PCR Travel Case

PCR Travel Case

PCR Travel Case

Re: the Legality of restricting or conditionalizing the Fundamental Right to Travel without hindrance unless via a PCR test

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Dec 31, 2020
  • Location: The Hague Netherlands
  • Court:
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Jeroen Pols
  • Defendant: State
  • Trial Type: Expedited
  • Judge:
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff


 

Background

Jeroen Pols asked for an emergency court hearing following the government’s decision to make a negative PCR coronavirus test result mandatory for everyone entering the country from December 29. [1]

The use of the PCR test restricted his fundamental Rights of Freedom of Travel without hindrance in and out of his home country, as this was against agreed to by the Dutch Government, the EU and the UN. [1]

Mr Pols had been on holiday with his family in Tanzania, making him one of the first to experience and challenge the new restrictions. [1]

Mr Pols is also a partner in Virus Waarheid, a Dutch Legal office that fights for fundamental freedoms formed by Lawyers Pols and Willem Engels

According to the Virus Waarheid website:

This is Virus Truth We fight for the preservation of a democratic constitutional state in which our children still have the opportunity to develop themselves in freedom and to live a life with their own beliefs and opinions. These freedoms and fundamental rights have been increasingly compromised over the past decade.

 

Significance

This case is a fundamentally a human rights case and it tests the Dutch government’s interest in upholding liberty and the principles it has sworn to protect, such as the freedom to travel without conditions.

It also puts into question the reliability of the PCR test to diagnose the disease covid.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

Mr Pols stated in an interview with France Soir (see below): [2]

  • This is a violation of the Treaty of Rome Article 2 which states the Right to Freedom of movement in and out of your own country.
  • The test is also an intrusive test. Which means you have a right to refuse it.
  • You cannot be forced to a medical treatment.
  • A diagnosis can also only be made by a doctor and not by a test.

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

  • The court agreed that his family could return from Tanzania “without having to produce negative coronavirus tests” [1]
  • The Judge ruled in favor of the defendant and also stated that the PCR test is not a valid indicator of illness. [1]
  • The court in The Hague ruled that Pols’ family can return from the high risk country on January 3, 2021, “without a negative test and ordered the state to pay the legal costs” [1]
  • The judge said the family have the right to protest about being forced to undergo a PCR test against their will. [1]

‘Introducing such a requirement for citizens of the Netherlands who want to return home requires legal grounding, and this is not covered by article 53 or 54 of the public health act,’ the judge is quoted as saying. The fact that further spreading of the virus needs to be tackled urgently is not up for discussion, the judge said. ‘But such a far reaching obligation as this, which concerns physical integrity, requires a concrete legal basis.’ [1]

 

Aftermath

  • The Dutch state has continued to insist on PCR tests as a condition for many activities including travel. [1]
  • A spokesman for the court told the Telegraaf that the verdict only applies to the three people in question and does not mean that ‘everyone coming from abroad can wave the verdict around and refuse to undergo a test.’ [1]
  • Jeroen Pols states that “every one can use this verdict”… “You do not need permission to travel!” [2]

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…

other

 

Media

Return fam Pols (Dutch) – 04/01/21

source: Potkaars

Dutch Dr worries about Free Democracy -Feb 14 2021

source: BPOC

Pols explains opposition to PCR

source: FranceSoir

 

References

  1. Coronavirus sceptic wins court case about mandatory PCR testing
  2. Jeroen Pols : refus du test PCR, jusqu’en justice [VOSTFR]

 

Keyword

Engels, Freedom of Travel, Jeroen Pols, Medical Consent, Netherlands,Nuremberg, PCR, Tanzania, Treaty of Rome, Virus Waarheid


Back to All Cases

 

FPO PCR Case

FPO PCR Case

FPO PCR Case

Re: the Legality & Efficacy of the PCR test to make a Covid diagnosis & prohibit meetings

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: March 24, 2021
  • Location: Austria
  • Court: Vienna Administrative Court/ Verwaltungsgericht Wien
  • Case #: GZ : VGW- 7A3 / A4e I 3227 /2A2r-2
  • Plaintiff: Austrian party FPÖ
  • Defendant:
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff


*updated: Jan 26 2022

 

Background

In reaction to the the government’s prohibition of a meeting by the Austrian party FPÖ registered for January 31 in Vienna , the FPÖ took the government to court. [1]

Courts in Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands have previously ruled that PCR tests are not suitable for COVID-19 diagnosis and that lockdowns has no legal or scientific basis. [4]

Based on the definitions of the Minister of Health, “Case definition Covid-19” from December 23, 2020, a “confirmed case” [4]

  1. is any person with evidence of SARS-CoV-2-specific nucleic acid (PCR test), regardless of clinical manifestation or
  2. any person with evidence of SARS-CoV-specific antigen that meets the clinical criteria or
  3. any person with evidence of SARS-CoV-specific antigen that meets the epidemiological criteria.

