Presidential Crimes Case

Presidential Crimes Case

Presidential Crimes Case

Re: the Legality for a Head of State to knowingly promise (to lie) false benefits for a new & untested medical procedure

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Dec 2, 2022 (filed)
  • Location: Police station in commune of residence
  • Court: Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland
  • Case #: TBD
  • Plaintiff: Pascal Najadi
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: Swiss President, Alain Berset
  • Trial Type: Criminal Complaint
  • Judge: TBD
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated Jan 11 2023

 

Background

On Friday 2 December, retired Swiss banker Pascal Najadi filed a complaint against the President of Switzerland Alain Berset — who is also the Head of the Department of Home Affairs and a former minister of health — at the police station in his commune of residence. [1] [2]

According to the complaint, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland is to start investigations against Berset. As head of the Department of Home Affairs, he was also responsible for the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH). Berset was accused of abusing his office under Article 312 of the Swiss Criminal Code. [1] [2]

“Members of an authority or officials who abuse their official authority in order to procure an unlawful advantage for themselves or another or to inflict a disadvantage on another shall be punished with imprisonment of up to five years or a fine,” the paragraph reads. [1]

In the criminal complaint, he detailed how the health minister told Swiss television SRF on 27 October 2021 — a month before the referendum on extending the COVID certificate requirement —

“with the certificate, you can show that you are not contagious.” [1] [3]

Federal Councillor Berset then made this statement, even though his FOPH reported on the same day that ten vaccinated people had been hospitalised because of COVID. [1]

The fact that vaccinated people who fell ill at the time were not supposed to be contagious, while unvaccinated people who fell ill were for several days, was already contradictory to the state of knowledge at the time. [1]

Swiss television later added a clarification next to the transcript of the interview that it was “known that vaccinated and recovered people can also be contagious”. [1]

Alain Berset could have known better. But the Federal Councillor had taken into account neither the FOPH’s own statistics nor the statements of the US Health Authority (CDC). [1]

Even statements by Virginie Masserey, who was responsible for the fight against coronavirus at the FOPH at the time, were thrown to the wind by the magistrate. [1] [4]

“Vaccinated people can spread the coronavirus just as frequently as unvaccinated people,” Masserey stated on 3 August 2021 — three months before Berset’s controversial TV statement. [1] [4]

Masserey also stated what the federal task force had also found. Thus, Federal Councillor Berset told a lie on television a few weeks before the ballot. [1]

Either the health minister lied, or he acted with gross negligence — an act that is also prosecuted in Switzerland. The vaccination campaign has cost Swiss taxpayers at least CHF 500m. Additionally, several citizens have died as a result of the vaccine. [1]

In the reporting period from January 2021 to 22 November 2022, 6,199 “serious cases” were reported to the vaccination regulatory agency Swissmedic. This corresponds to a good 38% of all reports. [1]

The then Federal Councillor Berset contributed to a two-tier society with his false COVID vaccination certificate statement on television; such a division violates the constitution. [1]

“Accountability must also apply to Federal Councillors, not only to private persons. Fortunately, we live in a direct democracy, and we, the Swiss people, are the sovereign here,” said Najadi. [1]

Mr. Najadi, himself and his family fully jabbed and boostered, describes his realization that the entire narrative, especially regarding vaccine efficacy, is based on contradictions, misleading and unsupported claims and perhaps malicious intent. [5]

 
SwissMedic Email Exchange

After a series of email exchanges with the Swiss vaccination regulatory agency to discover the ideal mRNA injection dosage for a person of a particular body weight, to understand specifically how much spike protein the injection supposedly generates in the body to allegedly fight against covid . [5]

in their letter from Jan 6 2023, The agency confirms that the injection is intended to induce the cells to produce spike protein. They further wrote that the injection “protects the person from the virus” by teaching the immune system to create antibodies in response to the spike proteins delivered via the injection. [5]

Mr. Najadi, responds to this:  “Which we know from Pfizer is not true! The producer admits that it does not protect against the virus” [5]

SwissMedic continues to write that the production of spike protein is dependent on several factors such as immune weakness, illnesses, individual factors, etc…so we cannot tell you how much spike protein has been produced in your body. [5]

Mr. Najadi concludes from this that, “this confirms that they do not know the dosage of the mRNA to the body weight and they don’t know what happens with the spike protein reproduction triggered by the mRNA which proves that they have no clue what they are talking about.” [5]

