article-EnMarch-Abuse+Genocide

article-EnMarch-Abuse+Genocide

Article: LaREM Complaint on Abuse & Genocide

Re: the systematic poisoning & deception of the French Peoples by the governing party LaREM

 

Back to All Cases

English Translation of the francesoir.fr article (Apr 05, 2022)

On Friday, April 1, Virginie de Araujo-Recchia filed a complaint against the association La République en Marche on behalf of the citizens’ associations BonSens.org (of which Xavier Azalbert, director of the publication of FranceSoir, is an administrator) and AIMSIB (The International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine). The plaintiffs accuse Emmanuel Macron’s political party of “sectarian aberrations”, involving facts of “fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance and of the situation of weakness”, as well as “complicity in poisoning and genocide”. To advance this, the associations and the lawyer rely essentially on the last two years of crisis management, in particular on the liberticidal measures, the control of information and “collective hypnosis”.

Almost ironically, this complaint comes only a few days after Me de Araujo-Recchia was released from police custody on March 24. She had been arrested by the DGSI in the context of an investigation linked to Rémy Daillet, and was finally released without being accused of “anything”. During her interrogation – the content of which she told us a few days later – questions such as

“What is the term ‘conspiracy’?”, “What is the new world order?” or “What do you think of Freemasonry?”

made it clear that she was being accused of a form of drift.

Let’s note that in January 2022, she already filed a complaint, with her colleague Jean-Pierre Joseph, against the parliamentarians who voted the law of August 5 (renewal of the health pass and vaccination obligation).

Two months and an interpellation later, she returns to the charge with this complaint against La République en Marche. BonSens, AIMSIB and Me Virginie de Araujo-Recchia share in a statement the reflection that led them to this result:


the statement:

The associations BonSens.org and International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine (AIMSIB) are once again joining forces in a complaint targeting the association LaREM for sectarian aberrations involving facts of fraudulent abuse of the state of ignorance and situation of weakness, complicity in poisoning and attempted poisoning, complicity in genocide.

Indeed, the five-year mandate granted to LaREM has been punctuated by protests and massive demonstrations. From yellow vest protests to weekly demonstrations in recent months, demanding an end to “Covid-19” propaganda, the restoration of law and order, and the removal of measures that infringe on civil liberties and fundamental rights proposed by LaREM leaders and adopted by the LaREM majority in the National Assembly.

Over the past two years, none of the appeals to reason from world experts, jurists, victims have been able to bend the deadly ideology of LaREM members. On the contrary, instructions have been given so that the platforms and mainstream media censor and stifle the biggest health scandal of all time.

The French people who questioned and dared to question the dogmas and ideology of the members of LaREM were incriminated, discriminated against, subjected to hate speech, censored, lost their jobs, their salaries, their family ties, their social ties, in total disregard of the highest principle of respect for human dignity.

Thus, those who do not adhere to the narrative are “impure” and outcast from society.

The signs of recognition of the followers: the health pass, the QR code, the vaccination pass, the telephone application dedicated to the tracing of the Covid-19 (Certificate of vaccination Identification), the RT-PCR test in replacement of the medical diagnosis, the triple or quadruple dose of injection of experimental genetic substance assured us of being without danger in spite of the absence of studies demonstrating it, the talismanic mask in all circumstances, in short a whole panoply put at the disposal of the transhumanist, eugenicist hyper-class, favorable to social control.

But all these tools supposed to purify or protect are of the order of belief and have absolutely no scientific basis.

Then, we witnessed an unprecedented advertising campaign by LaREM members of pharmaceutical products, for which we have no hindsight and which prove to present extremely serious risks in terms of public health, it is literally a call to collective suicide.

Every day since January 2020, we have been witnessing the establishment of fear, terror and guilt among the population, now traumatized and under collective hypnosis.

Some extracts of the book entitled “The forbidden debate – Language, COVID and totalitarianism”, by Ariane BILHERAN and Vincent PAVAN, published on March 24, 2022, taken up in the framework of this complaint, make the full demonstration of it:

“The methods used are sectarian methods: terror, sequestration, exclusion, mistreatment, loyalty conflict (forcing individuals to make impossible choices), hypnotic suggestion, censorship, persecutions. (…)

The sacrificial logic is constantly invoked, whether to demand it or to deny it: “sacrificing the spring vacations for a radiant summer”, “do we sacrifice the young on the altar of Covid-19”, “the WHO calls not to sacrifice health on the altar of economic recovery”, “the Prefect calls to sacrifice the month of March”, “April sacrificed, May freed? “, “save Christmas but sacrifice New Year’s Eve?”, “the world of culture is afraid of being sacrificed”, “respecting barrier gestures without sacrificing your hands”. Is it not the spirit of sacrifice that is also evoked by the authorities in relation to the Foreign Legion: “Nothing is obtained if nothing is sacrificed”? Why do we constantly demand that the people consent to sacrifices?

