From [DI] On Saturday 5 February 2022 a group of international lawyers called the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee gave their opening statements at the Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion, a so-called natural law court before a judge. The attorneys have charged a global criminal conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity under the guise of a COVID-19 plandemic. The grand jury is a model court because it has no governmental authority to bind and punish the defendants and is a symbolic proceeding set for prosecutors worldwide to follow.

The six defendants are Bill Gates, Dr Anthony Fauci, Dr. Drosten, WHO director, Tedros Ghebreyesus and managers of the BlackRock asset fund and Pfizer.

In an interview with World Council for Health (“WCH”) on 24 January 2022 Dr. Fuellmich, a high-profile lawyer who has won cases against giants such as Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank, explained the trial in more detail:

“We’re going to base it on the American grand jury proceeding. And what we’re going to do is: we’re going to present all the evidence that we have now to the jury. The jury, in this case, being our viewers. And that is only the first step.

“We’re using a real judge, a Portuguese judge [and] we’re [using], of course, real lawyers.  We have real experts, including Mike Yeadon and Ulrike Kämmerer and all the others. And, we have real witnesses who will explain, and tell the people about the damages that they suffer in particular because of the so-called vaccinations of course.

“Ultimately this will hopefully end up with an indictment against the six figure heads, which we picked as future defendants, we know they’re only symbolic, but still: Drosten, Fauci, Tedros, Gates, BlackRock and Pfizer.

“It is not so much about getting indictments against these people and institutions but rather, what we really have in mind is, to give the people the whole story. Not just pictures of the puzzle, but the whole story through a judicial proceeding, which has credibility and authority to enable them to understand that they not only have a right, but a duty to resist. Because as it will be made very clear, this is about life and death now.” [MORE]

According to the media release:

Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples ́ Court of Public Opinion

Empowering Public Conscience through Natural Law ‘Injustice to One is an Injustice to All’

Concerned lawyers from nations across the globe, working with esteemed scientists and medical experts, have come together to present the legal, scientific, and medical reasons why the populace must stop the Covid-19 measures and refuse the mRNA based injections that forced upon them. This Grand Jury Investigation serves to present to a jury (consisting of the citizens of the world) all available evidence of Crimes Against Humanity committed to date.

We realize, of course, that the courts of law in the current systems, just like the health care systems, our systems of education, and the (global) economic order are compromised and dominated by those who are responsible for the measures that need to be stopped. We have chosen the Grand Jury Investigation as the procedural foundation on which this proceeding akes place. But the proceeding itself will take place outside the current system, which in our view, is irreparably corrupt. That is, indeed, why we are not filing this case in one of the systems’ courts of law, which includes the International Criminal Court or the European Court of Human Rights.

Rather, we believe that it is of the utmost importance that the people themselves realize that they, their families, communities, and regions, are the only legitimate source of a truly “bottom up” democratic governance. Therefore, we, the people, must take back our sovereignty from those who have taken it from us and delegated it to anonymously and “top down” operating global corporations and institutions like the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum and their minions, the so- called Davos clique, or: Mr. Global.

For this purpose, we have created our, that is: the peoples ́ own court of law, the People ́s Court of Public Opinion to conduct this Grand Jury investigation. This makes sure that this case of Crimes Against Humanity gets a fair hearing and will not be thrown out by the systems ́ courts on dubious procedural grounds, or that a judge who is willing to apply the law as he should and thereby defies “Mr. Global’s” interests will be persecuted by the system ́s puppets as happened in Weimar to two such judges.

This proceeding ́s main purpose (apart from demonstrating actual evidence to the world and serving as a model proceeding for future legal cases to be filed) is to show a complete picture of what we consider massive Crimes Against Humanity rather than just discussing pieces of the puzzle. The supporting evidence will be presented by real lawyers and real expert witnesses to examine the evidence under the auspices of a real judge accurately and truthfully.

The court is completely independent and works only for the people for the protection and restoration of the rule of law, democracy, and our constitutions.

It is important to note, however, that each one of the participating lawyers has filed and will continue to file similar cases in their countries’ existing judicial system, and that these cases will be supported by our joint, worldwide effort.