SwissMedic ends the letter : “we would like to note that this exchange is forthwith ended- a quasi-scientific exchange like this one is overloading our resources that we need in this crisis.” [5]

 

Significance

First Corona criminal complaint to accuse a head of state of lying to the public about vaccine effectiveness

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

In essence Najadi’s argument is very simple and already covered above. It is captured in two points of fact which he can evidence:

  1. Najadi asserts that the Swiss president made false statements to the public

The elected president of Switzerland (… today responsible for the health of 8 million people) on 27th Oct 2021 went on national TV to promote the public vote for the Covid Law and the vaccination certificate. [3]

He said quote: “With the certificate, you can show that you are not contagious.” [3]

2. In August of the same year his old director of the BAG (Federal Office of Public Health) Dr Virginie Masserey stated [4]

“Vaccinated people can spread the coronavirus just as frequently as unvaccinated people,” [4]

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

 

Media


UPDATE! Criminal complaint against the Swiss President-Jan 6 2023

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


P Najadi Criminal Complaint Pt. 1 -Dec 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


P Najadi Criminal Complaint Pt. 2 -Dec 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


German language interview with P Najadi -Jan 2 2023

source: Rumble / mwgfd


CDC Says Vax is Not Effective -Aug 19 2021

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


RPLR, CDC Reversal on Covid -Aug 15 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


Pfizer Vax <1% Effective -Dec 16 2021

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


Germany Vaccination Consequences -Dec 12 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


Prof Fukushima “Stop the Vax – You’re Killing People!” -Nov 29 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


Science Summit Uncensored: Dutch Excess Mortality Data -Aug 15, 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


EU MEP Rob Roos Pfizer Admits Jab not Tested for Transmission -Oct 11 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


Biostatician Massey on Global FOIA Requests & Virus Isolation

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


US Army Doctor Whistleblower on Vaccine Deaths -Apr 13, 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids

 

References

  1. Swiss banker Pascal Najadi files criminal charges against new Swiss President Alain Berset
  2. ICIC Interview with Pascal Najadi: Criminal complaint against the Swiss president
  3. P Najadi Criminal Complaint Pt. 1 -Dec 2022
  4. P Najadi Criminal Complaint Pt. 2 -Dec 2022
  5. UPDATE! Criminal complaint against the Swiss President

 


 

Keyword

Article 312, Attorney General, BAG, Berset, CDC, Crime, Criminal, Criminal Code, Criminal Complaint, False, False Statements, Federal Office of Public Health, FOPH, Lies. Fraud, Masserey, Najadi, president, Swiss, Swissmedic, Switzerland


Back to All Cases

 

HFDF vs Vaccine Mandate

HFDF vs Vaccine Mandate

HFDF vs Vaccine Mandate

Re: Legality of President Biden’s executive order #14043 to Mandate vaccines as condition of federal employment

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Nov 12, 2021
  • Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
  • Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
  • Case #: 8:21-cv-02679
  • Plaintiff: HFDF, FEFF & others
  • Defendant: the Biden Administration & SFWTF
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

 

Background

Late Friday November 12th, 2021, Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), Federal Employees for Freedom (FEFF), and several individuals filed suit in the Middle District of Florida against President Biden and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Case 8:21-cv-02679), challenging the federal vaccination mandate for all federal employees, announced on September 9th, 2021 through Executive Order No. 14043. (1)

HFDF is a nonprofit that advocates for and educates the public on the topics of medical choice, bodily autonomy, and self-determination. Health Freedom Defense Fund opposes laws and regulations that force Americans to submit to the administration of medical products, procedures, and devices against their will and has filed several other lawsuits challenging mask and vaccine mandates at the local, state and federal level. (1)

HFDF is joined by FEFF, a group representing approximately 6000 employees of various agencies in the federal government, and advocating for constitutional rights and freedoms concerning bodily autonomy, self-determination, privacy, and religious freedom, in particular as these relate to governmental mandates requiring vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 disease.