 

Significance

Since all covid measures rest on the accuracy and believability of the PCR test to diagnose the covid disease, any decision against this throws into doubt the entire pandemic narrative.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Plaintiff argued that the PCR test used to justify the prohibition is flawed and “not suitable for diagnostics”

Even according to the World Health Organization (WHO), “a PCR test is not suitable for diagnosis and therefore does not say anything about the disease or infection of a person”. However, the Minister of Health uses a completely different, much broader case definition for Covid-19 diseases, which cannot be used to justify the prohibition of a meeting.

In cases where the number of people infected with the corona was defined based on the Austrian Minister of Health and not on the WHO, any determination of the numbers for “sick/infected” is wrong.

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

  • In October 2020, an Austrian court also declared lockdowns unconstitutional [3]
  • In a similar ruling, a Portuguese appeals court has ruled thatPCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test. [4]
  • German court in a landmark ruling has declared that COVID-19 lockdowns imposed by the government are unconstitutional. [4]
  • Thuringia’s spring lockdown was a “catastrophically wrong political decision with dramatic consequences for almost all areas of people’s lives,” the court said, justifying its decision. [4]
  • Earlier, an American federal judge ruled coronavirus restrictions in Pennsylvania as unconstitutional. [4]
  • Even the Hague Court has ruled that the COVID-19 lockdown which was imposed by the Dutch Govt had no legal basis and that it was illegal. [4]

    However, the Dutch appeals court overturned the ruling within hours which ordered the government to lift the “illegitimate” measure immediately. [4]

    The appeals judges argued that they wanted to avoid what they called a “yo-yo effect,” referring to public confusion around whether the curfew was still in force. [4]

 

Decision

Austrian court issued a sensational judgment on March 24, which slapped the government’s covid policy. The court states that a PCR covid-test is not suitable for determining infectivity. This factually correct judgment indirectly rejects the entire corona policy in Austria, which is based on this test. [1]

“The prohibition was wrong,” it says. Based on scientific studies, the court stated that the grounds for the prohibition put forward by the Vienna State Police Department are completely unfounded.  The court agrees with the statements in the complaint “on all points” and even goes far beyond the arguments put forward by the FPÖ itself. The criteria and definitions used to determine the number of corona victims is massively questioned. [1]

The court came to the conclusion that the “information” from the Vienna City Health Service, on which the prohibition by the Vienna State Police Department was based, “did not contain any valid and evidence-based statements or findings on the epidemic”. [1]

The court says that based on scientific studies, the prohibition put forward by the Vienna State Police Department is completely unfounded. The ruling also states that the case definition used by the Ministry of Health contradicts that of the World Health Organization, which refuses to rely solely on PCR tests to diagnose infection [see WHO finally admits the problem of PCR tests for a brief summary]. [2]

It is expressly pointed out that, even according to the World Health Organization, a PCR test is not suitable for diagnosis and therefore does not in itself say anything about the disease or infection of a person”. [4]

“However, the Minister of Health uses a completely different, much broader case definition for Covid-19 diagnosis, which cannot be used to justify the prohibition of a meeting.[4]

The court came to the conclusion that the “information” from the Vienna City Health Service, on which the prohibition by the Vienna State Police Department was based, did not contain any valid and evidence-based statements or findings on the pandemic”. [4]

 

Aftermath

Despite this ruling the Austrian Government in November pushed harder on its emergency measures by becoming the first nation to mandate covid vaccines for all by Feb 1 2022.

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:

 

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….


Back to All Cases

 

ICC UK Nuremberg Case

ICC UK Nuremberg Case

ICC: UK Nuremberg Case

Re: the request to investigate the extreme actions taken by the UK government (& allies) to allegedly stop a deadly virus as Crimes Against Humanity

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Filed: Dec 6, 2021
  • Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
  • Court: International Criminal Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Rose, Yeadon, Corbyn, Sexton, O’Looney, McStay, Shotbolt
  • Defendant: UK Government, et al
  • Trial Type: Request for Trial & Investigation
  • Judge: TBD
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated: Feb 24, 2022

Background

A complaint has been filed with the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on December 6th, 2021 by a team from the UK on behalf of the people alleging crimes committed by UK government officials and international world leaders of various violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression perpetrated against the peoples of the UK. (1)

Acknowledgment was received on the 6th of December 2021, some of those named in the ICC complaint are also named responsible in (in a separate case) the criminal complaint lodged at the (UK) Metropolitan Police. (3)

