Lawyer Anna de Buisseret: Vaccine Experimenters will be held Responsible for Crimes against Humanity

5
721

WORLD. “This is very serious – these are the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed in the history of mankind,” said lawyer Anna de Buisseret. In an interview from the end of October 2021, lawyer Anna de Buisseret explains that those responsible will be held accountable under the law in relation to the experimental injections that have been rolled out worldwide.

She describes how those who have explicitly or implicitly helped governments in a military-grade psychological operation have essentially committed crimes against humanity and that they will inevitably be held accountable, which has also happened earlier in history.

“I predict a tsunami of arrests in 2022. All those who are participants in these crimes against humanity, genocide, discrimination, medical apartheid, offenses against the person, assault, fraud, harassment, coercion, and other criminal acts are facing arrests and trials.” – Twitter

The interview

Anna de Buisseret: This is very serious. These are the biggest crimes against humanity ever committed in the history of humankind. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Read it. Read the European Convention of Human Rights.

Read the UK the Human Rights Act. Okay, read the International Covenant of Social and Political and Economic Rights. The reason this is happening is people don’t know the law, so they don’t know how to uphold it and assert it. And the people who are getting away with this are getting away with it because people aren’t upholding the law. Hold the line.

Stand your ground. Step into your sovereignty because this is all just a matter of time. One of the other ways that we’re tackling this is by identifying who the perpetrators are of the harm that is being caused. And the common-law general principle is, do no harm. First, do no harm.

And what that means is that you don’t get to harm anybody’s personal property, Liberty, et cetera. And that is a constitutional duty to act. To prevent harm. Admitting to act is as guilty as acting to cause harm. So what we’re doing is we’re identifying who is injecting, people who are masking them, who are testing them, who is breaching the body and bodily and psychiatric integrity of the individual.

So the idea that a bunch of bureaucrats in 2020, 2021 gets to come along and set aside our rule of law, claiming there’s a public health emergency is not legal, it’s not lawful, it’s not moral, it’s not ethical. So what we’re doing is identifying people who are breaking the law, and we’re serving them with a notice of liability which says to the individual, you personally are causing harm, you personally are in breach of not only the common law but in the international treaties, the European conventions, UK domestic law, there is nowhere to run.

Anna de Buisseret: There is nowhere to hide., I’m a senior UK lawyer. I’ve been practicing law for about 26, seven years, studying it for over 30 years.

And I’ve been working with a team of UK lawyers and international lawyers. Now, for about a year, we’ve been drilling down into the legal analysis, the evidential analysis, working with experts all around the world, hearing their evidence about what’s happening. So medical experts, scientific experts. And as I say, what the legal analysis is is that these are crimes against humanity that are being committed. It is genocide.

It’s biowarfare. And that’s the view of senior lawyers from around the world. We’re all senior lawyers who are capable of reading the law, understanding, and applying it. And most of us on the front line are litigators. So this is what we do.

We look at the evidence, we look at the law and we bring cases to sort it out and uphold the rule of law. So that is us all being peer-reviewed by each other. One of the other ways that we’re tackling this is by identifying who the perpetrators are of the harm that’s being caused. So for those of you who don’t understand, we are a common law jurisdiction in this country and lots of countries around the world claim their jurisdiction from the UK. And the common-law general principle is do no harm.

First, do no harm. And what that means is that you don’t get to harm anybody’s person, property, Liberty, etcetera. And that is a constitutional duty to act to prevent harm. Omitting to act is as guilty as acting to cause harm. So what we’re doing is we’re identifying who is injecting people who are masking them, who are testing them, who is breaching the body and bodily and psychiatric integrity of the individual.

Because again, under common law, voluntary supremely over his own mind or body, the individual is sovereign and nobody gets to derogate from that fundamental inalienable human right. We are all sovereign. We are all equal in the eyes of God, we’re all equal under the rule of law, no one is above it. And the fundamental maximum of law is that you have sovereignty over your own mind and body. Nobody gets to break down, not even in times of public emergency threatening the life of the nation.

