Francoska odvetnica vložila pritožbo zoper poslance, ki so glasovali za obvezno injekcijo delavcev

Oddajachilles arrow, dne 2022-01-14 ob 12:05:53

To je odlična pravna konstrukcija primera proti francoskim poslancem in francoskemu predsedniku, ki združuje vse vrste zgodovinskih in sodobnih točk v zvezi s PLANDEMIJO, ki velja za vse naše vlade.

Maître de Araujo-Recchia vložila pritožbo zoper poslance, ki so glasovali za zakon z dne 5. avgusta

FRANCE SOIR

INTERVJU – Maître de Araujo-Recchia je v sodelovanju s svojim kolegom Jean-Pierrom Josephom in še dvema odvetnikoma vložila pritožbo pri doajenu preiskovalnih sodnikov v imenu združenj BonSens.org, AIMSIB in Collectif des Maires Résistants proti poslancem, ki so potrdili zakon z dne 5. avgusta o obvladovanju zdravstvenih kriz.

Namen tega zakona je bil prisiliti milijone strokovnjakov, da se podvržejo eksperimentalni injekciji ali tvegajo izgubo službe. Združenja tožnikov so bila obveščena, da so poslanci skupnega odbora (CMP) dosegli dogovor izven okvira CMP v korist zasebnih interesov v zameno za njihov glas za predlog zakona, ki krši francosko ustavo, mednarodno pravo in pravila obeh domov, ki jih morajo poslanci spoštovati. Maître de Araujo-Recchia nam je odobrila intervju, da bi pojasnil vse podrobnosti tega pravnega postopka.

*****

Maître DE ARAUJO-RECCHIA, ste odvetnik na pariškem sodišču in trenutno vlagate kazensko ovadbo v imenu združenj proti parlamentarcem. Katera so dejstva, zaradi katerih ste vložili to pritožbo?

Najprej gre za kazensko ovadbo, ki jo je pripravil odbor z mojim kolegom Jean-Pierrom Josephom in še dvema odvetnikoma, vloženo v imenu združenj BonSens.org, AIMSIB in Collectif des Maires Résistants.

Ta pritožba se nanaša na dejanja, ki bi jih lahko označili kot kazniva, ker kršijo zavezujoče mednarodno pravo, ustavo in pravila obeh domov, ki jih morajo poslanci spoštovati. Posledično se zadeva vloži neposredno pri višjem preiskovalnem sodniku.

Združenja pritožnika so bila namreč opozorjena, da so se člani skupnega parlamentarnega odbora (CMP), pristojni za predlaganje besedila o določbah, ki so še v obravnavi v predlogu zakona o ponovni vzpostavitvi in ​​dopolnitvi izrednega zdravstvenega stanja, ki se je sestal 25. julija 2021, pogajali. in sklenila tajni dogovor zunaj CMP z namenom zadovoljiti zasebne interese v zameno za njihov glas za predlog zakona.

Naj spomnimo, šlo je za podaljšanje zdravstvene izkaznice (obveznost prikritega cepljenja) in odločanje o obveznosti cepljenja številnih strokovnjakov (zdravstveni delavci, gasilci, vojaki med drugim).

Na ta način so zadevni parlamentarci milijone Francozov obsodili, da izbirajo med službo/družabnim življenjem in zdravjem. Pravzaprav ne gre za obvezno cepljenje z varnim izdelkom, za katerega obstaja desetletna ocena in ki je namenjen zaščiti pred smrtonosno boleznijo brez razpoložljivega zdravljenja.

Pravzaprav gre za prisilo milijonov Francozov v klinično preskušanje bioloških zdravil (ki sodijo v kategorijo bioloških zdravil po zakonodaji EU), ki so imela impresiven seznam stranskih učinkov, še preden so jih dali na trg. 

Poročilo Zvezne uprave za zdravila (FDA) iz oktobra 2020 to zelo dobro kaže: govorilo se je že o miokarditisu, Guillain-Barréjevem sindromu, Creutzfeldt-Jakobovi bolezni itd.