The Grand Jury Court of Public Opinion ́s initial purpose is to shine a bright light on all the details and actions that were committed under the guise of a pandemic and constitute Crimes Against Humanity. This proceeding will hopefully motivate people across the globe to institute criminal proceedings and civil proceedings (for damages, including punitive damages) against all those who are criminally and civilly responsible for atrocities committed in their communities and regions. Some judiciaries (India ́s for example) may still be functioning and willing to serve the people in whose’ name they are supposed to render justice. But in many countries, especially in Europe, where the judiciary (just like the political system, including the health care system, the education system and economic system) has been infiltrated and compromised by those who committed the Crimes Against Humanity the legal system is irreparably broken. Where this is the case, we, the people must reinstall the rule of law and democracy, based on our constitutions by setting up our own system of courts and justice.

Thus, the ‘Peoples ́Court of Public Opinion ́s investigations are to provide guidance and to motivate national and international actions of transitional and transformative justice. It shall serve as a jump-start investigation that will be followed by many national criminal and civil proceedings as mentioned above.

Whichever path might be suitable under the conditions in your country, it must be peaceful and guided by democratic proceedings that constitute a citizen approved “judicial” system that strives towards transparency, equity and moral progression. In so doing, these proceedings aim to assist those segregated societies to escape the current tyrannical system and to address the inhumane shortcomings that have emerged under a socially constructed, but, in fact, fabricated state of health emergency. Essentially, this is a global call to action, and these proceedings shall become the foundation of social reforms that will help communities to heal, but also hold all the perpetrators of these Crimes against Humanity responsible.

The urgency of the present matter cannot be understated. We all are responsible for re-claiming the citizen’s mandate of governance in our countries, and as a global community of human beings with respect for each other and other cultures, are called to ensure that human rights are preserved NOW and in the future.

The lawyers listed below, with the assistance of many highly respected medical and scientific scholars from around the world and under the auspices of a judge from Portugal, will conduct this Grand Jury Investigation, by which they will provide the People’s Court of Public Opinion with a complete and comprehensive picture of these crimes committed against humanity.

The Peoples ‘Court of Public Opinion works independent of any government and any non-governmental organization. Logistic support is provided by the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee (www.corona-ausschuss.de).

Video of Pollard Sacks’ opening statement and transcript from {theExpose]

Hello my name is Deana Pollard Sacks and for the past 22 years I’ve been a law professor, constitutional scholar and civil rights activist and litigator.

I’m here today to discuss the derivation of our liberty clause, which goes back to natural law, and to explain why the Covid-19 vaccines are all unconstitutional based upon our history’s jurisprudence.

On the 4th of July 1776 our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. And, here’s what they said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In 1891 our Supreme Court in a case called [Boxford] explained that medical liberty is inalienable and one of the most cherished rights we can ever have they said: “No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority law. The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity to be let alone.”

In 1914 Justice Cardoso, who later became a United States Supreme Court Justice, put it this way: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.”

These same exact concepts and verbatim statements by our court have been reiterated over the decades. In 1990 for example, in a case called Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health the Supreme Court basically held that each individual has a right to reject medical treatment. That goes back to the English Common Law. And here’s what Justice Brennan said in the Cruzan case: “Anglo-American Law starts with the premise of thoroughgoing self-determination it follows that each man is considered to be the master of his own body and he may, if he be of sound mind, expressly prohibit the performance of life-saving surgery or other medical treatment.”

How is it then that our governments are pushing a medical treatment on us without consent? Not real consent. They are coercing our people to take a vaccine that’s experimental in nature upon threat of their livelihoods, their homes and their education.

Well, our government’s relying on a case called Jacobson v. Massachusetts.  So, I’m going to explain the case and explain why it actually supports our side that we get to choose medicine and medical treatments for our bodies. The case does not support the vaccine manufacturers and does not support vaccine mandates.

In 1902 during a smallpox pandemic, that killed hundreds of millions of people internationally, the state of Massachusetts passed a law and the law said that each person must be vaccinated for smallpox or pay a five dollar fine. That’s exactly what the law said. It was an ‘either-or’ law giving people the option to pay a five-dollar fine if they don’t want to get vaccinated.

Well, Mr Jacobson believed that his liberty interest protected him both from the vaccination and from paying the five-dollar fine. So, he went all the way to the US Supreme Court after paying the five-dollar fine and he wanted his money back.