The guide of the good citizen is specified: he is the one who must sacrifice himself. Clearly, the individual exists in this discourse only to be sacrificed: he or she must demonstrate “good behavior in the face of the virus”, obedience is demanded of him or her – “be tested at the first symptoms”. Acceptance of all these constraints is considered civic-mindedness, while blind faith in the word of the president is demanded. We must assume that what the government says is TRUE, that we must trust it, “isolate ourselves at the first symptom”. Then the message is clear: the punishment for being positive (without necessarily being sick) is social exclusion – getting out of the group. Therefore, insecurity, imbalance and irresponsibility prevail in this discourse, where the axis of good is presented as the doxa of power. We understand that protection is repression! Protection is achieved through the repression of decrees. The individual is once again absorbed into the fusion with the leader: “we have all consented”; opposition and plural opinion no longer exist, everyone is supposed to have “consented.

The stigmatization of religious events can indeed be understood as a kind of competitive effect to the new world religion of the pandemic, “covidism”, with its rituals.

A cult requires adherence to a religious type of faith. The individual is not asked to analyze, but to believe blindly. Persecution and censorship, as well as intimidation, have fallen upon those who wanted to analyze, not believe.

A sect or a cult always promises the return of a lost paradise. It is the same with the totalitarian system. A sect proposes fetish objects, here the Holy Grail was the injection, supposed to free us from evil.

The totalitarian drift is sectarian and prophetic in nature. “The scientificity of totalitarian propaganda is characterized by the emphasis it places almost exclusively on scientific prophecy, as opposed to the more traditional reference to the past,” said Hannah Arendt.

The collective delusional certainty, of a paranoid type, was based on erroneous first principles, then a construction of the discourse orchestrated on faith, without accepting the slightest doubt. This faith was organized, from the beginning, on three sophisms, not revealed but present in the ideological background of the speeches and the political decisions, and that we will expose as follows:

1. The epidemic justifies a dictatorship.

2. Only a vaccine can stop the epidemic.

3. A vaccine is the only way to save humanity from the great danger that threatens it. (…)

The citizens acquire little by little the habit of having to be authorized for their slightest acts and gestures, a harmful conditioning if there is one, coupled with their infantilization: they are judged irresponsible, underestimated or insulted by the power, which shows a cynical political class and particularly cut off from realities.

It is not science, and even less medicine, but a discourse with religious overtones, with its litanies, and its daily mortifying counting, reducing the complexity of reality to a single reading prism. The construction of a new language, with its new words and expressions, totally disconnected from the reality of experience, is more a matter of sectarian and religious belief – thus of faith in the mass said by the media and politics – than of science.”

Therefore, by propagating chaos, LaREM disturbs public order and only justice is now able to put an end to its sectarian aberrations.

In France, in fact, it is not the sect itself that leads to legal proceedings, but rather the sectarian aberrations that fall under the notion of public order.

In French administrative law, public order is the ideal social state characterized by “good order, security, public health and tranquility”, public morality and the dignity of the human person.

French criminal law grants everyone the right to hold the religious, philosophical or moral convictions of their choice, however, it does not admit that, in their externalization, they come into conflict with the requirements of public order.

The imperatives of public morality and public health in particular are not abstract concepts that might be thought to be concerned solely with the satisfaction of society’s needs.

Their primary function is human: their purpose is to ensure respect for the individual’s right to life, to the protection of his physical integrity and health, to psychological balance, to the full development of his physical and intellectual capacities. In short, to the dignity of the person. These values can be seriously undermined by actions or attitudes dictated by exaggerated beliefs or convictions.

If the imperative of neutrality in a secular and democratic State invites us not to stigmatize the extravagance of certain religious, philosophical or moral practices, it cannot lead us to tolerate their excesses. Thus, when public order appears to be threatened, criminal law immediately expresses its hostility by the implementation of multiple incriminations, generally falling under “common” criminal law (Law n° 2001-504 of June 12, 2001, aimed at reinforcing the prevention and repression of sectarian movements which undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms, known as the About-Picard law).

