WHO – home

Constitutional Crisis Case

Constitutional Crisis Case

Re: the Legality of the government’s ability to invoke the Covid Emergency Measures & specifically to violate the Right of Travel

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

Date Filed: Jan 26, 2022
Location: Canada
Court: The Applicants request to be heard at Ottawa
Case #:
Plaintiff: JCCF, Brian Pickford Leesha Nikkanen, Ken Baigent, Drew Belobaba, Natalie Grcic & Aedan MacDonald
Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Keith Wilson

Defendant: Minister of Transport & AG of Canada
Trial Type: Expedited
Judge:
Status: Ongoing
Verdict: TBD

*updated Jan 27, 2022

Background

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (Jan 26, 2022) filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking to strike down the federal government’s mandatory Covid-19 vaccine requirements for air travellers. The court action is on behalf of several Canadians from across Canada whose Charter rights and freedoms have been infringed. [1]

On October 30, 2021, the federal government announced that anyone travelling by air, train, or ship, must be fully vaccinated. The travel vaccination mandate has prevented approximately 6 million unvaccinated Canadians (15% of Canada’s population) from travel within Canada and prevents them from flying out of Canada. Some of the Canadians involved in the lawsuit cannot travel to help sick loved ones, get to work, visit family and friends, take international vacations, and live ordinary lives. [1]

The main applicant in the case is former Newfoundland Premier, The Honourable A. Brian Peckford. Mr. Peckford, is the only surviving drafter and signatory 40 years after the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted. [1]

“It is becoming more obvious that being vaccinated does not stop people from getting Covid and does not stop them from spreading it”, says the former Premier. “The government has not shown that the policy makes flying safer—it simply discriminates”, he notes. [1]
“When I heard Prime Minister Trudeau call the unvaccinated ‘racists,’ ‘misogynists, ‘anti-science’ and ‘extremist’ and his musing ‘do we tolerate these people?’ it became clear he is sowing divisions and advancing his vendetta against a specific group of Canadians—this is completely against the democratic and Canadian values I love about this country”, adds Mr. Peckford. [1]
“The federal travel ban has segregated me from other Canadians. It’s discriminatory, violates my Charter rights and that’s why I am fighting the travel ban,” explains Mr. Peckford. [1]

“Canadians have been losing hope in the Charter and our courts. We are going to put the best arguments and evidence forward so that the court can clarify where governments overstep,” concludes Mr. Wilson (Q.C., lead counsel for the legal challenge). [1]

The court will be asked to hear the case on an expedited basis given the serious infringement on Canadians’ mobility and other rights. Canada is the only country in the developed world that has banned Covid vaccine-free travellers from air travel. [1]

In an interview with Frontier Centre for Public Policy, January 12, 2022, Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford says pandemic responses by governments and medical authorities are unconstitutional and misguided and disregard relevant facts and research. [2]

He says the threshold required to override constitutional rights has not been met during the pandemic. [2]

Section One of the Charter says, “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” [2]

Lockdowns and vaccine passports exceed “reasonable limits” and have never been “demonstrably justified,” according to Peckford. He says rights to work, travel, receive equal treatment under the law, and freedoms of worship and assembly have been unduly trampled. [2]

“You have a 99 per cent recovery rate from this virus…That’s hardly a threat to the state or a war or insurrection. So I take the view that this is totally inapplicable to our present circumstance,” Peckford said in an interview. [2]
“You should have to do a cost benefit analysis or some other study. And that’s not being done right now. At all. No government in Canada has done a cost benefit analysis. There’s been independent cost benefit analysis that shows that the cure is worse than the disease.” [2]

An analysis by Simon Fraser University economist Dr. Douglas Allen published in April 2021 estimated the cost-benefit ratio of lockdowns in terms of life-years was between 3.6 and 282. His conclusion, based on econometric analysis informed by 80 studies, led him to conclude that “it is possible lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history.” [2]

Significance

This case is significant for several reasons:

It is brought to the court by a signatory and drafter of the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, former Newfoundland Premier, Brian Peckford. [1]
It challenges every aspect of the federal government’s decisions as unlawful, unconstitutional and unnecessary.

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Justice Centre’s legal challenge cites violations of Charter rights including mobility, life, liberty and security of the person, privacy, and discrimination. The lawsuit also challenges whether the Minister of Transportation has the jurisdiction to use aviation safety powers to enforce public health measures. [1]

In discussing effective border control measures at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak, Canada’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tam, said: “As you move further away from that epicentre, any other border measures are much less effective. Data on public health has shown that many of these are actually not effective at all… WHO advises against any kind of travel and trade restrictions, saying that they are inappropriate and could actually cause more harm than good in terms of our global effort to contain.” (Canada House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health Meeting, February 5, 2020) [1]

The World Health Organization (“WHO”) continues to maintain that position and on January 19, 2022, urged all countries to: “Lift or ease international traffic bans as they do not provide added value and continue to contribute to the economic and social stress experienced by States Parties. The failure of travel restrictions introduced after the detection and reporting of Omicron variant to limit international spread of Omicron demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such measures over time.” The WHO repeated that countries should: “not require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for international travel.” (World Health Organization, Statement on the tenth meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, January 19, 2022.). [1]

“Despite the confirmed science that the vaccine does not stop people from getting or spreading the virus and the repeated warnings from the WHO, it’s clear the federal government is out of step and arbitrarily restricting Canadians fundamental rights and freedoms,” says Keith Wilson, Q.C., lead counsel for the legal challenge. “It is profoundly disturbing that a marginalized group in Canada—the unvaccinated—are essentially prohibited from leaving the country,” he adds. [1]

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

Decision

To be Decided

Aftermath

…More information is needed…

Further Research

Court Documents:

Read the Complaint/ Application for Judicial Review

In the News:

Vaccine Mandates Reveal that the State is our Enemy

From Mr. Peckford’s Website:

Media

Trucker Rally Speech

https://youtu.be/mI9sXdGIYhs

source: Onum The Great

Jordan Peterson Podcast S4: E78

source: Jordan Peterson Podcast

It’s Time to Live

source: Jordan Peterson Podcast

SNP Episode #237 – Brian Peckford

source: Shaun Newman

References

Keyword

1982 Constitution, Airplane, Ban, Canada, Canadian Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Charter Rights, Chief Medical Officer, Crisis, Discrimination, Federal Travel, Jordan Peterson, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Liberty, Life, Mandate, Mobility, Newfoundland, Ottawa, Peckford, PM, Premier, Prime Minister, Privacy, Security of the Person, Segregation, Ship, Tam, Train, Travel, Trudeau, Vaccination, WHO, World Health Organization

Back to All Cases

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”.