Ti farmacevtski izdelki so predmet na milijone poročil o neželenih učinkih:

– 2.880.653 zapisov, prijavljenih v bazi podatkov WHO VigiAcces,

– 19.387 smrti na dan 18. decembra 2021 in 1.275.634 neželenih učinkov, od tega 363.774 resnih, na spletni strani evropske farmakovigilance EudraVigilance.

Ti podatki so izjemno zaskrbljujoči v primerjavi s podatki iz vseh običajnih kampanj cepljenja skupaj, ob upoštevanju, da poročila na področju farmakovigilance dejansko zadevajo 1-10 % dejanskih učinkov glede na interne študije Health Human Services in Harvarda).

Zvezi BonSens.org in AIMSIB pa sta poslance nenehno opozarjala na vse načine (odprta pisma, priporočena pisma, članki, video intervjuji z vodilnimi svetovnimi strokovnjaki, posredovanje v okviru neodvisnega znanstvenega odbora, predlogi za financiranje potrebnih sestankov in preiskav).

Kljub vsem tem opozorilom in tisočem smrtnih žrtev se zdi, da so se obtoženi parlamentarci raje pogajali o zasebnih uslugah, kot pa da bi zaščitili interese naroda in zdravje Francozov, kar je v nasprotju ne le s pravili obeh domovov parlamenta, pa tudi zavezujočega mednarodnega prava.

Spomnimo se točke 5 Nürnberškega zakonika:

” 5. Poskus se ne sme izvajati, če obstaja vnaprejšnji razlog za domnevo, da bo povzročil smrt ali invalidnost subjekta.”

To je splošno sprejeto pravilo medicinske etike, kot se je maja 2021 spomnil dr. Mc Cullough, kardiolog na inštitutu Baylor v ZDA. Načeloma prve smrti vodijo v takojšnjo prekinitev kliničnih preskušanj:

»Meja za ustavitev programa cepljenja je 25 do 50 smrti.

Prašičjo gripo, 1976, 25 smrti, takoj so jo ustavili.

V ZDA imamo povprečno 200 poročil o smrti na leto za vsa cepiva.

Imamo več kot 4000 poročil o smrti v ZDA!

Je daleč najbolj smrtonosno, najbolj strupeno biološko sredstvo, ki so ga kdaj vbrizgali v človeško telo.

Vendar je jasno, da to glavno pravilo medicinske etike sploh ni bilo upoštevano.

Za tiste, ki bi trdili, da Nürnberški zakonik ni izvršljiv, naj vas spomnim, da je Nürnberški zakonik del običajnega mednarodnega prava (opinio juris site necessitatis).

V zvezi s tem bomo citirali Mary HOLLAND, profesorico prava na newyorški univerzi, ki je maja 2016 spraševala članice Združenih narodov o politikah cepiv, ki kršijo Nürnberški zakonik.

"Združeni narodi in mednarodna skupnost so dolžni spoštovati človekove pravice v zvezi s cepljenjem."

»Nürnberški zakonik pravi, da je »prostovoljna privolitev človeka absolutno nujna. Mednarodni pakt o državljanskih in političnih pravicah je ponovil to prepoved neprostovoljnega eksperimentiranja v svojem besedilu iz leta 1966, ki pravi: nihče ne sme biti podvržen medicinskim ali znanstvenim poskusom brez njegovega prostega soglasja. Ta prepoved je zdaj tako splošno priznana, da so nekatera sodišča in znanstveniki to pravico do privolitve po poučitvi obravnavali kot zadevo mednarodnega običajnega prava. (….). “

Prav tako opozarjam, da je Francija podpisnica Mednarodnega pakta o državljanskih in političnih pravicah ter konvencije OVIEDO in da sta ta besedila zavezujoča.

Na podlagi teh elementov so zato združenja želela postaviti pod vprašaj imuniteto obtoženih poslancev, ki je ni mogoče uporabiti absolutno.

Ali se lahko v tem konkretnem primeru izpodbija poslanska imuniteta?

Po preučitvi sodne prakse, ustavnih norm in zavezujočega mednarodnega prava menimo, da poslanska imuniteta ni absolutna, zlasti kadar so opažena dejanja posebej resna in jih je mogoče označiti kot zločinska in kazniva dejanja.