A set of indicators makes it possible to characterize the existence of a risk of sectarian aberration:

  • mental destabilization,
  • a break with the original environment,
  • the existence of attacks on physical integrity,
  • the recruitment of children,
  • anti-social discourse,
  • disturbance of the public order
  • the importance of legal problems,
  • the possible detour of traditional economic circuits,
  • attempts to infiltrate the public authorities.

It is a deviation from the freedom of thought, opinion or religion that undermines fundamental rights, the security or integrity of individuals, public order, laws or regulations.

It is characterized by the implementation, by an organized group or by an isolated individual, whatever its nature or activity, of pressures or techniques aiming at creating, maintaining or exploiting in a person a state of psychological or physical subjection, depriving him/her of a part of his/her free will, with harmful consequences for this person, his/her entourage or for society.

It does not matter whether such a drift is committed by a sect, a new religious movement, a religion of the Book or by a health charlatan. As soon as a certain number of criteria are met, the first of which is subjection, the repressive action of the State is intended to be implemented (Miviludes site).

The action of the judge, the guardian of freedom, goes in the direction of protection against any physical or psychological subjection.

The plaintiff associations therefore believe that it is now up to the judge to examine the actions of the LaREM association and to evaluate their consequences on public order.

See original article in French here

related articles

Grand Jury – Court of Public Opinion

 


Keywords

Abuse of Power, AIMSIB, Arendt, article, Association Internationale pour une Médecine Scientifique Indépendante et Bienveillante, Bilheran, BonSens, Censorship, collective, complaint, conditioning, Consent, Crime, cult, de Araujo Recchia, DGSI, En Marche, Fear, France, Fraud, freedom, Fundamental, Genocide, guilt, Human, human dignity, hypnosis, individual, infantilization, intimidation, Jean-Pierre Joseph, La République en Marche, LaREM, Macron, New World Order, opinion, Pavan, Persecution, poisoning, religion, Rémy Daillet, Rights, sacrifice, terror, Thought, Totalitarianism, trauma, Vaccination, Vaccine, Virginie


Back to All Cases

 

Child Vaccination Case

Child Vaccination Case

Child Vaccination Case

Re: the Legality of which Parent may decide if their child(ren) should be vaccinated or not

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: (heard) Feb 18, 2022
  • Location: Ontario, Canada
  • Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
  • Case #: J.N. v. C.G., 2022 ONSC 1198 (CanLII)
  • Plaintiff: Father
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Jesse Herman
  • Defendant: Mother (Self-Represented)
  • Trial Type: Family Court
  • Judge: A Pazaratz
  • Status: Decided (Feb 22, 2022)
  • Verdict: for the Defendant


*updated March 11, 2022

 

Background

A father applied for an order that his two children, LEG age 12 and MDG age 10, receive covid vaccinations, while their mother opposed this. [1] Here, the parents, both in their mid-30s, separated more than seven years ago.

The oldest, a 14-year-old boy, lives primarily with his father and chose to vaccinated against COVID-19 last fall – a decision both parents supported, the ruling says. [2]

The two younger children, a 12-year-old girl and a 10-year-old boy, live primarily with their mother. Both were interviewed twice by a social worker and explained why they didn’t want to be vaccinated, with the youngest also expressing fears that his father would force him to get the shots, the document says. [2]

The mother stressed she is not against vaccines overall, adding all three have received their regular immunizations, the ruling says. She also stated she would be open to having the younger two – who have already had the virus and recovered – get COVID-19 shots at a later date “if safety concerns can be better addressed,” it says. [2]

 

Significance

This case makes significant the importance of evidence, and careful judgment

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The mother’s material included an article by Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine; a Pfizer fact sheet; a peer-reviewed article entitled “Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Lead to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS virus”; and an article from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) entitled “Clinical Considerations: Myocarditis and Pericarditis after Receipt of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines among Adolescents and Young Adults”. [1]

 

Defendant’s Argument

Finally, the Court considered information obtained from the internet including a “Position Statement” from the Canadian Paediatric Society;  a document from the Government of Canada entitled “Vaccines for Children: Deciding to Vaccinate”; and an article from the Canada Communicable Disease Report entitled “COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Surge Among Children”, all proffered by the father.  [1]

