Anna is a senior lawyer and crucially she's a former military officer, UK military officer,
so I think that gives us some discipline. And she's been speaking, how long have you
been speaking out Anna, early in 2020?
Yeah, well publicly, I guess for about 18 months or so, but before that obviously within
my own networks, yeah.
Sure, yeah. So when I saw a video of you talking on the streets for half an hour without any
problem to whomever, was that October 2020?
I honestly can't remember Stephen because I've been out on so many streets and I've
had so many conversations I can't remember.
Yeah, okay. So Anna if you run out of steam, you know, if you said an hour, you need an
hour to tell us the gravity of the situation. And I agree I would need an hour as well.
So but if you run out of steam, just let us know and we'll ask you some questions.
Okay, fantastic. Thank you. So hello everybody and lovely to see you all, those faces I can
see. And sorry for those of you who already know me, but brief introduction. Yeah, Stephen
says I'm a senior solicitor. I've been studying law since I was 22 and I'm now 56. And I've
been practicing it since I was about 25, 26. So that's how long I've been doing this thing.
But at the same time, I was also an army officer, a lieutenant in 51st signals unit in territorial
army throughout my 20s. So I was a survival instructor. And my job obviously was to assess
risk and look at potential threats and work out what on earth to do about them all. But
I also spent 10 years as a management consultant whilst I was also practicing as a lawyer,
running my own consultancy, advising companies on flexible working. And one of my clients was
Pfizer. So I worked with Pfizer for two years. And one of the jobs that I had to do within Pfizer
was to help the business understand why it took so long from the scientists in the laboratory
producing a potentially new product and getting it out onto the shelves as a fully licensed,
approved, marketed product. And part of my brief was to see if there was any way we could
cut down on those timescales. So I worked with the scientists and the regulators, etc. And
was taught the whole process about the clinical trials and the hoops that they have to go through.
And obviously learned that it was years and not the few months that has been subsequently claimed.
So I'm also a mother of three children. So I come to this whole situation with those sort of main
skill sets, if you like. And what happened with me was that I actually got diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2
back in early January 2020. And I did actually think I was going to die, I was really ill.
But in hindsight, it was probably just a really bad out of a chest infection or flu, I don't know.
But anyway, it meant that I was laid up for six weeks. And I spent those six weeks researching
everything I possibly could about what this so-called virus was and how it was released.
And immediately my hackles went up because I suspected it was a bioweapon. And I suspected
that it was biowarfare to introduce a whole load of agendas that I was already acutely aware of,
such as the Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 with the UN, the World Economic Forum agendas, etc.
So my hackles were up very early on. And I contacted a retired army officer that I trained with
at Sandhurst all those years ago. And he was on the ground in Beijing and had lived in China for
10 years. So he knew what the China propaganda machine was like, etc. So we spent about four
hours swapping intel and comparing notes and agreed, this was in about mid-January, I think,
agreed that we needed to raise the alarm bells within the military network, because all the
flags were there that this was biowarfare and a bioweapon had just been released.
So we then went back to our respective networks. One of the people I contacted was a captain in the
SAS. And I briefed him for an hour and a half. And at the end of that, he said, two or three other
senior officers had also contacted him with their concerns. And most of what I said had told him he
had been given us intel from other trusted sources. And some of it was new to him. But the we agreed
at the end of the conversation that he would take it into the intelligence network in the military
and ask them to start investigating the concerns. In the meantime, I raised my concerns with various
other people in the military as well. But didn't really get got anywhere. It was kind of falling
on deaf ears. People at that stage were saying, oh, don't be so stupid, Anna. It was a pangolin.
It was a pangolin and it's all completely natural. So then what happened was that the Coronavirus Act
came out and that put massive flags up for me as a lawyer, because it was a 329 page complex piece of law
that you don't draft in a couple of days. And so I went on having seen that they'd downgraded the
having seen that they'd downgraded the virus to a non-infectious disease on the 19th of March.
The fact that they were talking about locking down the country and producing this, you know,
emergency law didn't add up. So then when I looked on Hansard to see about the debates in Parliament,
I saw that I think it was the second debate, Matt Hancock let slip that it had taken the months
to draft that piece of law. So again, that was another flag because I thought, well,
why were they drafting this before they even knew that this virus existed? And indeed,
I'd already been concerned about noises being made from Hancock the previous year, because in around
May or June 2019, Hancock had taken had sought and received legal advice on mandating vaccines.
Something I had raised with a judge at the time and saying, why on earth is Matt Hancock trying
to seek advice on mandating vaccines? So clearly, flags were going up about whether this was a
conspiracy and whether it was all planned, etc. I then heard Lord Sumption speaking out. He was the
first lawyer I heard speak out, I think in about end of March or April. And he was saying that,
and he was saying that, you know, the Coronavirus Act was ultra virus, in other words,
outside the powers that Parliament has, because a, they already had the necessary powers contained
in the Contingency Act 2004, which indeed the government did already have those powers.
And B, the Public Health Control of Diseases Act 1984 also covered the situation. And it doesn't
allow the powers that the government were claiming it was allowing, and the basis on which they were
claiming the right to create this coronavirus act. So when I heard Lord Sumption, who's a former
Supreme Court judge in the UK, give his analysis, which unbeknownst to him was exactly the same as
mine. So that gave me confidence that my legal analysis was correct. And I then started reaching
out to other lawyers who at that time were raising concerns, one of whom was Francis
Haw, the barrister who was instructed by Simon Dolan, to bring a judicial review of the Coronavirus
Act. So I started to work with a team of lawyers, I think in around, oh, May, June, July time,
where we were starting to brainstorm, you know, what was going on and what legal action we could
bring to claim the, as we saw them, ultra virus powers and the massive overreach of the government.