Parlamentarci so že bili obsojeni na sodiščih, zlasti v primerih, ko se je izkazal vpliv farmacevtskih lobijev.

V tem primeru tožniki menijo, da so bili obtoženi poslanci zaradi dejanj obtoženih sostorilcev pri zastrupitvah in zločinih proti človečnosti.

Poleg tega splošno mednarodno pravo zagotavlja odsotnost imunitete za voditelje držav in njihove uprave v zvezi z zločini proti človeštvu in, bolj na splošno, kakršno koli resno kršitev mednarodnega prava.

prispevek europe reloaded

Indeed, binding international law prohibits rulers and their administrations from forcing their citizens to participate in a clinical trial, which is considered a crime against humanity when the experiment results in the death or disability of thousands of people.

Finally, we recall that in the PAPON case, the Council of State considered that the faults of this public agent were committed within the framework of his service, that they are not deprived of any link with the latter.

However, because of their “particular seriousness”, they have the character of an inexcusable personal fault, which makes them detachable from the functions performed.

Consequently, Mr Maurice Papon is found guilty of complicity in a crime against humanity.

The criminal liability of an accomplice to crimes against humanity only requires, from a moral point of view, proof of the intention to commit the common law crimes that serve as a basis for crimes against humanity.

This case law could be used in this case.

  • Could parliamentary immunity be called into question in the case of parliamentarians who vote in favour of the bill introducing the vaccine pass?

By voting in favour of the introduction of the vaccine pass, parliamentarians will be ratifying the principle of discrimination within the population between those “vaccinated with X doses of covid” and those “not vaccinated” with covid.

This is tantamount to punishing people who have not broken any law, since no law to date requires covid vaccination.

According to Article 5 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

“The Law has the right to defend only those actions that are harmful to Society. Anything that is not forbidden by the law cannot be prevented, and no one can be forced to do what it does not order.

According to Article 8 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

“The Law must establish only strictly and obviously necessary penalties, and no one may be punished except by virtue of a Law established and promulgated prior to the offence, and legally applied.” (in Latin, Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege).

However, there is no compulsory anti-covid vaccine law.

Moreover, in response to a recent article in the mainstream press, studies and reports from hospital data show that people who have been inoculated with an experimental anti-covid gene substance transmit the disease, develop the disease, are probably the source of new variants and are more likely to be in hospital (Omicron is highly contagious but not dangerous).

Therefore, people who have not been inoculated with these products cannot be held responsible for the contamination of others.

Coming back to the criminal responsibility of parliamentarians, it is obvious that the health pass (knowing that the tests are not reliable, Mr Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a research centre of the US Department of Health, has just acknowledged this: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=bAICMQ1D5F8 at 6’27”) and the vaccine pass are unconstitutional and contrary to international conventions, on the one hand, because they discriminate against and therefore punish people who have not broken the law, and on the other hand, because these passes are likely to force the population to participate in a clinical trial of experimental pharmaceutical products that could harm their lives.

During the first reading of the bill in the National Assembly, Mr Eric Coquerel, MP, submitted an amendment n°390 to remind parliamentarians that the suspension of caregivers without pay was contrary to the norms of the constitutional bloc and international conventions. However, this amendment was rejected, which clearly demonstrates that parliamentarians are well aware that they are violating the highest standards by adopting this text and that they are knowingly complicit in crimes against humanity.

From this point on, their criminal responsibility can be called into question, given that the intentional element can be demonstrated in this way and that the parliamentarians know full well that they are satisfying private interests, whether pharmaceutical laboratories or, more broadly, the globalist oligarchy, which have no interest in the health of citizens.

  • Do you think that the immunity of the President of the Republic could be challenged in the same way?

In principle, according to Article 68 of the Constitution:

“The President of the Republic can only be removed from office in the event of a breach of his duties that is manifestly incompatible with the exercise of his mandate. Impeachment shall be pronounced by the Parliament constituted as a High Court.

In accordance also with Article 67 of the Constitution:

“The President of the Republic shall not be responsible for acts performed in that capacity, subject to the provisions of Articles 53-2 and 68.
He may not, during his term of office and before any French court or administrative authority, be required to testify or be the subject of any action, act of information, investigation or prosecution. Any period of limitation or foreclosure shall be suspended.
The proceedings and procedures which are thus impeded may be resumed or initiated against him or her at the end of a period of one month following the termination of his or her duties.