There is no right to derogate from the fundamental right to life, from the right not to be tortured or to receive cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, not to have your right to privacy and the right to family life affected. Those rights cannot be derogated even in war. The only time it’s lawful is if it’s in a lawful act of war. Well, when you read the war conventions, means and methods of warfare are not unlimited. You cannot, for example, run a campaign of terror against the occupied enemy, cannot conduct live human experiments, give people medical treatment without their informed consent.

Voluntary given that is against the law, even in wartime. So the idea that a bunch of bureaucrats in 2020, 2021 get to come along and set aside our rule of law, claiming there’s a public health emergency is not legal. It’s not lawful, it’s not moral, it’s not ethical. So what we’re doing is identifying people who are breaking the law, and we’re serving them with a notice of liability which says to the individual you personally are causing harm. You personally are in breach of not only the common law but in the international treaties, the European conventions, UK domestic law.

And we’re saying to people you are individually accountable and liable in your personal capacity, criminally and civilly, there is nowhere to run. There is nowhere to hide. No one is going to defend you because the law says you must uphold the law. You must not cause harm and you are personally liable. So what we’ve done is we’ve drafted a notice of liability.

It runs to 170 pages. And in this what you do is you set out the name of the person who they’re acting as. So, for example, I’ve just used the name, Jane Brown, acting as, for example, headteacher of the school name and address. And then whoever else is involved in perpetrating these crimes. And what we do is we set out the law.

So the first one being premium non and Cherry, is due. Firstly, no harm. You have a duty of care. You have legal law for moral and ethical requirements to obtain freely informed consent. And then I set out literally there are pages and pages and pages of the law, including, for example, the Nuremberg Code, Part one of the Schedule Medicine for Human Use Clinical Trials Regulations 2004, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Obey Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And I read this out to you earlier. Can I just read?

I just want to read a little bit of the preamble which says, whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind. Bearing in mind this is right and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy the freedom of speech.

Note that Reuters from Facebook and all the other platforms who are trying to censor us and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common purpose.

Now, this is the most important point, whereas it is essential if man is not compelled to have recourse as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

And it goes on and sets out Article One, all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Article One of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says all people have the right to determination by virtue of that right. They freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. And Article Two, everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration. Article three, everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

And so it goes on and explains that those articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are enshrined in multiple human rights treaties and conventions, international, European, and the UK. So it sets it all out. All of those laws, all of those rights say that there’s no right to derogate, as I said. And then it talks about the evidence about the fact that there is no public health emergency on the evidence. There are alternative treatments.

There are early treatments that are being denied to people. I set out the evidence of where, for example, there’s been a 70% reduction in mortality in countries where they’ve allowed hydrochloric where ivermectin was used in India. The most prominent examples include the areas of Delhi, Altar Pradesh, et cetera. This is dropped by 98% 97%. 94% is Covid free.

So I set out pages and pages of the evidence that’s given from bold experts, open letters, calls for it to be stopped. Pages and pages of it. Okay. And then it sets out the legal position, which is that you don’t get to break the law and it sets out the contractual provisions and they’ve given notice of office.

They have a duty of care. You are accountable. The GMC guidance, the NMC guidance. There’s a call for evidence, 45 points of evidence that need to be fulfilled because the burden of evidence, the burden of proof rather, is on those claiming the right to delegate to prove that it’s necessary. It’s proportionate, it’s evidence-based, it’s reasonable, it’s rational. It’s the least restrictive measure. Paragraph 58 of the Syracuse Principles specifically States that you don’t get to do this. This sets out all of that and says to people, you will be held responsible.

Now, that’s very powerful, because sorry, once people realize that they are going to be personally held responsible, they then have to stop. So it’s a cease and desist as well.

Interviewer: Absolutely. So thank you for explaining all of that and showing us. Does that mean that if somebody was to serve a vaccination center or a school that would cover everybody within that’s operating?

Anna de Buisseret: Yeah. Basically, as I say, the person who is injecting someone is committing the actual act. Anyone who is facilitating that, promoting it marketing is aiding and abetting. If they’re silent, they are complicit. And so, as I say, you have a constitutional duty to act to prevent harm, saying silence is not an option.

Interviewer: Thank you. And do they all need to be named on that?

