So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
And Glenn, you have a short statement to make that is relevant to the Donald Trump attempted
assassination attempt.
It appears.
I do.
As I've described to this group, I'm part of the American Patriot Civil Defense Net.
Team is linked with the Department of Defense, a very significant and high intel group.
And we broadcast shows on Brumble under L4ATV1.
And here's a prepared statement.
So it's not ad hoc.
It was fully prepared, and I'm reading it to you directly.
A little update.
The shooter in the case of the event with President Trump.
His name is Thomas Matthew Crooks.
Now that has been reported, but most of the other information about him has been either
buried or not misreported.
He is a heroin and coke dealer distributor, manufacturer with five unjailed convictions
under his belt in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, per public records.
But dates are altered in some of those records.
One of Hunter Biden's drug dealer buddies reportedly hired him.
He was Hunter Biden's.
It was Hunter Biden acting for Joe Biden, securing and protecting the big guy franchise
from the Biden crime family for four more years.
He is a stone cold crime wave, Hunter, like father, like son.
You can take that to the bank.
The FBI is going to cover it up the way they did the rigged election, their January 6th
hoax and the laptop from hell and help try framing Trump multiple times.
The Justice Department is not well, nor are Soros, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Mayorkas, Garland,
et cetera, families.
So with that one other point around things that are being reported, it is not an inside
job with the execution team, meaning the...
Blanking out their name.
The detail that was covering Trump is very honest.
The major failure that we had here was in that ring, there was a local policeman.
He was advised that there was somebody on the roof.
Instead of calling it in and calling for backup, he climbed up the ladder, the gunman turned
on him and then he fell off the ladder.
Other than that, that was a stupid mistake by a local policeman.
Other than that, you have righteous people taking the actions.
And thank you for the time.
Thank you, Glenn.
And welcome to today's discussion with Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost over three years ago with a desire to pursue
truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health and the proper application of law very relevant
to today's presenter.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower
and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
I'm Charles Covets, the moderator of this group.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago.
And over the last 13 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine
damage and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
On the issue of vaccine damage, I note that Stanley Plotkin, a proponent for the last
40 years about the amazing safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines, has now co-authored
an article acknowledging, acknowledging due to the good work of Del Bigtree and the Highwire
that childhood vaccines have never been properly tested for safety or efficacy ever.
And I urge all of you to understand the profound importance of that statement of the fraud
that's been perpetrated on humanity from these childhood vaccines.
And I urge you all to get hold of the Aaron Ciri article to show to all of your friends
who ever say that childhood vaccines are a good idea.
I state also on the record that I've yet to meet a parent who refused to vaccinate their
children who regrets that decision.
If you know of any, please let me know.
Or please let us know.
We comprise lots of professionals here and we're from all around the world.
If this is your first time here, welcome and introduce yourself.
I apologize for my cough.
It's 5 a.m. in the morning here in Melbourne, Australia.
I don't know what's happened.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III and that the medical science
battle is only one of 12 battle fronts of this latest World War.
One of the other battle fronts is the legal front, is the legal, is the proper application
of law that Chris Coverdale, our guest today, is going to be talking about.
Most of us understand that the science is never settled.
The meeting runs for two and a half hours after which, for those with the time, Tom
Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.
We will listen to our guest presenter, Chris Coverdale, for as long as Chris wishes to
speak and then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asked the first questions for 15 minutes.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We reject the offense industry and we reject the triggering industry.
The triggering industry that says don't say a particular thing because it may trigger
somebody.
We call BS on that proposition.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you.
Fear enslaves you.
Fear takes away your freedoms.
Love on the other hand expands you and liberates you.
The meeting is recorded and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to our presenter, Chris Coverdale, and for the purposes of the recording, for
those who didn't receive the meeting invitation, I will tell you about Chris Coverdale.
After 25 years running a behavioral science and engineering consultancy firm and four
years investigating fraud and corruption in government and large corporations, Chris became
a full time peace activist in 2002 when he discovered that the UK government had for
many decades been deceiving Parliament.
Her Majesty's, now His Majesty's military forces and the public over the illegal criminal
nature of war and the funding of war.
Having helped to set up legal action against war and make war history, Chris Coverdale
has had numerous attempts to prevent Britain's leaders and taxpayers from their criminal
participation in war, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Since 2017, Chris has been developing a lawful taxation trust method of paying all taxes
and financial payments to government into trusts on the condition that public authorities
can only obtain the money when the trustees receive proof that none of the money will
ever be used for criminal purposes and that the government is acting in full accord with
the UN Charter and the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law.
And I was a lawyer for 20 years, I was an international tax lawyer.
I understand trusts intimately and we are dealing with this as medical doctors for COVID
ethics and governments, the behavior of governments and the use of trust is a wonderful, very
interesting idea.
So, Chris, welcome to the program, to the meeting.
Stephen Frost, thank you for organizing this group.
And Chris, we are in your hands.
So we look forward to hearing you and then and then having a great discussion about the
issues that you raise over to you.
Thank you very much, Charles.
One thing and thank you, Alex Craner, for recommending you to speak to us.
Alex is a great friend of the program, has presented to us on a number of occasions.
So thank you, Alex.
Over to you, Chris.
Thanks, Charles.
OK, well, you've got most of my background there in that intro.
So my original management development, organization development and cognitive engineering
activity leads me to constantly focus on solutions.
And that's really what I've been doing for the last 20 years.
How do we solve the problems we're faced with, the tyranny?
So really, what I want to talk about today is several of the solutions that are available
to us all around the world to stop our governments and take back control.
So in 2002, I was investigating fraud and corruption in the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office in London and discovered that we had been deceived for more than 75 years over
the illegality of war.
Our government had been telling us that what they were doing overseas in relation to
was legal.
And many times they would say it has been authorized by the UN Security Council operating
under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
I started to look at this and I found that was a lie.
Absolutely incorrect.
The UN Security Council can never authorize the use of armed force.
The UN Charter, which is the law, international law agreed now between 195 nations, says very
clearly in its purposes that we agree never to threaten or to use force and to settle
all disputes peacefully.
Those are the two prime statements that we have to make.
Those are the two prime statements in the United Nations Charter to which we are all
signed up to.
Of course, looking at this and Britain's history, I discovered that I now know that we have
fought somewhere between 80 and 85 illegal wars since 1945, killing somewhere between
six and nine million people.
It's difficult to get the exact numbers, but one way or the other, we have murdered six
to nine million men, women and children since we promised never to threaten or to use force.
So it was when I discovered that that I was horrified and started to think, well, what
are we going to do about this?
Now, the first thing we did was, together with some colleagues, tried to take out an
injunction at the High Court in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, an injunction
to prevent Tony Blair and the cabinet and the monarch at that time to stop the Iraq
War, which was upcoming.
This was January 2003, and we eventually went to war in March 2003.
Now, unfortunately, they paid no attention to that.
We failed to get the injunction and they gave two reasons.
One is that there was no way it could be classified as genocide.
And the second was, both of which we had put into our argument, the second was that we
would not be attacked in London by rogue Iraqi terrorists.
So anyway, once we'd failed in that, the war with Iraq started and we were already at war
in Afghanistan.
And we were reckoning that we were killing up to 100,000 people, men, women and children
in the first 18 months of the Iraq War in Iraq and probably half that number in Afghanistan.
So the figures were just unbelievable.
So we did a number of things.
We had a look at what does the law say in this country?
Now, one of the problems that had been raised by many people was that we can't prosecute
or stop our leaders based on international law.
If an international law is agreed, it only comes into effect in domestic legislation
when it has been ratified by Parliament and the monarch.
I looked at two of the key laws and the one that had been most recently introduced was
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which set up the International Criminal
Court in The Hague.
And Britain had ratified that and it had been enacted as the International Criminal Court
Act 2001.
2001.
And also, because we have two different systems of law in Britain, it was the International
Criminal Court Scotland Act.
Scottish law is based on Roman law, whereas English and Welsh law is common law, if you like.
So both these acts of Parliament have been brought in.
And what struck me was when I read them, I thought, well, why doesn't anybody apply them?
The important thing about the International Criminal Court Act is that it introduced not
only a law enforcement, an international law enforcement authority for the first time in
history.
It had taken 60 years to get it set up.
But in Britain, the Queen at that time, the monarch, enacted its interlaw in the UK.
And in doing so, she handed over jurisdiction over six crimes to the International Criminal
Court in The Hague.
She put herself and every British resident and citizen under the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court for six crimes.
Now, the six crimes are important.
They are war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and conduct ancillary to war crimes,
conduct ancillary to crimes against humanity, and conduct ancillary to genocide.
Those are the six crimes, universal crimes, that apply around the world and in particular
in Britain.
So I started to look at, well, what do we mean by these crimes?
And the definition of the crimes is very clearly laid out in the legislation.
But nobody in government or parliament or anywhere else seems to follow it.
First of all, none of the MPs I spoke to at the time had heard about the International
Criminal Court Act, which had been passed just a year earlier.
It came in in 2001, and I started to investigate it in 2002.
They didn't know about it.
And it appalled me because looking at the definitions in the legislation, it was quite
clear that everything we were doing in Afghanistan and Iraq was not only a number of war crimes,
but also crimes against humanity.
And most importantly, it met the definition of genocide.
So what was happening in Afghanistan and Iraq was that we were killing people because of
who they were, not because of anything they had done to us.
They committed no crimes.
They had attacked no British citizens.
We were just killing them because our government, together with George Bush's
administration in America, had decided that they wanted to take over Iraq's resources
and Afghanistan's resources, and in particular the oil, to move the oil from Central Asia
through Afghanistan, for access by the Americans.
So going back to the actual crimes, the crime of genocide, which we have now committed,
seven military genocides since 2001.
Every time we attack a country, we are attacking people with high explosive bombs and rockets
and missiles and so on, knowing that when they land and explode, local people will be
injured and killed.
And we know that in the first shock and awe attacks on Baghdad and then the attacks on
Fallujah and all the other military activities that went on led to the deaths of at least
100,000 innocent Iraqis in the first 12 months.
So that met the crime of genocide and the conditions that one has to prove in court
in order to convict a person of genocide.
It's quite interesting that, again, going into the detail of it, I asked up to 35, maybe 40 MPs,
did they know about the International Criminal Court Act?