Nevertheless, given that the current President of the Republic has proclaimed on several occasions that citizens have duties before rights, it is essential to remember that in French law, citizens actually have rights above all else and that the executive, legislative, judicial and media powers are at their service.

According to Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

“The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

I am sorry to have to quote texts that are known to all, but on reading certain articles in the subsidised press, I consider that as a lawyer, it is my duty to remind them.

In accordance with the Preamble of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789:

The Representatives of the French People, constituted as a National Assembly, considering that ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt for the rights of Man are the only causes of public misfortune and the corruption of Governments, have resolved to set out, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of Man, so that this Declaration, constantly present to all the Members of the social body, will constantly remind them of their rights and duties; So that the acts of the legislative power, and those of the executive power, which can be compared at every moment with the purpose of every political institution, may be more respected; so that the claims of the citizens, based henceforth on simple and indisputable principles, may always turn out to maintain the Constitution and the happiness of all.

Citizens are holders of rights, they make society, pay taxes and social charges and respect the laws.

If we only have duties, and freedoms are taken away, then this is modern slavery and totalitarianism.

Moreover, according to Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

“Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no constitution.”

However, for two years now, the President of the Republic has been permanently calling on the National Defence and Security Council (whose powers have been extended since 2009 by simple decree, without any organic law having been passed to amend the Constitution), in defiance of the deliberative principle, thus arrogating to himself full powers, without Parliament deigning to fulfil its role as guardian of the rule of law, with the Council of State and the Constitutional Council no longer playing their role either a priori or a posteriori.

Yet, according to Article 3 of the Constitution:

“National sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum.
No section of the people nor any individual can claim to exercise it.

What could be the consequences of this statement? If there is no Constitution, what about the immunity of the President of the Republic? Is he justiciable before the courts of common law given his particularly serious actions detachable from his office, in accordance with international law?

Indeed, why should we accept to maintain the immunity of the President of the Republic stemming from the Constitution, when the separation of powers is no more and when the President of the Republic is at the origin of unprecedented attacks on our State of law, on the fundamental interests of the Nation and above all when he undermines the psychological and physical integrity of the French people?

Article 5 of the Constitution is very clear:

“The President of the Republic shall ensure that the Constitution is respected. He ensures, through his arbitration, the regular functioning of the public powers as well as the continuity of the State.

He is the guarantor of national independence, territorial integrity and respect for treaties.

Moreover, if there is no longer a Constitution and the president of the Republic is subject to the ordinary courts, are the consequences of the measures taken since March 2020, in the sole interest of foreign private entities, of “particular gravity”, thus taking on the character of an inexcusable personal fault, which makes them detachable from the functions performed?

The magistrates will probably have to consider this question sooner or later, given that the parliamentarians do not envisage an impeachment procedure after two years of unethical behaviour, serious violation of the supreme norms and destruction of the Nation.

Za komentiranje morate biti prijavljeni.
Ni komentarjev
achilles arrow
achilles arrow
Objavil/a 2022-01-14 12:05:53 (pred 4 dnevi)
Starejša objava Novejša objava
ZADNJE OBJAVE
AETHEREAL - Bitka za nebesa in zemljo
"ELITE" so nekoristni jedci!
Nikoli se ne bomo vdali : Andrea Colombini | 100 levjih dni
Cepljeni proti necepljenim: tisti, ki zavračajo cepiva, in ''uradno'' Covid pripoved so stigmatizirani kot ''psihopati''
Pfizer Inc. 'Goljufivi marketing': ''Največja poravnava goljufij v zdravstveni oskrbi v svoji zgodovini''(2009). Ministrstvo za pravosodje ZDA
Ves svet je oder, In vsi moški in ženske so zgolj igralci ... | ''Zdravniki'' kuge
ZADNJI KOMENTARJI
KATEGORIJE
IŠČI PO ARHIVU
januar 2022
PTSČPSN
12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31
Zapri predvajalnik
Prikaži seznam predvajanja
Prestavi predvajalnik
Povečaj