Patrick Vallance

REAL BREAKING NEW – Bromley Magistrates Court About to issue First Court Hearing

If you missed the last update, please read here before you continue reading this post, so that you are up to speed with all the latest developments in the case, which has now progressed from Westminster to Bromley Magistrates Court.

One week ago, we were informed by telephone that PUB’s PCP papers are now with the designated court’s listings department, who expect a case number will soon be issued, following checks by the legal team at Bromley Magistrates, to which it was transferred for processing and listing by the Westminster court where the case was laid last month.

Effectively, this means that the case files contained enough prima facie evidence of pandemic fraud for Westminster to transfer the case to Bromley, for the purposes of performing the final legal checks [the initial checks having been done by the south London court’s legal department] and listing the first hearing of the case at the Kent court.

Past Experience & Mansfield’s PCP
Experience has taught us, by way of the Hancock warrant application being dismissed at the end of 2020 [in the absence of enough prima facie evidence], upon the order of a district judge at Westminster Magistrates Court, who made his decision on paper [without a hearing], that we have already cleared the first major hurdle in the proceedings.

Moreover, were that not correct there is no realistic possibility that the case would have been transferred to Bromley’s listing department, especially given that particular judicial venue is where all PCP’s laid at Westminster are sent when sufficient evidence has been submitted to justify the listing of a hearing at Bromley Magistrates Court, which specialises in Private Criminal Prosecutions.

Furthermore, when renegade barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, acted for a retired Iraqi general in a PCP against former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and others, for crimes of aggression in Iraq, the papers were laid at Westminster Magistrates, where they were dismissed on the grounds that the accused are immune from prosecution and the offence is unknown to UK law.

Nevertheless, Mansfield ran a High Court appeal of the decision, on the ground that the evidence cited against the defendants was sufficient for the case to proceed to trial. However, the court refused the appeal and upheld the ground that the UK does not recognise the crime of aggression under domestic law as being an indictable offence.

R [Rabbat] v Blair & Others
In corroboration of the foregoing, on 05/07/2017, Owen Bowcott wrote the following on R [Rabbat] v Blair & Others in The Guardian:

“An initial application to launch the prosecution was dismissed at Westminster magistrates court on the grounds that Blair enjoys immunity and that the crime of aggression does not exist in English law.

The court was told that attempts to persuade the international criminal court to prosecute to the former Labour prime minister for invading Iraq have made no significant progress.

The crime of aggression was finally defined in 2010 by the ICC, the high court heard, but it has not yet been ratified by a sufficient number of states.

The high court appeal is being heard by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and Mr Justice Ouseley.

The current attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, has intervened in the case to argue that the crime does not exist in the statute book. “The crime of aggression is not known to English law,” James Eadie QC, for the attorney general, told the court.”

It was then reported in The Herald on 31/07/2017 that:

“Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the general’s application, saying there was “no prospect” of the case succeeding.

The case was brought after Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused to issue summonses in November last year on the grounds that the ex-ministers had immunity from legal action, and in any event the current Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, would have to give consent.”

Potential Reasons For Listing A Hearing
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the first hearing of R [PUB] v Hancock & Others is being processed by the legal department at Bromley Magistrates Court, for one or more of the following purposes:

To list a pleading hearing, in which case summonses will be issued to each of the defendants in due course [perhaps as early as this week].

To list a hearing of our informal application for a declaration that the autopsy moratorium on alleged COVID deaths be lifted and a moratorium be placed on all flu and COVID jabs [for a period of at least 90 days].

To list a preliminary hearing of the evidence adduced before a district judge, who will decide whether or not the case should progress to trial by jury on the charges laid.

That being said, the third possibility is a now somewhat remote one because PCP’s generally only get transferred to Bromley Magistrates Court when they are deemed to have enough substantive evidence to proceed to trial.

It also naturally follows that the action would have suffered the same fate as the Hancock warrant application [and Mansfield’s PCP] without leaving the jurisdiction of Westminster Magistrates, in the event that the district judge presiding at the court did not think that the case has at least a realistic prospect of securing criminal convictions against the defendants.