And then the face masks regulations came out in July, as did the armies, the army going into
schools to test. And those, both of those really raised alarm bells for me, because they were both
bio weapons on the evidence. And so once again, I reached out to the military. I was, I trained with
at University and at Santos with the then back in July 2020, standing the commander of the British
standing army, Colonel H Jones. And I reached out to Reaper and I said, you know, you've known me
all my life, and you know that I'm not lying to you. I'm telling you that if you go into the
schools and you, you know, aid in a bet or perpetrate the testing of these children,
it is not going to be with their informed consent. They cannot consent to these measures.
And therefore it's a breach of their bodily and psychiatric integrity. It will harm them
and you will be held liable for any damage that's caused to them. And I sent him a whole
load of evidence about the harms of masks and the harms of testing, et cetera, and the hydrogel and
the ether oxide. And I warned him off and said cease and desist. Do not deploy the military.
If you do, you'll be held responsible. It's a breach of the Nuremberg code.
I didn't hear anything from him. I then sent him more evidence and another cease and desist.
Didn't hear anything. The army went ahead and deployed, as you know. So then I reached out to
various other pressure groups. And the first one was called recovery. And they said, oh, well,
we're going to deal with the politicians about all of this. And I said, no, no, no, these are
breaches of the Nuremberg code. They're now talking about injecting people with an experimental
bioweapon. And we've got to bring serious legal proceedings now to stop all this.
And I was ejected out of those groups because I was told that nobody wanted to take legal action
and they certainly didn't want the lawyers to. And I said, you don't get to tell me that because
my job is to bring legal action. So I then found another group. The health advice research team
asked me to join them. And in fact, Mike Keaton was already a member, Dr. Claire Craig,
Joel Smalley, Jonathan Engler, a number of very serious, you know, experts had got together and
said, we need some legal minds on this as well. Please join us and give us an analysis on our
evidence about what's going on. So by this time I was pretty much seething because I could see
that these were multiple breaches of the Nuremberg code, multiple breaches of human rights,
domestic and international, civil and criminal. So I was pulled no punches when I joined heart.
And I told them straight away that this was a breach of the Nuremberg code and that we needed
to start action. And Mike Keaton and various others messaged me and said, thank you so much.
We've been saying the same, you know, what can we do about it? Now that was, I would say, December
2020, January 2021. And then I joined the Lawyers for Liberty. And ever since then, basically,
I've been working in these teams, both here and abroad, looking at all the different legal issues
that have been raised from all these different measures, looking at whether they are civil,
criminal breaches, whether the burden of proof has been satisfied in relation to each of the
civil and criminal offences, and, you know, basically what we can do about it as lawyers,
you know, what our plan of action is going to be. Now, at the same time, clearly, working within
the military network, what we've been trying to do is raise the alarm bell within all the military
networks about the fact that these are breaches of not only the Nuremberg code, but of the war
conventions, because each of these experimental measures amounts to a breach of someone's
psychiatric or bodily integrity. And they are not being, you know, people's informed consent
is not being obtained, typically, and I'll go into more detail about that. And in fact, because
these go to the right to life and the right not to be tortured or receive cruel, inhumane,
or degrading treatment or punishment, not only does it breach all the civil human rights laws,
but it breaches the warfare conventions. Specifically, it breaches the Geneva conventions,
common Article 3, and amounts to the great, the grave breaches. These are prohibited acts of
unlawful warfare. And again, I'll go into that in more detail. But given that,
clearly, the alarm bells were ringing amongst all of us, military people who actually understood
that situation. Now, what alarmed me when I went to the military and said, listen, you know, these
are grave breaches being committed by our own police force, our own military, our own government,
and not only here, but abroad, and all governments are doing this. And so therefore, the whole
framework is a joke, because nobody's upholding it. And to my horror, as I dug down more and more
and more into this, what I came across was that none of the lawyers I spoke to had actually read
any of the warfare conventions, not a single one. Now, when I spoke to my, the soldiers that I've
been working with, and I took them through my examination of their evidence, not a single one
of them had read the warfare conventions either. And in fact, when I said to them, well,
the Joint Services Manual 383 specifically says you must read all of these conventions. And in fact,
it says you must read this book here, which is back to front, but it says it's the manual of the
law of armed conflict. And that's the Ministry of Defence's own book. And what that does
specifically in Chapter 7, is it deals with medical treatment. And what it says is that this is the
UK's interpretation of the law. Okay. And Chapter 7, the Wounded, Sick and Dead and Medical Services
sets out, first of all, introduction 7.1, definition of wounded and sick 7.2, protection
of and care of wounded and sick. And that goes into permitted medical treatment, which is in
paragraph 7.5. Now, the reason I'm going to start here before I go into more detail about
the informed consent is because I want to make it very clear to people that this is a prohibited
act of unlawful warfare that we are talking about here. Okay. So civil human rights, yes,
it's breaching all of those, but this is how serious it is. Permitted medical treatment,
okay. The physical or mental health and integrity of persons who are in the power of an adverse party
or who are interned, detained, or otherwise deprived of liberty as a result of armed conflict
shall not be endangered by any unjustified act or omission. Okay. Well, that's the same for
everybody. We can't harm each other by any unjustified act or omission, whether you're in
armed conflict or not. Okay. But it goes on to say, any medical procedure, which is not indicated by
the state of health of the person concerned, and which is not consistent with generally
accepted medical standards, which would be applied under similar medical circumstances
to persons who are nationals of the party conducting the procedure and who are in no way
deprived of liberty is prohibited. Now, I know that's a horribly long-winded sentence,
and basically what it's saying is, unless the state of the person necessitates medical treatment,
so it has to be absolutely necessary for that individual. So not for the collective,
not for anybody else's benefit, but for that individual. And it has to be given with generally
accepted medical standards, i.e. the Nuremberg Code and the informed consent process, which would
be applied under similar medical circumstances to persons who are nationals of the state. So in other
words, it doesn't matter who you've got in your custody or detained, you must treat them to the
same medical standards as you would to nationals of your own state. Okay. So that provides some
kind of check on it. And it says, if they are not deprived of liberty. Okay. So what it also
recognizes there is that if you are a prisoner of war and deprived of your liberty, your ability to
give freely voluntary consent is very, very limited. And therefore, even if a prisoner is
apparently consenting, the chances are they're not. And that's why there's this limit there,
that it has to be necessary, etc. Now, the point about all of that is it goes on to say that in
dealing with medical treatment on the basis of real medical need on the part of the patient,
the law repeats fundamental medical ethics. The aim is to prevent experiments or unjustified medical
operations on persons who are in no position to give their free consent. This protection extends
to all those in the hands of the enemy or other party, and even to citizens of the detaining power
who are interned for reasons related to the armed conflict. In the absence of real medical
justification, all persons are protected from physical mutilations, medical or scientific
experiments, or removal of tissue or organs for transplantation, even with their consent. And
that's put in italics, you know, emphasized, unless these acts are justified under the general
principles outlined in paragraph 7.5, which I've just read out. So now, it also goes on to say the
right to refuse consent. Persons have the right to refuse any surgical operation. In cases of
refusal, medical personnel must try to obtain a written statement to that effect, etc. The
right still exists to carry out surgery necessary to save life in an emergency, but otherwise than
that is completely prohibited. And it goes on to say non-renunciation of rights. The wounded and
sick, as well as medical personnel and chaplains, may in no circumstances renounce in whole or in
part the rights secured to them by the convention or by the additional protocol. Okay, now, if I
take a step back from all of that, the reason I start there, as I say, is because if you don't get
to conduct medical experimentation on your enemy prisoners, the idea, and you don't get to give them
medical treatment, even with their consent, unless it's necessitated by their own health,
and you don't get to do that to your enemy prisoners, the idea that governments or anybody
does it to anybody else in a so-called public health emergency is completely ridiculous,
as you can see. And the whole point about that is that, and this is why it's so personal to me,
because my own uncle was in one of those German prisoner of war camps. He was an
infanteer, and he was caught. And he, I don't know to what extent he personally was experimented on,
but he would have witnessed all those other people being experimented on. And he escaped
with two of the other, you know, prisoners, and they escaped back through France and Germany,
Spain, rather. And because he knew it was so horrific, once he got back to England,
he went back over there to release them. And my father, aged 18, was sent to Berlin to release
them as well. And when I was a child, I was dragged around Auschwitz. I was dragged around
the fields of the Somme and the battlefields, and I was made to promise never, ever, ever to forget
what happened in those camps, how those people were treated, and the Nuremberg trials. And I
was brought up to study the Nuremberg trials to understand exactly why it was so important
that those trials were held, why the Nuremberg code was created, why we must never, ever forget,
and why we must make sure it never happens again. And, you know, Stephen pointed out in one of our
meetings that, you know, he was told at medical school that it was the most important document
of the century. And I agree as a lawyer, because when you look at the historical context legally,
what happened up until that point was this. We already had our civil laws and our criminal laws,
which prohibited killing each other clearly and maiming each other. So, for example, in the UK,
we have God's laws, thou shalt not kill. We had the Magna Carta, which prohibited harming each other.
We had the Bill of Rights. We had the law and ordinances of war, if it was a warfare situation.
And then in 1861, we had the Offenses Against the Person Act, which details things like administering
a noxious or poisonous substance or wounding with intent, etc. Right. So we had a whole body of laws
to govern how people interact and don't wound, harm, kill each other. But when it came to warfare,
what happened was that that was expanded upon. So in 1863, Abraham Lincoln instructed, I think
Charles Lieber, it was his name, to draft a, I think it was General Regulation 100, the Lieber
Code, after the author, to the American soldiers to ensure that they did not behave like savages,
even in times of war. And so there are several prohibitions placed on the soldiers, including
that they weren't allowed to administer a poison and they weren't allowed to give medical treatment,
etc. without consent. And the whole idea of the Warfare Convention was that you aimed to disable
your enemy, not to go on a wanton killing spree. So there then came out various other war regulations,
including the Hague Convention, the Hague Regulations, and I think 1906. And that was
what the Germans were accused of breaching in the First World War, those warfare conventions that
existed up until that point. But due to the horrors of the First World War, they started
introducing weapons conventions, because means and methods of warfare are not unlimited, including
weapons of mass destruction. So in 1925, they came out with a convention against asphyxiating
gases, etc. And the intention was that any weapons that caused unnecessary suffering
were prohibited. And then we have the Second World War. And what wasn't expected were all of those
different types of crimes against humanity that weren't specifically necessarily covered under the
existing war regulations, may have been covered under the individual countries criminal or civil
codes, but weren't necessarily encapsulated in a single sort of treaty type document that everybody
could refer to. So what the lawyers did before Nuremberg was that they sat down and they drafted
out definitions of crimes, so war crimes, crimes of aggression, crimes of humanity, crimes against
humanity rather. And I think it was genocide was the other one. And then they tried the war
criminals against those definitions of those crimes. Those definitions of those crimes have
now become Article 678, and I think it's nine of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Okay, but the first charter governing it was the London Charter. And that's what governed the
trials held at Nuremberg. Now what happened at Nuremberg was that the medics were brought to
trial, as well as the judges and the lawyers, as well as the military people and the media and
bankers, various people were brought to trial. But the medics were brought to trial under a series
of cases known collectively as the medical cases. And in the first set of medical cases, what happens
is that the tribunal goes through what was already the accepted medical standards. So the bit I just
read out to you here where it says that it has to be medical treatment has to be given in in
accordance with generally accepted medical standards. That point was picked up by the
tribunal before going on to assess the crimes. And what you'll find, I think it was at page 181 or
182 of the medical cases judgment, the first one is it says permissible medical experiments.
