Maggie's Freedom farms …

Fourteen people reported to Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS) after Black Lives Matter protests last year will not be prosecuted.

They were referred to the PPS for potential breaches of Covid-19 regulations in Belfast and Londonderry

The PPS said there was “no reasonable prospect of conviction for any offence”.

Last year, the Police Ombudsman found justification in claims the handling of the Black Lives Matter protests by the PSNI was unfair and discriminatory.

A further complaint of race discrimination is being investigated.

Complex issues

PPS assistant director Martin Hardy said the test for prosecution had not been met.

“Decision-making on this file included consideration of a range of complex and novel legal issues arising from the coronavirus regulations in place at the time of these protests and relevant human rights considerations,” he said.

“It also involved a careful analysis of the particular circumstances of these protests and the conduct of the individuals reported.

“It was concluded that, in respect of each of the 14 individuals reported, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction for any offence.

“This was on the basis that the evidence would allow the suspects to successfully raise the statutory defence of reasonable excuse.”

Darragh Mackin, from Phoenix Law, said the decision vindicated his clients and “the right to protest generally”.

He called on the chief constable to apologise to those who had been put through “almost a year of torment for simply exercising their fundamental right to protest.”

“We don’t think we should have been referred for prosecution and that exposes the blatant discrimination that took place,” she said.

The PPS said considerations included:

• the potential breadth of the reasonable excuse defence, particularly in relation to the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly
• the protests related to a matter of important social concern
• a lack of clarity in coronavirus regulations
• issues in relation to the “proportionality and consistency” of the policing approach to different protests

PSNI Deputy Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said it had not been “easy or comfortable” to balance public health and the right to protest.

“Our response unintentionally damaged the confidence and trust of the black, Asian and minority ethnic community,” he said.

He said the decision by the PPS “underlines yet again the difficulties” the force had in policing during the coronavirus pandemic, with officers dealing with “an unprecedented health crisis and rapidly changing, ambiguous legislation”.

“Our objective has always been to help slow the spread of the virus to keep people safe,” he said.

“Balancing this against our obligation to safeguard other important rights – such as that to peacefully protest – has not been easy or comfortable.

“We have not always got that balance right.”

‘Right to protest’

“We knew from the outset that we had a human right to protest, a human right that was breached by the PSNI,” she told BBC Radio Foyle.

Organisers had gone to great length, she said, to ensure the protest could take place with the required public health measures.

She said: “What the PSNI did that day was disrupt the effort that we had put in place.

“We followed all the regulations and then what happened? We were criminalised.”

This was the first draft hence the pen marks

ICOS:21/096728

PPS Ref: 1054440

R

v

PATRICK DILLON

PROSECUTION REPLY ON REASONABLE EXCUSE

1. The accused, Mr Dillon currently faces two charges arising out of a single incident on the 18^th October 2020. Both charges relate to breaches of the then Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restriction) (No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020¹.

1. The second complaint is an alternative to the first and therefore if satisfied the accused is guilty of breaching the Regulations the court should consider complaint one first. If satisfied none of the exemptions apply to that count the prosecution would seek a conviction on that offence and the second will be withdrawn without prejudice².

Reasonable Excuse

1. The prosecution does not propose to go through the facts of the case in this argument as it appears the factual matrix as provided on the Prosecution papers is accepted i.e. Mr Dillon was present in a gathering of approximately 500 persons on the 18^th October 2020 at Stormont Estate in breach of the regulations. However, Mr Dillon wishes to rely upon a reasonable excuse for being present.

1. If the court is satisfied he had a reasonable excuse then the complaint would not be made out.

1. The court should first consider Article 124³ of the Magistrates Court (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 which sets out that if an accused relies upon any exception, exemption, provision, excuse or qualification, the burden of proving the excuse shall be on him.

1. The court has heard no evidence regarding the reasonable excuse the accused wishes to rely upon, nor was anything said upon arrest after caution. This is Mr Dillon’s burden to prove.

1. Should the accused give evidence as per the argument lodged, he would be providing that he was taking part in a planned peaceful protest in response to the Covid -19 pandemic and that he has a right to do so as provided for by Articles 10/11 of the ECHR.

1. Articles 10 & 11 are qualified rights, they are not absolute. R v Dolan & others [2020] EWCA CIV 1605 establishes that in England and Wales the restrictions are compatible with the ECHR. The court may find this decision helpful.

