Coronavirus Mega-Thread.

[Firebird]

21 hours ago, Firebird said:

 

Next it will be unlawful to cancel it, LOL, in the name of public safety. Then they'll have their 'laws' to imprison those that won't take it.

 

So here we are, one day later, and Austria will make it mandatory.

[oneantisworthtenofyou]

9 minutes ago, Martin1234 said:

 

Mandatory is not law?

 

Can you elaborate on this for me?

 

So if they do mandate it, we still don't have to get it, is that what you are saying?  Not trying to challenge you, just interested and keen to understand.

 

possibly a reference to common law and or policing by consent

and the difference between statute and common law

[Golden Retriever]

25 minutes ago, Martin1234 said:

 

Mandatory is not law?

 

Can you elaborate on this for me?

 

So if they do mandate it, we still don't have to get it, is that what you are saying?  Not trying to challenge you, just interested and keen to understand.

 

My understanding is it depends on the Constitution of each country, but the Nuremberg code should override forced medical or coerced medical procedures. It would have to be decided by the Austrian Supreme Court or European or International Court of Human Rights?

 

In Spain this year there was some success with the Spanish Supreme Court. They ruled the hard lockdown was disproportionate to the threat of Covid and instructed Government fines to be refunded.

 

"Health Minister Wolfgang Muckstein said the government has consulted with constitutional lawyers who believe the move is legal, but said there will be a 'proper review period' before the law comes into force. Mr Schallenberg added that violators will likely face fines rather than criminal penalties, but that details still need to be fleshed out"

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10220735/Europes-Covid-crisis-Austria-makes-vaccines-mandatory-EVERYONE.html

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Golden Retriever

[Ziggy Sawdust]

2 hours ago, HAARPING_On said:

 

Just remember mandatory is not law... it requires your consent.

 

Everyone needs to withdraw their consent. Simple.

 

[Mr H]

Is the Nuremberg Code enforceable? And by whom?

Edited November 19, 2021 by Mr H

[Mr H]

And what about the ruling the EU passed earlier this year .............

 

https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/13/how-a-court-ruling-lays-the-ground-for-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination

[Mr H]

The ECHR ruled last week that compulsory vaccination can be considered "necessary in a democratic society"

[Ziggy Sawdust]

10 minutes ago, Mr H said:

Is the Nuremberg Code enforceable? And by whom?

With the satanic shitstains that now run the world probably not,  but when government and businesses declare an individual can no longer be employed, interact economically, engage socially, travel, or conduct routine activities of daily living UNLESS they partake in the administration of an experimental drug trial (the covid vaccines are exactly that), it is called duress, overreaching, and coercion, which is a clear and blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code.

[SimonTV]

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068302

 

They cherry picked studies that show masks worked and ignored the ones that don't then called it a meta analysis and now Guardian makes an article based on it saying it proves masks are 53% effective at stopping covid hahahaha

 

 

[SimonTV]

18 minutes ago, Mr H said:

And what about the ruling the EU passed earlier this year .............

 

https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/13/how-a-court-ruling-lays-the-ground-for-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination

 

So much fraudulent science and polls.

 

You expect me to believe 77% of mexico support mandatory poison? I highly doubt the efficacy of this poll. 

 

The grand chamber can suck my balls. 

[oneantisworthtenofyou]

21 minutes ago, Mr H said:

And what about the ruling the EU passed earlier this year .............

 

https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/13/how-a-court-ruling-lays-the-ground-for-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination

 

these other two may also be of use along with The Nuremberg Code (1947)

they cover informed consent

 

World Medical Association’s (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki of 1964

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 2005 

 

[Morpheus]

56 minutes ago, Martin1234 said:

 

Mandatory is not law?

 

Can you elaborate on this for me?

 

So if they do mandate it, we still don't have to get it, is that what you are saying?  Not trying to challenge you, just interested and keen to understand.

From Black's Law dictionary:

 

What is MANDATORY?