Did they know about the International Criminal Court Act elements of crimes regulations?
And none of them knew about that last issue, and it is the most important of all.
What it does is it takes each crime and it defines it in detail, laying out what you have to prove
in court in order to convict a person of genocide by killing or genocide by causing bodily and
mental harm or genocide by creating conditions inimitable to life.
These are three of the five main subheadings of genocide.
Each of them is defined in detail in the legislation, but nobody knows it, nobody follows
and certainly not our government lawyers.
So Lord Goldsmith, who was the Attorney General at the time,
kept saying that, yes, it would be legal.
It had been authorised under Security Council Resolution 678, 687 and 1441.
Again, when I looked at that, I found that was rubbish.
The Security Council cannot authorise the use of armed force.
Article 41 of the UN Charter, one of the most important articles the world has,
says quite clearly, the Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of
armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions.
Now that couldn't be clearer, not involving the use of armed force.
But of course, our government ignores that over and over again.
And as I say, we fought maybe 83 illegal wars, something like that, since 1945,
ignoring that agreement completely.
So that was the issue of trying to get someone to pay attention.
And really, for many years, we reported these war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide
to every police force in Britain, going into police stations or writing to the chief
constables and so on.
It was over 300 attempts to do that over a period of six years.
Now of those 300 attempts, five of them got as far as the War Crimes and Crimes Against
Humanity Unit at New Scotland Yard.
Now I'd never heard of that unit, but I became aware of it quite quickly.
Anyway, those five reports got to the War Crimes Unit.
And on one day, I was called into the unit and they said, well, look, you've got all
this evidence.
Can you please explain it to us?
So I spent 15 hours, five sessions of three hours at a time, and I was told that I had
15 hours, five sessions of three hours at a time with the police officers in that unit,
going through all the details of the crimes committed by our leaders, by Tony Blair,
Jack Straw, Gordon Brown, Lord Goldsmith, and the rest of the cabinet, basically,
and also the chiefs of the defence staff.
So having gone through all the detail, after the first couple of hours, they were pretty
cynical about, you know, who is this mad guy reporting war crimes.
However, they did listen and we went through it in detail.
And after a couple of hours, they realised, well, there was something to it.
This is what the law says.
This is what has happened.
That is quite obviously a criminal offence.
So eventually, they were happy to pass on all the information that we've given them,
they said, to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Now, in Britain, the Crown Prosecution Service are responsible for prosecuting criminal
offences of this nature.
The Crown Prosecution Service went through it in some detail, and then the woman who
was in charge, a senior member of the Crown Prosecution Service, was promoted to a better
job in the north of England.
And the project, whatever you like to call it, the crime report, was passed to the most
junior person in the office.
He had it for about six weeks and finally came back to us with a letter from the Crown
Prosecution Service saying that the Crown Prosecution Service was responsible for the
saying, well, we're not going to go ahead with the prosecution of Blair and Straw,
Hoon, Goldsmith, all the rest of the ones that you have reported to us on the grounds
that you have not provided evidence of intent to commit war crimes, intent to commit crimes
against humanity, or intent to commit genocide.
And therefore, we're not going to go ahead with it.
Now, that was a really poor excuse because it's not for the public or the witnesses to
the crimes to prove intent.
That is the job of the Crown Prosecution Service.
They need to go through the detail and they can't take someone into court and prosecute
them unless they are absolutely clear for themselves of what's called the mens rea,
the intent to commit genocide.
Now, we have provided pages of evidence of intent.
We've gone through it in detail and it's quite important to know that there's a document
called Accounting for Genocide up on our website which people can have a look at in detail
later on.
I'll give you the details of the website later.
But an example of intent to commit genocide took place, for instance, in Parliament in
the debate on March 18, 2003, when Parliament debated whether or not to go to war with Iraq.
It was a long debate and the first person to speak was obviously Tony Blair.
He put the motion to the House and asked everybody to go with it.
The last person to speak was the Foreign Secretary, who was Jack Straw at the time.
It was interesting how he responded.
He said, well, we've had a good debate tonight.
We know there will be consequences of our decision tonight.
Some of our troops will be killed or may be killed.
So too will innocent Iraqi civilians.
I urge you to vote with the government tonight.
Now, if you look at that statement, it is appalling.
What he was urging people to do was to kill innocent Iraqi civilians.
Genocide is when you kill someone because of their nationality, their ethnicity, their race, or their religion.
And this was killing people because of their nationality.
So here he was urging Parliament to commit genocide.
The horrifying thing for me was that having said that, the debate finished and the MPs trouped
through the lobbies, either to vote for it or to vote against it.
And the bit that really worried me was that 412 MPs voted in favour of genocide of the Iraqi people,
of going to war, of killing men, women and children because of who they were.
So it was appalling.
But however, nobody else seemed to see that this was a problem.
They carried on.
As you know, nobody would listen to the anti-war brigade.
And anything we said was almost banned straight away.
We weren't able to get on to the mainstream media.
And typically, we had a lot of problems.
Now, simultaneously to this, trying to do this, I had this question,
continuously to this, trying to do this, I had discovered that conduct ancillary to genocide
includes any behaviour that is aiding and abetting the crime.
And the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 25, which is the key
criminal responsibility article, says quite clearly anyone who aids and abets the crime
is committing the crime.
And this includes providing the means for the commission of the crime.
And so when we looked at what does it mean by providing the means for the commission of the
crime, it was quite obviously providing the troops and the weapons and the money,
most importantly the money, to fight the war and the supplies and the training and everything else.
So having discovered that the money was a key issue, I realised that paying tax,
would be knowing that it would be used to commit, some of it would be used to commit genocide,
was a crime of conduct ancillary to genocide.
So my immediate response was, I've got to stop paying all taxes.
This applies today, by the way, so it is still there.
Every time we pay tax, we give our consent to the way the money will be used by the government.
And that's the bit that horrified me.
So in 2003, I stopped paying tax.
And in particular, the big tax in this country that I was paying was the council tax.
So I stopped paying council tax and income tax and one or two other things.
So I did that for nearly 10 years around South London, West London, all around there.
And I didn't get into any trouble for it.
They constantly took me to court and that sort of thing, but I managed to get out of it and get away.
Anyway, in 19, sorry, 2014, I moved to Rye and Sussex and started the same thing there.
And as a result of that, and one other thing that's important, I started because of my
investigatory abilities, looking at crimes in large organisations in the boardrooms of large
organisations and government departments, which I'd been doing for four years from 1998 to 2002.
I have quite a lot of experience of exposing myself to the reality of crime.
And in 2002, I have quite a lot of experience of exposing, investigating and exposing corruption.
When I arrived in Rye, I discovered all sorts of corruption going on in the local council and in
the town council and in the area, including with our MP, Amber Rudd, who later became Home Secretary.
So I raised that. Now, as soon as I raised that, within 10 days, I was sent to prison,
not for raising that, but for willful refusal to pay tax.
So I tried again the following year and again the following year I was sent to prison and
I tried again the third year and the third year they sent me to prison.
So they're pretty rough down there, let's put it that way.
It was after that that I thought I've got to find a different way around this. This is ridiculous.
I'm trying to uphold the law as I see it and no court in the country seems to be able to understand
what I'm trying to do or uphold and enforce the law. So that was when I came across the issue or
thought about in detail how trusts could be used to pay our taxes. The important thing about this
is it's a conditional trust, a discretionary revocable conditional trust. Now what I do is
to put my taxes in trust for the council saying, yes, I'm very happy to pay it,
but only if you prove to me that not a penny of it will be used for a criminal purpose.
And in particular, for the criminal purposes of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide.
And later I discovered the Terrorism Act 2000 for terrorism and they've never been able to do that.
So since 2017, I've put all my taxes in trust for the year and they have not been able to claim them
because they can't prove that none of the money will be used for a criminal purpose.
The nice thing about it is it's a revocable trust. So they have until the last day of the financial
year. In our case, in this country, taxes are the last day of the tax year is April the 5th.
So I write it into the trustee to say you can have the money providing you can and it'll be yours
and my trustee will hand it over to you if you can prove that it's not being used for a criminal
purpose. If you don't, however, on April the 6th, the trustee will remove your right to claim the
money and pass it to the secondary beneficiary. And the secondary beneficiary is you. In fact,
it was me. So in a sense, what it does is it enables them to have a year to claim the money
if they can by stopping warfare, stopping the killing and upholding and enforcing the UN Charter
and the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law. So far, they've not been able to do that.
Last year and a half or two years now, we've been spreading the word and more and more people are
joining in and signing up to these Taxation Trusts, conditional taxation trusts. And I'm
pleased to say that it's working. We tell it's working because what happens for me, for instance,
every year since 2017, they seem to write off my debt and then start again the following year.
So I get all the demands and everything else and summonses and the bailiffs coming around and so on.
However, at the end of the year, I get a new demand for the coming year. For instance, this year,
having not paid council tax for six years, they sent me a bill saying, according to our records,
you owe us £166. So I was quite amused by that. So basically, the £12,000 or thereabouts that I
had not paid had been written off. One or two developments to this and the important thing we've
now discovered is that we really need to get our companies and corporations to understand that
every time they take PAYE, that's pay as you earn from an employee's salary and what's called a
national insurance contribution, they take that every month and the company hands it to the revenue
and customs. Now in doing so, the company directors are committing serious crimes of conduct ancillary
to genocide. So what we're trying to do, we've got five or six small companies already on board
with this, is to get the companies themselves to set up trusts for their employees. In the same way,
a conditional revocable discretionary trust for all their employees, for all the payments of PAYE
and national insurance that have been taken from their salaries during the year are placed in the
trust and at the end of the year, if the government hasn't met the conditions, then the employees get
the money back. In addition to that, they get a 12.5% employer's contribution back because that
also has been withheld from the government in trust for them to take. So anyway, very briefly,
that seems to be a solution that's working. There are one or two other things, perhaps we can talk
about them later on, but very briefly, one of the main ways of ensuring that we bring back the power
to us is to set up our own corporations as cooperatives and take back control locally over
all our affairs. Now, the great benefit that the corporations have is that they write their own
article association, their own internal laws, and we can be doing that in every
constituency in Britain. We're looking at 650 constituencies and we want 650 cooperatives
where we own the local cooperative, we manage and take over the activities from the local councils
and we start to run our own affairs. So that's a whole new area that perhaps on another time we can
go into more detail on at a later date. And then there are a number of things that we've got to do
setting up our local parliaments. One thing that many people don't know is how many people here
know how many parliaments there are in Switzerland? Does anybody know? Well, there are all the cantons,
if you count those as parliaments. Absolutely. There's 26. 26 cantons and there's one corporate
one, so 27 there, but also the communes have their own parliaments. Not all of them have, there's
2,100 communes and several of them joined together. So there are in total over 400 parliaments in
Switzerland with six and a half million people and their laws and other ways of operating are
very important for democracy worldwide. So their parliaments, they get the laws together and they
work on it a lot of time, but it doesn't become law until it has been agreed by all the people
in the referendum. So in the last four years, three years, I think they've only had 12 new laws.