The applicants state that they have tried to raise their case through the local English police and the English Court system without success. The team is represented by lawyer, Hannah Rose, with co-applicants including: (1)

  •  Dr. Mike Yeadon, who is a former vice-President and Chief Scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer in respiratory pharmacology,
  • Piers Corbyn – Weather Forecaster, Physicist, Businessman
  • Mark Sexton – Retired Constable
  • John O’Looney – Funeral Director,
  • Johnny McStay – Activist and
  • Louise Shotbolt – Nurse and human rights activist (1)

“The seriousness and extent of the crimes committed in the United Kingdom, highlighted by the scope of people that these crimes affect, that these crimes continue to be committed, the wide range of perpetrators, the recurring patterns of criminality and the limited prospects for accountability at the national level, all weigh heavily in favour of an investigation” . (1)

The complaint focuses on: (2)
  • Violations of the Nuremberg Code 
  • Violation of Article 6 of the Rome Statute 
  • Violation of Article 7 of the Rome Statute 
  • Violation of Article 8 of the Rome 
  • Violation of Article 8 bis3 of the Rome Statute
The Complaint charges the following people: (2)

Based on the extensive claims and enclosed documentation, we charge those responsible for numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression in the United Kingdom, but not limited to individuals in these countries. Perpetrators:

  • Prime Minister for the United Kingdom BORIS JOHNSON,
  • Chief Medical Officer for England and Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government CHRISTOPHER WHITTY,
  • (former) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care MATTHEW HANCOCK,
  • (current) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care SAJID JAVID,
  • Chief Executive of Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) JUNE RAINE,
  • Director-General of the World Health Organisation TEDROS ADANHOM GHEBREYESUS,
  • Co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation WILLIAM GATES III and Co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation MELINDA GATES,
  • Chairman and Chief executive officer of Pfizer ALBERT BOURLA,
  • Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca STEPHANE BANCEL,
  • Chief Executive Officer of Moderna PASCAL SORIOT,
  • Chief Executive of Johnson and Johnson ALEX GORSKY,
  • President of the Rockefeller Foundation DR RAJIVSHAH,
  • Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) DR ANTHONY FAUCI,
  • Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum KLAUS SCHWAB,
  • President of EcoHealth Alliance DR PETER DASZACK

John O’Looney, a joint applicant on this request is a funeral director running his own funeral home in Milton Keynes. As a funeral director, Mr. O’Looney testified that he saw a massive effort made to deliberately inflate Covid death numbers. Cancer patients and stroke victims and even one guy that was run over all ended up with Covid on their death certificate’.(1)

The applicants state that “It is our intention to present to you and detail how, in the United Kingdom this year, the Government of the United Kingdom, with its Ministers and senior officials have violated the Nuremberg Code not only in a single aspect but in many aspects”. (1)

What is the International Criminal Court?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal based in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC’s activities are governed by an international treaty, the Rome Statute, which has been ratified by more than 120 countries, including the US. [4]

The ICC is a permanent, independent court that investigates crimes that concern the international community, such as charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression. In theory, member states are supposed to cooperate with the court, but this is not always the case. [4]

If warranted, the court can prosecute and try individuals accused of this type of crime, but it will usually only do so if the member state fails to take appropriate legal action against the perpetrator, which can happen if a government tries to deprive the person in question. to protect against criminal responsibility. As noted in the complaint: [4]

We have tried to raise this matter through the local English police and the English legal system, but without success; after several attempts we even failed to register the case with the police or with the court. 

The ICC Statute states: “The ICC is intended to complement, not replace, national criminal justice systems; it only prosecutes cases where a state is unwilling or unable to actually initiate an investigation or prosecution (Article 17(1)(a)).

This is one such case and that is why we are addressing the ICC directly.” 

However, the ICC relies on the national law enforcement agencies of the states to arrest individuals, so a member state can still limit the ICC’s ability to bring a criminal to justice. The ICC does not have its own police force to carry out arrest warrants or arrests. In this case, the suspects are scattered across different countries. According to the ICC complaint, the 16 suspects have violated the Nuremberg Code and four articles of the Rome Statute. [4]

 

Significance

This case is important as it charges the UK government with multiple counts of Crimes Against Humanity, resulting from their handling of the alleged covid epidemic.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The official complaint challenges every aspect of the Covid measures, including (2)

  • The efficacy of PCR tests & Masks,
  • Inflated Covid figures
  • The Rebranding of Flu, Pneumonia, and Respiratory Infections.
  • The Inclusion of Graphene Hydroxide
  • Other Areas and Parallels to 1930s Germany
  • The safety & efficacy of the vaccines
  • Violation of informed consent
  • Suppression alternative treatments
  • Censorship
  • Violation of the Nuremberg Code & genocide & torture
  • Apartheid & the Vaccine Passports
  • & more