And what it does is it says that there is already a body of medical ethics and criminal law that,
you know, binds the physician, which sets out how a physician is meant to conduct medical treatment
in according with generally accepted medical ethics. And I think I'm correct in saying that
there was already a code of generally accepted medical ethics produced by the American Medical
Association in around 1847, which was what the tribunal was referring to and saying, look,
you know, there's already been a huge body of medical ethics, notwithstanding, we've had the
Hippocratic oath since, you know, 500 BC, which also says you shall not administer a poison,
and you shall not encourage such a course, etc. Right. First do no harm. So there's been a body
of medical ethics since at least 500 BC on record. So they go through that at the beginning, and then
they look at the medical experiments and the medical treatment that was being inflicted on
the prisoners of war and other nationals in various hospitals, etc. And they judged the medics that
were brought to trial on the basis of whether or not they'd uphold those laws and those medical
ethics. And of course, several of them were found guilty and the death penalty was handed down,
and they were executed. Some of them were imprisoned, some of them were found not guilty.
But what it does on that page, permissible medical experiments, is it sets out 10,
you know, principles that must be applied in all cases. And that becomes known as the Nuremberg
Code. And the Nuremberg Code itself was published in 1947 as a separate code,
saying this is binding on all physicians. Now bearing in mind the Nuremberg Code itself arose
out of those medical trials, which were and are international binding criminal case law.
And therefore the fact that those medics were up were held to those standards at that time,
meant that they had failed the standards at that time to a criminal level, such that they were
found guilty of crimes against humanity because they had not obtained informed consent freely given,
etc. Now what happens after the Nuremberg Code is published in 1947 is that the World Medical
Association does an audit of the medical schools of the Third Reich and finds out that most of them
had not required their graduates to swear an oath of any form. And indeed the evidence showed
that the graduates didn't know the law and were blindly following orders. And as far as they were
concerned, they were perfectly entitled just to blindly follow orders. And that was obviously
part of their defence, which was rejected ultimately because following orders is no defence.
Sorry, Pete, I'm right in the middle of something. Yeah, sorry. So then what happens is that the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is issued in 1948, which specifically says that everyone
has the right to life and everyone has the right not to be tortured or given cruel, inhumane,
degrading treatment or punishment. And then it sets out all kinds of other rights. But then in 1950
you have the European Convention of Human Rights, which also enshrines the right to life and the
right not to receive cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment, etc., including medical
treatment without consent. In 1950, the World Medical Association produces the Declaration of Geneva,
which binds all physicians. It specifically says it binds all physicians. And it is basically the
Nuremberg Code on steroids, together with a whole bunch of other human rights and criminal code
points that governs a physician. And it's pages long. And then in 1964, the Hippocratic Oath was
updated. And in 1964, the Declaration of Helsinki was put in place. And the Declaration of Helsinki
is the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Geneva on steroids. And so it's pages and pages
of finer detail about how to conduct human experimentation on live human subjects in
accordance with international ethics and the law, both criminal and civil law, and clearly
getting informed consent, fully informed consent, freely given, is a critical part of all of that.
So then what you have is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966,
which again, enshrines the right not to receive medical treatment without consent, the right to
life. You have the International Covenant on Economic and Civil and Cultural Rights, which
again, enshrines those rights. And then you have the Oviedo Convention in 1997, which again,
provides even more detail about the informed consent process and live human experimentation.
And you have the Human Rights and Bioethics Act of 2005, which again, enshrines the Declaration of
Helsinki and all of those other declarations. And in the UK, we have the Human Medicines for
Clinical Trial, used 2004, which specifically enshrines the Declaration of Helsinki, which
specifically enshrines the Nuremberg Code, etc. So when you actually look at those on top of the
Geneva Conventions and all the additional protocols that came out after the Second World War,
the whole body of law leaves absolutely no doubt whatsoever that those fundamental principles of
the Nuremberg Code, i.e. the informed voluntary consent freely given, etc., forms part of domestic
and international law across the world. And I challenge any lawyer to say that it doesn't,
and to prove to me in which part of all of those laws that it specifically says it doesn't.
And Stephen and I were talking about this earlier, because there's a whole load of
misinformation going around the internet about people saying, oh, the Nuremberg Code doesn't
apply. But that's just nonsense. And it sounds like controlled opposition to me, because
the Nuremberg Code is at the heart of this pandemic, because all of the measures have been
experimental, apart from hand washing. On the empirical evidence of the public health studies
from the last, well, since 1890s, I've gone back to 1870, and I've actually done the due diligence
myself, and I've searched for all the research studies on hand washing, on lockdowns, on masks,
on all the rest of it. And the only measure that consistently shows reduction in viral spread is
hand washing. Right? So that means all the rest of these measures are live human experiments using
live human subjects. And the evidence shows that people are not giving their informed consent
being locked down, to being socially distanced, to being masked, tested, injected,
denied early medical treatment, etc. We could go on. These are all experimental measures.