1. At paragraph 103, Lord Burnett of Maldon stated:

“103. The first difficulty with Mr Havers’ submissions on article 11 is that he submits that the regulations must necessarily be regarded as being incompatible with article 11 in all, or nearly all, circumstances. It is difficult to see how that can be so when the regulations themselves include the inbuilt exception of “reasonable excuse”. That would necessarily focus attention on the particular facts of a given case in the event of an alleged breach. In our view, the regulations cannot be regarded as incompatible with article 11 given the express possibility of an exception where there was a reasonable excuse. It may well be that in the vast majority of cases there will be no reasonable excuse for a breach of regulation 7 as originally enacted.There were powerful public interests which lay behind the enactment of regulation 7 , given the gravity of the pandemic in late March. “

1. Regulation 7 is the England and Wales equivalent to Regulation 5 in Northern Ireland.

1. As the court will see that Regulation 5(3) provides that a gathering for religious/political purposes will not be in breach of Regulation 5(1) provided the conditions in 5(4) have been complied with. There is no evidence this is the case.

1. Furthermore, when considering reasonable excuse the court is entitled to consider the actions of Mr Dillon on the day as detailed in the statement of Constable Murphy. Mr Dillon attended the gathering, did not keep a safe distance from others, was obstructive to police refusing to provide his name, refused to put on a mask or leave the areas and had to be arrested for his details to be provided. Upon caution Mr Dillion made no reply.

Summary

1. The prosecution submit, there is no evidence upon which the court could determine the accused had a reasonable excuse for breaching the regulations.

1. Dolan makes it clear than in the context of a global pandemic, what amounts to reasonable excuse would be limited. The accused was given numerous warnings by police to leave and failed to do so.

1. The fact Mr Dillon refused to comply with police requests to follow safety measures will also be something the court will consider.

Natalie Pinkerton

8^th August 2022

Appendix One

Appendix Two

1^ Regulations found at appendix one.

2^ Alternatively the Prosecution would seek an adjournment until the conclusion of any appeal.

3^ Found at appendix two

Victory for claimants in Sarah Everard vigil case 14 March 2022 by Shaheen Rahman

Leigh & Ors v (1) The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and (2) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Interested Party) [2022] EWHC 527

A year after the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by serving Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens, the Divisional Court has given its judgment on the MPS response to the proposed vigil for Ms Everard organised by #ReclaimTheseStreets on Clapham Common, near where she was last seen alive.

The aim of the vigil was to highlight risks to women’s safety and to campaign for a change in attitudes and responses to violence against women. However, it was at a time when Regulations imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic prohibited a gathering of more than 30 persons in a public outdoor place in a Tier 4 area such as London.

MPS would not sanction the plan for the vigil and it was cancelled (as discussed here). The Claimants alleged that this was because the Met had unlawfully thwarted the plan. The Court agreed.

The judgment is a comprehensive victory for the Claimants, hailed by them as a “victory for women” and an “absolute vindication”. It is also a landmark decision in the context of debate as to the impact of the Covid regulations on the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in primary legislation pursuant to the HRA. It contains a granular analysis of the requirements of the proportionality assessment to be undertaken in such cases. It has particular resonance given controversial changes to the way police are able to control protests currently being debated in parliament as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Per Warby LJ: • The Court rejected the MPS defence that it had never actually made any decision that the vigil would be unlawful and had merely declined to give any reassurance that the organisers of the vigil would not face any action.

• The Claimants reasonably interpreted what they had been told as an indication that the vigil was unlawful and that organising it would inevitably be a criminal offence that would lead to a fine or prosecution.

• A series of decisions were taken by MPS which amounted to an interference with the Claimants’ Convention rights. This had a chilling effect on their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 and right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11.

• Each decision had a material causal contribution to the decision to cancel the vigil.

• There had been an obligation to engage with a fact sensitive proportionality assessment regarding the planned vigil. Notwithstanding that this was a ‘somewhat onerous’ task, the practical burden of this had been ‘considerably overstated’.

• DPP v Ziegler [2020] QB 253 had held that such an assessment could include consideration of (1) the nature and extent of any potential breach of domestic law; (2) whether the views giving rise to the protest relate to ‘very important issues’ and whether they are ‘views which many would see as being of considerable breadth, depth and relevance’; (3) the importance of the location, which could have symbolic force; (4) the extent to which the protest would interfere with the rights of others; (5) the likely duration of the protest; (6) prior notification to, and co-operation with, the police; and (7) the nature of any precautions proposed or considered.