 

Significance

This legal action challenges Biden’s sweeping mandate which violates not only various elements of the Federal Code of Regulations and U.S. Supreme Court rulings, but also doesn’t take into account the individual beliefs, morals, and medical situations of each person. (1)

“If the President has the power to dictate medical treatment to individual Americans, the United States of America is no longer a constitutional republic but a kingdom led by a ruler,” said HFDF president Leslie Manookian. (1)

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The lawsuit contends that “Private matters of personal, bodily choice are retained by the governed and to be decided by the individual, on a case-by-case basis. The people have never delegated those rights to the government. As such, the government has neither the just power, nor the consent of the governed, to forcibly decide for them.” (1)

HFDF attorney John Howard, of JW Howard Attorneys said,

“The issue to be decided here then is not whether the emerging science and statistics support, or refute, the use, efficacy, and safety of the vaccines, but whether that decision remains with, and is reserved by, the individual into whose body the vaccine will be injected, and whether the people gave that right to the government to decide for them through sweeping Executive Orders.” (1)

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

Aftermath

Further Research

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….


Back to All Cases

 

OSHAVaxMandate

OSHAVaxMandate

OSHA Vaccine Mandate Case

Re: Legality of OSHA, The Labor Dept & the Biden Administration to Mandate vaccines as condition of employment

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Nov 6 & 12, 2021
  • Location: New Orleans, USA
  • Court: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Case #: 21-6085
  • Plaintiff: 27 states + companies & more
  • Defendant: OSHA and the Biden Administration
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge: Kurt D. Engelhardt
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

 

Background

President Joe Biden pushed OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to implement regulations demanding that all businesses with 100 or more employers need to force all their employees to be vaccinated by January 4 or face mask requirements and weekly tests that the employees must pay for themselves. Additionally, under the mandate, employers are subject to fines of up to $13,653 per day for each employee that does not comply.  (3)

The next day (Nov 6, 2021), in response to a several groups of petitioners including several states, America First Legal and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals halted this order until further investigation by the courts. The Biden administration defied this by putting out a statement that business should go ahead with the order.

In response the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals once again halted this order. At least 27 states filed lawsuits challenging the rule in several circuits.

The Biden administration has been encouraging widespread vaccinations as the quickest way to end the pandemic that they assert has claimed more than 750,000 lives in the United States. (2)

*** If you have more information about this case & would like to contribute please contact us***

 

Significance

A Federal Court has defended the Constitution from the Biden Administration’s efforts to remove the Rights of Employees to determine their own health needs and their authority over their own body.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The petition argues the mandate is unconstitutional because it:

– Violates the non-delegation doctrine: Congress did not give OSHA the power to enact a nationwide vaccine mandate, affecting 80+ million people, when it gave them the power to regulate workplace safety. Congress has not given OSHA the power to try and end pandemics. (3)

– Violates the Commerce Clause: The mandate applies even to companies that do business solely inside of Texas, and whose services never cross state lines.  States have a general police power; the federal government does not.  It is a government of enumerated powers, and it cannot do this by invoking the Commerce Clause. (3)

Statement From America First Legal President Stephen Miller: 

These imperial executive mandates are unlawful, unconstitutional, unacceptable, unconscionable and un-American. America First Legal and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have filed these historic lawsuits to defeat these illegal decrees and save our liberties and our constitutional system of government,” Stephen Miller said. (3)

Statement From America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton: 

Threatening the livelihoods of hard working Americans through federal mandates is the latest example of the Biden Administration’s executive overreach,” America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton said. “The Biden Administration does not have the authority to mandate that private businesses become de facto vaccine enforcers for the federal government. The mandate is patently unconstitutional and America First Legal is proud to partner with the patriots at TPPF to protect the rights of Americans from an Administration acutely dedicated to chipping them away,” Gene Hamilton said. (3)

Statement From General Counsel for Texas Public Policy Foundation Robert Henneke: 

Our clients believe that the decision to be vaccinated should be made by individuals and their doctors—not the federal government,” said Robert Henneke, general counsel for TPPF.  “In addition to turning private employers into federal vaccine enforcers, the rule will also result in many individuals leaving the workforce entirely, accelerating a trend that has devastated our economic recovery from the pandemic.” (3)

Our clients are standing up for themselves and their employees,  but ultimately, they are standing up for the right of every American to make their own medical decisions, based on advice from their doctors,” Robert Henneke said. (3)

Statement From Senior Attorney at Texas Public Policy Foundation Matt Miller: 

Throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and never-ending expansion of government power,” said Matt Miller, senior attorney at TPPF.  “This mandate, which says to workers ‘take the vaccine or lose your job,’ represents a line that many people of good will simply will not cross. It is long past time for courts to step in and recognize that the power of the government is restricted by the Constitution, even in times of crisis.” 

