MPs Abuse of Power Case

MPs Abuse of Power Case

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 BonSens.org, 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


 

Background

Complaint before the Senior Investigating Judge of the Judicial Tribunal of Paris on behalf of the Association BonSens.org, 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:

BonSens.org 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 BonSens.org 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 BonSens.org 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.”

 

Significance

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.

 

Decision

 

Media

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

 

References

  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

 

Keyword

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

 

Hailey Mask Order Case

Hailey Mask Order Case

Hailey Mask Order Case

Re: the Legality of Mask Mandates

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Sept 27, 2021
  • Location: Hailey, Idaho, USA
  • Court: US District Court of Idaho
  • Case #: 1:21-cv-389
  • Plaintiff: HFDF, Ryan Blaser, Michelle Sandoz, Barbara Mercer, Emily Knowles (& children) & Kendall Nelson
  • Plaintiff Counsel: Alan Shoff, Davillier Law Group

  • Defendant: City of Hailey, Idaho & Martha Burke (Mayor)
  • Trial Type: Complaint for declaratory & injunctive relief- demand for jury trial
  • Judge: TBD
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


 

Background

This is the second Mask Mandate Order and also the second time this is being challenged.

The Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) together with several individual plaintiffs (residents of Blaine County, Idaho) submitted a demand for jury trial in the matter of the mask mandate in schools, which is claimed to be contra to constitutional law and invalid in the light of emergency FDA authorization. [1]

HFDF is a not-for-profit public benefit Wyoming corporation, which opposes laws and regulations that force individuals to submit to the administration of medical products, procedures, and devices against their will. [1]

September 13, 2021, the Hailey city council voted unanimously to reinstitute another unlawful mask mandate upon its citizens. [2]

Health Freedom Defense Fund and its members have opposed Hailey’s unlawful mask mandates since the first mandate was implemented in July of 2020 due to the fact they are unscientific, a violation of federal law, and a violation of basic human rights. Throughout 2021, HFDF sent the city demands to repeal their mask order informing them legal action would come and finally after no action was taken, HFDF sued Mayor Martha Burke and the City of Hailey in May 2021.

The same day the lawsuit was filed, Hailey Mayor Martha Burke issued a new health order removing Hailey’s mask mandate which was followed on May 10th, with a vote by the city council to rescind the mask mandate.

The City has twenty days to respond to the filing.

HFDF president Leslie Manookian said, “Not only are mask mandates illegal, they violate some of our most basic human rights such as the right to determine for ourselves how we stay healthy as well as the right to breathe unhindered and no government official has the right to deprive us of those rights.”

 

Significance

This case challenges the legality and medical efficacy of mask mandates. The Mask Mandate is preempted under the Supremacy Clause by the federal law under which the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued the Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) for mask use, which requires that use of masks must be optional. [1]

 

Similar complaints for similar reasons have been filed. e.g. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, 15th October 2021, Case No. 1:21-cv-406 [1]

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

In the US, most masks have been issued under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the terms of the EUA granted by FDA clearly state that the product must not be:

“labeled in such a manner that would misrepresent the product’s intended use; for example, the labeling must not state or imply that the product is intended for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or is for use such as infection prevention or reduction”. [2]

Thus, the FDA recognizes masks do nothing to stop the spread of viruses or infectious agents. [2]

  1. Not only does FDA acknowledge masks do not prevent the spread of the virus, the terms of the EUA also require that those using the products be given the right to accept or refuse use of the product. See Link. [2]
  2. The FDA has determined that the efficacy of face coverings for reducing or preventing infection from SARS-CoV-2 has not been established, and that it would be misleading to state that they are effective in preventing or reducing such infection.
  3. Similarly, the FDA has stated in three instances that face masks are not intended to reduce or prevent infection:
  4. The product is not intended for any use that would create an undue risk in light of the public health emergency, for example the labeling does not include uses for antimicrobial or antiviral protection or related uses or uses for infection prevention or reduction or related uses and does not include particulate filtration claims. Id. at 7, repeated twice on page 8.

In summary:

  • Masks for prevention of transmission of the virus are only granted emergency approval by the FDA. This requires the use of masks to remain optional, while the normal testing, evaluation, and approval process for use of such masks is ongoing. This process has been illegally bypassed by the FDA due to an emergency. [1]
  • The mask mandate implements a human experiment, while the medical and psychological effects of the masks has not been tested, evaluated, and approved by the FDA under normal procedures. It thus violates Idaho law. [1]
  • The Mask Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ fundamental human rights re 14th Amendment USA [1]
  • The Mask Mandate has been placed in force contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [1]

In Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts, a landmark case on government-mandated medicine, the US Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that there must be clear public health benefit to justify the imposition of a medical mandate. There is little, if any, public health justification in this case as evidence from “gold-standard” mask studies show that facial coverings offer negligible benefit to the wearer or those in their vicinity when it comes to reducing viral transmission among the general population. That evidence even suggests that incorrect or long-term use of masks may increase the risk of transmission, especially with cloth or “community” masks. [3]

When comparing the potential benefit and potential harm of mask mandate policies, it is clear the balance is much more heavily weighted to the harmful side of the equation. [3]

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

As mentioned above the Landmark 1905 Jacobson v Massachusetts, has been cited numerous times in recent courts to justify medical mandates. However this case does not support this. In fact the Supreme Court in 1905, was careful not to violate the right of bodily autonomy and Mr Jacobson was only fined and never vaccinated for Small Pox which was the feared epidemic at the time.

The court also determined that the Small Pox vaccine had nearly 100 years of data to support its efficacy as well as showing that no alternative treatments were available.