• Further, the court accepted the submissions of the Interested Party that having regard to Ziegler and the challenge to the emergency Covid regulations considered in Dolan v Secretary of State for Health [2020] EWCA 1605 the following factors would be relevant to the proportionality assessment: (1) the deterioration in the public health picture that led to the Tier 4 Regulations; (2) the legislative decision that the exceptions for protest contained in Schedules 1 to 3 of the All Tiers Regulations should not apply to Schedule 3A and Tier 4 areas; (3) the importance of the subject-matter, and how close it was to the core of the right; (4) the numbers due to take part; (5) the importance of the precise location; (6) the existence or otherwise of a robust risk assessment; (7) the nature of any proposed precautions; (8) the likelihood of assembly taking place in any event; and (9) the potential effects on the rights of others.

• An officer deciding whether to charge an individual with an offence would have to consider the prospect of making the court sure that there was no reasonable excuse for holding the gathering or – put another way – that a conviction would be a necessary and proportionate measure in pursuit of the aim of protecting public health. Therefore the Claimants were right to submit that the MPS had a public law duty to take reasonable steps to inform themselves about relevant considerations (the “Tameside” duty).

• That duty could not be discharged by merely noting the purpose of the Regulations. The seriousness of any health risk had to be considered and balanced against the rights engaged. MPS were not entitled to ignore altogether the question of what available evidence might show about the gravity of the current public health risks. Their better argument was that the onus of establishing a breach of the Tameside duty was a heavy one – see the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R (Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673. • The court therefore had to consider each decision under challenge and whether it was in accordance with the duties identified above. The starting point was what was said or written to the Claimants in the context of the other contemporary records, bearing in mind these were not carefully drafted decision letters and were at times made under pressure and had been the subject of further explanation in the officers’ witness statements

• The MPS argued that when officers referred to the proposed vigil as being “unlawful” they did not mean that it would be criminal, but that it would meet the threshold requirement of contravening the Tier 4 restrictions, so that holding it might turn out to be an offence or justify a fine. That argument was rejected. It was “incorrect and misleading” to describe conduct as “unlawful” simply because it amounts to an act restricted by the regulations. The context of the discussion about whether the Claimants and others would be liable to criminal prosecution or a fine was relevant. Moreover on occasion officers described the proposed vigil as “illegal” or “a breach of legislation”. • Upon consideration of what was said in its wider evidential context the court remained of the view that none of the decisions taken were in accordance with the Regulations. Indeed, they were legally misinformed, as was the national policing guidance that had been issued at the time. MPS should not have proceeded initially on the basis that there was no exception for protest, with only passing reference to the requirement of there being no reasonable excuse and no reflection of Ziegler and Dolan principles.

• Later decision-making reflected the same “simplistic approach” though addressing some of the Dolan principles. MPS misstated the legal position in asserting that reasonable excuse was “a defence … which it is for the individual to establish”. In fact, absence of reasonable excuse is an ingredient of the offence and to succeed in a prosecution the state would have to establish to the criminal standard that there was no such excuse. Further, MPS were incorrect to say that the possibility that Article 10 or 11 might justify the holding of a restricted gathering only falls for consideration “at the point of enforcement by way of criminal sanction”. It was for the law enforcement agencies to consider these issues for themselves before exercising the powers conferred upon them.

• MPS were wrong to refuse to take into account the nature of the Claimant’s cause in the name of equal treatment and “consistency”. As Ziegler showed, it was incumbent upon law enforcement bodies to evaluate the “cause” at stake in a protest and it may be that greater weight must be given to some causes than to others.

• On this issue, Holgate J added in his judgment,

that although the law does not expect the police to engage in choosing between different viewpoints or to approve or disapprove of a particular viewpoint […] it does expect the police to distinguish between on the one hand, a musical event, a party or some other form of entertainment and on the other, the making of a serious protest or an act of commemoration. Furthermore, in this latter category the nature of the issues raised are capable of being an important factor. Here, there could be no real dispute that the vigil concerned matters of considerable public importance. In addition, they were directly linked to the proposed location. Of course, such factors are not themselves “trump cards” in a proportionality assessment. But they are factors which should be evaluated by the decision-maker in that assessment, so that they may properly be weighed in the balance with all other factors, whether for or against enforcement.