Whereas in this country, we've had hundreds. Anyway, I won't go into too much more detail.
I think that's briefly telling you about the sort of things that we're doing. There are a lot of
other simple solutions that we can go into on some other time. So over to you, Charles.
Thank you. Thank you, Chris. And before we get to Stephen, I want to make a couple of points.
Please do. I was a tax lawyer for 20 years. I wanted to understand what a trust is, because
Chris, we've got people from all around the world here and we use the word trust quite easily and
discretionary trusts and unit trusts and fixed trusts and revocable trusts. The important thing
in using that term all around the world is it's a simple proposition to create a situation where
I look after a piece of property in trust for you. There are three things that need to happen. You
need to create a trust. There needs to be property. There needs to be a trustee and there needs to be
a beneficiary. And so the best example of that, that most of you would be aware of is a will.
Under a will, someone dies, the executives become the trustees. They're holding your assets on
behalf of the beneficiaries. That's all. So just picture this pen, and I used to describe this to
the doctors, Stephen, back in the mid 1970s when I was explaining trust to them because their income
exploded when Medibank was introduced into Australia, when the practice of medicine became
a menage à trois, Chris, where it seems to be a doctor-patient relationship and the government
put his nose in. So this is a pen. I can give this to Chris. Chris, I want you to hold this. Stephen,
I want you to hold this pen as the trustee of this, trustee to hold this pen for my children.
And I'll give a piece of document that makes, appoints you, Chris, Stephen, as the trustee to
hold this pen in trust for my children and their grandchildren. That's all a trust is.
And when you just grasp that concept, you could use a nominee. Many of you've been in financial
services, a nominee is somebody who's holding some assets for somebody else. And then what Chris is
talking about with discretionary, revocable conditional trusts is that the document that
sets up this trust has all those provisions in it. So I've worked on 200 page trust documents and
they're very good for death duties. And the Gulbenkians, Stephen, I don't know if you
remember that from the UK, the Gulbenkian family through testamentary trusts have controlled
resources passing down through generations. That's how the wealthy control their money
through trusts. So that's what I want. And the one thing I wanted to say, and the second,
I think as a proposition, the thought that I had, Chris, when you were going through this,
we need to set up in each country for us in this group, and I put this on the recording,
we now need to set up a process for tracking new legislation, Chris, because you really
raised this point, all this material comes into parliament in Australia, and the citizens are not
tracking it because we used to have trustworthy politicians, perhaps. And what we now have to do
is to start tracking, set up systems to track every piece of new legislation that comes in,
because your point is well made that most of the politicians in the UK aren't aware of the
legislation that's passing, including the International Criminal Court Act. So I've taken
note of that, of gosh, that's a very interesting thing of make, and there's a way to track it,
because all parliaments publish the new legislation that's coming. So great suggestion,
and thank you for the great work you've done, and I honour the courage that you've had in going to
prison. Not many people here have gone to prison as best I can tell, including Stephen. So Stephen
Frost, next 15 minutes over to you. Have you been to prison, Stephen? No, I haven't. No, I haven't.
They probably would have liked to have put me there, though. Well, yeah, that's a different
business. When I was exposing criminal activity involving Class A controlled drugs in the British
military, they were doing it by other means, Charles. I think Chris knows what I mean.
So Chris, I remember your name. Thank you, Charles. I remember your name. I was struggling
to remember what I remembered you for, and then I found an email by chance yesterday from you,
or me to you, I can't remember. So anyway, it brought it back to me that I used to read
what you were writing about the legality or illegality of the Iraq War, and I was something
of an expert in inverted commas on that too. So I was very interested in what you were
writing about. So, but my forte was apparently was David Kelly, Dr David Kelly. Oh, yes. And so I was
one of the three doctors who broke the narrative, which was that they were trying to put it about
via the Hutton Report and the Hutton Inquiry, which purported to be a public inquiry, but we
found out it wasn't, and the evidence wasn't being heard under oath. They were trying to put it about
that he had committed suicide, but we didn't succeed in getting an inquest, which was our lever.
But for legal reasons, essentially, we had to go to the Supreme Court twice, and there's just no
way we could do that. But we did change public opinion without an inquest. So in a way, the
inquest wasn't needed, ironically, in the end. And so I don't know whether you know me or know my name.
Well, I remember now, yes, David Halpin was the key person I was working with. I think there was a
David Halpin and somebody what's in in Scotland? No, no, no, he wasn't one of the original. He was
a doctor. He was in Scotland. He came on later. Oh, yeah, right. Yes, I remember. But the original
three were one in South Africa, who he was, so Senate. All right. He was an anesthetist in South
Africa, interestingly, and David Halpin in North Devon and me in Wales, North Wales. And so and we
were put together by someone who had noticed on the Internet. We didn't know this person. Her name
was Rowena Thursby. She found us and contacted us via an intermediary and asked us whether we
would consider working together because we were saying not exactly the same thing, but pretty,
you know, suggesting that it wasn't suicide. And anyway, I won't go into that. But that's how I knew
you. So and so I don't know if you know this, but today I read in the emails, it's amazing what you
find if you try to keep your memory and think, keep thinking when you're reading your emails.
So Suella Braverman was the attorney general. I had forgotten this if I ever knew it, actually.
Suella Braverman was the attorney general in 2020. Yeah. And one of the things that was raised in
the email, which I saw was that actually she'd written a legal advice as the attorney general,
as the principal law officer for the United Kingdom government for the lockdowns. Prior to the
lockdowns. But nobody's ever seen that legal advice. And the story today was that Suella Braverman was
talking about was rowing back essentially and saying that suggesting from a quote which I saw
that, you know, that we should never have gone into lockdowns because it was the worst option
for this country. Yeah, so she's, but the point was made that she's written the legal advice,
which no one's seen. I haven't seen it. I don't know anybody who has. And so if she's rowing
back now and she was putting that opinion about back then, and she was ignored by the forces in
the United Kingdom, even though she was the attorney general, that's important because I
remember the attorney general's advice was extremely important in, according to Professor
Philip Sands, the international law expert at University College London, in his wonderful book
Lawless World. I don't know if you know that. Have you read it? I do indeed. Yes, I've talked to him about it.
Absolutely. I've talked to him about absolutely wonderful chapter in that book where he talks
about the legal advice. So the point is that the legal advice was absolutely crucial in deciding
the illegality or otherwise of the Iraq war. And the same point, because I know about that, I knew
about today, I knew that the legal advice about the lockdowns in this country is extremely important
for exactly the same reason. And I hadn't thought of it previously. So we need to get that legal
advice of Suella Bravermans somehow or other. I just mentioned it because I think I thought you
might be interested. Absolutely. I'm definitely interested. It's fundamental. What I've discovered
was that some of the legal advice that Lord Goldsmith gave for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
was finally brought out during the Chilcot report. And Chilcot managed to get some of that
information out. But they are still keeping the legal advice to themselves. The real problem is
that the attorney general, he or she sees themselves as the advisor to the government
rather than the explainer of the law to the people. And those are two totally different roles.
And nobody is explaining the law, the laws of war and peace, for instance, nobody has in the last
75 years explained those laws to the people or the armed forces or the civil service or anybody
else. And this is a major problem we have, a systemic problem in Britain. But Chris,
whether there are laws for it or not, I'm sure there must be something somewhere that the government
is the servant of the people, correct? That's what people think anyway. Is that codified in law,
to your knowledge? Well, yes, it certainly is in terms of 1689 or thereabouts.
So the government can't say that they're following the legal advice of the attorney general
if that conflicts with the interests of the people. So in the lockdowns, for example, and indeed in the
Iraq war, you know, the population of this country don't want their taxes to be used for illegal wars.
So, yeah, I can't see that the government saying, oh, we followed the legal advice from our attorney
general, lessens the problem for them. Can you? It does in the sense that we have a very corrupt
legal system, justice system in this country. I always used to believe in it until perhaps
some 15 years ago. And every year I go to a court, I get more and more
disgusted by the constant manipulation of the law to benefit the government and local.
Absolutely. The problem is the judges. I never hear any lawyers criticising judges or criticising
the possibility that there may be lots of corrupt judges. So they seem to want to defend the legal
system or they probably know that it's a ticket to lose your licence as a lawyer if you start
criticising the courts and the judges. But the fact is the judges are still human beings, whether
they're judges or not. And so they've got all the human frailties as far as I'm concerned. And the
capacity for them being or the potential for them being bribed or coerced is massive, given the
stakes that exist, especially when the government is involved in the case. But the government, of
course, is the servant of the people. But that seems to get lost. It does so often. I mean,
you're so right. I wish they would understand that more people would understand it. However,
all the judges, for instance, in the last few years have after Lord Denning, who died in the
80s, something like that, not a single judge has repeated the fact that the people are sovereign.
They keep saying Parliament is sovereign or the monarch is sovereign or whatever it is.
And they forget about the people being sovereign. And this is what we have to remind them of again.