Common Law Always Provides A Remedy
Whatever the wrongdoing, be it a criminal or civil offence, the Common Law always provides a remedy, no matter how grave the circumstances surrounding the case.

Since murder is the ultimate heinous crime, mass murder by whatever means is the most wicked of wrongdoings under the Common Law.

However, when mass murder is being carried out by government policy, it is always the case that the state-controlled police and public prosecutor refuse to investigate such allegations by members of the oppressed masses, just as we have witnessed in Britain over the past year.

Nevertheless, in treacherous and dangerous times such as these, the Common Law provides the People with the means of bringing the perpetrators of mass murder by government policy to justice in a Private Criminal Prosecution.

It therefore goes without saying that, when [if not before] the PCP against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson succeeds in securing criminal convictions for multiple breaches of the Fraud Act 2006, another private prosecution will lay charges of mass murder against the defendants and their accomplices.
=======================
Full case history is here

HANCOCK, WHITTY, FERGUSON AND VALLANCE SERVED NOTICE OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION FOR FRAUD

It has taken a while, yet the tightest private criminal prosecution for what will turn out to be the biggest case of criminal fraud perpetrated has the clock set in motion.

On the 21st February 2021 at 21.02.21 these four criminals were put on notice for crimes so heinous, so diabolical that the next little while the whole of the nation will be awoken to the fraud perpetrated on them case after case in the High Court. Here they will face a jury of 12 and try and extricate themselves from the charge of fruad, treason, genocide and mass murder.

It is expected to blow up the whole alleged fraud perpetrated by non disclosure of salient facts known to all four. Wrose their connection and blood money they took from the Gates Foundation foryears leading up to this criminality will point fingers at the very core of a cabal intent for decades in exterminating the majority of the planet in the cause of Agenda 21/30.

In spite of the many thousands already murdered in this fraud, it will be revealed how it all could have been prevented, if it were not for the high profits to be made.

Here below is the complete notice served the four:

R [PEOPLE’S UNION OF BRITAIN] [PROSECUTION]
VMATT HANCOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DHSC [1ST DEFENDANT]
CHRIS WHITTY, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER [2ND DEFENDANT]
PATRICK VALLANCE, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER [3RD DEFENDANT]
NEIL FERGUSON, IMPERIAL COLLEGE [4TH DEFENDANT]

FAO: MATT HANCOCK, CHRIS WHITTY, PATRICK VALLANCE & NEIL FERGUSONServed by email at 21:02:21 on 21/02/21.NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
Dear Sirs,

RE: R [PUB] v HANCOCK & OTHERS [2021]You are hereby served NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, in relation to the following charges of fraud by false representation and non-disclosure, pertaining to the statements you and the other defendants made, regarding the purported ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’.

SUMMARY OF CHARGES AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS

FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION

For all the elements of fraud by false representation to be in place, under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, the following must be proven:

a. Party A knowingly relied upon a false statement.
b. Party B was caused by Part A to rely on that false statement.
c. Party A did so with the intent of causing losses to Party B or for the purposes of procuring material gain.

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that the defendants have knowingly relied and caused Parliament and the British People to rely upon multiple false statements during the ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’, with the intent of securing the maximisation of UK ‘vaccination’ uptake, as well as past and future material gains.
a (i) You knowingly and falsely claimed that COVID-19 [SARS-CoV-2] is “the most serious public health threat since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic”.

(ii) Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that statement is plainly false because expert witness testimony and FOI requests show that neither SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 have ever been empirically proven to exist and therefore cannot be the cause of a genuine pandemic.

b (i) You knowingly and falsely claimed that “without the social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members”, 510,000 British people would die from COVID-19.

(ii) Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that it is an indisputable matter of fact that this prediction has been mathematically proven to be false by the expert witness testimony adduced in this case.

c (i) You knowingly and falsely claimed that the UK Government’s COVID-19 policies “…will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available”.

(ii) Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that this statement is demonstrably false, on the ground that an obviously viable alternative was treating the unproven Coronavirus in accordance with pre-existing public policy, without adopting any of the lockdown policies imposed, thereby avoiding the unconscionable suspension of civil liberties and devastating financial losses the taxpayer.