• MPS were also wrong to refuse to consider whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, the enforcement of the restrictions would be necessary and proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting health.

• Although there was the superficial appearance of a decision on the particular facts as to whether there was a reasonable excuse for the gathering, “it was in reality a blanket decision.”

• Whilst MPS modified their position following a hearing before Holgate J in advance of the planned vigil, they failed to reflect thereafter his judgment that made clear that the burden on the issue of reasonable excuse lay on the state and that any decision about this vigil would need to involve a tailored proportionality assessment. The terms of their draft press statement did not accurately reflect the judgment, or the applicable law and indicated a a pre-determined view about what the outcome of any further decision-making would be: “There is nothing to indicate that the importance of the cause had been factored in, and every reason to believe it had been deliberately left out of account.” The final version still failed to accurately reflect the law as stated in the judgment. An MPS log entry recorded that the judge had “supported police”, which was not an accurate reflection. There remained no evidence that MPS had in mind the need to consider the Ziegler factors or to have addressed the fact that some form of vigil was inevitable and the Claimants had put in place some proposed mitigations.

• Per Holgate J:

Against the background of what had taken place prior to the High Court hearing, the police failed to engage properly with the claimants on the issue of appropriate measures to mitigate health risks of the public attending a vigil on Clapham Common and then to assess the residual risk taking such measures into account.

• The Claimants were accordingly granted declaratory relief. The court rejected the Defendant’s contention that relief should be refused on the basis of s31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, i.e. that it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. Here, the actual outcome was the Claimants’ decision to abandon the vigil. It was possible that this would have happened anyway if the Defendant’s officers had taken lawful decisions rather than the unlawful ones they did take, but the court was not persuaded that this was highly likely. Indeed, the policing plan following the cancellation MPS anticipated a short and peaceful event such that those who came to lay flowers and pay their respects could in all the circumstances have had a reasonable excuse for contravening the restrictions.

• The court declined to award damages – this judgment, coupled with an appropriate declaration that the defendant’s decisions were unlawful, was sufficient to afford the Claimants just satisfaction.

They say Bobby Storey was the mastermind behind the Northern Bank heist. I never met the man so I know nothing about him. He died during the summer of 2020 and many people attended his funeral on 30th June during the time when people were not allowed to attend wakes and funerals save for family and close friends. Numbers allowed to attend were restricted to 30. This horror was condoned by the Roman Catholic church leaders and the various Protestant church leaders and Evangelical churches also…

In Belfast, politicians who made the rules broke the rules and they were aided and abetted by the PSNI and the PPS.

This is an excerpt from The Nolan Show when Stephen Nolan interviewed Gordon Lyons of the DUP regarding public confidence in the Chief Constable of the PSNI.

NOLAN: Does the DUP have confidence in the Chief Constable?

LYONS: You only have to look back at the events of the last number of years to see the lack of confidence that exists within the Unionist community, if you look back and see the way they have policed some events and in particular in and around the Bobby Storey funeral where the police worked together with Sinn Fein and organised that contrary to the Covid Regulations at the time.

NOLAN: Well, it was established that the Covid Regulations were confused. That’s what the Public Prosecution Service established, isn’t it?

LYONS: I don’t think that anyone who saw those pictures at the funeral was confused. Everyone at that time knew it was a breach of the Regulations.

NOLAN: It was a breach of the guidance, there’s no doubt about that, but the Public Prosecution Service determined that the Regulations were so confused that a prosecution was not possible.

LYONS: And I’ve disputed that and I’ve disputed that on your programme as well. It was very clear at the time and if you read the Regulations, the Regulations said only 30 people could be at a funeral limited to family members. Some people couldn’t go to the funeral of their grandparents, yet Sinn Fein brought 5000 people out onto the streets for an IRA funeral. Now do you understand how difficult it was for people who saw that, what that does to confidence in the police whenever they see one rule for Sinn Fein and one rule for everybody else. The police were involved in that, the police took the decision to essentially work with Sinn Fein and organising something that was clearly a breach of the Regulations, and I think anybody looking at what took place would see that as a breach of the Regulations.

The Public Prosecution Service made a public statement relating to decisions not to prosecute 24 individuals (all of whom held elected office in Northern Ireland) reported for breaches of the coronavirus regulations in connection with attendance at the funeral of Bobby Storey.

According to the PPS, everyone of the individuals could avail of the “reasonable excuse defence”.