The father, meanwhile, submitted fact sheets issued by the government and the Canadian Paediatric Society, as well as “numerous downloads” from the mother’s social media accounts on allegations she was promoting conspiracy theories, the ruling says. [2]

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

Other similar cases have ruled in favor of the children being  vaccinated

 

Decision

The judgement

The decision was in favor of the mother who presented more evidence. [1]

Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz rejected a father’s motion to have his two younger children – ages 12 and 10 – vaccinated despite their mother’s and their own objections, and cautioned against dismissing certain viewpoints without evidence. [2]

The Judge stated that the children’s mother has the responsibility to make decisions for the children in her care; and that she has consistently made informed and child-focused decisions. He says she is not a bad parent, simply by virtue of asking questions of the government. The father’s application to vaccinate the children is dismissed [1]

The Ontario judge says he is not prepared to accept as fact that vaccinating children against COVID-19 is what’s best for them simply because it’s encouraged by the government, noting a number of factors – including the children’s own preferences – must be taken into account. [2]

Weighing the Evidence

The mother’s evidence focused entirely on medical and scientific evidence while the father focused on labelling and discrediting his children’s mother in a dismissive attempt to argue that her views were not worthy of consideration. Why? Because she had a political affiliation with the People’s Party of Canada led by Maxine Bernier; had perpetuated covid-related conspiracy theories and vaccine hesitancy on social media; and failed to wear a mask at a large rally. [1]

Puzzled by this evidence, Justice Pazaratz queries how any of these allegations and many similar ones are relevant and how far is one to take “guilt by association”? [1]

He remarks that “it is of little consequence that an individual litigant chooses to advance such dubious and offensive arguments. Even though the father may not admit this, this is still a free country and people can say what they want…including him. But there’s a bigger problem here. An uglier problem.” [1]

the children’s views took centre-stage in the analysis. A Views of the Child Report indicated that neither child wished to be vaccinated, and Justice Pazaratz agreed that their views were not determinative, but also could not be completely ignored, relying on Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the list of factors to be considered as set out in Decaen v. Decaen 2013 ONCA 218. The Court reviewed the children’s histories of regular immunizations, and their consistent reasons for rejecting a covid vaccination, which did not appear to be frivolous, superficial, or poorly thought out. [1]

Finally, the Court considered information obtained from the internet including a “Position Statement” from the Canadian Paediatric Society;  a document from the Government of Canada entitled “Vaccines for Children: Deciding to Vaccinate”; and an article from the Canada Communicable Disease Report entitled “COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Surge Among Children”, all proffered by the father. [1]

Justice Pazaratz noted that information obtained from the internet can be admissible if it is accompanied by indicia of reliability, including whether it comes from an official website from a well-known organization, whether the information is capable of being verified and whether the source is disclosed so that the objectivity of the person or organization can be assessed. [1]

However, he also remarked that in almost all cases in Canada where COVID vaccinations have been ordered the court has made a finding that on the face of it, the internet materials presented by the objecting parent have been grossly deficient and at times, dubious. “The lack of an equally credible counter-point to government recommendations may have well been determinative in those earlier cases”. [1]

 

Notably, the Court recited the warning from Pfizer, a company that makes the vaccine, as follows: [1]

“There is a remote chance that the Pfizer vaccine could cause severe allergic reaction… Signs of an allergic reaction include difficulty breathing, swelling of the face and throat, a fast heartbeat, a bad rash, dizziness and weakness. Inflammation of the heart have occurred in some people who have received the Pfizer vaccine….” [1]

Justice Pazaratz also quotes from Dr. Robert Malone who warns that [1]

“therapeutic approaches that are still in the research phase are being imposed on an ill-informed public” and that  “public health leadership has stepped over the line and is now violating the bedrock principles which form the foundation upon which the ethics of clinical research are built.” [1]

‘Anyone reading even some of the articles presented by the mother would likely conclude that these are complicated and evolving issues, and there can be no simplistic presumption that one side is right and that the other side is comprised of a bunch of crackpots. That’s why the court should require evidence rather than conclusory statements.” [2]

The father, meanwhile, provided no evidence that the mother’s views had been debunked, the judge wrote. [2]

 

On Government Mistakes

Justice Alex Pazaratz found that the vaccines’ potential side effects justified her caution. He cited a long list of rights abuses to explain why courts should not simply defer to government experts. [3]

