Grand Jury
ER Editor: The video of the opening statements of Day 1 lasts around 1 hour, 35 minutes. Below we’re providing some detailed notes on what is said and by whom, which does not substitute for listening to the whole thing. At the 10 minute mark, Viviane Fischer introduces the proceedings – this is where the video begins.
All participants make their case to us watching, we the jury. They explain the basis for their arguments; Reiner Fuellmich describes the steps of his case and which witnesses will be called (it is an impressive list of diverse experts) to testify at each step.
****
ANA GARNER, USA
- This enactment of a Grand Jury investigation, common in the US, is a model legal proceeding to the citizens of the world against leaders, instigators and accomplices in the formulation and execution of a plan to create a pandemic. It is a people’s investigation, called – ‘the people’s court of public opinion’. It is based on Natural Law, which in turn is founded on the notion that everybody is capable of distinguishing between good and evil, right and wrong. Humanity is at a critical stage which depends on the awakening of all people; the trajectory we are on must be reversed, and this grand jury enactment will contribute to that in rapid fashion. A grand jury hears evidence and then determines if a criminal indictment can be returned against the accused. It is usually conducted behind closed doors without the accused being present; this grand jury will be done, however, before the public using a real judge, lawyers and witnesses. It originates within a constitutional model of government that respects people’s natural rights and freedoms. We ask you, the public, to review the evidence presented to recapture our freedoms.
JUDGE RUI FONSECA E CASTRO, PORTUGAL
- During the last 2 years we’ve witnessed the collapse of the democratic Rule of Law. Our most fundamental rights and freedoms have been taken from us in the name of a ‘common good’ that has never been endorsed. We expect a gigantic wave of victims to follow. Justice systems are no longer fulfilling their duties, i.e. there are no longer judges in Berlin. We cannot wait; we must assume our responsibilities to prevent tyranny. Natural Law gives us our sacred rights to oppose tyranny; it gives people legitimacy to do so. National and international justice systems have clearly failed to protect us from the tyranny we are witnessing. So it is within unwritten natural law that this court finds its legitimacy to initiate legal proceedings.
DEANA POLLARD SACKS, USA
- The US Declaration of Independence: we hold these truths to be self-evident … In 1891, the US Supreme Court explained that medical liberty is inalienable. Every individual has the control and possession of his/her own person. It is a right of complete immunity. In 1914, Judge Cardoso reaffirmed the same principle. In 1990, the US Supreme Court affirmed the right of a person to reject medical treatment. These rights come out of English Common Law. Anglo-American law begins with assumption that a person has full self-determination, is a master of his/her own body and may reject medical treatment. So how can our govts push an untested medical treatment on us without our consent, putting our livelihoods at risk? Jacobsen vs. Massachussetts is the case the US government is relying on. This case actually does not support vaccine mandates. In 1902 hundreds of millions were killed in a smallpox pandemic, with a 30% death rate. Massachusetts passed a law that said you had an option to get vaccinated or pay a $5 fine. Jacobsen contested both these options: he paid his fine and demanded his money back. The smallpox vaccine had been used for 100 years and had been used extensively. After researching its efficacy and utility, the court determined that Jacobsen should NOT get a refund. The ruling in this case was based on Jacobsen’s right to have, and an acknowledgement of, totally free mobility in his non-vaccinated state. This ruling does not support today’s vaccine mandates. Covid, unlike smallpox in 1902, has killed a fraction of 1%, so the public risk element is not there. Further, the Covid vaccines are not actually vaccines. The smallpox vaccines did prevent transmission; today’s experimental treatments don’t, and we don’t know the long-term effects. Finally, Jacobsen’s punishment was a $150 equivalent sum in today’s terms. Today, people are losing their homes, livelihoods and college education. There is simply no comparison. So why haven’t the Covid vaccine mandates been declared unconstitutional? (She goes onto explain the importance of the Liberty Clause which grants the public their medical freedoms, and it is under this clause that the vaccines can be declared unconstitutional.) The nature of today’s Covid vaccines vs. vaccines of the past is a critical point.
REINER FUELLMICH
Short Opening Statements