Anna de Buisseret: Yes. Because it’s the individual living man or woman.

Interviewer: So when somebody would be serving, it always has to take.

Anna de Buisseret: And they have to give them because any nurse, for example, under the NMC code, the doctor has to state who they are. They have to give the personal identification number they’re required to.

Interviewer: And do they have to get back to you within a few?

Anna de Buisseret: Yes. 14 days is set out in here. And the beauty of this is it contains an affidavit. And now an affidavit for people who don’t know is a statement of truth to the best of your knowledge and belief. So help me God. And what that is is a solemn oath. That what you are saying is the best of truth to the best of your knowledge and belief. Sorry, I’m tired, folks. The point about that is that you swear that as an oath in front of a Commissioner for oath.

Now, unless someone can rebut everything you’ve said in their own affidavit, their own statement of truth, so help them God your affidavit stands. So this notice of liability includes an affidavit that says that everything in here is true with us, my knowledge and belief. And unless they can rebut that with their own evidence and just to say things like, oh, we haven’t got time to answer. It’s not going to sound. And so the problem is that for people who have been perpetrating this, they cannot give that affidavit.

They cannot say that they can rebut 175 pages of law and evidence.

Interviewer: So what would we be expecting this year?

Anna de Buisseret: Well, for example, I think it was. The Association of Teachers said that 79% of schools have been served and the Dorset schools have pulled back because they’ve been served notices. There’s a team in Chester who are currently getting an arrest warrant out for a headmaster. That school was served in the summer with notice. They now have evidence that a twelve-year-old girl was injected without her informed consent. She was not told the material risk. She was not shown the yellow card. She took it because she was told she couldn’t go on holiday with her grandmother without it.

So she did it under duress and wasn’t informed. She was twelve. She has been experimented on with an experimental novel genetic treatment and didn’t even know that’s a crime. If she suffers harm from that, then the individual who has injected her as well as the school who has facilitated it, is on the face of it, guilty of crimes and civil offenses. So the police have been engaged. They’ve also been served notice. And it’s now going to the Criminal Prosecution Service. Crime reference being obtained. Well, not for this one at the moment.

I’m aware of. But there’s another family whose child has died and they have obtained a crime reference. So clearly, if one set of police is giving a crime reference for the same sessions and the fact is on the evidence, it’s wounding with intent under section 20 of the offenses against the person. The moment you Pierce someone’s skin, that’s a wound. It’s only lawful if they’ve consented to lawful consent if they haven’t, you’ve committed the crime of wounding them and you intended to do it because you intended to stick the needle in.

So anything that flows from that is your personal liability. Anyone who has facilitated that. So people have to understand that they’re on the wrong side of the law and on the wrong side of history. And for people who say to me, I’m threatening them, I am not threatening them. I am a messenger. I am reading the law. I’m telling people what the law says. It’s the law that’s threatening them. The International Military Tribunal judgments of the Nuremberg Trials set out very clearly what the law is.

I invite anyone to read those judgments. They are critical reading, and they clearly say you are responsible for your own actions and emissions. You don’t get to say I was just following orders. You don’t get to turn a blind eye. And those people who do are held accountable. And unfortunately, those who are found guilty because the death penalty applied, were either hanged or they were put in prison. That’s what people face.

They need to understand it. And ignorance of the law is no defense.

Interviewer: You’re offering them an education. Okay. And I gathered sadly, there have been even some deaths in what I’m hearing.

Anna de Buisseret: And rates of myocarditis, strokes. I heard an interview with a girl the other day who said out of a class of 30, 12 of them were off having been injected. We know that children are already dying. We know they’re dying in the womb. We know breastfeeding children are dying. We know young infants are dying.

They now want to inject five to eleven-year-olds. How do you obtain informed consent about the long-term consequences to their fertility, to their health, to their heart, to their immune system on an injection where none of us knows, nobody knows what’s going to happen.

We don’t have long-term safety data. How can a child of five agree to that? And the parents can’t agree because on the evidence they are being lied to, they are being misled. It’s deceitful. It’s fraudulent, criminally, fraudulent. And the expert evidence of the psychiatrists and the psychologists who have been analyzing the mind space documents. They’ve been analyzing, the messenger from the media, et cetera.