 

Decision

…More information is needed…

 

Aftermath

On November 9, 2021, Idaho news outlet KMVT reported: [4]

Council members decided not to rescind the mask mandate at the Monday meeting because they wanted to stay consistent with what neighboring cities are doing, and the COVID-19 risk level in the county is high. Hailey also sees a lot of tourists during the holiday season.

Mayor Burke said that was a clerical error on her part, but citizens do not need to worry because the health order can be rescinded at any point. The council will revisit and discuss the heath order again in 30 days.

One person who attended the meeting asked the council to rescind the mask mandate because he felt the issue is becoming more about emotion than logic. He said, “If you are worried about getting the virus then you can mask up and be protected, or if you have gotten the vaccination you should be able to be protected…the mandate to me doesn’t do anything right now since half the people I come in contact with are not wearing masks.”

 

In December, Idaho news outlet KMVT reported: [5]

The mask mandate in Hailey will stay in place through the holidays partially because of ski season and increased travel during the holidays.

A press release from the city says a 30-day review for the mandate will not be on the city council agenda for December. It will remain into Jan. 2022. The order in place now mandates masks for indoor public spaces and when social distancing is not possible outdoors.

The mask mandate is not required to be enforced by businesses, but the city says having it in place has been helpful for businesses.

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:
other:

 

Media

Hailey Mask Ordinance – July 2020

source: Idaho News 6

Mask burning at Idaho Capitol -March 7 2021

source: Bill C-Kole

 

References

  1. Complaint Case No. 1:21-cv-389
  2. HFDF Sues Hailey AGAIN Over Mask Mandate
  3. Masks Aren’t Just Ineffective, They’re Dangerous
  4. City of Hailey keeps mask mandate in place
  5. Mask mandate in Hailey to remain in effect through holidays

 

Keyword

Blaine County, Consent, Constitution, Emergency Use Authorization, EUA, FDA, Hailey, Health Freedom Defense Fund, HFDF, Idaho, Jacobson, Mandate, masks, Massachusetts, Public Health Emergency Order, Supremacy Clause


Back to All Cases

 

Pfizer-FDA FOIA Request

Pfizer-FDA FOIA Request

Pfizer-FDA FOIA Request

Re: Freedom of Information Request for Pfizer’s data for Covid Vaccine FDA approval

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Sept 16 2021
  • Location: Texas, USA
  • Court: US District Court Northern District Of Texas
  • Case #: 4:21-cv-01058-P
  • Plaintiff: PHMPT
  • Defendant: FDA
  • Trial Type: FOIAR
  • Judge:
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: For The Plaintiff


 

Background

On Sept 16, 2021, the group Public Health & Medical Professionals For Transparency (PHMPT) filed an Freedom of Information Act request against the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), essentially for documents that Pfizer submitted to gain approval for their fast-tracked covid vaccine. (1)

As stated in their complaint this is actually a follow up request:

On September 9, 2021, the FDA denied PHMPT’s request for expedited processing on the basis that PHMPT did “not demonstrate[] a compelling need that involves an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual” or “that there exists an urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” PHMPT brings this action to challenge the FDA’s determination and seeks an order compelling the FDA to produce responsive records on an expedited basis.(1)

PHMPT’s members include doctors and scientists from all over the world (such as Drs Doshi, McCullough, Keil, Bridle, etc) and from universities such as Yale, Brown, Oxford, etc (1)

 

Significance

This is a request for transparency regarding information that has lead to the largest drug trial in human history.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The request states (among others):

  • On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, marketed as Comirnaty (the “Pfizer Vaccine”) for individuals 16 years of age and older.
  • Although the FDA asserts that the Pfizer Vaccine “meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product[,]” numerous public health officials, media outlets, journalists, scientists, politicians, public figures, and others with large social or media platforms have publicly raised questions regarding the sufficiency of the data and information, the adequacy of the review, and the appropriateness of the analyses relied upon by the FDA to license the Pfizer Vaccine.
  • In furtherance of its mission, and in an effort to ensure that the FDA acts in furtherance of its commitment to transparency,4 PHMPT seeks to obtain the data and information relied upon by the FDA to license the Pfizer Vaccine. The importance of releasing to the public this information is also recognized under federal law which provides that: “After a license has been issued, the following data and information in the biological product file are immediately available for public disclosure unless extraordinary circumstances are shown: (1) All safety and effectiveness data and information. (2) A protocol for a test or study . . .” 21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e).
  • PHMPT therefore issued a request to the FDA pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended) (“FOIA”) for “[a]ll data and information for the Pfizer Vaccine enumerated in 21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e)5 with the exception of publicly available reports on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.6” (the “FOIARequest”).

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information needed…

 

Decision

Two months and one day after it was sued, and close to 3 months since it licensed Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine, the FDA released the first round of documents it reviewed before licensing this product.  The production consisted of 91 pdf pages, one xpt file, and one txt file. You can download them here. (2)

 

Aftermath

On January 6, 2021, attorney Aaron Siri, reported on his site that the court ordered the FDA to produce all the data at a clip of 55,000 pages per month which would see all documents released in 8 months instead of 75 years. [3] See the Case details here.

 

Further Research

…More information needed…

  1. PHMPT FOIAR complaint
  2. Released Pfizer Docs
  3. Court Orders FDA to Produce Pfizer Covid-19 Data at a rate of 500 pages per month

 

Media

source: ..

source: ….

source: …

 

References

 

Keyword

USA, FOIR, Public Health & Medical Professionals For Transparency, PHMPT, Freedom of Information Act request, Food & Drug Administration, FDA, Pfizer, vaccine


Back to All Cases