Final paragraph in PPS Statement

“24. In this case the judgement was made independently and impartially by a team of senior prosecutors assisted by Senior Counsel. The conclusion was that, whether considered alone or in combination, the two excuses referred to above in relation to: (i) the lack of clarity and coherence within the Regulations; and (ii) the prior engagement with the organisers and the policing approach on the day, would pose an insurmountable difficulty if any of the reported individuals were prosecuted. In these circumstances the Test for Prosecution was not met.” Tuesday 30th March 2021

Yet somehow the decision to prosecute me did meet the evidential and public interest thresholds and the decision was taken by one Senior Prosecutor, Alison Dougan. Coincidentally she made that decision right about the same time the PPS released their bullshit statement on the bank robber’s funeral.

The inalienable right to protest, assemble and freely speak one’s mind (enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 & the European Convention on Human Rights) somehow does not fall under the blanket of “reasonable excuse”.

Wuhan- EMF proliferation, air pollution, mandatory mass vaccination December 1^st 2019 , 6 different vaccines

Bergen Bresscia- Italy- flu vaccine – 165000 vaccinations in 2 provinces of Lombardy, 2 months before Covid

and 80,000 Meningococcal vaccinations

Midazolam in nursing homes in UK

Remdisivir in USA

Ventilators killed 92% of people put on them.

Pharmaceuticals that induce pneumonia like symptoms:

-anti-inflammatory drugs

-NSAIDs

-statins

-stomach acidity medication

-cardiovascular drugs

-monaclonal antibodies

They treated covid with monaclonal antibodies which causes pneumonia like symptoms.

First treatments killed many people also.

high doses of immunosuppresants:

• Prednisolone
• Interferon beta 1a
• Heberon Alfa R
• Kaletra
• Lopinavir/Ritonavir

also tested high dose Hydroxychloroquine 9grams causing toxicity and heart fibrilation, high dose used to destroy credibility of HCQ as beneficial. Beneficial maybe, but not without it’s own dangers.

Medical negligence, scientific fraud, iatrogenic death, murder, genocide

Other Possibilities for “communicable” disease

1. Pleomorphism: Bechamp wrote in “Blood & the 3^rd element” about microzyma, micro organisms that would morph into bacteria when the need arose, to eliminate toxins. Micro zyma have been called somatids, protids, and more recently bions. Dr Robert Young also writes about bacteria morphing into anthrax.
2. Polyvagal Theory: autonomic nervous system- is all about safety (and how the vagus nerve reacts to it). It is therefore all about connectedness, as when we feel safe we feel attached to others. The theory therefore linked the idea of social connectedness as a response to an form of recovery from trauma.
3. Toxaemia: poison/ trauma
4. Seasonal detoxification here is a natural relationship between the body and the seasons.
5. Biosphere or Human Energy Field – The aura, or human energy field, is like a bubble of energy that surrounds every living thing. Plants, animals, even the earth can be said to have an energy field. However, the human system is specific to our species and affects how we incarnate and perceive life.
6. Nocebo Effect – A growing body of evidence is emerging for a phenomenon known as the nocebo effect. This is when a person is conditioned to expect a negative response, or to anticipate negative effects from an experience.
7. Mc Clintock Effect – also known as menstrual synchrony, is a theory that proposes that the menstrual cycles of women who live together (such as in prisons, convents, bordellos, or dormitories) tend to become synchronized over time.
8. Pheromones –  are chemicals capable of acting like hormones outside the body of the secreting individual, to affect the behaviour of the receiving individuals
9. Empathy – The ability to identify with or understand another’s situation or feelings
10. Morphic Resonance & The Biofield – The fields organizing the activity of the nervous system are likewise inherited through morphic resonance, conveying a collective, instinctive memory. Each individual both draws upon and contributes to the collective memory of the species. This means that new patterns of behaviour can spread more rapidly than would otherwise be possible.
11. Sympathetic Resonance – or sympathetic vibration is a harmonic phenomenon wherein a passive string or vibratory body responds to external vibrations to which it has a harmonic likeness.

One study shows the common factors shared by those hospitalised with COVID illness. The majority were overweight and did not take physical exercise and Vitamin D deficient.

It was never a “VIRUS”.

J.D. Rockerfeller & The Beginnings Of Allopathic Medicine

It all starts with John D. Rockefeller (1839 – 1937) who was an oil magnate, a robber baron, America’s first billionaire, and a natural-born monopolist. Was he an agent for the Parasites?