305, 47 N. E. 623; Atlanta v. Wright, 119 Ga. 207, 45 S. E. 004; State v. Lewis, 76 Mo. 370; Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190, 8 L. Ed. 92; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 158, 2 L. Ed. 60; U. S. v. Butterworth, 160 U. S. 600, IS Sup. Ct 441, 42 L. Ed. 873. The action of mandamus is one, brought in a court of competent jurisdiction, to obtain an older of such court commanding an inferior tribunal, board, corporation, or person to do or not to do an act the performance or omission of which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. Where discretion is left to the inferior tribunal or person, the mandamus can only compel it to act, but cannot control such discretion. Rev. Code Iowa, 1880

 

Definition of a person:

 

What is JURIDICAL PERSON?

Entity, as a firm, that is not a single natural person, as a human being, authorized by law with duties and rights, recognized as a legal authority having a distinct identity, a legal personality. Also known as artificial person, juridical entity, juristic person, or legal person. Also refer to body corporate.

 

So if a person is a corporation and a mandate only applies to corporations/persons, therefore a mandate is consensual and therefore not enforceable upon a human being.

 

Links:

 

https://thelawdictionary.org/juridical-person/

 

https://thelawdictionary.org/mandatory/

 

[Morpheus]

Just to elaborate on the post above, my understanding is there is a difference between what is legal and what is lawful. Legal, is corporate/statute law. Lawful is common law. Three principles of common law, do no harm, cause no injury and cause no death. Therefore, legality is not the same as lawful. Therefore if a statute or law infringes on your common law rights, then in fact it is not applicable to a human being as it infringes on those rights. I.e. coronavirus act 2020 as it restricts your God given rights to freedom of movement, freedom of living. That's why there has been little success from the CPS to prosecute people as it's unlawful.

[RobSS]

1 hour ago, wingwang said:

Sainsburys getting ready for covid passes...

 

 

 

Tesco's new Xmas commercial features Santa showing a Vax Passport...

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by RobSS

[ar55]

Investigation launched into abnormal spike in newborn baby deaths in Scotland
 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19726487.investigation-launched-abnormal-spike-newborn-baby-deaths-scotland/

[RobSS]

Tesco ad screenshot...

 

[Rolandson]

1 hour ago, wingwang said:

Sainsburys getting ready for covid passes...

 

 

The sad part about that is that my friend and I talked about this when the jab was out

[oneantisworthtenofyou]

16 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Just to elaborate on the post above, my understanding is there is a difference between what is legal and what is lawful. Legal, is corporate/statute law. Lawful is common law. Three principles of common law, do no harm, cause no injury and cause no death. Therefore, legality is not the same as lawful. Therefore if a statute or law infringes on your common law rights, then in fact it is not applicable to a human being as it infringes on those rights. I.e. coronavirus act 2020 as it restricts your God given rights to freedom of movement, freedom of living. That's why there has been little success from the CPS to prosecute people as it's unlawful.

 

This is the mantra of the freemen on the land folk who also use this to attempt not to pay council tax etc

while i agree with the sentiment of not causing harm or loss and remaining honorable with any contracts you have

agreed to

to enforce this freeman stuff seems extremely difficult

the courts dismiss it they won't even hear the arguments when folk start quoting magna carta 1215

 

one of the founder members of this movement Winston shrout is currently in jail

unfortunately so many of these freeman gurus end up in jail or dead like "John the carpenter Harris" 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by oneantisworthtenofyou

[Mr H]

3 minutes ago, oneantisworthtenofyou said:

 

This is the mantra of the freemen on the land folk who also use this to attempt not to pay council tax etc

while i agree with the sentiment of not causing harm or loss and remaining honorable with any contracts you have

agreed to

to enforce this freeman stuff seems extremely difficult

the courts dismiss it they won't even hear the arguments when folk start quoting magna carta 1215

 

one of the founder members of this movement Winston shrout is currently in jail

unfortunately so many of these freeman gurus end up in jail or dead like "John the carpenter Harris" 

 

 

The reason why you exist from the State's point of view is to pay taxes. So yeah I wouldn't mess with that kind of stuff. Just pay and reduce as much as possible.