So the declaration indeed, the four pager rather than 80 pager
on the website lays out quite clearly that we are declaring our sovereignty
as individual men and women and taking back our power. And the nice thing about the one thing I
wanted to add for Charles was to say that the main issue about taxation trusts is that the tax
no longer belongs to you when you've put it in trust. So you have paid your tax when you put it
in trust for the beneficiary being the government. And the important bit is that you then,
if you put on a time limit to it and say you must achieve this by the end of the year,
the secondary beneficiary can be you. And you're absolutely right. There's the settler, the trustee
and the beneficiary are all part of it. And you cannot be a beneficiary of your own trust. That's
illegal and criminal. But you can be a secondary beneficiary if the primary beneficiary doesn't
meet the needs of the trust. So an example for that, just a quick one, when you're making a will
and you want to leave your money to your grandson or something and you say, right,
I leave a hundred thousand pounds to Johnny, providing he doesn't marry Sally and he
joins the family firm by the age of 25. Now, if he meets those conditions and he doesn't marry Sally
and he joins the family firm, then he gets a hundred thousand pounds. If he doesn't meet the
conditions, the trustees are bound in law to hand the money over to the secondary or tertiary
beneficiaries in the will. So that is one of the fundamentals of what we're trying to do here,
is to make sure that this is entirely lawful and we are following the system that the top 50,000
or a hundred thousand people in Britain follow all the time to hide their money from the taxman in
the Cayman Islands or Gersey, Germsey, the Isle of Man, all the other tax havens around the world.
And we are using this entirely lawfully in England and Wales and in Scotland.
To using the same system for the benefit of taxpayers and the world as a whole to try and stop war.
Chris, when they put you in prison for not paying tax, income tax was it, or council tax?
Council tax, willful refusal was the term they used. But couldn't you appeal that on the grounds
that actually, were they saying that the willful refusal extended back many, many years as it did?
No, it was just for that year, even though they knew that it had gone back. I mean, in Rye,
in that area, it was the first year that I'd appeared in front of them.
Yeah, I see. But isn't it a defense that you'd lived in London prior to Rye and that you had
not been pursued for exactly the same alleged criminal offense?
Yes, I mean, basically, they pay no attention to my argument at all. So when I got in court,
for instance, in Rye, in Hastings, which is the court for Rye, the judge before she sent me to
prison said, I had quoted the International Criminal Court Act and I was trying to uphold
and enforce the law. The judge said to me... Even in a civil case, they have to listen to you,
and particularly in a criminal case where they're going to, the judge is intending to send you to
prison on behalf of the government, you would think that they are absolutely required to listen to
you. So why didn't they listen to you? Well, basically, we have one of the most corrupt,
I have to say, Southeast, East Sussex and this area is one of the most corrupt in the country
and is dominated by the Masonic groups, if you like, in each of the police, the crime prosecution
service, the council, the judges and others. Basically, I even had quoted to me when I quoted
the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the judge said to me that doesn't apply in this court.
I couldn't believe it. But by the way, it's not a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's the
only civil offense hangover from the days of debtors prison. Well, how can you send someone
to prison for a civil offense? As I say, it's the last thing. I think it's finished now, but certainly
I was three years in a row because I had not handed the money to the council. But there was a
precedent in London. They hadn't sent you to prison. So how could East Sussex send you to prison?
Why didn't your lawyers argue that? Well, first of all, I couldn't afford any lawyers. And secondly,
the duty lawyers are all in the pocket of the courts and they refused to argue my case.
Yeah, they refused to argue certain things. So in my case, they refused to say certain things that
I was begging them to say. And I was very suspicious. Well, one of the things one of my
lawyers was the one of the most famous lawyers in the country. I don't want to name him. And the
judge who had purple hair, by the way, or was it pink? Well, purple pink. So I said to him,
do you think it's appropriate that a judge in such a high profile case with you representing me?
I said that she comes here with pink hair and dressed as she did, you know, you wouldn't get
tubs for her. Anyway, I'm not a snob, but you know, I think that I think I think the judge maybe
should pay attention to the judges should pay attention to the way they dress, because actually,
if they don't, they might get judged by the people they're judging. So 15 minutes, they stay. I just
think that but anyway, he she was asking so she knew exactly who my lawyer was the famous lawyer.
But she insisted on getting him to to spell out his name to the court.
It was just ridiculous. Honestly, the whole thing was a farce. And I did notice that the lawyers,
you know, not just those lawyers, various lawyers wouldn't argue certain points, which I thought
were important. And I and but I couldn't get never got could get an answer as to why not. And
I think it was to do with being seen to be critical of the courts. So eventually that that came out,
they actually said it looks, you know, I couldn't say that I wanted to withdraw my appeal on access
to justice grounds. But I insisted they did that. And they said, I said, Why are you so worried
about that? And because they will come after you. They'll think you criticizing the courts. I said,
Well, I am criticizing the court. And that's why I'm withdrawing my appeal. That's what the access
to justice grounds is. And they said, Oh, well, I said, Why can't I do that? I did do it in the end.
But but they said, Oh, the law, the court will come the judge will come after you for costs,
will reward costs against you. Outrageous. So so so we did argue that after a big argument. And then
but they never came after me because
Well, that's very good. You've been more successful than me. I was charged in a case in London,
when it which went up to the Court of Appeal when all the protesters were pushed out of
Parliament Square. I don't know if you remember that it was about 10 years ago. And the there was
eventually there was five different individuals in the case. Three of us were litigants in person,
and two of them were had ranks of barristers and solicitors supporting them. Yeah. And Lord
Neuberger, who was the head of the court at the time, the Court of Appeal, awarded costs of
£133,800. Against you and the three litigants in person and not against any of the others.
So there we were three of us, one university professor, myself and one homeless man,
supposedly pay £133,000 costs. And was it ever paid? Luckily, I remembered
at the just at the last minute, he awarded the cost to the litigants in person. And in the original
case, one of the litigants in person was a statement that applied to anybody who visited
Parliament Square. And I worked out that roughly there were 60 million people in a year,
who either go through Parliament Square or visit Parliament Square or pass by.
So I said to Lord Neuberger, well, I'm assuming that £133,800 has to be split between 60 million
and three people. Because he'd made the judgment or the order. That's what happened. Love it. All
right, we're gonna move on. But you know, Chris, Stephen will come back and there's, there's,
there's so many elements to unpack. But one of our attendees, Chris, I won't name him at the moment
has asked whether you're willing to adopt him. He wants you to be his dad, and he will work for
you for nothing. So there you are. So I will, I will. I love the idea of working for me for nothing.
I think the adoption process in this country is a bit dodgy. Well, this this guy would be a useful
ally for you to work for. I'm looking for people we've set up a property as an organisation,
and we're looking for people who'd like to join us and work on the principle of getting a bit more
integrity in public life. That's very good. Very good. And Stephen Frost, well done on your work
that you've done. You've clearly stood up for the truth. And the law, the obligation of the duty of
lawyers, primarily first, first preference, first requirement of lawyers is their duty to the court.
Secondly, to their clients. So, Stephen, you've shone a light on that fraud where
that was my training ground. Yeah. Had I not gone through that experience, I wouldn't have been
equipped for 2020. Yeah. And David Kelly was part of it anyway. So that's we now have that's that's
the gift, isn't it? And look at the gift of COVID is these meetings. Okay, we go to Peter Underground
now, Chris, or Peter, you maybe Peter, Peter Underwater. The water indeed here in South Africa.
Yeah. Chris, stunning, absolutely stunning presentation. Thank you so much. I will take you
back to 1963 when I joined the war office, HMG. And I can tell you, after six months, I discovered
the infeccies of what was going on. And I left very quickly. I went off to do other things.
I thank you so much. Subsequently, I worked for the citizens advice bureau in UK for 10 years or more.
And we still are our group still stick together. Old guys. We're going back a long way.
But we work to discover the truth. And you've done that, my friend. And I applaud you in all the work
you've done. I'd like to join you, your group. Thank you so much. Delighted. Thank you very much.
Just as a matter of fact, I joined Shell in 1964 as a management trainee. And I learned
very similar things to you in the Ministry of Defence. We're up to the core.
Absolutely. It's horrendous, my friend. It's horrendous. We are working together as a group.
Glad to join you. Thank you. So can I just add one thing there very quickly?
When I was looking at corruption and fraud and corruption between 1998 and 2002,
I looked at eight FT100 companies, the boardroom corruption on those eight companies, and seven
government departments. And everywhere I looked, I found corrupt practice in spades.
It is horrendous. And we've always been brought up to believe that the British government is
above all that. And we don't do it. But it's quite the opposite. Yeah, they're the worst.
Thank you so much, Chris. Delighted.
Who's next? Charles, you're muted. Sorry. Chris, you've got volunteers, plenty coming forward.
And that's wonderful. Now Janet is next because she keeps going behind Mark and then Mark Steele.
Janet. Yeah, hi. Thank you. Do you consider that the UK government is an accessory to genocide in
Gaza? If so, have you taken any steps to remedy that? And if not, are there any steps we can take
which could potentially be taken? Yeah, can I just say one thing? That
the government itself is not an accessory. The whole point about the International Criminal
Court Act is that it applies to individuals. So Rishi Sunak or Boris Johnson or any one of the
members of the British government, they are committing crimes of conduct ancillary to
genocide, but a government doesn't. Governments are held to account in the International Court
of Justice. Individuals are held to account in the International Criminal Court. So we can do
something about it. And you're absolutely right. The crime is conduct ancillary to genocide.
And in fact, I'm doing something right now about it. I don't want to talk too much about it until
we get the information out. But we have all the evidence we need to prove that politicians,
civil servants, the monarch and others have committed serious crimes of conduct ancillary
to genocide. One thing that people don't realize is that the Queen, when she was monarch,
every time she sent our troops overseas and they started murdering men, women and children,
wherever it was, she committed a crime of conduct ancillary to genocide. That was the times after
2001 when that crime came into effect in the UK. Now, normally with the monarch, they are excluded
from these crimes unless there is a specific statement in the law which says that they are
included. And luckily, Section 78 of the International Criminal Court Act makes it quite clear this act
applies to the Crown and all subjects of the Crown and all property of the Crown. So do have
a look at Section 78 and you'll realize that every single member of our government, every
corporate taxpayer and banker and others who are handing money over to the government
in large quantities for the corporate people is committing a criminal offense of conduct ancillary
to genocide. Thank you. Well said. Well said, Chris, and thank you, Janet.
Mark Steele, doing great work, Chris, and I hope you two collaborate intensely. Mark?
Fantastic to hear your information, Chris, and you are obviously early in the fight against these
murderers. My sorted background is the electronic weaponry deployment 5G in particular, and what I've
recently discovered is that the low emission zone networks, these 15 minute zones, are littered with
laser weapon systems. So we've got these, what are demonstrably not ANP or cameras. They have
got laser diodes. There's several of them. There's 24 actually in a weapon and they are category 4.