By the turn of the 20th century, he controlled 90% of all oil refineries in the U.S. through his oil company, Standard Oil, which was later on broken up to become Chevron, Exxon, Mobil etc.

At the same time, around 1900, scientists discovered “petrochemicals” and the ability to create all kinds of chemicals from oil. For example, the first plastic — called Bakelite — was made from oil in 1907. Scientists were also discovering various vitamins and guessed that many pharmaceutical drugs could be made from oil.

This was a wonderful opportunity for Rockefeller who saw the ability to monopolize the oil, chemical and the medical industries at the same time!

The best thing about petrochemicals was that everything could be patented and sold for high profits.

But there was one problem with Rockefeller’s plan for the medical industry: natural/herbal medicines were very popular in America at that time. Almost half the doctors and medical colleges in the U.S. were practicing holistic medicine, using knowledge from Europe and Native Americans.

Rockefeller, the monopolist, had to figure out a way to get rid of his biggest competition. So he used the classic strategy of “problem-reaction-solution.” That is, create a problem and scare people, and then offer a (pre-planned) solution.

He went to his buddy Andrew Carnegie – another plutocrat who made his money from monopolizing the steel industry – who devised a scheme. From the prestigious Carnegie Foundation, they sent a man named Abraham Flexner to travel around the country and report on the status of medical colleges and hospitals around the country.

This led to the Flexner Report, which gave birth to the modern medicine as we know it.

Needless to say, the report talked about the need for revamping and centralizing our medical institutions. Based on this report, more than half of all medical colleges were soon closed.

Homeopathy and natural medicines were mocked and demonized; and doctors were even jailed. Homeopathy, traditional osteopathy, electrotherapy, and phytotherapy (botanical therapies/herbalism) were derided.

To help with the transition and to change the minds of other doctors and scientists, Rockefeller gave more than $100 million to colleges and hospitals, and founded a philanthropic front group called “General Education Board” (GEB).

In a very short time, medical colleges were all streamlined and homogenized. All the students were learning the same thing, and medicine was all about using patented drugs.

Scientists received huge grants to study how plants cured diseases, but their goal was to first identify which chemicals in the plant were effective, and then recreate a similar chemical –but not identical — in the lab that could be patented.

A pill for an ill became the mantra for modern medicine.

So, now we are, 100 years later, churning out doctors who know nothing about the benefits of nutrition or herbs or any holistic practices. We have an entire society that is enslaved to corporations for its well-being.

As regards the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations (No.2) 2020 I would have broke them all, if any of them applied to me. I never sang happy birthday washing my hands, never sanitised, never wore a mask because I knew about germ theory. I knew about Pasteur. And I knew about exosomes.. Fortunately, this is evidenced on Pfizer employee (impersonating a PSNI Constable) Murphy’s Bodyworn video. Dialogue at time-stamp 0043111:

Accused: did you ever study germ theory, no?

Murphy: Germ? What’s that?

Accused: Germ Theory, Louis Pasteur? Do you know anything about viruses, exosomes?

Murphy: Not really , I’m not going to say I do, cos I don’t.

See body worn video below.

I knew about the Spanish Flu experiments. I had read Arthur Furstenbergs, “The Invisible Rainbow”, I knew SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated and I knew the PCR Tests were fraudulent. I knew the masks were causing harm, I knew the lockdowns were causing harm and I knew vaccines would cause damage and death.

Mixed War is one which is made on one side by public authority, and on the other by mere private persons. 1 Hill (N. Y.) 377, 416.

Yes, people got sick. But it wasn’t caused by no SARS-CoV-2 bug.

I read about Louis Pasteur and Antoine Bechamps, germs, bacteria, parasites, fungus and mold. Now I know about them all: Jenner, Salk, Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Flexner, Montagner, Collins, Fauci etc.

I went to a protest to help others avoid injury and risk of serious harm when I was unlawfully arrested and detained.

As far back as August 2019 I was learning about 5G , and now we know how it all fits together in the Smart City. Studying electro magnetic frequencies I discovered the Spanish Flu and the transmissibility experiments (Roseneau)and that led me to germ theory. And since I got arrested and denied the freedom to assemble and protest and to express and impart knowledge that may have saved lives, I have continued to study and research SARS-CoV-2 and the greater history of virology.