And the Supreme Court looked at the medical evidence. The smallpox vaccine had been in use for a hundred years it was being used all over the world with a great deal of efficacy and it was quelling one of the worst pandemics in the history of the world. After reviewing the medical evidence carefully, after making findings concerning the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and the need for the smallpox vaccine, the court decided that Mr Jacobson did not get his five dollars back.

Now, keep in mind also Mr Jacobson believed he had a liberty interest to run around town and be seen out all over town without being vaccinated. So, he sort of flaunted the fact that he wasn’t vaccinated because he believed he had the right to be out and about without the medical treatment he did not want. And so, the court’s opinion was based on all of these facts.

And these facts do not support Covid mandates today. In fact, one of the last things the court said in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, and I quote, “we now decide only that the statute covers the present case and that nothing clearly appears that would justify this court in holding it to be unconstitutional and inoperative in its application to the plaintiff, Mr Jacobson.”

There are several reasons why Jacobson does not support the vaccine mandates of today concerning the coronavirus.

First, there’s an enormous difference concerning the public risks involved. The smallpox pandemic was killing up to 60 percent of people in villages when the smallpox came through. Anywhere from 20 to 60 percent of people were dying with an overall death rate of about 30 percent. In some, at some periods, over 90 percent of babies who were exposed to smallpox were dying. Now compare that to Covid-19 that kills a tiny fraction of one percent of people, the public risk is not even close.

The second thing is, the Covid-19 vaccines are not really vaccines at all. Unlike the vaccines in history which stopped infection and stopped transmission these vaccines do neither. These are experimental vaccines. They haven’t been around for 100 years. They haven’t been tried and tested. And our people are being subjected to an experimental vaccine when none of us really know what the long-term effects are going to be.

And finally, the law in Jacobson v. Massachusetts gave an option for the people to pay five dollars. Today that would be just under $150. Compare that to people losing their livelihoods, all that they’ve worked for, their homes and their college education because they won’t submit to an experimental vaccine. There is simply no comparison. Jacobson v. Massachusetts does not support the vaccine manufacturers or the vaccine mandates.

So, some of you may be wondering then why haven’t the Covid vaccine mandates been declared unconstitutional fully. Well, some of them have been. But, there’s one that withstood the Supreme Court scrutiny on January 13, 2022. So, I want to explain that.

First of all, the health care worker vaccine mandate arose from the taxing and spending clause of the US Constitution found in Article 1 section 8. Congress has historically been given great latitude to attach strings to Federal monies. So, you take the sour with the sweet. And if you want Federal monies you have to submit to the conditions by Congress.

Throughout history Congress has been allowed to put conditions on the receipt of Medicare and Medicare funding, and specifically has authorised conditions to limit the transmission of communicable diseases. Still, the opinion was five to four. With only five justices agreeing that the vaccine mandate for health care workers passed the original test to see whether or not the court would stop the enforcement of the vaccine mandate.

But the real question is, as Justice Thomas indicated, why wasn’t the efficacy and safety of the vaccine considered? It was not considered. And Justice Thomas made that very clear in his dissent, joined by three other justices.

The reason that the vaccine’s efficacy and safety was not considered is because the issue is not before the court. Of the 22 states who challenged the health care vaccine mandate, no state claimed that the mandate violated the liberty clause. The liberty clause is where we find our medical freedoms. Throughout history the liberty clause is the clause used to protect us against unwanted medical procedures and even to allow us to demand medical procedures that we want.

So, you will see behind me a picture of the United States Supreme Court house. I have faith that when our justices are presented with the medical facts concerning the efficacy of the vaccine, the need for the vaccine and the way our governments are bullying and coercing people to take the vaccine against their desire, the court will uphold our liberty rights and they will declare all the vaccines unconstitutional.

Later today, in the and in the days that follow, you’ll be hearing from a number of medical professionals describing why this vaccine is nothing like the vaccines of the past

So, I encourage you to stay tuned in and thank you for watching.

Further Resources

During the Opening Session of the Grand Jury aired live on YouTube, HERE, the following gave their opening statements:

• Judge Rui da Fonseca e Castro, Portugal (opening remarks)

If the Opening Session (Day 1) of the Grand Jury is removed from YouTube you can watch it on Odysee HERE.

Logistic support is provided to the proceedings by the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee: website (German) or website (English).

More information about the proceedings can be found on the Grand Jury’s website: www.grand-jury.net