So I've done quite a bit of work with the Blade Runner guys who are cutting them down faster than
Mayor Carnage can put them up, but there's a significant environmental risk to this technology.
TFL have told me that there's no radar there. There is. I have the technicalities of it as well
as the hardware. So they've said there's no radar, there's no lidar, it's just this ANP or camera.
That's completely false. This is fusion technology, extremely dangerous and would
absolutely cause mass murder. So there's a potential, obviously with the work that you're
carrying out in a minute, with the information that I have and the technicalities and the problem
that the government have, it's irrefutable. I can show that these are weapons systems,
energy weapons that the current government, Mayor Carnage, we have them in Birmingham,
we've got them in Manchester, we've got them in Leeds and these are a latent
15 minute city kill box. That's what they're planning. It isn't connected with the contamination
that was in the COVID-19 injection, which we now have enough evidence to show that that was
actually a biochemical weapons injection, but it's a technological play that is absolutely
interconnected with the 5G network, 5G wireless body area network. So it was a track trace
termination technology that was developed by the DOD for tracking wet well on the battlefield for
an extermination. So most people at the minute, so we've got this very, very serious potential
attack on the people, unfortunately, who were victims of taking that technological injection.
It's got a track trace termination technology. It's the graphite ferritic nanometre material antennas
that we tracked in this battle space and the future battle space is a 15 minute city. So
any sort of information that you need in relation to that to show that the British
government are currently planning a mass murderous genocide. They've already committed genocide.
The nanoparticular contaminants that were in the vaccines co-sterilization
wants to get to the reproductive parts. The evidence is quite damning in relation to that.
So I think, you know, we can really assist with, you know, the work that you've done previously
to assist and to show that the government are absolutely out of lunch. And unfortunately,
your judges, your barristers, they're all target acquired. Most of them have taken the injection.
Most of them can be eliminated whenever or however the control as the AI weapon system,
it's basically Microsoft's, Microsoft's Azure, which is the Lockheed military 5G military
operating platform. It's an AI operating system and it operates all of this type of
technology that's installed in street lights, as well as these laser guns and the environmental
detriment is significant. Radar in particular, as well as the LIDAR system and I've currently
had a number of communications with TFL. I've got an ICU case against them because they've
deceived me. It's one of two things. Either they do not know what they have deployed in relation to
this ULAS directional weapon system or they've just lied or don't know what it is. So either
way they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Mark, I really appreciate the work you've been
doing there. I think it's excellent. It really is. We need to bring this understanding to the rest
of the world and certainly to the England and Wales very rapidly. And I would recommend having
a look at the legislation on genocide because you're absolutely right. If you are intentionally
killing people and knowingly killing people, you don't have to say I am deliberately doing it.
If you are knowingly killing people because of their nationality, because they happen to be
living near a mast or anything else, then you can start charging them with conduct ancillary to
genocide. The big companies that are putting up these masts. So I would recommend having a
look at the detail of the legislation on genocide. It doesn't just apply in war. It applies
particularly also to the medical situation that we've been through in the last four years. I think
we have committed at least five genocides in relation to that in the UK. And I'm sure it
applies in just about every other country that's listening to this programme. Brilliant. Well,
fantastic, Chris. I mean, unfortunately, you spent a little bit of time in prison
due to your resistance to this crime. But this has been basically, these weapons are being deployed
on the mainland of the United Kingdom, which is treason. So it's treason as well as the
genocidal agenda because these are demonstrably weapon systems that are deployed on top of us.
Yes, no, let's go for both of them. Brilliant. So which of those crimes, Charles, in your opinion,
and Chris and Mark, so you bring up treason. I agree treason seems to me to be the biggest crime
of war. But maybe it's outpunched by genocide or crimes against humanity. What do you think, Chris?
And Charles? I'm of that belief, yes. I believe that the legislation, the important bit is that
the legislation on genocide has been updated and updated. And in 2001, with the introduction of the
elements of crimes regulations, it is now so tight, it is almost difficult to get around it. So I
believe go for the crime of conduct ancillary to genocide as the best route for the moment.
Treason tends to be rather generalized and comes from, you know, way back 300, 400 years as well.
But Chris, do you think that what's happened in the last four years was treason? Because I do.
But anyway, you don't have to. I've really been focusing on seeing it as genocide.
Rather than treason, I think there's more mileage in charging people with conduct ancillary to
genocide. Now that we have the International Criminal Court and the ICJ has said what's
happening in Gaza is likely to be genocide, we have a greater understanding of that crime
around the world. And therefore, let's go with that. Sure. And this one, genocide, are you able
to explain to us the difference between, I have known this, but it slipped from my mind, genocide
and crimes against humanity. So I don't know whether you know, but Philippe Sands, we mentioned
earlier about lawless world and torture team, he wrote a third brilliant book. And that name of
that book was East Street, West Street. And it was set in a town, Lviv, I think it is called,
which has been in Germany, sorry, was it Poland or Ukraine at various times? Or was it Germany? I
can't quite remember now. So anyway, on the border and in that town, as it happens, the father of the
crime of genocide, the one who became the world expert on genocide was born. And also, weirdly,
the father of what he the kind of one who knew knew most about crimes against humanity. He was
also born in that city. Did you know that? No. All this is recounted in Professor Philippe Sands is
brilliant book, third book that I know of anyway, East Street, West Street. And torture team is a
pretty amazing book too. And you know lawless world, you know how good that is. Indeed. Yeah,
so I thoroughly recommend East Street, West Street to you. But problem is, I don't know.
Can I just make one quick comment? It is important to understand the definitions of
crimes against humanity and the definitions of genocide. And that's why I do recommend anybody
who wants to get into this area to have a look at those definitions in the International Criminal
Court Act, Elements of Crimes Regulations 2001. Chris, one thing I think to ask about private
prosecutions, because I believe we have a number of people who were maybe able to run a private
prosecution like Carnage, Le Maire Cohn. We've also got Matt Hancock. Matt Hancock admitted
in a WhatsApp post that there was an antenna. There is. It's a graphite ferritic nanometallite
antenna in the vaccine. So we have the spectrum analysis. We know exactly what was in it. We know
the DOD patents for it. He's admitted in a WhatsApp post that this did and was an antenna injection.
So he's admitted to the crime. And I think a private prosecution, but also the 15 minute
city narrative is all about radiation. And one of the things where we heard Carn not long ago
talking about this heat temperature increase in cities. This is the ubiquitous increase in
radiation emissions from 5G, where they put thousands, hundreds of thousands. I mean,
Birmingham City Council put 107,000 100 milliwatt transmitters. One milliwatt will cause a
temperature increase. These were 100 milliwatts each. They've got a 10 mile footprint. Now focus
to play with the aperture, which allows for quality, basically a weapon system, 107,000
across every single street light in Birmingham, switched on in 2019. So temperature increase
and cause a climate emergency. And these radiation levels are catastrophic, not only to, you know,
individuals who suffer EHS, but also the environment, small insects, the light emitting
diodes or biologically toxic to all life for 50 nanometers frequency in most of these LEDs.
The Kelvin rate is when from the orange lights from 2000 to about six and seven thousand Kelvin
and these street lights don't even have a diffuser. So they're not orange. They're very dangerous.
They're basically weapon, the weapon systems. They've been designed to cause bodily harm.
The definition of a weapon. So we have to do something about it. And I think a private criminal
prosecution is a very good idea, Mark. Excellent. I'll go with that. If you need my help on it,
contact me and I'll do what I can to add something to the case. Brilliant. Fantastic. Thank you very
much, Chris and great for your work. It's absolutely brilliant. Charles, the policy and touch. He has
all of my details. So, so Mark, you put into the chat and I'll send you the documents in the chat,
Chris, but you put into the chat that the judge in your case newspaper article, Mark, and one of the
issues I've said often to this group is when judges start losing their loved ones, they will, they will
change their tune. And the article that the article that you have posted, Mark, talks about
a judge being concerned about these five G towers. How long ago was that article, Mark?
In 2018, the government tried to take me to court to gag me. They said I was a conspiracy theorist
and I was frightening people by telling them that the government planned to kill them.
That case went to court. It was a civil court procedure where the government had decided
they had to gag me because I was telling people that government were planning to kill them.
We got to court, the light significantly deceived the judge. It became pretty obvious that the
expert witnesses that they had on their side didn't understand what five G was. They didn't
have it, you know, they were basic electronics guys. So they didn't understand what five G was.
I had no understanding of the antenna design and the weaponization of electromagnetic radiation in
it. So the judge, as we got through the case, and they did basically make a fool of themselves
quite a number of times, he said, I'm going to read a skeleton argument. My skeleton argument showed
that five G's weapon system, it's yet to kill. After that, after the resets and he came back
after lunch, he basically said the five G system, see the public have a right to know the five G
risk must be debated. Money also said was I was an expert in this particular field where the
government been saying I was a conspiracy theorist and I'd made it up. And I was telling people that
they were trying to kill them. Well, they are trying to kill you. It's pretty obvious now
they're trying to kill people. I mean, imagine in 2018, it was a bit off the wall at the time.
People trying to gather their thoughts in relation to these electronic weapon systems that have been
installed in street furniture. But I knew as early as 2016 that something was very, very
untoward in relation to the light emitting diodes, the fact of the increase in the optical radiation
footprint, as well as the fact that they were built to cause point light source. You never want
artificial light and a point light source emission. And what we had were had point light source,
what had the head, the lights were cranked to such a degree where they would create the point
light source, but they had no diffuser. You have 2200 Kelvin high pressure sodium, which is orange
for a reason. The optical radiation emissions is 2200 Kelvin. It has that orange glow. It has a
diffuser to stop point light source. And what you definitely don't want is pulse with modulated
optical radiation emissions because the value of the photon in that range is extremely high.
So we had a pulse modulated bare elements, bare optical radiation elements, 450 nanometers
at about 6 and 7000 Kelvin. These were weapons. They've deployed weapons on my streets as LED
streetlights. And I call that soft kill. It's obviously not going to kill you immediately.
Unlike the laser weapons that they deployed on the streets of London, these low emission
zone guns, these laser guns, they are weapons and can kill you in a heartbeat. They've got massive
capacitance inside the laser diodes. I got a bit of intel the other day where they are, you know,
anything from 700 milliwatts to 1200 milliwatts, anything over 500 milliwatts, a class four laser.