And therefore, on the analysis, what that means is that not only are these grave breaches of the
warfare conventions amounting to prohibited acts of unlawful warfare, okay, but they also amount
to clearly murder if it's with intent. Now, on the analysis, when you, for example, inject someone,
you intend to break their skin. That is a wound. So therefore, under section 20 of offences against
the person at 1861, you've wounded that person with intent. Anything that flows from that wound,
because that wound has included a whole vial of substances that you've just injected into that
person, anything that flows from that wound is your liability, the individual who has wounded
that person with that substance. Now, if they are maimed or injured or died, die from it,
it only won't be your criminal responsibility. If you have obtained prior
freely informed, freely given rather, fully informed consent. Now, on the evidence, that's
not happening with any of these measures. If we go to the injections in particular, on the evidence,
none of us know what are in those injections because the, in this country, June Raine of the MHRA
has confirmed that she accepts Pfizer's submission, that they are entitled to withhold
the full list of ingredients on the basis that it's a commercial trade secret.
Therefore, de facto, we do not know what are in those injections. Therefore, de facto,
you cannot give informed consent and you cannot obtain informed consent. So if you're not telling
people what's in the injections because you don't know, it doesn't matter if they're consenting,
you haven't obtained lawful, legal, moral, ethical consent. Therefore, anything that happens to that
person will be your personal, civil and criminal liability. And this is a serious point I've been
trying to get across to anyone who's conducting these injections because the evidence is that
none of us are taught law at school. The medics are not taught law at medical school apart from
a very small amount. The people administering the injections aren't necessarily even medics.
So the NHS apparently gives three hours of training on informed consent before these people are
required to give these injections. But in fact, the application form from the NHS
for the vaccinators specifically says you can assume informed consent has been obtained.
And when you go into these clinics and the evidence from the clinics is that these
injectors are therefore assuming informed consent has already been obtained. They don't run them
through the individuals through an individual clinical risk assessment to find out their
individual risks. They are not complying with the requirements of the patient information leaflet,
which specifically say you must give this leaflet to somebody several weeks before because they must
have an allergy test to all the ingredients. And these leaflets are not even being given to people
or if they are there being given after the injection, the allergy tests aren't being
conducted, I could go on. But basically the informed consent procedure is not being followed.
Virtually every principle of the Nuremberg Code is being breached. And that applies also to the
face masks. It applies to the tests. And so what this means is that these are on an international
level crimes against humanity. They are causing genocide and they are bio warfare using bio weapons.
And that's on the definitions of Article 6, Article 7 and Article 8 of the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court. So that's how serious this is. And as I say, the evidence is
that the people who are administering these injections or putting masks on children or,
you know, the companies telling their staff that they have to test and mask, none of these people
know the law. And they're not reading the law. And when you point the law out to them, they simply go
into, oh, it's government guidance, it's company policy, we're doing as we're told, we're following
orders basically. And they think they're entitled to absolve themselves of any responsibility or
liability by simply parroting that. And the rude awakening that many, many, many people are having
to have is that no, no, no, no, no, this is an individual, civil and criminal, personal
and private liability that you will bear as the individual who is either perpetrating,
aiding and abetting or complicit in these crimes. Because either you are demanding that someone
has these measures or you're the person putting the mask on someone or putting the test up someone's
nose or injecting them. So either you're the person committing the actual act in law, we call it the
actus reus. And if you have the necessary intent, the mens rea, then you know, you've committed the
crime on the face of it. So this is where people are really seriously falling down because they have
not been taught law at school, they haven't taken responsibility to teach themselves law when they
leave school. And so they're walking around clueless. And the point I made to Stephen earlier is this,
and it's a very crucial point, because I'm an employment lawyer as well. Now, any employment
contract or code of conduct specifically says you must uphold the rule of law. And yet most people
have told their employer, yes, I can accept this contract. And yes, I can comply with my your code
of conduct, because yes, I know the law and I can uphold it. Whereas in fact, they've just committed
a fraud on their employer and misrepresented their capability and competence to their employer.
And in fact, if they've taken money from the public purse, they've defrauded the public purse
on the evidence, because they knew damn well that they weren't taught law at school.
They knew damn well, for example, they didn't learn much school at medical school.
And so what the hell are they doing? Saying, yes, I can do that. I can do that job, give us a job,
give us the money, and I won't bother telling my employer I don't know the law. I won't then bother
teaching myself the law. And I'll just carry on doing this job as a lawless individual.
And unfortunately, that's what the evidence is showing is coming out of most professionals,
including the MPs, including the medics, including the teachers, including all these people,
they don't know the law. And so what we have is an absolutely tragic situation,
where we basically have a society full of people who don't know the law and who are committing
prohibited acts of unlawful warfare on each other in grave breach of the warfare conventions.
And not even realizing. And I laugh because it's just so crazy to me that actually we went through
all of that Nuremberg trials, we went through all of those years, 70 odd years since, of bringing
people to trial, even in the 60s, nurses and doctors were brought to trial for the crimes
that they committed against people in the third right. Right. And we've had 70 years more evidence
and law to make sure this never happens again. And here we are with the worst set of crimes
against humanity ever committed in the history of humankind, literally repeating the Nuremberg trials
all over again, because clearly nobody's learned anything and they've forgotten the whole lot.
So what I would like to do at another time, because I'll wrap up now and we can take questions,
but I've been drafting and I continue to draft this huge long notice of liability,
which I've been sending out for people. And in that I can take you through all the law in more
detail in a separate session for those who want to go through it. But what we found was that if we
serve short form notices of liability to people saying you're breaking the law, stop it. Well,
as I've just shown you, people don't know the law. So they just think, oh, well, this is all silly.
It means nothing. And that's what they're saying. These notices have no legal meaning. They're a
complete nonsense. Well, you would say that, wouldn't you, if you had no idea about the law
and you read it and it meant nothing to you. So I've been a big fan of actually, this is 170 or
pages, my notice of liability, because this sets out the law in black and white with hyperlinks
and all the references so that nobody can deny, having read this, that they didn't know the law.
But also, of course, our job is to educate people and to do try and save people from
themselves and to save everyone else from being harmed by those people. So obviously,
it's a huge educational document as well. And for those people who have actually read it,
they've been gobsmacked because they really didn't know the law that's contained in this document.
But if we can get this out to people so that the good people read it,
realising, realise they're breaking the law, they will cease and desist.
Right. But the bad guys will either put it in the bin or they'll read it and think, well, I don't
care. I'll carry on doing it anyway. But then we've gradually found out who the people are
who are intending to carry on committing these horrendous crimes and who are those who are
simply ignorant. Because whilst ignorance of the law is no defence, and it won't defend them from
what they've done to date, at least they could then stop killing and harming people going forward.
And that's the intention. So I've said an awful lot. As I say, I haven't gone into the actual
real details of the case law and the articles, etc. to cite them at you in detail. But I'm happy
to send out this notice to any of you so that you can read it all for yourself. And as I say,
reconvene for another session where we go through the finer detail of the law if people are interested.
So, yes, there we go. I'll take a breath. Wonderful, wonderful, Anna, for you.
Almost 10 o'clock on Sunday night. Thank you for that masterful expose. And I got this quote for
your notice of liability, which I've shared with people. Detail prevents denial. There you are.
Detail prevents denial. So I would practice law for 20 years. I just want everybody, you know,
I've shared this numerous presentations and what Anna has taken us through is a frame is a framework
for thinking about this. But many doctors and others, they just want simple answers. Well,
the human body is complex and so is the law. And there are seven layers. So just to summarize
what Anna just said and her notice of liability goes through this. I'm just giving you a chance
to breathe that in while the questions are coming. There are seven layers that apply. There's God's
law or natural law. Then there's international treaties. Then there's a nation's constitution.
Then there's national laws. Then there's state laws. There's regulations. And then there's
contract law. Seven layers of laws. And people are gaily going along and absolutely ignoring them.
And give you one example of how practically this operates. Someone came to me and said,
I was injured by the jab. And I said, okay, how were you injured? I said, well, I suffered this.
Good. Who administered the jab? I don't know. Where did you do it? At some centre. People have
got no idea who's administering. I haven't read the notice of the informed consent document.
And I just urge all of us on this call to take what Anna says on board and start recording
details. And everyone you speak to, get them to record details. Because the first thing a lawyer
says to you is, well, what happened? And people say, I don't know, I got jabbed. And that's all
they know. So over to you, Stephen, for your first questions. Anna, Stephen, as we know,
it's a first go at the questions here. As the convener of this wonderful group.
And if you unmute yourself, Stephen, that would be grand.
No, I'm just having it says low system resources. So it's keeping I was just trying to close a few
things because you keep breaking up. Okay, Stephen, are we still breaking up on it?
No, that's better. I've closed out a few things now.
Okay. So that was the best presentation we've had, I think we've had some really good ones,
including from Robert Kennedy. And he was pretty good. So it was absolutely brilliant what you said.
And I wonder whether if we edit it and edit the video of you speaking, and, and then offer it to
you to okay, would you agree to us publishing? You know, that presentation or? Oh, yes, please. Yes.
Because lots of people have asked me to try and sum it all up. And quite often when I'm out and
about on talks, they can't hear what I'm saying very well. So it's wonderful that we've been able
to do it capture it on a platform like this. And also, in the camera as we as discussed this
morning, could could we work together? Because I would really, I can see that, you know, your
notices of liability extremely detailed and and Charles has explained why that's important. I
I agree. And but I think that we ought to serve them on the police, who are conducting a criminal
investigation. And they've also been put on notice on the 20th of December, that they are to stop,
they are to stop the vaccination program in the UK, while they investigate while they conduct a
criminal investigation. And the intent from us is to drown them with evidence every week,
so that they can never finish their criminal investigation. But obviously, they should have
stopped the vaccination program and they haven't. Now we need to really put pressure on them
to stop it once and for all in the UK to show the rest of the world how to behave.
Absolutely. And if I may update people on that, actually, is that basically one of the things
we've been doing as veterans is engaging with local stand in the park communities and other
concerned groups of people and going to local police stations to try and obtain crime references
from other police stations, because the point we're making to the police is this, you know,
if you're injured in Wales or Dundee or whatever, you can't travel all the way down to Hammersmith
in London to report your injuries to the Metropolitan Police there. And yet that's
the Metropolitan Police's strategy that they're saying, that they've told other police stations
around the country not to get involved and not to accept reports of any injuries, etc., because
it's all being dealt with out of Hammersmith. Well, of course, that's a nonsense. You know,
that doesn't work for people. So what people have been doing is going to various, you know,
police stations around the country and West Yorkshire has now issued a crime reference.