Justice Pazaratz points out other areas of life and the law where the government was wrong, including the Motherrisk expert evidence that turned out to be disastrous for families; the residential school system; the sterilization of Eskimo women; and the thalidomide crisis of the 1950’s. [1]

“What about the residential school system? For decades the government assured us that taking Indigenous children away – and being willfully blind to their abuse – was the right thing to do. We’re still finding children’s bodies,”[3]

“How about sterilizing Eskimo [sic] women? The same thing. The government knew best. Japanese and Chinese internment camps during World War II? The government told us it was an emergency and had to be done. Emergencies can be used by governments to justify a lot of things that later turn out to be wrong.” [3]

 

on “Judicial Notice”

Taking judicial notice means recognizing certain facts as indisputable, so they can be introduced as evidence by one side or the other without having to verify them. The Supreme Court of Canada has said courts may take judicial notice of facts that are so generally accepted as to be beyond debate among reasonable persons. [5]

Should judges sit back as the concept of ‘Judicial Notice’ gets hijacked from a rule of evidence to a substitute for evidence,” he wrote (emphasis in the original). [5]

“After considering all of the evidence– or often the lack of evidence—can the court just fill in the blanks and take judicial notice of the fact that all children should get vaccinated?… Because if “all judges just “know” that children should be vaccinated, then we should clearly say that that’s what we’re doing”. [1]

 

on tolerance

Justice Pazaratz then identifies the intolerance, vilification, and dismissive character assassination in family court. He presumes that he is seeing more of it because it is “rampant outside the courtroom” and appears to be socially acceptable to denounce, punish and banish anyone who doesn’t agree with you. An example? A recent case where a mother sought to terminate a father’s equal parenting time with their child because he was “promoting anti-government beliefs”. Judge Pazaratz declares: “…in Communist China that request would likely have been granted”. But not in Canada, [1]

 

On Previous Cases

The ruling represents a departure from earlier Canadian cases involving disputes over COVID-19 vaccinations, where courts have taken what’s called “judicial notice” – essentially accepting statements as fact – that immunization is beneficial for children, said Alyssa Bach, an associate lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLp. [2]

We now have cases where judges have taken that judicial notice that the vaccine is in the best interest, and now one where it was decided that that wasn’t the case. And so it’s a reminder that each family’s circumstances, and the circumstances of the children, are going to be taken into consideration on a case-by-case basis,” she said Tuesday. [2]

“It’s notable that Justice Pazaratz, in his decision, did go through the other cases where this judicial notice had been taken and distinguished it and how this case was different than the other cases.” [2]

  • In most of the previous cases, the children were younger, so their views on COVID-19 shots were “either unascertainable or less relevant because of the child’s lack of maturity,” the judge wrote in his ruling. [2]
  • And in the cases where the children’s preferences were overridden, the court found the parent seeking vaccination had presented more reasonable information to the children and made more compelling arguments in court, Pazaratz said. [2]
  • As well, the court in many of those cases found the materials presented by the parent opposed to vaccination were “grossly deficient, unreliable and – at times – dubious. This lack of an equally credible counterpoint to government recommendations may well have been determinative in those earlier cases,” he said. [2]
  • Not so in the case at hand, the judge noted. [2]

 

Aftermath

The parties agreed in Minutes of Settlement that each party would have sole-decision making authority for the child(ren) in their care and control, however, their agreement also stated that: “The issue of LEG and MDG receiving a covid vaccine shall remain a live issue and shall be determined at a later date. The child CBG can determine whether or not he wants to be vaccinated now”. [1]

Jesse Herman, who represents the father, declined to say whether his client would seek to challenge the ruling. [2]

‘At this time, all I can comment is that we strongly disagree with the decision that was made,” he said in an email. [2]

 


Further Research

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

 

Media


……

source: ….


Child Vaccination : Dr. Julie Ponesse

source: CanadianCovidCareAlliance


….

source: ….

 

References

  1. Ground-Breaking Covid Decision in Family Law
  2. What? There ‘s A Common Sense Judge In The House , And The Mainstream Media Carried It?
  3. Ontario judge rules mother doesn’t have to vaccinate children against COVID-19

 

Keyword

Canada, Child, Children, China, Communist, ethics, Family, Father, Heart, Inflammation, Justice, Malone, mis-information, Mother, Motherrisk, myocarditis, Ontario, Parents, Pazaratz, Pfizer, sterilization of Eskimo women, thalidomide, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Vaccination


Back to All Cases