That's the most dangerous laser that can be produced. So you had well over that inside,
but also you have 24 elements. There's 24 elements in the front of that laser gun.
So you've got 24 elements times anything from 700 milliwatts to 1200 milliwatts.
One milliwatt. That's the 8-nerve guideline, the 8-nerve guideline, which the government uses as
standard for their output for radiation is one milliwatt. And we're talking about 24, 700 or 1200
times 24. So don't go so much in the technology. That's you and Chris got to work out because Mark,
you're pointing out to us as a question that Stephen asked, what's the difference between
genocide and crime against humanity? Well, it seems to me that these five G-towers are not so
much genocide as a crime against humanity. And your knowledge on this and how to use that for
each of the municipalities that we live in right around the world, you know, everyone, we need to
understand Mark as a resource to understand the questions to ask of our local councils. And Chris,
your knowledge of the law here working with Mark, I think is going to be very, very, a very powerful
combination as well as the guy in the US who's going to be working on this. Okay. Plus Anders.
All right, Mark. Great. Great. Sorry. The other issue is in the judges, children and grandchildren
dying. That's that's when the judges, Chris, you know, are going to come on and say, wow, I'm now
I'm suffering. Now I'm going to take it seriously. So so, you know, it's creating a thought in my mind.
Mark Crispin Miller does a wonderful job of each week publishing his sub stack with people who have
died suddenly. You know, people who should not have died. And that litany of examples
is a way to bring to a judge's attention. Look what's happening and there's no explanation. So,
Mark, great work. You two, I'll put you in touch with each other. Thanks. Thanks, Chris.
Thank you. Anders. Anders is also on the 5G, 5G battleground. Anders.
Yes. Hello. Hello, Chris. I'm a Norwegian guy. We were a team of four Norwegians who filed
four cases to the ICC in Haig in May 2021 based on evidence of how the so-called vaccines were
killing. And we based the filing on an Israeli filing. I had a contact with a lawyer in Tel Aviv
and unfortunately the Israeli case against, let's say Netanyahu at the time, was dismissed in Haig
end of April 2021 due to lack of standing because the Knesset had not ratified the
new ICC legal matter. It was, let's say, approved halfway but not full way. So,
it was not valid. That was the answer from ICC. We filed cases for Norway, for Denmark, for Sweden,
for Poland. We had a lot of evidence. After four, five, six months, the last case was dismissed that
they are not going to look into it until it was dismissed in the home jurisdiction of, let's say,
in this case Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc. The cases in Norway was filed in June 2021 in 17
district courts and they were all dismissed by administration in an Oslo
judge district court by basically saying they don't want to look into it.
What we thought at the time was that, okay, there were many other court cases in ICC filed from
two different legal teams in England, from Netherlands, from France, from Czech Republic
and other countries. And everyone, it was Mike Yeeden was part of one,
no case was put in. It was a British-Canadian judge in ICC. ICC is controlled by United Nations.
Not a single case has been brought in against Western countries. So what we saw, I think it was
2023 or 2022, the ICC by the pressure of politicians, Boris Johnson, etc. through
this court in Netherlands, in Hague, they put a court case which got standing against Russia
and they kind of made a criminal referral to Putin, but Russia has not subscribed to the court.
But ICC even so followed their, let's say, political directive from London.
So I would very much like to believe that ICC is a venue which can do something.
But let's say we have three, four years of experience and it has proved that it is political.
Paul Foss Yes, you're quite right. I mean,
thank goodness there are people like you doing these things. It's very important. The more
people start reporting the crimes and trying to get a case started, the more likely we are to win
in the long run. Could I just add one thing that I think is important in this country? We've done
several approaches to the ICC to try to get them to start proceedings against our leaders,
starting off with Blair and others. What we were told, and what I've now discovered is important,
is that the actual Rome statute, I forget which article it is, it's somewhere between 13 and 19,
says that we have to take the case in our own country before going to the ICC. And only if our
courts are unwilling or unable to take the proceedings forward can we go to the ICC.
So we have to first of all really start the case in our domestic courts and only when they
have been turned down again and again can we go to the ICC direct.
Yeah, the problem is that we did it in a little bit in a different way, but we filed in June 2021
in Norway, but the district court dismissed the case.
Yeah, I know. I mean we have very similar problems.
Our courts are corrupt. So there is the chicken and the egg there. So if we would be able to get
a standing in the national court and then use that as a base for the ICC,
but there were many cases filed in England too, and nobody was accepted. No case was accepted.
No, it's been the case all the way down the line. We filed the first one in 2003. 17 senior
MPs and lawyers signed the letter to the ICC. It was Ocampo at the time was the prosecutor,
and that was turned down. And everything that we've done since then has been turned down.
I did get quite an amusing letter from one of the times I went to the ICC. It was addressed,
instead of to Chris Coverdale, it was addressed to Christ Coverdale. I thought that was an
interesting slip of the tongue. I love it.
And also it is a legal possibility. It is under the Rome Charter and otherwise under United Nations,
and on the other side it is controlled by British Crown judges.
Yep.
All right. So where that leads to, and it's a mindset, and Chris, you are both, and Mark,
we've got people on this call who have a deep understanding of the human body.
Now, the human body is incredibly complicated. There are people on this call who would have all
sorts of various opinions about how to solve a problem with your body. On top of that, each
body represented on this call live today is different. Chris and Anders and I, we have
different bodies. Now, there are seven layers of laws, and what we have to understand is these
seven layers, which come from natural law or God's law. That's the 1688 legislation that
you're referring to, the monarch's oath at that time that we still have the benefit of. We have
natural law, then we have international law, then we have national constitutions, then we have
national laws in constitutions, then we have local laws in constitutions, then we have contractual
agreements, and the application of law to the interpretation of those contractual agreements.
So everybody stop looking for a black and white answer. And in my experience, I've had a law
degree now for 51 years. Chris, what you are doing, and the conversation with Anders, I recommend that
you two have, and Chris with Stephen, Chris with Mark Steele, what lawyers do is they have coffee
in the morning, and they go and see King's Council, they go and shoot the breeze. Hey,
what are we going to do about these 5G towers? What are we going to do about crimes against humanity?
And there will be someone who says, oh, I remember a case back in 1927 that held this, and that
won't have been raised by any court. And there's all this vast amount of knowledge, and it's this
willingness to dig as Mark has been, as Anders has been, as each one of you has been. And I just want
us in this environment to understand the law is as complex as the human body, and we just keep at it.
And every time we lose, it helps us take the next step closer to winning. So it's, you know, and each
time a judge behaves badly, it gives us another piece of ammunition to raise, to then present to
other lawyers and awaken more lawyers so they start to see the fraudulent system that we are part of,
just like doctors need to be shown the fraudulent nature of the medical system that we're in.
I agree, and it's really understanding the system that is important. I've spent most of my time
trying to really understand the social system, the governance system, and that the governance
system in Britain operates differently, and one has to make sure that we dig down deep into finding
out what is the underlying cause of the problems, rather than tackling the symptoms. So yes, I'm
completely with you. So, and with slight nuance there, Chris, can you explain, I love the idea,
and it's happening in Australia. You talked about it. I know this is focused on the UK, but
there's a different answer to every country, and you know, Tom is in the US, we've got plenty of
people in the US here, but local municipalities, the Swiss example that you give of 400 parliaments
in Switzerland, and Richard Voebs did a presentation on, it was an allegory, if you like,
of setting up these new community groups. How practical is that? Because the other principle
that I share that I learned from other lawyers is laws without clause aren't laws. So similarly,
judgment of the International Criminal Court is of no value if there's no enforcement,
or a common law court that we set up that comes, that has declared that Ryan Ofolmik should not be
in jail, he is still in jail, because there's no enforcement capability. How do, in the UK,
stick to that for the moment, how does a group of people come together to create a new
local municipality and ignore the one that's chasing you for money?
Yeah, that's a very good question, Charles. I've been working on this for quite some time.
I think one of the important things is to look at the models that do work worldwide. Now,
the particular one that I'm going for in the UK is called a multi-stakeholder, limited liability,
community platform cooperative. It's a bit of a mouthful, but it's basically, the law changed in
Britain in 2014, making it possible for cooperatives to act in the same way that
multi-national businesses operate. The big difference being the cooperative is only
controlled by its members, whereas the big businesses are only controlled by shareholders.
And we need to ensure that, for instance, we tried to set up in the Hastings and Rye constituency,
Hastings and Rye community cooperative. Now, providing we set it out, set out the
articles of association and we aim at being a cooperative and not a shareholder-owned company,
then that model is a very useful one. Now, one of the biggest in the world is in northern Spain
called Mondragon. Now, they have 85,000 members and about 30,000 employees worldwide
in 17 different countries. And they were set up and they still are the world's biggest cooperative.
Well, they weren't set up that way. They are now the world's biggest cooperative and very effective.
They have their own university, their own courts, their own training systems and education systems,
their own hospitals and banks and so on. So bit by bit, they have grown into a self-organizing,
self-controlling community. And that's the sort of thing that is quite possible for us to do,
particularly now that we've changed the law, making it possible for cooperatives to have the same
benefits of limited liability and having business owners or cooperative members alongside
individual members. And the great thing is that we can, for instance, in our local co-op,
have Shell or BP or somebody join, but they only get one vote in our meetings alongside one vote
for every individual member. So it brings back the power to a certain equality locally.
Chris, may I say that perhaps building societies originally were set up that way?
Yes, I agree. I mean, we need to go back to the old systems that work.
Yeah, I'm with you 100%. I always applaud cooperatives and the building societies of old,
but Maggie came in and destroyed them, didn't she?
You're right.
So, and then Jerry Brady suggests, and Peter Underwood would know this, and some of you will
remember the concept of sortition. Chris, have you heard of sortition? Where do you think it's
Chris? Have you heard of sortition where leaders are elected by ballot? You nominate for leadership.
What that weeds out is the psychopaths. And it's within these cooperatives of Mondragon, everybody.
Thank you, Siobhans, for putting the link into the chat. I remember reading about Mondragon a long
time ago. So the leadership clearly of Mondragon, it's been going for decades, has worked. It hasn't
been taken over by psychopaths. And it can't be because of the nature of its structure.
It's individuals, you can only be individual members and corporate members, but you all have
one vote. And because of that, and having limited liability, you make your own rules.
