas. If all the key the responses don’t come in, we will be forced to wait until the new year.

    However, in the meantime, here lies a summary of the allegations we can prove beyond reasonable doubt.
    False Representation

    The defendants knowingly relied upon the following dishonest statements for material gain, in breach of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006:

    a. 510,000 people would perish due to Sars-Cov2 in the UK alone, if the draconian measures imposed had not been introduced.

    b. Sars-Cov2 is an airborne High Consequence Infectious Disease [HCID], worthy of being declared a worldwide pandemic, as well as a Public Health Emergency.

    c. Sars-Cov2 has been isolated and purified, and therefore, proven to exist.

    d. Masks are a safe and effective method of preventing the spread of Sars-Cov2.

    e. The policies introduced were entirely founded on the latest scientific data available.

    f. PCR tests detect the presence of Sars-Cov2 in the human body.

    Non-Disclosure

    In breach of section 3 of the 2006 Act, we have prima facie evidence that shows the defendants have also knowingly failed to disclose that:

    a. Two days after the WHO declared a worldwide pandemic on 11/03/2020, which was also the day that the inflated Imperial College predictions were pre-published and disclosed to the WHO, Sars-Cov2 was reclassified as not being an HCID on 13/03/2020.

    The WHO’s declaration was founded upon Neil Ferguson’s computer-generated Imperial College Model released on 16/03/2020, which falsely predicted that there would be 510,000 Covid deaths in the UK, if the strict lockdown restrictions were not imposed. He did so on the same day of the 1st reading of the Coronavirus Bill 2020, sponsored by Matt Hancock.

    b. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, the Department of Health & Social care [DHSC] and Public Health England [PHE] unanimously agreed that Sars-Cov2 should no longer be classified as an airborne HCID, before the 1st reading of the 2020 Act on 16/03/2020. Three days later, on 19/03/2020, news of the reclassification was published by PHE, which was six days after the decision to reclassify the supposed pandemic.

    Yet, on the 23rd of March 2020, BoJo decreed the first lockdown, which was given the force and effect of the legislature on 26/03/2020, despite the fact that Neil Ferguson had reduced the Imperial Model predictions from 510,000 to 20,000 deaths by no later than 24/03/2020 – the day after the initial lockdown decree and two days before the 2020 Act was passed.

    Moreover, the so-called undisclosed ‘science’ relied upon by the defendants was and remains the Imperial College model, the credibility of which had been emphatically destroyed before the Coronavirus Bill was enacted, along with the purported legitimacy of the Public Health Emergency declared by the secretary of state, upon the advice of other defendants to this action.

    c. It is well established that Sars-Cov2 has never been isolated or purified and has therefore never been proven to exist. In fact, no supposed strain of Coronavirus ever has been.

    d. The defendants have all materially gained or stand to gain from long-standing commitments to maximise vaccination uptake in the UK, for the purposes of which they engaged in engineering an entirely fraudulent pandemic, in order to justify a mandatory or compulsory vaccination agenda.

    e. PCR tests have been scientifically proven to detect human RNA sequences, not viruses or disease, whilst a Portuguese court recently declared that the tests are useless in relation to detecting the presence of a virus or disease.

    f. It is also alleged that the WHO approved flu vaccines that have been administered from 2019-20 in the UK, which kill 377 of every 100,000 healthy people who take them and have never been tested on the sick and the vulnerable; and that these flu vaccines have been responsible for many of the deaths which have been dishonestly recorded as Covid deaths, in accordance with the 2020 Act, which provides for the falsification of death certificates.

    Since the new Covid vaccines have never been subjected to rigorous and empirically controlled safety tests and because they contain many, if not all, of the same ingredients, it can be reasonably presumed that all the deaths due to the administering of all of these vaccines have been falsely recorded as Covid deaths, on the basis that no vaccine mortalities have been recorded in the UK this year, as far as we are aware.

    Nevertheless, the only way to know for sure what caused those deaths would be to conduct autopsies, which have been prevented by the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. Thus we are seeking a declaration from the court that those autopsies are conducted, under independent supervision, to determine how many of those people died shortly after being injected with this year’s vaccines.

    g. A German court has recently ruled that unequivocal scientific evidence shows that wearing masks for long periods of time causes significant brain damage, via oxygen deprivation and carbon dioxide poisoning. Yet the UK government continues to mandate mask wearing in all public settings, including schools and universities, when there is no evidence of any benefit derived from mandating that they be worn.

    In summary, we’ve nailed the charges with such an abundance of prima facie evidence that only the suspension of the criminal justice system is capable of protecting the accused from the consequences of their heinous crimes." https://www.thebernician.net/covid-1984-pcp-update-prima-facie-evidence-of-pandemic-fraud/

    Message Thread: