COVID19 Fraud: Our UK Reader’s Letter Template to Boris Johnson

Written by John O'Sullivan on November 15, 2020. Posted in Current News

We have shown that science has firmly established that the COVID19 pandemic causes no greater loss of life than a normal flu outbreak. However, the harsh measures of ‘lockdown’ are causing far greater and disproportionate harm on society. So, we have been asked to provide our UK readers with this template letter for anyone to use who wants to write to Prime Minister Boris Johnson to request he revokes the emergency measures.

Please feel free to copy, print and use as you see fit:

[Date]
LETTER BEFORE ACTION

To: Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
From: [Name, Surname, Address, Resident of the United Kingdom]
_________________________________
In the High Court of England & Wales
______________________________________________
THE QUEEN, EX PARTE [Name of Claimant] v THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Interested Parties: a) Citizens and Residents of the United Kingdom; b) Government Agencies and associated Private Bodies acting as agents and collaborators in regard to decisions and measures complained of in this Application.

PRELIMINARIES
1. This Letter Before Action is sent to the Defendant pursuant to the UK Ministry of Justice’s Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review to enable it to concede the matters complained of in this Application within 14 business days from its date failing which proceedings are intended to commence without further notice to it.
1. The Claimant by virtue of their being a citizen/ resident of the United Kingdom and subject to the Defendant’s measures and decisions it avers to be unlawful, has sufficient interest to bring this application for Judicial Review.
Basis of Application
2. The following presents the Claimant’s basis for Judicial Review redress under Part 54.1 of the CPR in respect to the Defendant’s alleged unlawful statutory measures and decisions in regard to its declared Covid-19 pandemic in relation to:-
a) the mandatory wearing of face masks
b) quarantines
c) business and public services establishment closures
d) social distancing
e) mandatory, or quasi-mandatory by duress of Covid-19 testing, vaccination and various attendant prophylactic measures
f) the illegal frustration  and/ or denial of the Claimant’s human rights in relation to their privacy, health, general freedoms and right to life.
Damage Suffered by Claimant
2.1) The decisions and measures set out in 2) above have been imposed upon the Claimant and/ or threatened to be imposed upon him in respect to the Covid-19, or Coronavirus pandemic which measures and decisions have caused and are causing the Claimant damage by his: –
a) inability to maintain their employment, or business
b) anxiety and ill-health especially in regard to the mandatory wearing of face masks which do not protect from any kind of disease (this is as specified by the mask manufacturers). The only mask which gives 95% protection from germs is the N95 mask which is not recommended for and not worn by members of the public);
c) deprivation of freedom of movement and privacy.
Arguments in Support of Judicial Review
2.2)  Having regard to the foregoing, in this Letter Before Action, the Claimant presents their arguments that the Defendant’s measures and decisions are unlawful and merit being struck down considering:-
a) that there is credible evidence that the Covid19 pandemic event is one staged by 196 Nation States and all members of the World Health Organisation via a treaty device called the International Health Regulations 2005;
b) that there exists the strong likelihood that the Covid19 testing procedures that include embedded digital tracking systems powered by luciferase are founded on bad science, dangerous, ineffective and constitute an injustice upon the testees;
c) that the upcoming Covid19 vaccines that have life-threatening components and are set to have the same tracking technology as the Covid19 test as well as compounds that permanently alter the DNA of humans in adverse ways, are illegal, founded on bad science and present a substantial risk of injury and death to the testees and as such constitutes injustices upon them;
d) that there is strong evidence that the Covid19 event is a fraud and the lockdowns, quarantines and other restrictions upon the subjects of nation states predicated by it by their governments are therefore unlawful and amount to injustices upon the subjects;
e) that those who have lost their jobs, businesses, have suffered adverse health and quality of life due to the measures put in place by the governments of nation states based on their declaration of the Covid19 pandemic, which by all accounts is a fraud, have faced injustice and as such are entitled to compensation by their governments
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE COVID19 EVENT

On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that it was informed of a number of viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. It then launched an investigation  in January 2020 which resulted in it declaring the Wuhan event as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) as there had been some 8000 cases confirmed worldwide which had affected 19 countries in five WHO regions.

As WHO had found that at the start of the outbreak, many of those declared infected had visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, the infection was thought to be of zoonotic origin.
WHO subsequently declared that the outbreak had been caused by a newly-discovered virus called SARS CoV2 (renamed Covid19 by WHO in February 2020), related to bat coronaviruses, pangolin coronaviruses and SARS-CoV.

