An attempt to sabotage a prosecution brought to the courts against the UK Parliament and their corrupt scientific advisors for fraud, treason and genocide has failed.
On the 19th March 2021 papers were laid electronically by Michael O’Bernicia at a South London Magistrates Court in a momentous Criminal Prosecution against Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson for Covid fraud.
However given the ultimate seriousness of laying charges of pandemic fraud against Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson and their mistakenly perceived unaccountablity as officers of the UK’s criminally rogue government, it was certainly no surprise that Michael and the former CID detective he is working with detected the first sign of sabotage, within two weeks of the case being filed.
When the Statement of Case was filed electronically at Westminster Magistrates Court on the 19th March 2021, a covering letter also informed the court that a substantive evidence bundle would be sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery the following week, including hard copies of the Statement of Case and the covering letter.
On the 26th March 2021, the three case files were received and signed for by the court. Michael and his team were then informed by Westminster Magistrates that the papers were being checked by the court’s legal department and that they would be notified of the case’s progression in due course.
After not hearing anything for a couple of weeks, they made further inquiries and were told that the papers had been sent by Westminster to Bromley Magistrates Court’s listing department for processing and that they were undergoing final check’s by the Kent court’s legal department.
They were also told the files had been sent to Bromley because that is the judicial venue to which all Private Criminal Prosecutions filed at Westminster are sent for processing and listing, once the latter court’s legal team have completed their initial assessment of the papers laid.
However, a few days later the team received an email from the Westminster court, letting them know that the case had been passed to the Deputy Chief Magistrate [DCM] for consideration and his decision was enclosed as an attachment.
Despite what Michael and his team had been told about the three evidence files being processed by the Bromley court’s legal team and listings department, the judge purported to dismiss the case on the emphatically unsustainable ground that they had not cited enough prima facie evidence for the case to proceed.
Nevertheless, the DCM stated in his judgment that he had given very careful consideration to “126 pages” of evidence, even though the final page count in the three case files was in excess of 800 pages, which included 11 expert witness statements from two professors, three doctors, a dental surgeon, a probate solicitor, a mathematician, a retired nuclear submarine data analyst, an independent data analyst and a former CID fraud detective, in support of the allegations made.
It was then that they realised that the judge’s decision was based entirely on the 126 page Statement of Case and that he clearly hadn’t had sight of the copious prima facie evidence contained in the three evidence files.
Whilst the judge clearly believed that, in the absence of the corroborating expert witness statements, there was not enough evidence for the case to proceed, his decision to dismiss it was as void as the Dodo, albeit seemingly through no fault of his own.
So Michael and his team called Bromley Magistrates to check whether they knew anything about the decision having been made and were somewhat surprised to discover that the court’s legal team had sent the case (including the three evidence files) to the DCM for consideration and that they should receive his decision in due course.
So Michael and his team gave those concerned the benefit of the doubt and provisionally assumed that the legal teams of both courts realised that an obvious error had been made and that the initial decision would be disregarded.
However, a few days later they received an email from Bromley letting them know that the judge had already decided the matter and dismissed the case in the order they had already received from Westminster.
Michael and his team therefore logically concluded that there had been a very subtle attempt to sabotage the case by separating the electronic filing of the Statement of Case from the hard copy evidence files which arrived by Special Delivery the following week.
Without delay, upon Michael’s polite request, Westminster Magistrates was informed by his liaison at Bromley Magistrates that, through what appeared to be no fault of his own, the DCM’s decision was void, on the ground that it was merely based upon the Statement of Case and did not take into account the prima facie evidence adduced.
But rather than appealing the decision to the High Court on that ground, Michael suggested that it would be better for all concerned if the judge was willing to set aside his initial decision, despite the fact that they have never known any judge in either the criminal and civil domains to even countenance such an action once a decision has been made.
Nevertheless, within a little more than 24 hours, Michael and his team were informed that the Deputy Chief Magistrate had decided to grant their request for reconsideration, as if the order dismissing the case had not been made.
Furthermore, the judge indicated that he will be reconsidering the case upon all the evidence adduced at the end of next week, with his final decision to follow shortly afterwards.
In other words, the DCM appears to have shown that he possesses that increasingly rare quality among the judiciary – integrity – given that he could so easily have passed the buck to a dodgy High Court judge by forcing Michael and his team to appeal his void decision in a rigged proceeding, instead of admitting the error and reconsidering the case on its merits.
Moreover, even if he committed the error of judgment because of foul play by a government stooge working at Westminster Magistrates Court, the judge’s integrous reconsideration of the case emphatically trumps the duplicitous attempt to sabotage it.
Michael and his team said that no matter what the outcome of the judge’s second decision, they have no intention of backing down until the UK Parliament, their Scientific Advisors and their accomplices are held to account for their crimes.