The fact that the federal government had to dust off the emergency temporary standard, which is a rarely used and rarely successful vehicle for delivering OSHA requirements, tells you that the federal government knows it does not actually have the authority to issue this mandate. And the fact that the mandate completely ignores natural immunity and barely accounts for religious and medical exemptions tells you that this is more about forcing compliance with the federal government’s whims, rather than developing a sensible workplace safety rule,” Matt Miller said. (3)

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Decision #1

After the first ruling (Nov 6, 2021) denying the OSHA mandate, Louisiana Attorney General Landry said the action stops President Joe Biden

“from moving forward with his unlawful overreach.”

“The president will not impose medical procedures on the American people without the checks and balances afforded by the constitution,” Landry said in a statement. (2)

The 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, said it was delaying the federal vaccine requirement because of potential “grave statutory and constitutional issues” raised by the plaintiffs. The government must provide an expedited reply to the motion for a permanent injunction Monday, followed by petitioners’ reply on Tuesday

 

Decision #2

  • Writing for a panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Engelhardt described the mandate as “fatally flawed” and said OSHA grossly exceed its legal authority. “…health agencies do not make housing policy, and occupational safety administrations do not make health policy. In seeking to do so here, OSHA runs afoul of the statute from which it draws its power and, likely, violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty,” the judge wrote. (1)
  • Circuit Court Judge Kurt Engelhardt cited similar Commerce Clause and non-delegation doctrine arguments AFL and TPPF presented: 

 “The Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority  under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that  falls squarely within the States’ police power. A person’s choice to remain  unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity…The Commerce Clause  power may be expansive, but it does not grant Congress the power to regulate noneconomic inactivity traditionally within the States’ police power.”

– “The Occupational Safety and Health  Act, which created OSHA, was enacted by Congress to assure Americans “safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human  resources.” See 29 U.S.C. § 651 (statement of findings and declaration of  purpose and policy). It was not—and likely could not be, under the  Commerce Clause and nondelegation doctrine—intended to authorize a  workplace safety administration in the deep recesses of the federal bureaucracy to make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health  affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways. On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional  muster…” (4)

 

Aftermath

  • Following the Nov 6 halt, The Biden administration said it is confident that the requirement, which includes penalties of nearly $14,000 per violation, will withstand legal challenges in part because its safety rules pre-empt state laws (2)

Statement from America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel Gene Hamilton: 

All Americans should be excited about the Fifth Circuit’s affirmation of its stay of the Biden Administration’s OSHA vaccine mandate. Under our Constitution, our federal government is one of limited powers—it is not an all-powerful government that can dictate very aspect of American life. President Biden is not a king. The Court’s rejection of his Administration’s assertion of these broad, sweeping powers should serve as a warning for other components of their radical agenda,” Gene Hamilton said. (4)

  •  

Following the ruling OSHA placed the following announcement on their site

On November 12, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion to stay OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, published on November 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61402) (“ETS”). The court ordered that OSHA “take no steps to implement or enforce” the ETS “until further court order.” While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation. (5)

  •  

On Dec 8, 2021 the US Senate Voted to Repeal Biden Vaccine Mandates for Employers. (6)

Two Democrats joined all 50 Republicans in Wednesday’s 52 – 48 vote to overturn President Biden’s vaccine mandate for private business with more than 100 employers. According to news reports, even if the measure secures enough votes to pass in the House, Biden will likely veto it. (6)

  •  
The Appeal in the 6th Circuit

In its Dec 1, 2021, ruling, the 6th Circuit reinstated Biden’s mandate—a 2-1 decision. The ruling sets up a likely showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court. [7]

 

The Supreme Court

On Jan 7 2022, the Supreme Court heard expedited arguments. They ruled in favor of the Plaintiff on Jan 13 2022 in a 6-3 unsigned opinion. [8]

 

Further Research

 

Media

Update! Court Rules Against Mandate

source: Liberty Doll

WVA AG Morrisey Sues OSHA Mandate

source: Team Morrisey


Back to All Cases