And if you start, you can't be taken over because there's no shareholding. And that's very important.
If you set it up as a cooperative by shares, then somebody with lots of money can come in and buy
the shares and take over the cooperative. Yeah. Well, if it's limited liability and a cooperative
by guarantee rather than by shares, then you do not have that possibility. Everybody has a
guarantee of say, 100 pounds or one pound, whatever it is. But there's no shares to be taken over.
Yeah, very good. So everybody think about cooperatives because each country has different
laws on cooperatives. It's a great idea. Now, Chris, before we go to Stephen, because we haven't
got any hands up, we've got half an hour to go. The other question I want that you've raised
it earlier, what's your thinking of creating a process to shine a light on all legislation
that's before the parliament? You know, that's the same. I'm thinking about this for Australia.
We've got six states, you know, plus the national law. So I would. And it seems to me that there are
plenty of people and finding out the legislation that's coming before parliament is very easy to
do. It's all online. It's not hidden. It's just that people don't have time to look at it. But if
we set up a process to examine those laws and we shine a light on it, then I think we could
stop shitty laws coming into enforcement. What's your, have you looked at that yet?
I have indeed. And that was one of the reasons I suggested having a look at how things work in
Switzerland, because Switzerland hasn't had an external war in 850 something years. And
their lawmaking process is slow and deliberate and careful and cooperative.
And they don't have all these lobby groups from big corporations, as far as I can find out,
forcing their attention on our MPs as happens in the UK. They have, for example, so if a law
comes up from one of the cantons, it is discussed in parliament. They have to have a certain amount
of people sign up to get it going in the first place, rather like California does. And then it
goes to the two parliaments, the equivalent of our House of Commons and House of Lords or Senate and
Congress. It goes to one, they look at it and they cooperate in trying to get it into a format. They
pass it to the others. They have a look at it. They bring up any difficulties and make changes
and they pass it back to the first. And that process happens three times. So in other words,
it's looked at up to six times. And if they still can't get agreement, then it's dropped and will
come back in four or five years time. If they do get agreement, they then have to go out to the
cantons and have a national referendum on it. And it does not become law until everybody or 51% or
whatever the percentage is, depending on the law, has been agreed by the people. And that's the sort
of process that we need to develop in this country. The party system is really causing us major
problems. And the fact is that people are putting the government to oppose the government and the
government opposes the opposition. It's constant competition. And really what we need is cooperation
through and through to come up with a new law which suits everybody, not just the lobbying group or the
energy companies or whoever it is, is putting it forward.
– Yep. Very good.
– So Chris, what went wrong in Switzerland in 2020 then? Because they had lockdowns in Switzerland,
as far as I understand.
– I don't know the answer to that one, I'm afraid. I don't know.
– All right, Peter, and then we'll go to Stephen and we'll finish in half an hour.
– So let me introduce the group to the South African or African concept of Ubuntu.
– Oh, lovely.
– Ubuntu. It is all about cooperation. And working together as a group, I put out my
letter from South Africa on Saturday. And it was focused on the wolf pack. Wolf packs
survive because they work cooperatively. That's what I wanted to say.
– Yes, I had a good session. We had the one small town group and Michael Tellinger has been pushing
Ubuntu in this country. And I think it's a brilliant idea. I really do.
– Yeah, absolutely, Chris. I'm with you 100%. I'm sorry, I'm suffering from the
winter.
– You're suffering from what, Peter?
– The winter. We've got a winter here at the moment. It's driving me nuts.
– Well, Peter, I'm so glad. I'm just glad that you didn't say you've got COVID.
Because there is no COVID. But anyway, I wanted to ask Chris. I think you said, Chris,
amongst all the other stuff you said, you said there'd been five genocides in the last four
and a half years in the United Kingdom. Is that correct?
– Five medical genocides and seven military genocides.
– So what are they then?
– Well, the seven military genocides are Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and then the
support for the Ukraine, the Yemen, and Gaza, Palestine. Those are the seven military genocides.
And the five medical ones are really to do with the COVID response, the
Madazelan murders in the care homes, for instance, the lockdown and the suicides and others that
happen for small businesses and so on. The putting out the DNR, do not resuscitate
instructions. The injections themselves, and I forget the fifth one.
It'll come back to me anyway. So each one of those is a separate
genocide, which has led to the deaths of at least 10,000 British citizens because they were
residents of Britain and not any other reason.
– Well, the other genocide would be that it was a PSYOP. It was a government PSYOP, wasn't it?
That the result of what they did in 2020 was that huge numbers of people in the United Kingdom,
and because it was the United Kingdom all around the world, were psychologically tortured by their
own government.
– Not only a PSYOP, but assault, literally assault, Stephen.
– Sure. So people don't understand that human beings are very highly social animals.
We need company. So any government in the world should have been, all the governments in the world
and all the doctors should have been aware of this, and that lockdowns were against human nature
and therefore harmful. And if you isolate a human being long enough, he or she will die.
Particularly a baby, of course, it's obvious, a child even, but adults will as well. And I don't
know whether you're aware of the, you might be able to use it in one of your private prosecutions,
Chris. You need to cite the very important experiments, the Universe 25 experiments.
– Can you say that again?
– Universe 25 experiments on mice.
– Oh, right.
– And the 25, I thought it related to 2025, but no, apparently the government, the experiment was
so important that they repeated it 25 times to make sure that the results were correct.
So, and what it was about was that they, the mice were essentially, they had very good conditions,
they had as much food and water as they needed, but they weren't allowed, I don't think they were
given too much food. They had space initially, but then the population increased, and then it
became apparent that there was a lack of interest in sex, and thereby the population eventually
started to reduce, but there were a whole group of males who were not interested in reproducing,
and the females, I can't remember all the details now, but it's an extremely important
experiment in my view, and it was allegedly done by an individual, but it was done for the government,
or for governments, and that would fit with the 25 times bit, you know, that, so I think that it
was actually an exercise in, you know, into getting the mice into a state where they didn't
want to live anymore, and I think that's what the lockdowns were about. They were about causing
human beings so much suffering that they didn't want to live. We have to think about what the
possibilities in the minds of these people who perpetrated what they did in the last four years,
what was in their minds, and I think anything is possible, and I think that there was a will to
how shall I say, and there is a will to continuing will to isolate human beings from
each other and generations from each other to drive wedges everywhere between human beings,
and this is wrong in my opinion, and we need to call them out on every attempt to turn men
against women and women against men in particular, because the women need protection in times of
lack of safety, so we've always cooperated, men and women, but not just,
the wars that are created by politicians and others between generations, children
who think that because their grandparents, their parents, don't understand computers as well as they,
they are led to believe that that means they can't learn anything from their elders,
that's ridiculous, and similarly the adults, the parents and the grandparents have lost confidence
and they believe all this crap that if they don't understand computers they have nothing to teach
their children, it's nonsense, absolute nonsense, we need wisdom, and I think that the problem
is exacerbated by these phones, social media, computers, the love of stuff that cannot be
regulated by anybody, because it's so damn complicated for human beings that they don't
know how to regulate it, anything that cannot be regulated in my opinion needs to be put in the bin
because it's bad for human beings and we're seeing that now.
Yes, I fully agree with you, we need action to change the system, it's wrong and it's
causing us immense problems. Sure, education is absolutely key and I don't know how we're going to
do that. A good start is to get a good criminal case going against our leaders for conduct,
ancillary to genocide and that will spread rapidly around the world. I would love to see
Tony Blair convicted in court of genocide and sent to prison and that would have effects
right around the world immediately. Again, perhaps Matt Hancock, prosecuted for conduct,
ancillary to genocide for his role in the COVID-19 experiment. Yes, so in particular I think the
lockdowns have been overlooked, the governments are trying to put it about that actually they
should have brought in the lockdowns earlier and it's absolute nonsense. In my opinion as a doctor
there was no pandemic and there was no disease called COVID-19, no respiratory disease, so what
was it about them? Was anything true of what we were told in the last four years? I think not.
I agree and perhaps it's also worth pointing out the Nuremberg code,
yes very important, which is essential in those sort of situations which makes it a criminal offence
if you don't explain to people before having the injection the likely effects. Absolutely and do
you know this? So in my opinion no doctor in the world knew what was in these injections so it's
absolutely impossible for any doctor in the world to obtain informed consent. So why in the world
were they recommending it all over the world, these damn doctors and my colleagues? I'm very angry with
them. I think the money plays a big role in everything. But Chris also where were the lawyers?
The lawyers just they were more concerned about getting their law firms into trouble and losing
business than thinking about where this was all going and the effects on their grandchildren and
their children if they cared. Yeah I agree. I've found the lawyers and law firms and justice system
in this country is right at the seat of the problem. Yeah and look at the Letbe case. I don't know
whether you know about the Letbe case, the nurse in Chester, the counters of Chester? Yeah I don't
know much about it but I just heard about it yes. Yeah so that looks like a miscarriage of justice.
We've got the post office thing, what nurse is that about? 800 people is it went to where
were found guilty of criminal offences. These postmasters and postmistresses you know they
were chosen because they were trustworthy and then 800 of them are found guilty of criminal offences
and all the time it was due to a damn computer system which was not you're not allowed to question.
And it says something about our justice system that that could happen. It really does. Absolutely.
Rather likely 559 MPs who voted in favor of continuing the bombing of Libya when David
Cameron had started it three days earlier and 559 MPs voted in favor and 14 against.
Yes I have to say Chris only six MPs turned up to Andrew Bridgens. Yes.
I just have to say that. Oh by the way Chris you might be able to help Andrew Bridgen because I
found out after the election he only you know allegedly only got 1500 votes well last time he
got 35 000 so how on earth can he have become so. You are so right Stephen you're so right I
Marked that he had 35 000 at the
the interim election and then in the final election he got 1500.