In March 2020, WHO declared the spread of COVID-19 as a pandemic as Italy, Iran, South Korea, and Japan reported high numbers of infections.
In May 2020 there were 5,595,091 Covid19 events attributed to Covid19 and 350,547 deaths, as reported by John Hopkins University. Covid19 has been reported to have been found in  more than 200 countries. Consequently, Governments worldwide began to implement lockdowns and quarantines and other restrictive and intrusive measures, including mandatory mask-wearing upon the populations of their countries so as to contain Covid19.
These lockdowns and quarantines have resulted in widespread hardship for many who have lost their business, jobs and who have suffered ill health due to those procedures.
PROBLEMS WITH WHO’S VERSION OF THE COVID19 EVENT

IHR2005 – International Health Regulations 2005
When WHO declared Covid19 as a pandemic, it conveniently failed to declare that as far back as 2005, it and its partners at the UN, the World Bank and similar international bodies together with 196 countries, planned for the current pandemic via a binding treaty called The International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR2005) which is a BINDING international legal agreement sponsored by the UN and WHO which was initiated for the purpose of helping the international community prevent, control and respond to severe public health risks that present international threats.
In fact, more than 196 countries have signed IHR2005 including: USA, UK, Sweden, Canada, Japan, China, Russia, Brazil, New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Italy and all member states of the World Health Organisation. IHR2005 entered into force in 2007. IHR2005 signatories are bound to comply with the obligations set forth in it.  As of 15th June 2007, the IHR2005 signatories are the following states (and all WHO members):-
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China , Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India (8 August 2007) , Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of – the country recently reported 20 million Covid19 infections??), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein (28 March 2012), Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro (5 February 2008), Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal , Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan (16 April 2013), Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga 2 , Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey 2 , Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America (18 July 2007), Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board
The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (“GMB”) is a body that advises the World Health Organisation (WHO) on its heath emergencies policies. It was co-convened in May 2018 by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization. Its principal advisor is John Hopkins University Center for Health Security.
The GMB’s 15-member Board consists of senior figures from the USA, China, Russia, UK, Netherlands, Norway and also includes those from the WHO, Red Cross, Bill Gates’ Foundation, UNICEF, Netherlands, Japan, Chile, India as well as political leaders, heads of agencies, and experts.  GMB is led jointly by Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, formerly Prime Minister of Norway and Director-General of the World Health Organization and Mr Elhadj As Sy, Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
GMB’s goals are (as stated) to: 1. assess the world’s ability to protect itself from health emergencies; 2. identify critical gaps to preparedness across multiple perspectives; 3. advocate for preparedness activities with national and international leaders and decision-makers.
GMB’s Principal Advisor – John Hopkins Centre for Health Security
Just before the Covid19 pandemic emerged, GMB’s “A world at risk: annual report on global preparedness for health emergencies of September 2019” (Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO) Annual Report was published. The report was commissioned to Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security by GMB.
The Annual Report’s paper of September 2019, “Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic”,  effectively set the scene for the Covid19 event currently playing out worldwide and which started shortly after the paper was published.  The Paper’s contributors are those closely connected with the UN, WHO and its partners and in that regard may be deemed to be of 100% WHO origin:-
Jarbas Barbosa da Silva Jr., Pan American Health Organization; • Rick Bright, US Department of Health and Human Services; • Elizabeth Cameron, Nuclear Threat Initiative; • Gail Carson, University of Oxford; • Jeremy Farrar, Wellcome Trust; • Keiji Fukuda, University of Hong Kong; • Bruce Gellin, Sabin Vaccine Institute; • Julie Lyn Hall, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; • William Hall, Wellcome Trust; • Keith Hamilton, World Organisation for Animal Health; • Anne Huvos, World Health Organization; • Chikwe Ihekweazu, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control; • Bruce Innis, PATH; • Daniel Jernigan, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; • Kerri-Ann Jones, Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework Advisory Group; to the World Health Organization; • Rebecca Katz, Georgetown University; • Lawrence Kerr, US Department of Health and Human Services; • Marie-Paule Kieny, INSERM; • Marion Koopmans, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, The Netherlands; • Amanda McClelland, Resolve to Save Lives;• Hilary Marston, National Institutes of Health; • Claudia Nannei, World Health Organization; • Toomas Palu, World Bank Group; • Diane Post, National Institutes of Health; • Eduard Salahov, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; • Ethan Settembre, Seqirus; • Cecilia Mundaca Shah, Forum on Microbial Threats, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, USA; • Beverly Taylor, Seqirus; • Jonathan Van-Tam, Department of Health and Social Care, England; • Netsanet Workie, World Bank Group; • Members of the World Health Organization Strategic & Technical Advisory Group for Infectious Hazards.
The Planning of the Pandemic
The GMB Paper’s PROGRESS INDICATOR (S) BY SEPTEMBER 2020 – at page 29 – specifies what all  all IHR2005 signatory countries are to have in place by September 2020 in relation to Covid19:-
1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, with the Director-General of WHO and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs strengthens coordination and identifies clear roles and responsibilities and timely triggers for a coordinated United Nations system-wide response for health emergencies in different countries and different health and humanitarian emergency contexts.
2. The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen (coincidentally, in this video clip for a news report and in the presence of President Trump, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo explains that the USA is in live “exercise” mode in relation to Covid19 – perhaps a slip of the tongue?
3. WHO develops intermediate triggers to mobilize national, international and multilateral action early in outbreaks, to complement existing mechanisms for later and more advanced stages of an outbreak under the IHR (2005).
4. The Secretary General of the United Nations convenes a high-level dialogue with health, security and foreign affairs officials to determine how the world can address the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen pandemic, as well as for managing preparedness for disease outbreaks in complex, insecure contexts.
The Allegation that China (PRC) caused Covid19
There are allegations that the Covid19 outbreak was initiated by China. However, this is not a credible proposition as China is a member of IHR2005 and coupled with the tone of its declaration under IHR 2005 (at Pt. III (page 62 extracted below), it is clear that it is a willing party, together with the 196 nations (and all members of WHO) who signed IHR2005, to the plot to inflict a simulated pandemic upon the world known as Covid19:-
IHR2005 (at Pt. III (page 62) – CHINA’S DECLARATIONS AND STATEMENTS
1. The Government of the People’s Republic of China decides that the International Health Regulations (2005) (hereinafter referred to as “the IHR”) applies to the entire territory of the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macau Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan Province ……. 3) 3. To meet the needs of applying the IHR, the Government of the People’s Republic of China is revising the Frontier Health and Quarantine Law of the People’s Republic of China . It has incorporated the development, enhancement and maintenance of the core capability-building for rapid and effective response to public health hazards and public health emergencies of international concern into its program of establishing a national health emergency response system during the 11th Five-year Plan for National Economic and Social Development. It is formulating the technical standards for the surveillance, reporting, assessment, determination and notification of public health emergencies of international concern. It has established an inter-agency information-sharing and coordination mechanism for implementing the IHR. And it has conducted cooperation and exchanges with relevant states parties on the implementation of the IHR.  4. The Government of the People’s Republic of China endorses and will implement the resolution of the 59th World Health Assembly calling upon its member states to comply immediately, on a voluntary basis, with provisions of the IHR considered relevant to the risk posed by the avian influenza and pandemic influenza.
World Bank’s World Indicated Trade Solution Statistics
The World Bank has published that starting in 2017/18 (not 2019, or 2020, but 2017/18), the UK, Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Spain, the European Union, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, France Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Norway and number of WHO countries had IMPORTED AND EXPORTED Test Kits and Devices for Covid19.  This can be considered more, or less conclusive evidence that Covid19 is a planned event on an international scale even though a possible counter-argument is that as the medical kits’ Customs category changed to Covid19 kits, the non-Covid19 specific kits automatically changed too. That is because, the kits on inspection of the document, are all fours with Covid19 tests and diagnostics kits being used since the announcement of the Covid19 event by WHO. On 7th September 2020, following growing publicity of the 2017/18 Covid19 kit orders, the World  Bank revised its WITS page and removed “Covid19” from the rolling PDF page (the Customs link though still refers to Covid19 so as to discredit researchers uncovering the 2017/18 Covid19 kit orders). However, it is possible to view all previous versions of the WITS page over time by using the Internet archive search engine WayBack Machine.
Covid19 deaths reports
In August 2020, according to figures released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for Covid19 deaths (updated to 26th August 2020), of the reported 161,392 total deaths in the USA attributed to Covid19, only 9,684 of them (6%) had anything to do with Covid19.  The other 94% of the deaths said to be “linked” to Covid19, were people who were on their deathbed anyway with pre-existing illnesses and generally very old.
Furthermore, due to the total unreliability of the current testing regime for Covid19, the 6% Covid19 deaths cannot be regarded as reliable information in particular as testing positive for Covid19 only shows that the body has unsupressed, or undeleted chromosome 8 which is present in all humans.  The relevant CDC data sheet is linked here.

The Problem with WHO’s Wuhan Conspiracy Theory

On 7th April 2020, the World Health Organisation informed food retailers that it is “highly unlikely that people can contract Covid19 from food, or food packaging”. However, its report published in the same month was categorical that the coronavirus pandemic originated from food stalls in Wuhan which had subsequently “tested positive” (if that is ever possible) for Covid19.

According to the report (WHO’s Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 94 published in April 2020), the first human cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19, were reported by officials in Wuhan City, China, in December 2019. Thereafter, WHO states, investigations by Chinese authorities identified people with symptoms of Covid19 in early December 2019. Most of those found to be infected (though not all infected) were linked to a wholesale food market in Wuhan and were either stall owners, market employees, or regular visitors to the market. Furthermore, WHO states that the environmental samples taken from the Wuhan market in December 2019 all tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 which precipitated the closure of the market on 1 January 2020.
The question emanating from this apparent doublespeak is if from WHO’s own account the Wuhan food stall is linked to the Covid19 outbreak and so much so that the stall was found “positive” for Covid19 and was subsequently closed down, why in April 2020, is WHO categorically stating that food, or food packaging can’t transmit Covid19?

Testing for Covid19 is Scientifically Meaningless
Another smoking gun evidence that Covid19 is not only planned but a fraud is that the test for its detection is scientifically proven to be 100% unreliable.
To understand the rationale for Covid19 testing, one needs to understand what chromosomes are generally and in particular, what Chromosome 8’s function is. Basically, a chromosome is a category of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule which contains part or all of the genetic material (genome) of a living thing, or organism.  Chromosome 8 (“C8”) is an important one in the human body. It encompasses around 146 million base pairs – DNA building materials – and is representative of around 5.0% of human cellular DNA. About 8% of C8’s genes are involved in brain development and function, and about 16% are involved in cancer. When C8 is deleted, or altered, typically we become prone to cancers as well as severe brain impairment.

PCR Testing & Covid19

The PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test for Covid19, as endorsed by the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), serves to discover parts of the Covid19 virus rather than the presence of the body’s immune response. Essentially the test seeks to detect the genetic information of the virus, the RNA, which are thought to be there only if the virus is present and there is an active infection.
Interestingly enough, WHO’s Test Document for PCR specifies an 18 character primer sequence – CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT – as the protocol for testing positive for Covid19.

Vaccines to Delete, or Suppress C8

It follows that any efficient Covid19 vaccine must serve to either delete C8 (as the coronavirus), or substantially suppress it. However, doing both, or either, will certainly result in the death, or severe mental and physical impairment of those who take it.

Oxford’s Covid19 Vaccine

Scientists from the University of Oxford’s Department of Engineering Science and Oxford Suzhou Centre for Advanced Research (OSCAR) said recently that have developed a rapid test which detects the presence of the coronavirus. It is intended to be available to the public very soon at a cost of around £20.00 per test. Interestingly enough, the test’s description reads in part: “…The simple colorimetric result is read by eye or fluorescent display (a luciferase), meaning there is no need for additional tools to analyse results. A blue tooth linked fluorescent detection instrument (eg., a mobile phone) can link the test result into a laboratory information system, so that test results can be tracked…”.

The Covid19 Vaccine’s Digital Tracker – Luciferase
The background to this novel test was seeded by research from Oxford University’s Immunology Network entitled: Development and validation of IMMUNO-COVTM: a high-throughput clinical assay for detecting antibodies that neutralise SARS-CoV-2.  The paper’s summary suggests that the luciferase tracker is a vital element of the test and in particular, its salient function will be to track the testing and explains as follows:-
This paper describes the generation and validation of a high-throughput clinical assay for quantifying SARS-CoV-2 Spike neutralising antibody levels in serum samples. This assay is done in CL2 containment and employs a vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) expressing SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein, that upon infection, causes syncytia (cell-cell fusion) in Vero cell monolayers transduced with Dual Split protein (DSP) luciferase and GFP reporters. Syncytium formation is primarily read-out as a luciferase signal which is inhibited in the presence of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising antibodies. The assay exhibited 100% specificity and the optimal recommended sample dilution is 1:100. Luciferase readout is optimal between 24 and 30 hours and samples do not need to be heat-inactivated before carrying out the assay.
About Luciferase
Luciferase is the definition used for some oxidative enzymes that produce bioluminescence which is the production and emission of light by a bio-organisms. The term, Luciferase, is Latin in origin and means Lucifer, the Devil. It can be produced in the lab through genetic engineering for a number of purposes. In particular, luciferase genes can be constructed and implanted into bio-organisms and directly into cells. A number of bio-organisms (animals and plants) have already been successfully engineered with luciferase.
As luciferase reacts to light sensitive devices, it is used for the detection of activity in cells and their constructs. It is enabled with biotin (vitamin H – which is a water-soluble vitamin that’s a part of the vitamin B family and helps the body convert food into energy and is also important for hair, skin and nails health). Biotinylation is the process used to attaches biotin to proteins and genetic materials so as to enable luciferase to act as a sensor to detect the relevant cellular activity.
As a bioengineered organism, luciferase has already been used to enable rodents to give a luciferase response to follow the response of tumors to treatment.
That luciferase is an excellent tracking device at cellular level is clear according to Promega which is a US company that brands itself as a core supplier in the fight against COVID-19. Worldwide, it serves research, pharmaceutical and diagnostics labs by assisting them to develop viral testing kits and treatment alternatives. Its product, Bright-Glo™ Luciferase Assay System, is a device which when applied enables the affected cells to be tracked continuously. As a tracking device it enables viral syndromes easy to follow in the affected organisms over an indefinite period of time. What this means, if you are tested, a device such as a mobile phone could be used to scan you to track how infected you are at any time with Covid19.
Dr Carrie Madej, researched the Covid19 vaccine’s front-runner, Moderna.  She found that the vaccine human tests resulted in 100% adverse reactions from testees for the high dose version. The low dose version had 80% adverse reactions. However in animal studies, the animals used (ferrets) suffered severe side effects including cancers. Moderna’s Covid19 vaccine for humans uses a system called “transfection”. This system inserts nano-material into human cells that cause virus debris to replicate uncontrollably in the body. They have thus far produced no sane explanation for this.
THE CASE FOR REDRESS
The points arising from the factual background above that may give rise to redress are:-
1) The Covid19 event is a fraud – is the pandemic event called Covid19 nothing more than a fraud upon the world willingly entered into by more than 196 counties of the world?  The evidence surrounding the IHR2005 event is persuasive that it is.
2) The Covid19 event is a planned simulation – also, the fact that Covid19 test kits were ordered in 20117/18 when the disease was only named Covid19 in 2020 does not leave much doubt as to the unlawful planning of the event.
3) The tests for Covid19 are discredited – furthermore, as the source of Covid19  has never been conclusively established and the tests for detecting it are discredited, everything that has followed from the declaration of Covid19 as a pandemic can be considered nothing less than fraudulent.
4) The Covid19 containment measures are an injustice upon the human population – Were the Covid19-imposed lockdowns, quarantines and other restrictions, illegitimate, a breach of the human rights of the population of the states affected and an abuse of the power of their governments?  That would seem to be the case as the only excuse for such draconian measures would be matters of national security including outbreaks of infections, terrorism, etc. However, as the evidence points to state parties contriving the pandemic, everything that has been done as a containment measure for Covid19 which has affected the liberty, privacy, economic life and health of the relevant nations subjects may be challenged under human rights, constitutional, or other national laws and procedures providing for redress in cases of abuse of power and injustices perpetrated by a state.
5) The Covid19 test measures are fraudulent and harmful – are the Covid19 test methods  which are intrusive and contain tracking elements as well as systems to permanently change human DNA and make people unwell, or die unlawful? Yes, this would seem to be the case as : 1) they are based on a fraud that Covid19 as a disease is real when it cannot be so as the test for it is 100% unreliable; 2) personal tracking is an invasion of personal privacy outside the remit of a court; 3) a vaccination that has material in it that damages, or kills you is unlawful and may be addressed under criminal law procedures.
4) The proposed Covid19 vaccines are unlawful? Yes, they appear to be based on bad science and have ingredients proven to seriously harm and track those who are vaccinated.
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

England & Wales
Judicial Review is an English constitutional and administrative legal principle that is exercised through the High Court for reviewing acts done by public authorities or to review of a court or a tribunal decision.
In England and Wales the procedures are set out in the Civil Procedure Rules Part 54 whereas most Commonwealth countries follow the general common law principles governing the process. However, some have passed specific Acts of Parliament “Judicial Review Acts” (eg., Australia’s Judicial Review Act of 1977) to govern the procedure for the relief.
Judicial Review Procedure

There are two parts to the Judicial Review process. 1) The first is the application to grant Judicial Review and 2) the consideration by the court of the matter to be reviewed.  To achieve the first part, to get the court to agree to the Judicial Review, the following case attributes must be in place:-

1) the Defendant must be a Public Body – a public body is a body who achieves its power by statute, or legislation and exercises a public function (eg., Revenue, Immigration and Police Forces, etc.). In a Covid19 redress case, the likely public bodies may be government and their ministries; local authorities, health services bodies and tax authority (HMRC). The UK government is a public body.

2) Sufficient interest – the Claimant’s personal rights must be affected by the Public Body’s decision which is subject to review. In a Covid19 redress situation, each resident of a state that is affected by the Covid19 measures and procedures upon them put in place by the Public Bodies of that state will have had their personal rights affected. The Claimant has had and is having his personal rights affected.
3) The decision must be one that is capable of being set aside – considering the measures that have been put in place by states, including the UK – lockdowns, restriction on movement, quarantines – in respect to Covid19, it seems that all are capable of being set aside.

Grounds for Judicial Review
The grounds for Judicial Review are: –
1. Illegality – the illegality principle concerns a body making decisions outside its scope of authority, or not acting in good faith, or unfairly, etc.. The relevant case is Padfield v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods (1968) AC997).  Whilst the actions of state may be enabled under statute, or other laws, that enablement is invalidated if it does not act in good faith.
In the Covid19 matter, there are several examples of governments and their bodies acting in bad faith:-
a) that the Covid19 event, fraudulently described as a pandemic, was one planned in 2005 to be a simulation event to be put in place via IHR2005 which is a binding treaty by 196 governments and all members of the World Health Organisation;
b) that the lockdowns, quarantines, testings and other restrictions upon the resident of the relevant states have been and are unlawful and therefore deserving of being struck down;
c) that the economic, health and personal damage down to the residents of the relevant states  have been perpetrated by the relevant states in bad faith and as such are deserving of being struck down;
d) that the test for Covid19 infection wrongly and deliberately identifies human DNA (chromosome 8) as the coronavirus – Covid19 which means that vaccines are being developed to delete, suppress, or alter human DNA which has the prospect of causing people serious permanent brain damage as well as death;
e) that the proposed vaccines for Covid19 which may be made mandatory, or inflicted upon residents of states as a decontamination, or disinfection measures, are dangerous and a threat to the lives to humans;
2. Irrationality/ Unreasonableness – (as set out in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223) “… whereby a decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it…”.
The decisions of Public Bodies must not be irrational and unreasonable. The decision complained of on this ground must be so unreasonable that one normal would have made it. For example, when it is proved that the wearing of face masks: 1) offers no protection to others from infection; 2) harms the wearer by causing them to breathe in their expelled breath (CO2) over extended periods; 3) damages their mental health, then a public body that requires the wearing of face masks may be considered to have made an irrational decision. Furthermore, it is to be noted that where decisions of Public Bodies infringe a person’s fundamental rights rights they are normally considered to be irrational/ unreasonable.
3. Unreasonableness – this is under the Wednesbury principle (illogicality) where the decision is reached without proportionality (under a misdirection of law, or with no evidence that gives it support). In the Covid19 case, all the proposed facts by world governments for accepting the pandemic declared by the World Health Organisation have been found to be based on frauds with no evidence of any substance to support them.
4. Whether the Public Body is amendable to Judicial Review – In Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (1985) AC374, the learned judge  said that where the relevant body Defendant is acting in a public law, rather than private law capacity – that is to say exercising a decision-making power given to it by statute, it is amenable to judicial review. This is the case for the government and its bodies (including local authorities and health service agencies) and agents which derive their administrative and executive powers from statute and makes decisions within the remit of such powers.
As such all bodies deriving their public law authority by statute, including health authorities, the police and government bodies, are amenable to judicial review.
Judicial Review Remedies

1. Certiorari – this remedy allows the decision is quashed where it is found to be illegal, or ultra vires. It will apply when:-

a) the decision is capable of being set aside or quashed
b) there are errors of law
c) there is a Defendant available
d) it can be expressed against a final decision.

On the facts and in respect to all points, a case against the Covid19 regime has been established for this remedy to apply.

1. Declaration –  this Order  applies where the Court gives its opinion on a case. This does not prevent an invalid decision from being operative. However, states rarely disregard declarations. This may be a useful alternative to a full-blown judicial review application and could apply for relief for Covid19 restrictions, or mandates.

2. Injunction – In England & Wales, it is not possible to injunct the government – to stop it in advance of a court’s final decision, to do something which is the subject of the matter.  This rule is derived from customary law as well as statute law on the basis that governments cannot be prevented from doing their jobs. This is set out in the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, Art. 21 (1).

However, it is possible for a “Stay of Proceedings/ Decisions” to be granted by the High Court which can effectively prevent the decision complained of any all actions under it to be stayed/ suspended until such time as a final decision is made by the court. In England, the High Court and senior courts as courts of record, maintain an inherent jurisdiction to manage all proceedings before them.  Therefore such courts have an unlimited remit to order matters before them to be stayed/ halted until such time as the matters are finally decided.  This power can be excised by a court on its own volition, or upon the application of a party, or parties.

In civil procedure, stays of proceedings are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”). In criminal trials, they are governed by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
The CPR rules recognise the discretionary power of the court to order a stay of proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction and case management authority. That is also provided for in Practice Direction 23 where an application for a stay may be made based on related criminal proceedings. It is to be noted that the “related criminal proceedings” reason must set out a critical cross-over of the issues in the criminal and civil litigation matter.
CPR Rule 3.1 (f): “The court may… stay the whole or part of any proceedings or judgment either generally or until a specified date or event”
CPR PD 23A paragraphs 11A.1 – 11A.4: “An application for the stay of civil proceedings pending the determination of related criminal proceedings may be made by any party to the civil proceedings or by the prosecutor or any defendant in the criminal proceedings”
In R v. Crawley and others [2014] EWCA Crim 1028[6] a stay was given to enable the parties in the stayed cased to be properly represented. Stays can also be ordered in respect to the execution of decisions. Therefore, whilst a state may not be “prevented from doing its job”,  its decisions may be halted/ stayed until such time as the case is finally decided.
This relief is recommended for any Covid19 event Judicial Review application so as to prevent lockdowns, quarantines and other damaging injustices continuing whilst the case is in process.
The Test for the Grant of a Stay
These are mainly summarised in the case of Gloster J in Akciné Bendrové Bankas Snoras v Antonov:-
1) There must be a real and not merely notional risk of serious prejudice to the Claimant. The Court’s discretionary power must be exercised with great care and only where there is a risk of serious prejudice which may lead to injustice. The factual background for the Covid19 event provides a good case for the serious prejudice of prospective Claimants who have been affected by the Covid19 containment measures which have been based on bad faith it would seem;
2) the discretion must be exercised by reference to the competing considerations between the parties. An Claimant has a right to have his civil claim decided: therefore the burden lies on the Defendant to show why that right should be delayed.  In that regard, due to the serious damage upon livelihoods, health and welfare that the Covid19 measures have caused and are causing, a cessation of their imposition whilst the case is decided is unlikely to be considered unreasonable.
3) Civil proceedings should not be stayed if appropriate safeguards can be imposed. This should not be a problem as the factual background for Covid19 prospective redress shows that the Covid19 containment measures have been based on a number of frauds.
4) The following are two leading English cases in the context of an English court’s ability to order a stay against the state under power given to the court under its inherent jurisdiction. These cases are cited as important precedents for challenging the UK government on the Covid19 event in terms of a judicial review application in the High Court coupled with an application for a stay by the court for all Covid19 ongoing measures to be halted pending the determination of the case.  The burden of evidence for the abuse of power will be high, but there should be enough evidence, as set out above, to satisfy it.