[Velma]

32 minutes ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

With the satanic shitstains that now run the world probably not,  but when government and businesses declare an individual can no longer be employed, interact economically, engage socially, travel, or conduct routine activities of daily living UNLESS they partake in the administration of an experimental drug trial (the covid vaccines are exactly that), it is called duress, overreaching, and coercion, which is a clear and blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code.

 

The European Convention on Human Rights safeguards all the above rights, including the right to an education and work, but it seems to have been quietly side-stepped, ignored and undermined.

 

No international body is upholding these laws.

 

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

 

Article 2

Right to Life

Article 8

Right to respect for private and family life

Article 9

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10

Freedom of Expression

Article 11

Freedom of assembly and association

Article 14

Prohibition of discrimination

Article 17

Prohibition of abuse of rights

Article 53

Safeguard for existing human rights

 

 

[Velma]

25 minutes ago, ar55 said:

Investigation launched into abnormal spike in newborn baby deaths in Scotland
 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19726487.investigation-launched-abnormal-spike-newborn-baby-deaths-scotland/

 

PHS said it is working with the Scottish National Neonatal Network, the Maternity and Children Quality Improvement Collaborative and the Scottish Government "to understand any possible contributing factors to the infant mortality patterns, and to incorporate findings into existing prevention and improvement work".

 

They should ask themselves what has changed in recent months which could possibly be a contributing factor in infant mortality patterns, such as pregnant women receiving experimental gene therapy, to the detriment of the unborn foetus?

Edited November 19, 2021 by Velma

[Beaujangles]

5 hours ago, Velma said:

 

After moving back to Scotland, I noticed that the police are actually very nice people, polite, helpful and in service to the community, when they gave me a lift home one night, (drunk) which came as a surprise, after only having known the London MET beforehand, who are power-drunk-taser-ready-scumbags.

 

 

Funny you should mention the police during all of this. Here in my area of Ontario, Canada I have noticed that the 'cruisers' thats the cars that are bright and have bright lines down the side..(will find a pic) have been nowhere in sight for about three months. In fact I think I can safely say I havent seen ONE personally during that time. They are usually parked up outside doughnut shops or hanging up side streets like highway bandits waiting to pounce and extract a few quid/bucks. But seems very quiet at the moment - its odd.

 

[Morpheus]

13 minutes ago, oneantisworthtenofyou said:

 

This is the mantra of the freemen on the land folk who also use this to attempt not to pay council tax etc

while i agree with the sentiment of not causing harm or loss and remaining honorable with any contracts you have

agreed to

to enforce this freeman stuff seems extremely difficult

the courts dismiss it they won't even hear the arguments when folk start quoting magna carta 1215

 

one of the founder members of this movement Winston shrout is currently in jail

unfortunately so many of these freeman gurus end up in jail or dead like "John the carpenter Harris" 

 

 

Ah, but one has to understand what standing is, please see this excellent presentation to call out a judge over jurisdiction over you:

 

 

This is what they don't want you to know, of this is done right, I'm confident this is a thing. To those that are scoffing, I think the more people understand what the unalienable rights are the better. This is not horse shit, it's legitimate law when used in the correct manner. 

[Sheepy]

2 minutes ago, Velma said:

They should ask themselves what has changed in recent months which could possibly be a contributing factor in recent infant mortality patterns, such as pregnant women receiving experimental gene therapy, to the detriment of the unborn foetus?

That isn't going to happen Velma, they are already so far down the line now and have already jabbed millions with DNA poison there will be lots more of this and they know it. 

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

1 hour ago, Mr H said:

The ECHR ruled last week that compulsory vaccination can be considered "necessary in a democratic society"

Have you got a cite for that? I'd like to read the ruling in its entirety.