R [PUB] v Hancock & Others [2021] | Public Notice of Intended Prosecution

The Bernician

4 years ago

R [PEOPLE’S UNION OF BRITAIN] [PROSECUTION]

V

MATT 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 FERGUSON

Served 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 Party 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