The cases

In the case of R v Looseley (2001) UKHL 53 (a police entrapment case) at para 12, Lord Nicholls said: “…The judiciary should accept a responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law that embraces a willingness to oversee executive action and to refuse to countenance behaviour that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law”. He went on to say (para 1): “..Every court has an inherent power and duty to prevent abuse of its process. This is a fundamental principle of the rule of law. By recourse to this principle courts ensure that executive agents of the state do not misuse the coercive, law enforcement functions of the courts and thereby oppress citizens of the state.

In R v.Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court ex p Bennet [1994] 1 AC 42 (a misuse of police powers case) Griffiths LJ (at p61-62) held, regarding a stay in the context of the decision of the House of Lords to prevent the trial of the defendant due to abuse of process, that the court had a responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law which included a check on executive action and the refusal to tolerate conduct which threatened basic human rights or the rule of law.

1. THE DEFENDANT’S MEASURES ARE CONTRARY TO EXISTING LAWS
   The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as an international human rights treaty between the 47 states including the UK that are members of the Council of Europe, generally gives corporates the same human rights afforded to individuals. To date, many UK and European companies and individuals have taken advantage of this protection.
   The ECHR provides that applications under it can be made to its court, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”), by states against states, individuals and corporates (includes companies, NGOs, groups of individuals).
   Below is a summary as possible application scenario for the ECHR rights which may be applicable for redress for Covid19 injury caused by the government’s imposed measures to contain it which appear to be based on frauds.
   Article 8 – this article provides a right to privacy. Therefore, if the vaccines being rolled out are made mandatory, directly, or by duress and will have digital tracking devices embedded, the right to privacy will be likely to have been violated.
   Cases
   a) In the ECtHR case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom 4 December 2008 (Grand Chamber) the Claimants complained about the indefinite retention in a database of his fingerprints, cell samples and DNA profiles after criminal proceedings against them were no longer active. The ECtHR held that there had been a violation of Article 8.
   b) In Shimovolos v. Russia 21 June 2011 – a “human rights activist” was  registered on a  “surveillance database”. Additionally, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security).
   c) Peruzzo and Martens v. Germany 4 June 2013 – a domestic court had ordered the collection of the DNA material of the Claimants who were convicted criminals for storing in a database as their DNA profiles for the purpose of helping the detection of future crimes. The Court found there to be a violation of Article 8.
   Article 2 of the Convention “1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law
   This Article provides that: no one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
   Decisions taken by the ECtHR under this Article reinforces its provisions that: the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], § 130).

Covid19 Vaccine and Art. 2

Article 2 may be considered applicable in the context of the safety of any Covid19 vaccine that a government mandates its subjects to take whether this is done directly, or indirectly. In that regard,
the following is a compilation of a few of the typical compounds used in the vaccines that most have and authorise their children to have. The compilation is followed below by the manufacturers’ own information on their vaccine ingredients which is included here for fact-checking. To fact-check both this guide and the manufacturer’s vaccine ingredients’ safety, simply type in the compound’s name and “dangers” after it in a Google search. For example: “Sucrose dangers” and review the search outcome. Most if not all vaccines contain substances that have the potential to seriously, or fatally damage humans (based on the CDC’s Guide to Vaccine Components):-

