MPs Abuse of Power Case

Re: the Legality of Representatives of the People to represent Private Interests against the interest of the People they are sworn to protect & represent that has led to the forced medical experimentation of the people against their will, along with other removal of inalienable Liberties


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: January 17, 2022
  • Location: Paris, France
  • Court: Judicial Tribunal of Paris
  • Case #: (in process of obtaining)
  • Plaintiff: Association, the International Association for Independent & Benevolent Scientific Medicine (AIMSIB), the Collective of Resistant Mayors (CDMR), Collective of European Trade Unions and Professional Associations (CSAPE), Mr. Antoine MARTINEZ, General (2s) Air Force & the Freedom Health Union (SLS)
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Me de Araujo-Recchia
  • Defendant: Senators, Deputies, Members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (CMP)
  • Trial Type: Criminal Complaint
  • Judge: Senior Investigating Judge of the Judicial Tribunal of Paris
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD



Complaint before the Senior Investigating Judge of the Judicial Tribunal of Paris on behalf of the Association, the International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine (AIMSIB), the Collective of Resistant Mayors (CDMR), Collective of European Trade Unions and Professional Associations (CSAPE), Mr. Antoine MARTINEZ, General (2s) Air Force and the Freedom Health Union (SLS), against the parliamentarians who validated the law of 5 August relating to the management of health crises. [1]

This law aimed to force millions of professionals to undergo experimental gene therapy or risk losing their jobs. The plaintiff associations were informed that the parliamentarians of the Joint Committee (CMP) reached an agreement outside the framework of the CMP for the benefit of private interests in return for their vote for a bill that violates the French Constitution, international law and the rules of both Chambers that parliamentarians are bound to respect. [1]

the Complaint explains: and AIMSIB have written numerous articles in order to alert the public authorities to the dangers linked to experimental genetically modified substances marketed by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. The association has warned by all means (i.e. articles, open letters, registered letters) the members of parliament, and therefore in particular the members of parliament who are the main defendants, of the erroneous information they had concerning these pharmaceutical products.

The association and the AIMSIB have repeatedly warned that these products endangered the lives of others, involved serious risks of physical and psychological harm, and that these products were likely to lead to the death of thousands of citizens in the short and medium term. The letters were accompanied by factual evidence and international studies with a high level of scientific evidence.

In an interview the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Me de Araujo-Recchia elaborates:

It was a question of renewing the health pass (disguised vaccination obligation) and deciding on the vaccination obligation of many professionals (health professionals, firemen, soldiers among others).

In this way, the parliamentarians in question have condemned millions of French people to choose between their job/social life and their health. Indeed, it is not a question of submitting to a compulsory vaccination with a safe product for which there is ten years of hindsight and which is intended to protect against a fatal disease with no available treatment.

It is actually about forcing millions of French people to undergo a clinical trial of biological drugs (i.e. gene therapies that fall into the category of biological drugs under EU law), which had an impressive list of side effects even before they were put on the market.


The report of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) of October 2020 shows this very well: there was already talk of myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease etc.

These pharmaceutical products are the subject of millions of adverse reaction reports:
– 2,880,653 records reported on the WHO VigiAcces database,
19,387 deaths as of 18 December 2021 and 1,275,634 adverse reactions, 363,774 of which are serious, on the European pharmacovigilance website EudraVigilance.

These data are extremely alarming compared to the data from all conventional vaccination campaigns combined, bearing in mind that in the field of pharmacovigilance, reports actually concern 1-10% of actual effects according to internal studies by Health Human Services and Harvard).


Medical Rights

point 5 of the Nuremberg Code:

” 5. The experiment must not be attempted when there is a priori reason to believe that it will result in the death or disability of the subject.”

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights echoed this prohibition against involuntary experimentation in its 1966 text, which states: no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” This prohibition is now so universally recognised that some courts and scholars have considered this right to informed consent as a matter of customary international law. (….). “

It is also important to note that France is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the OVIEDO Convention and that these texts are binding.


Human Rights

Citizens are holders of rights, they make society, pay taxes and social charges and respect the laws.

If we only have duties, and freedoms are taken away, then this is modern slavery and totalitarianism.

Moreover, according to Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

“Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no constitution.”



In this case, the plaintiffs believe that the actions of the accused parliamentarians made them accomplices in poisoning and crimes against humanity. They participate in a criminal association. [1]


Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

In the PAPON case, the Council of State considered that the faults of this public agent were committed within the framework of his service, that they are not deprived of any link with the latter.

However, because of their “particular seriousness”, they have the character of an inexcusable personal fault, which makes them detachable from the functions performed.

Consequently, Mr Maurice Papon is found guilty of complicity in a crime against humanity.

The criminal liability of an accomplice to crimes against humanity only requires, from a moral point of view, proof of the intention to commit the common law crimes that serve as a basis for crimes against humanity.





de Araujo Recchia Interview

source: Tristan Edelman

Corona Ausschuss 78

source: Corona-Ausschuss

Pandemic in France

source: MikeNadi

Me de Araujo-Recchia: Génocide

source: Me de Araujo-Recchia



  1. Contribution from the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Me de Araujo-Recchia
  2. French Lawyer Files Complaint Against MPs Who Voted for Mandatory Injection of Workers



binding international law, Conflicts of Interest, crime against humanity, FDA, France, French Constitution, gene therapy, human rights related to vaccination, immunity, informed consent, Mary Holland, Mc Cullough, MPs, Nuremberg Code, Oviedo Convention, Papon Case, Parliamentarians, rules of chambers, senior investigation judge, separation of powers, side effects

Back to All Cases