All of these false statements are contained in the summary of the Imperial College Model, written and published by the 4th defendant on 16/03/2020, on the Imperial College website. However, additional evidence shows that the defendants began relying upon the erroneous computer-generated data on or before 01/03/2020, when the COVID-19 Battle Plan was announced by the 1st defendant and quickly implemented by the UK Government, without public scrutiny or meaningful parliamentary debate.

It is alleged that, in causing both Parliament and the British People to rely upon these plainly false statements, the defendants acted dishonestly, knowingly conspiring to maximise ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK, whatever the cost, in order to secure past and future material gains.Thereby causing public sector borrowings, charged to the UK taxpayer, to rise to 100.8% of UK GDP [as of 20/11/2020]; and the house arrest of the entire population, which was all done by government diktats, each of which was founded on the plainly dishonest statements contained in the 4th defendant’s fraudulent Imperial College Model, which was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [which, for the sake of brevity, we will refer to as the Gates Foundation].Since there are public records which reveal the material gains secured by the defendants’ mutual commitments and contributions to the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ in the UK [and the rest of the world], the prima facie and circumstantial evidence in support of these serious allegations amply demonstrates that all the elements of section 2 fraud by false representation are in place and that the defendants should be indicted as charged.
FRAUD BY NON-DISCLOSURE
For all the elements of fraud by non-disclosure to be in place, under section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, the following must be proven:
a. Party A failed to disclose certain information to Party B.
b. Party A was under a legal duty to disclose that information to Party B.
c. Party A did so dishonestly, intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that the defendants knowingly failed to disclose information you had legal obligations to disclose to both Parliament and the British People, with the intent of maximising ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK, in order to secure past and future material gains, at the devastating cost of civil liberties and the solvency of the nation.

a. You knowingly failed to disclose that the so called science and data relied upon by the World Health Organisation [WHO], in declaring SARS-CoV-2 to be a worldwide ‘pandemic’ on 11/03/2020, was none other than the discredited Imperial College Model.

b. You knowingly failed to disclose that SARS-CoV-2 was no longer classified as a High Consequence Infectious Disease on 13//03/2020 – before the 1st defendant presented and commended the Coronavirus Bill 2020 to the House of Commons, on the 19th and 23rd of March 2020, respectively.

c. You knowingly failed to disclose that the supposed latest science and data you relied upon to justify a declaration of a Public Health Emergency was Neil Ferguson’s unscientific Imperial College Model; and that it was known by 24/03/2020 at the latest that said model had been wholly discredited, when the New Scientist published the 4th defendant’s admission, before the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, that he had reduced his prediction of 510,000 UK COVID deaths to 20,000, in the event his proposed lockdown policies were not imposed in the UK.


d. You knowingly failed to disclose that the executive agency the 1st defendant controls, Public Health England [PHE], received $500,000 from the US Government to “fast-track the COVID vaccine”, on or around 19/03/2020.

e. You knowingly failed to disclose that multiple WHO approved flu ‘vaccines’ are known to cause fatal adverse events in 377 out of every 100,000 healthy adults injected, whilst ‘influenza’ normally kills around 388 per year. [The ingredients in every UK licensed COVID ‘vaccine’ are believed to be very similar to these 2019-21 mRNA spiked flu ‘vaccines’, in which case they will have comparable mortality rates.]

f. You knowingly failed to disclose that none of the 2019-21 flu and COVID jabs are actually vaccines [they are mRNA treatments or gene therapies], which lays open the floodgates to future civil proceedings for misrepresentation, fraud and damages [irrespective of the purported indemnity granted to ‘vaccine’ companies and those who administer their products in the Coronavirus Act 2020].

g. You knowingly failed to disclose that there is a direct mathematical correlation between the 2020-21 flu and COVID ‘vaccine’ roll-outs in the UK and the deaths which the defendants claim to be COVID deaths during the same period.

h. You knowingly and dishonestly failed to disclose this information, when you had legal obligation to disclose it to Parliament and the British public, and you did so in service of the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK and the rest of the world, for the purposes of securing their own material gains and those of their accomplices, knowing that the cost to the British People and the economy would be catastrophic.

i. You had a legal obligation to disclose these facts to the British People, on the ground that the 1st defendant, upon the advice of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants, pledged on 01/03/2020, in the UK Government’s COVID-19 Battle Plan, that: “Public safety is our top priority.”The prosecution alleges that, had public safety been the defendants’ top priority, all of the foregoing information would have been disclosed to both Parliament and the British People, as soon as the information became available.