Manchester has. Northumbria. Northumbria were issuing an incident reference. They said it wasn't
a crime reference. And what you'll hear from all of these pieces of evidence that the community
are gathering from when they go to all these different police stations is the same script
being read out essentially by the police, which is, oh, we see you're here to protest, and the
people say, no, we're serving notices of liability and we're asking you to close down the injection
clinics. And then they say, well, this is your opinion. No, no, no, this is a live criminal
investigation being run by the police. And we're demanding that you close the clinics down. No,
no, no, we're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. And anyway, it's not a live
criminal investigation. It's just a crime reference that's been issued. And so they're trying to
totally downplay it, minimise it, and they are refusing to close down the clinics.
So then what's happening is that the people are trying to close them down themselves.
And then the police get called out by the clinic staff and the police turn up,
having refused to go down there and close them down. They then turn up and carry on facilitating
the clinic remaining open typically. So they are then actively aiding and abetting these crimes
happening, which is just shocking. And most of them won't stand under their oath, can't cite
their oath. So again, we have a serious problem because these individuals are therefore not
legitimately uniformed and weaponised. They are merely men and women impersonating legitimate
police officers. And so again, that's part of the process that we're going through is proving on
evidence to therefore report it to the police standards and also to the Ministry of Defence,
that these individuals are not standing under their oath, they're not standing under their code of
conduct. They are perverting the course of justice, et cetera. So that's what groups have been,
in terms of evidence, have been gathering for the last two months around the country.
Anna, how can the police get away with saying, yes, there is a crime reference number, but
there's no criminal investigation. That's just nonsense.
Agreed. Agreed. Do you know that Savage, Javid's brother is also-
Head of professional standards at the Metropolitan Police.
Clear conflict of interest.
He's had to recuse himself, I believe. I'm not, I mean, I don't know that,
but I've been told that by Mark Sexton.
Yeah, he certainly should. So a deplorable, you know, conflict of interest. So yeah, basically,
the people here are trying everything they can to ensure that everybody knows that this is a live
criminal investigation, because the police were meant to have made a public announcement, they
still haven't. The press are doing everything to deny that it's happening, but yes, it is absolutely
happening. And as you say, as we were saying, Stephen, earlier, it's about, you know, making
sure that the police have as much evidence as possible, so they can't possibly try and close
it down as an investigation or claim that they didn't have sufficient evidence, et cetera.
But as you know, Mark and Philip are saying that, you know, the police have literally got a tsunami
of evidence and that must be the case. Isn't it interesting that Sad- what's his name?
I can never remember his name. His brother is the head of professional standards at the Metropolitan
Police and the head of the Metro- sorry, the head of professional standards is a key position in any
police force. And this is the biggest police force in the UK by a long way. And absolutely, yeah. So
it looks to me, it's either a massive coincidence that he's been the Home Secretary in the past
for about six months, I think, and he's now the Health Secretary. And yet his brother
lands up with a plum job and a key job at the Metropolitan Police because the head of professional
standards would be the people who investigate any complaints to the police that they haven't
investigated properly after the issuing of a crime number. So it looks to me like they've planned it,
or there's been a huge coincidence, you know. Somehow or other, Javid's brother had the
capability to become head of the professional standards department. I think it's 31,000 police
officers, is it Peter? Wow. He gets to be the head of professional standards. And that's a key
position for stopping any criminal investigation. David, that ties into- you mentioned conflict of
interest. And Anna, it's worth getting your view on this issue. Just because there is a conflict
of interest, unless there's contractual provisions or legislative provisions, that doesn't actually
exclude people. You know, we talk about conflicts of interest. It's useful to know, but unless it's
legislated, it doesn't have any consequence other, really, other than not believing somebody. So,
Anna, what does- you okay?
Oh, actually, sorry. I've just, yeah, I've got a client here, funnily enough. He's got a-
we've got a four-day tribunal hearing starting at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. So I've just got to
say goodbye to him. Can you give me two minutes, please? But yeah, I'm not entirely sure that
I can answer that right this minute. But if you- let me just say goodbye to this person,
and then I'll come back. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, Peter, sorry, while we're waiting for Anna to
come back, Stephen, I think we can we get an update from Sam Dubay on what's happening in Ottawa?
Sure. Sam, are you there? Ready to give us- I haven't prepared him for this.
Yes. Hello, Charles. Hello, Stephen. I'm here. Sorry, I'm just sitting like-
10 feet away from the computer. But I'll just tell you what I do know. So the police violence
against protesters and supporters is real. I've seen it myself. They've overreached significantly.
They're going after businesses today. I heard they're entering businesses trying to arrest
owners of businesses who have been servicing the supporters. There was an internet cafe,
it was reported this morning, where police entered and attempted to shut the business
down until they realized they were being videotaped. And then they walked out. Police
are being imported, or at least people are being imported from elsewhere, as far as we can tell.
There are some hopeful videos online of people actually talking to police officers, and some
police officers offering sympathy. There's some videos of a police officer hugging individuals.
And then shortly thereafter, there was a video of the same police officer fainting,
like literally fainting, falling back and fainting. And I saw that myself on two videos. But
in terms of the sympathy from the police, it's very hard to quantify. It's very hard to quantify.
Now, you may have heard media reports that somebody threw a bicycle at a police horse,
a woman threw a bicycle at a police horse. So there may have been two separate incidents,
but the police reports are not completely true. I'll just tell you that right now.
So there was a woman, there's two separate videos that I saw, and she was an older woman,
and she was pleading with the police. The camera was literally feet from her. She was expressing,
she said, there's nothing but love here, and there's nothing but hope here. And then the
police horses came charging out. And it was pretty clear from the way the police horses charged out
that they didn't care about hitting anybody. And there was already a track of space between
the protesters and the police. The horses came out, and one of the people that got trampled was
this lady. So if you look at the video, when you look at the photos, you'll see that she is an older
woman. She was using a walker. That may have been the bicycle that the police were reporting.