Through providing an over ten-thousand-word document, the team has gathered extensive evidence that are areas of concern have occurred under the guise of measures or interventions for the prevention of a “virus.” (1)

Inflated Covid figures

A particularly notable and important area addressed within this documented complaint, is the fact that the number of covid-19 cases has been artificially inflated due to the inaccuracy and unreliability of the PCR testing. Arguably, without these inflated figures, there would have been no need for the other measures and interventions that are now be classed as crimes against humanity. (1)

The team highlight the fact that a covid death is recorded if an individual died for any reason within 28 days of a positive Covid-19 test (that was confirmed with the inaccurate and unreliable PRC tests). (1)

“These deaths are being recorded as Covid-19 regardless of whether Covid-19 was the factual cause of death” (1)

Rebranding of Flu, Pneumonia, and Respiratory Infections

Additionally, another way the Covid-19 statistics have been artificially inflated is by the ‘rebranding’ of the common influenza, pneumonia, and other respiratory infections as covid -19. The applicants cited data from the ONS which showed that deaths in 2018 from influenza and pneumonia amounted to 29,516 and in 2019, 26,398. (1)

However, deaths in 2020 for influenza were recorded at just 394 and pneumonia at 13,619. (1)

Violation of The Nuremberg Code

The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical principles for medical research that emerged from the “Doctors Trial” in Nuremberg after World War II. The Nuremberg war crimes tribunal established 10 standards that physicians must adhere to when conducting experiments on human subjects. [4]

Chief among these codes of ethics is the need for informed consent to participate in medical experiments. The Nuremberg Code has also been the basis for other guidelines and laws in the field of medical ethics, including the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki, which obliges practicing physicians “to act in the best interests of the patient when providing medical care.” [4]

Although not a binding law, the complaint alleges that the Nuremberg Code qualifies as a source of international law under Article 21(1)(b) of the Rome Statute, which incorporates international law, international treaties, customary international law and principles of law recognized by civilized nations are recognized as equivalent. [4]

see more here: Pfizer Trovan Case

War Crimes, Genocide & Crimes against Humanity
War crimes fall under Article 8 of the Rome Statute. [4]
We submit to you that a covert war has been waged against the people of the United Kingdom (and the world) through the release of the biological weapon SARS-Cov-2 and the additional bioweapon, m-RNA gene therapy ‘vaccines’. We submit that the people of the United Kingdom (and the world) are under systemic attack from those who released the before mentioned biological weapons and by those individuals within the UK Government and international leaders against which we have brought this request, who seek to serve the same agenda. We therefore submit that the contextual element of a war crime has been met and the alleged crimes took place in the context of an international and non-international armed conflict [2]
 
Pursuant to the Rome Statute’s Article 6, – “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: [2]
  • (a) Killing members of these groups: the group in this case is in principle “the entire population of the United Kingdom” (and the world) starting with the elderly, chronically ill and disabled.
  • (b) Causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group
  • (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
  • (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group:

Article 7 of the Rome Statute covers crimes against humanity, including: [4]

  • Murder
  • Extermination
  • Imprisonment or serious deprivation of physical liberty in violation of the fundamental rules of international law
  • Torture
  • Forced sterilizations
  • Persecution of an identifiable group
  • Apartheid and other inhumane acts

The specific charges are further explained in the complaint and substantiated with data.

The document concludes with a strong request: (2)

WE WANT TO REPEAT: It is of the utmost urgency that ICC take immediate action, taking all of this into account, to stop the rollout of covid vaccinations, introduction of unlawful vaccination passports and all other types of illegal warfare mentioned herein currently being waged against the people of the United Kingdom by way of an IMMEDIATE court injunction”.

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

 

Media


InfoWars Update on ICC Complaint

source: InfoWars


UK Constable Reports Criminal Complaints – June 18 2021

source: Mark Sexton


Mark Sexton Update -Nov 13 2021

source: Mark Sexton


Funeral Director O’Looney on Corona Ausschuss #72

source: longXXvids

 

References

  1. UK Team File Complaint of Crimes Against Humanity With The International Criminal Court
  2. The original Complaint
  3. Mark Sexton’s urgent message to all 43 Chief Constables of England & Wales
  4. Will these COVID criminals be charged by an independent court?

 

Keyword

ICC, Nuremberg Code, International Criminal Court, Den Haag, Netherlands, Crimes against Humanity, Genocide, Torture, Johnson, Gates, WHO,  Bourla, Schwab, Tedros, Hancock, Javid, Whitty, PCR, Yeadon, Sexton, Corbyn, O’Loony


Back to All Cases