Moreover, in the mind of any reasonable person, knowing this information is essential to understanding that the entirety of the justifications given for declaring a Public Health Emergency were and remain founded on a series of profoundly dishonest statements, which have been relied upon by the defendants.

It naturally follows that the public disclosure of the information described, by either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd defendant at the UK Government’s daily press briefing, on or before 24/03/2020, would have been tantamount to a confession that there was no justifiable cause to declare a Public Health Emergency.Furthermore, the public disclosure of 8 e could and should have resulted in the suspension of the National Influenza Immunisation Programme and a thorough investigation of the allegedly lethal WHO approved mRNA spiked flu ‘vaccines’, which are considered all too similar to the substance of the COVID jabs subsequently licensed by the UK Government for mass administration.

However, it naturally follows that, without a ‘Public Health Emergency’, it would not have been possible for the defendants to cause the lockdown of the nation “until a vaccine is found”, with the fatally flawed advice you gave in your official capacities as Secretary of State for Health & Social Care, Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer and the WHO and UK Government’s Senior Scientific Advisor on Pandemic Preparedness, Policy and Response.

The data-based evidence adduced by the prosecution also shows that, on the balance of probabilities, the vast majority of the deaths recorded as COVID deaths since September 2020, were, in reality, fatal adverse events, caused by the 2020-21 WHO and UK Government approved flu and COVID shots, in addition to those who died at home, in care homes and hospitals, who were denied palliative care “to save the NHS” from and “flatten the curve” of a ‘virus’ which has never been proven to exist.

Upon the evidence, the defendants committed section 3 fraud by non-disclosure, under the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006, on the basis that you knowingly and dishonestly failed to disclose information you had legal obligations to disclose to both Parliament and the British People, which you could and should have done in the House of Commons, as well as during the UK Government’s media briefings, at various times from 01/03/2020 to the present day, when you had ample opportunities to make public safety their top priority by fully availing Parliament and the British People of the latest science and data, as you repeatedly pledged to do, without ever actually delivering it.
Since there are public records which reveal the material gains secured by the defendants’ mutual commitments and contributions to the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ in the UK [and the rest of the world], the prima facie and circumstantial evidence relied upon in support of these criminal allegations amply demonstrates that all the elements of section 3 fraud by non-disclosure are in place and that the defendants should be indicted as charged.

URGENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE COURT

Given the unbridled seriousness of the allegations made, the prosecution is applying for summonses to be issued against the defendants without delay, to have you appear before a senior judge to plead and for the case is listed to be heard by a jury at the earliest opportunity.
A second application seeks a declaration, under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to act in the name of justice, that:
a. Upon the prima facie evidence adduced and in accordance with the opinion of Lord Sumption that the Coronavirus Act 2020 is constitutionally unlawful and therefore void and unenforceable, it is declared that, in the interests of providing finality to the families of those who are recorded as having died from or with COVID-19 and for the purposes of providing evidence in R [PUB] v Matt Hancock & Others, autopsies must be carried out and death certificates certified as if the 2020 Act had not been enacted.
b. For a period of at least 90 days, all flu and COVID ‘vaccinations’ are suspended, pending further criminal investigations into the allegation that the treatments concerned kill a minimum of 377 out of every 100,000 healthy adults injected.

For the avoidance of doubt, these proceedings are being brought in the absence of parliamentary, police or parliamentary intervention, without ill will, frivolity, vexation or malice, under the protection of the Treaty of Universal Community Trust.

In sincerity and honour,

Trustees of the People’s Union of Britain
All Rights Reserved – Errors & Omissions Excepted