And it just came out that she is actually a First Nations, full-blooded Mohawk clan mother.
So in other words, she's a First Nations elder. And there's an interview of her. Her name is Candy
that appeared, I believe, yesterday, and she seems to be okay. She's got a sore shoulder,
and she expressed nothing but love and hope in that short interview. And I'm quite sure the
interview occurred after the incident. So the media is doing its best to cover this up,
because not only was she physically challenged and in her walker, but she was older, and she is a
First Nations elder, which is a terrible combination for the WOCUS and for the regime.
So hopefully, we'll see that come out. Mainstream media in different parts of Canada are being
escorted away by RCMP, because people are screaming at them, fake news, fake news, fake news.
And exactly like Kerry says, terrible optics. That's right. So I don't think the horses are
anywhere to be seen right now in downtown Ottawa. They definitely have towed trucks.
There's video of trucks having their windows smashed and the police pulling protesters out.
There's a video of police using what appears to be excessive force with individuals who are not
resisting. There was a claim by the police that they were not using tear gas. And then when videos
surfaced showing them launching tear gas, they came out saying that the protesters were using
tear gas against them. And then video surfaced of them launching tear gas canisters and the
protesters kicking the cans back at the police. And as Anne mentioned here in the chat, they did
free 76 bank accounts that they're admitting to of protesters. And I didn't know about the
extended family. I don't know how deep that's gone. There may be many more. And TD Bank also
has frozen two accounts that had significant funds in them over a million dollars from what's been
reported. There was video of two videos of the United Nations plane at Canadian Forces base
North Bay that was sitting there without snow on it. We just recently had snow, so it would have
had to have arrived recently or it was cleaned off. But that base is known to repair United
Nations planes. So they get United Nations planes in regularly. So I'm not convinced that that's an
indication that foreign troops or at least United Nations troops have entered the country via those
UN planes. But there's other concern about foreign troops. People on the scene have said that
they're not acting like normal police. Many of the people there in the uniforms don't have any
name tags on. The Velcro patches have been removed. There was messages allegedly leaked from police on
the scene who are being held in residence at the Chateau Laurier, one of our big hotels downtown,
a historic hotel. And the dialogue between the police and the messages, some of it is quite
shocking the way that they're belittling the protesters and the violence, unfortunately.
Lisa just put up something in the chat about Dr. Paul Alexander. Poor Paul has been publishing
four or five times a day on his substack. He still doesn't know whether there's a warrant out for his
arrest. I know that he's moved location with his family. They got him out of the red zone.
Roger Hodkinson is not in town, I can tell you that. I don't know where Byron Bridal is right now.
Deanne has mentioned here that we got a third police chief. So there was a second interim
chief that came in and I believe he quickly resigned and I don't know why. But then we have
a new police chief who said that they're going after any protesters financially and will lay
criminal charges in the investigation May last months. And he didn't specify how they were going
to do that. But I suspect they're probably going to look at cell phone records and video. Oh yeah,
he did mention the use of video. I've heard rumors of more trucks coming in but they've established
checkpoints in town where on major intersections they've established checkpoints coming into town
where you have to declare what your business is coming into Ottawa. I've spoken to friends who
were coming in and one was coming to visit her son. So apparently they seem to be quite nice
at the checkpoints as long as they think you're telling the truth. But I haven't spoken to anyone,
any officers at a checkpoint. Yes, and Daria just put up a Rebel News article about
one of the messages in the leaked police discourse there was about
time they hear our jackboots or something like that. As I said, the police were really,
in some ways they were mocking the protesters and it was quite alarming to see that attitude.
And Sam, that's fantastic. Anna's back, that is wonderful. We'll have the opportunity to ask
Sam questions a bit later. Sam is on the ground in Ottawa with that truckers convoy giving us
great reports twice a week. So Stephen, now that Anna's back, Stephen, do you have any questions
for Anna before we go to Heiko? I've asked the ones I actually had an opportunity this morning
as well. So yeah, go ahead, Heiko. Wonderful. And everybody please note what Anna has shared with us
because Stephen has been constantly hammering in all of these meetings is no informed consent.
Just keep saying there's no informed consent, no informed consent, no, and you just keep because
that just doesn't matter. No, keep hammering it. You know, Anna, I haven't heard a single doctor
making that point and I cannot believe that I'm the only doctor in the world who's been saying
that. I just cannot believe it. It's so basic to me as a doctor. You're not the only one.
Pardon? You're not the only one. Heiko is another doctor in, he's, I think you're from Germany,
Heiko, but you're in Norway. Yeah, spreading the grief. I was recording it from several other
doctors that they don't have a clue what's in the jab. That's why I tried to steal my jab.
Yes, Heiko's, he took the jab, which was intended for him and walked out with him.
Yeah, you got arrested for that, didn't you, Heiko? No, I got a fee and then there was a trial and
Dolores should come and while I was ordering the ticket online, I got the text that my,
that the case was dropped.
Yeah, well, that would have been a super- I tried again together with 15 others.
You can hire Anna next time, Heiko. So you can barogue them and then hire Anna and
break them with the Nuremberg code. They don't catch him. Well, they better start catching it.
Yeah, I tried, as I said last time also, together with 15 others to close down a center or at least
get some jabs to deliver to the police and the police, we called the police and they came and then
because we didn't leave, you can protest outside. No, that's not a protest. We have to,
it's a crime scene and we have to collect evidence. No, you're crazy. Get out of here.
And I didn't and so I got arrested.