Recombinant Human albumin (aborted fetuses tissue) – used in MMR, Ebola vaccines and is prospective for the Covid19 vaccine. Recombinant technology is genetic engineering (GMOs). Drugs developed by recombinant technology are genetically engineered drugs which include Human Albumin (HA) which consists of parts of blood from aborted fetuses that contain viral particles (antigens) and poisonous pathogens. This compound is used to permanently alter human DNA by causing it to reproduce pathogens in an uncontrolled way.
WI-38 (human diploid cells) (aborted fetal tissue) – used in MMR vaccines and prospective for Covid19 vaccines. WI-38 is a diploid human cell line made from fibroblasts from the from lung tissue of a 3-month-gestation aborted female fetus.
Sucrose/ Fructose – used in more, or less all vaccines. Sucrose is a sweetener which the body has problems with assimilating. If we take too much of it, we can get metabolic syndrome (which is a cluster of diseases that include increased blood pressure, high blood sugar, excess body fat around the waist, and abnormal cholesterol or triglyceride levels). Excess consumption of sucrose increases the risk for type 2 diabetes, weight gain and obesity in adults and children. Additionally, tooth decay, a severe health hazard, is linked to increased sugars in the body, especially sucrose. Oral bacteria (eg., Streptococcus ) reside in dental plaque and use the free sugars including sucrose, glucose, lactose, fructose to make lactic acid which lowers the pH of the tooth’s surface and by removing its minerals cause it to decay. Fructose in particular causes insulin resistance, which leads to obesity and type II diabetes. It also great at promoting overeating.
Benzonase (DNA suppression and deletion) – used in ebola vaccine and prospective for Covid19 vaccines. This is a gene suppression/ deletion drug. It is used to degrade and suppress all forms of DNA and RNA, effectively to genetically alter humans.
MRC-5 Human Diploid Cells (derived from aborted fetal tissue) – used in Hep.A, MMR, Chickenpox and shingles vaccines and prospective for Covid19 vaccines.  MRC-5 (Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture which is developed from aborted male fetuses.
Nano Aluminium – all vaccines include it. Nano-aluminium used in vaccines are known to reside in the brain and is strongly associated with dementia and associated illnesses.
Thimerosal/ Mercury – most vaccines have it, including the flu vaccine. It is prospective for the Covid19 vaccine. Thimerosal is a mercury-containing compound. It is associated with a wide variety of serious neurological illnesses including autism and dementia..
Beta-Propiolactone – used in the flu and rabies vaccines and prospective for the Covid19 vaccine. This compound is known to cause severe irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and respiratory tract in humans as well as irritation of the skin, blistering and burns. It may also cause loss of vision (corneal opacification).
Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell protein (used in the flu vaccine and prospective for Covid19 vaccines. MDCK consists of cell extracts from tissue affected with Multicystic dysplastic kidney (MCDK) (a condition that results from the malformation of the kidney during fetal development . This disease is a cause of abdominal tumours in children.
Cetrimonium bromide (CTAB) – used in flu vaccine and prospective for Covid19 vaccines. Research has shown that consumption of less than 150 g of CTAB causes serious health problems including death due to CTAB causing chemical burns throughout the esophagus and gastrointestinal tract.
Sodium taurodeoxycholate – used in the flu vaccine and prospective for all Covid19 vaccines. This agent causes diarrhea, abdominal pain, flatulence, nausea, dyspepsia, and anorexia.
Relevant Article 2 Case
In the case of Altuğ and Others v. Turkey, the Claimants’ 74 year old relative  was killed as a result of his violent allergic reaction to a penicillin drug give by intravenous injection. The Claimants alleged that the medical team had not done proper due diligence upon the relative prior to administering the drug and the court found for them that there had been a violation of the right to life.
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion – This Article provides that: everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.  Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Accordingly, as vaccines contain “recombinant DNA” substances made from the remains of aborted babies which include artificial life forms as well as the luciferase tracking substance, these may well be considered violations of the religious rights of those who may be mandated to take the vaccine the state directly, or indirectly.
Article 10 – Freedom of expression – Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.  No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State. The Covid19 event has initiated a wide-range of measures by states which include the prohibition of peaceful assembly, social distancing, the prevention of the elderly from associating with their families, restrictions on peaceful protests, etc. These would be captured under this article as potential human rights violations if the basis of these measures were unfounded, or based on bad faith and/ or unlawful intent as appears to be the case in respect to the Covid19 event measures.
Article 15 – Derogation in time of emergency – In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law. However, there shall be no derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.
Derogations are considered strictly by the ECtHR. Obviously, where derogations are based on bad faith, as appears to be the case of the Covid19 event, they can be declared invalid.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
AND
Having regard to the foregoing arguments, the Claimant prays for the following orders from this honourable court:-
1.  permission to bring this Judicial Review Application upon the Defendant
2.  upon the granting of the permission to bring Judicial Review proceedings upon the Defendant, a STAY of all measures complained of in this Application pending the determination of the Judicial Review application.

[Name]
[Date]
Claimant

Please DONATE to HELP support our ongoing battle to expose the COVID-19 FRAUD!

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method

Trackback from your site.