No no the previous election the previous general election he got 35 000. Yeah. He was a conservative
it was a former labor seat he was in beating his majority it was 20 000 majority I think and
previously it was a labor seat so you can see how successful he was there is no way British people
would desert someone like Andrew Bridgen who was talking from the heart. Absolutely Stephen you're
so right. Can I just make finish the point so there's no way the British people would desert
someone like that so the British people are good people generally of course there are bad eggs
there are bad eggs in every country but but um there's no way they could be so disloyal and
1500 that was their big mistake they wanted to totally humiliate him with a terrible figure for
him and say to him essentially look no one's listening to you Andrew. Can you say Stephen that
the British. The point I want to make is they made a big mistake in making the number so damn small
that it was obvious to anybody who understands numbers that that there's no way that that could
have occurred that's the point. Yeah you are so right Stephen how the hell can we believe in the
British constitution and its electoral system. Yeah but the British people go to work they all
worst thing you can do in Britain is cause a fuss about anything so they go to work they don't
complain oh mustn't complain no that's the last thing we must do it doesn't matter how long the
queue is if it's a mile long you mustn't complain. Yeah I think the system we can
focus on is the actual counting of the votes unfortunately all the papers are destroyed as
soon as it's over we there's no checks on it at all and we have to find a way of checking every
single vote absolutely what happened in that situation the corruption in the voting system
in this country has been going on for at least 25 years since. Agreed absolutely Chris. We've got
an expert on voter fraud in America he's a good he is a absolutely brilliant with computers and
so he's worked out but didn't understand the importance as I understand it but Jerome Corsi
who wrote the book about JFK which came up his assassination which came out recently
um he understood the importance of it so he so this guy this brilliant guy working on his own
finds a an algorithm in the voting records for New York state yeah so an algorithm by definition
is evidence of fraud yes so and he's we also have evidence of fraud in Scotland for the um the
original um um separation debate um yeah you're right Chris so he worked out how is it happened
in America and so Jerome Corsi he confirms that it's likely that um they use the same method in
the UK in the recent elections to novel Andrew Bridgen for example yes I agree with that
that's amazing I learned a bit about this when I was standing for parliament in 2005 in the Wimbledore
constituency uh I then found it out from experience just how corrupt the whole thing is jeez
I'm horrified I I've worked in the citizens of vice bureau for at least 10 years
and believed that we had uh a viable system no I'm completely
disenchanted they made a massive mistake in that 1500 for Andrew Bridgen because people like me
and other people around the world are very interested in this voting fraud now for the
United Kingdom as well as the United States yeah yeah you're right Stephen it's frightening my
friend thank god I'm in South Africa it's like the psychopaths who bring their attempt themselves to
the attention of the um police in serial murders you know they just cannot resist taunting the
police and they bring they bring themselves to the attention of the police and start suggesting
things because they want to be they want to achieve notoriety or whatever or or and eventually
they get caught by their own vanity yeah and I think that's what's happened in the case of
Andrew Bridgen's election you're right Stephen you're right my friend but the point is Chris
that we we've worked out that there's something wrong with that election in particular uh and we
need to work out how we can go for certain people who are responsible who are also vulnerable if
you understand me yes well I believe that we we've got to go for the top right now um so I'll come
back to you when we've got that underway yeah Chris you're absolutely right I've just written
um an article on starma I've tracked this guy for some years now he is a snake in the grass
and I'm going to be writing a a sub stack uh in the next couple of weeks
because I know he's wef there's no doubt about that and he's absolutely committed to globalist
uh attention yes and has anybody on this call noticed Chris have you noticed and Peter for that
matter uh but others as well has anybody looked into starma's eyes and thought those are weird
eyes he looks scared to death he looks absolutely terrified absolutely he's controlled Stephen
he looks as though he's in the headlights and I so he's supposed to be a barrister
I think he's a barrister isn't he or is he a solicitor no he was he was um he was a barrister
he let that guy um jeez uh I can't remember the name yeah he must he must be the most
frightened barrister I've ever seen them well he let Savile get away he let Jimmy get away
I will never forgive him for doing that yeah I forgot the names uh so yeah exactly
but there was another case that he was instrumental in which was that now um
well I I had direct experience with him um because we reported uh Blair and others for war crimes and
he was the DPP who turned it down yes wasn't actually in his name he got other people to
sign the letter but he was in charge of the DPP when when we tried to prosecute Blair and the
rest of them for genocide and crimes against humanity yeah and let us not forget as well it's
um so he also got thrown out of a pub by that publican in Bath
do you ever see that I saw the video it was absolutely brilliant
he literally got thrown out and his staff were absolutely mesmerized they couldn't understand
how anybody would want to throw Stammer and his crew out you know Christ he's bloody
he am now for God's sake yeah so and also we should say on this call for the record
that Stammer I think it was in a BBC Newsnight program I think it was Kirsty Wark who said where
would you rather be she didn't say Kiers Stammer but it was Kiers where would you rather be uh
Davos or Westminster he thought absolutely and he said Davos and she smiled it was some kind of
inside joke in the BBC at the public's expense it was just ridiculous you're so right Stevie
I need an archivist
yes well we we've got to do some I promise you we will be working on this and um any support we can
get to get that man and most of the others into prison could we bring a private prosecution against
Kiers Stammer for um putting the country at risk by saying that he prefers the Davos where the
World Economic Forum meets every January to Westminster that's that's behavior
consistent with treason as far as I can see well I think there's better evidence of him saying for
instance he supports um the Netanyahu's um removal of the food and medical supplies and the food and
medical supplies and other things and he thinks that's a good thing
that is a direct statement of genocide in uh in support of um the Israeli government
yes you're so right and Chris I think he was absolute genocide it's Zionism Chris I think he
was planning a genocide for the anti-vaxxers as well because he said we must we must deal with
the anti-vaxxers and if yes he said we must join with the opposition to do it I'm prepared to do
it sorry with the conservative government at the time uh so dealing with the anti what did he mean
dealing with the anti-vaxxers was he gonna he did say that Stephen I've actually printed that out
in my letter that's coming out recently or in the next couple of weeks he said we have to deal with
the anti-vaxxers yeah that's what I said Peter that's what I said I said that yeah we have to
do what on earth did he mean by deal with them well he meant we have to eliminate them well exactly
that's yes exactly that's what he was kind of a hate crime wasn't it putting thoughts in the
minds of the public you know it's absolutely this is like this is insightful behavior absolutely
absolutely so we already knew that well we did that the British population had been
psychologically tortured so long-term starmer and you know we had Matthias Desmet who's a professor
of psychology or whatever and he was saying that we don't know where this could end you know we
don't know when when there could be atrocities triggered it could happen at any time it was you
know I was saying whoa we could have an atrocity you know killing people uh you know because they
were in a cult essentially I think that's what he was saying he never used the word but but um uh so
we could have these atrocities and there's kios dharma uh who's now the prime minister of the UK
saying we must deal with the antivaxxers absolutely you couldn't make it up
so anyway Chris we've come to an end Chris you've done very come to a fiery end yeah sorry about that
no no we've come to a wonderful appropriate end inspiring us to all take responsibility for next
steps that need to be taken and Chris you know congratulations on your courage on your willingness
to to stand up for what you believe that many people on this call do the same and listening to
you and those watching this recording must understand that if we want to fight back against
this we need to be willing to suffer now anyone who's gone to war ever any country you know when
the when the average person is in the military when the australians went to world wars one and two
the people in the military most of them suffer we have to be willing to suffer and Chris
you are a wonderful example to us of the willingness to suffer for your beliefs if you're
not then it's not a belief you're just talking shit so let's not talk shit let's act thank you
Chris for being here Stephen thank you for organizing thank you again officially I think
actually one of the jobs that's very much underrated in in the present situation which we're in after
four and a half years of this nonsense and long before probably except I wasn't really fully aware
is that one of the most important resources I think are archivists otherwise known as librarians
we need librarians we need them to catalog all this stuff that we've talked about tonight but
all the other stuff we know in our heads which we can't possibly manage on our own in on our
computers you know and we need to realize this and get some very very good librarians I've been
saying this for some time to document everything and to be able to find it again so remember the
algorithms in the voting fraud in America the importance of those was that they could not only
create a hundred identities for one person but that they could hide those identities so that
nobody would find them but guess what when there was a problem in a state or whatever
they could stop the counting and then find all these identities secretly so
so even you're so right my friend librarians and what we're talking about all right we've got the
message come on no no I mean it just so we can store the information and then pick it up for us
when we need it because they so they have a sixth sense so they know what we want yeah there are
plenty of librarians and they can find the information that is useful to Chris
no there are people on this call who are librarians Tom Rodman is JJ Cooey as Tom Rodman points out
there are collectors here of information so well they well they haven't made their okay right
okay they haven't made themselves known Charles well no we don't need to that's the beauty Stephen
of having well no you missed the point Charles because what I'm saying is we need people who can
store the information well create one a point who's going to appoint them no you've made the
point you want government to set up a librarian no thank you no I was trying to explain
20 000 files of data already okay we're finishing Tom go quick I think could I just add one last
thing Charles yep I think it's important that we've got to get past the data phase into action
and one of the simplest things everybody can do is to stop paying for what's happening stop paying
tax nice beautiful message Tom what do you want to say before we finish oh okay well the telegram
channel is intended for that the hashtags are a way of aggregating data we can export the telegram
to a flat file which I do periodically my telegram my primary telegram account was clobbered for no
apparent reason so I'm telegrams wonderful but I'm still angry at them also um yeah I keep I keep
things and uh I have a lot of information in one text file and because you try signal Tom
the signal doesn't have a lot of the features that telegram have has okay but I mean yeah we
got to use everything um okay thank you excellent all right everybody they're out at Chris the fact
that you don't know actions being taken none of us know all the actions that are being taken there
are plenty of actions being taken and you are an ongoing inspiration keep taking more action
so we will and and the state is going to create a library sorry yeah Charles I saw three very
important things in my emails today and and other elsewhere um and I thought how am I going to
remember those and I just wish I had somewhere to put this stuff because I know in a week's time I've
completely forgotten about them it may come up I may remember in a week's time I may not good well
you need to be put it in one file put everything in one file learn how to search it Tom that's not
the point so we've got Chris Coverdale he's a bit more organized than me say there are others
you know like um okay hang on Stephen we know you're a genius at certain things and you're
not a genius at collecting information you need an assistant and there's someone on this call
or recording who's a who's got nothing to do who says I will become Stephen Frost's
personal assistant okay we're going thanks Chris thanks everybody
finding the information storing it Charles and then refinding yes that's what your virtual
assistant will do for you Stephen you don't pay them money they'll help you because they're inspired
by what you want to create Charles I don't want to computer as my assistant Stephen you have to
want to learn if you don't want to learn IT stuff I mean but if you do want to learn it then
how do you learn it now