They’ve been analyzing the Stephen Hawkins Foundation documents, and they have said and I quote, and I summarize that not a single person in the UK is able to give their informed consent due to the military-grade psychological warfare that’s being conducted on them now, let alone children.

Now, what that means is that no consent that’s been obtained is lawful or legal. So that means that every person who’s been injected, even though they appear to have given their consent, has been battered, they’ve been assaulted, they’ve been wounded. So any death, any injury, that’s a criminal act. This is very serious. These are the biggest crimes against humanity ever committed in the history of humankind. And the fact is that the law prohibits it. We have precedents. We have the law. So it’s not like this is a new situation.

We’ve been through this all before. So anyone who thinks that they’re not going to be blamed and not going to be held accountable does not know their history. What happened after the last war? People’s courts were formed in all jurisdictions. People knew who the perpetrators were, who the complicit people were in their local communities. They found them, they took them from their homes. They put them in court, they judged them and they handed down the sentence. And I watched, for example, the execution of the Chaucheskis from the Romanian Revolution.

I watched their trial last night and they were found guilty. They were taken outside and they were shot. And unfortunately, I didn’t write that history. That’s nothing to do with me. I’m telling people that that’s what happens. People seek justice beyond the grave. People have died for millennia over freedom. So, anyone who thinks that people aren’t going to fight for justice and freedom, I don’t know what they’re thinking. They need to give their head a wobble. Hold the line. Stand your ground. Step into your sovereignty because this is all just a matter of time.

These measures are illegal, unlawful, and unethical immoral. They will not stand up to court scrutiny around the world. They might get away with it in certain jurisdictions. But there are countries running these cases all around the world. We are going to get the right results.

Interviewer: So be patient.

Anna de Buisseret: So be patient, hold the line. In the meantime, use that time to spread the world, jam upon your rights. It’s simple to say no. We are riled by consent. But we’re not actually ruled. These are all public servants. We are governed by consent. So if you don’t consent to these measures They cannot force you to. They might claim that they can but you found a lot of cases have been dropped because they’re illegal. Hold the line. Stand your ground. Step into your sovereignty.

On January 20, 2022, Anna de Buisseret, unfortunately, decided to resign from her mission.

“I’m resigning.
I’ve provided everyone with free legal expertise for 2 years.
And I’ve just spent 30 hours being abused every minute of those hours by the Twitter community.
Only 2 or 3 people came to my defence.
So you’ve all now just silenced me.
I’m done.” – Twitter

 


Stöd NewsVoice genom att köpa kaffe
Lämna Twitter - Byt till Twitter och friheten
I kommentarsfältet har varje person ansvar för sin egen kommentar. Se reglerna.
Prenumerera
Notify of
guest
5 Kommentarer
Nyast
Äldst Mest röstad
Inline Feedbacks
Se alla kommentarer
JohnnyD
Johnny
5 februari 2022 kl 16:53

Hennes syn på lagen inger förhoppningar om rättvisa. Hon uppmanar sina läsare att Hold the Line, men ger själv upp direkt.

Birgit Sjölander
Birgit Sjölander
Gäst
4 februari 2022 kl 18:31

Bra initiativ att resten inom Juridiken har vaknat och tar sitt ansvar. Men vi, befolkningen får inte luta oss tillbaka i soffan och hoppas att de andra nu rensa upp det är vi som måste stå enat emot och framförallt funderar på vilken typ av samhället vi vill har och hur vi tänker förhindra att blir lurat en gång till.

Anders Johansson
Anders Johansson
Gäst
3 februari 2022 kl 14:52

Yes, We are coming for them. Knock Knock…

jonnyjonson
jonnyjonson
Gäst
Reply to  Anders Johansson
3 februari 2022 kl 17:27

Hehe, precis..knock knock..kaboom kaboom..el ungefär som massutrotarna har försökt göra mot hederliga Människor i 2 år nu

jonnyjonson
jonnyjonson
Gäst
3 februari 2022 kl 10:54

Oh, perfect. You and your fellows are working together again. Splendid, because we need you. The beginning of second act is now..