Table of Contents
Following on from our article about one particular emerging consequence of Jacinda Ardern’s Covid vaccine imperative, the families of injured children should not be satisfied with a whitewash and nor should anyone else. Accountability advocates such as JusticeWatchNZ have been assessing legal avenues including the pathway to criminal prosecution, private or otherwise.
Clearly, the testimony of families like the Nairns, Beulinks and the Butels provides powerful evidence of some of the harms from government decisions. However, proper criminal investigations must proceed in an orderly fashion, with the final charges and defendants being dictated only once all the facts are assembled and supporting evidence is attached. Any variation on this method is doomed to fail, and it is foolish to imagine any possible weakness in such a prosecution won’t be exploited by those under suspicion.
A concerning element is that the acknowledgements of harm appear to recognise the fact of harm over an extended period of time – a possible conclusion being that this may have been intentionally caused. Justice Watch NZ is actively investigating this circumstance from a criminal perspective. As their experienced investigators tell us, criminality in its basic form involves three components, which are Identity, Mens Rea and Actus Rea – who did it, their guilty mind (understanding of possible harmful consequences) and the action – or omission – which caused the harm, respectively. Of course there is no offence if the actions are justified in the law which negates the mental element of guilt, and investigation will reveal whether there is legal justification or not. Initially, it seems there is not. We have said this situation is criminal for years now, and the team at Justice Watch NZ agrees. They are seasoned professionals who understand this application – so watch their site in the time ahead and please support their work.
An appetite to apportion criminal responsibility for the Time of Covid has been evident from the start, and names such as Fauci, Bourla and Gates are starting to feel some heat in several courts overseas. Here at home, it is understandable to want to rush to court the moment some ‘proof’ finally emerges, but if such a case can possibly fail it will be made to. Some attempts around the world have fallen at the first fence, through poor preparation or nebulous scope – and because many judges simply do not want to go there.
But history trundles on, disclosure is inexorable and now the momentum is on the side of outraged citizens, and diligent and professional groups like Justice Watch NZ. The instinct for revenge, or more politely packaged as justice in civil society, is an essential human quality, and it is only natural for people to examine what lawful pathways might allow for.
So What Crimes Might Have Occurred?
As an example of legal theory directing one possible prosecution pathway, under the Crimes Act 1961, section 150A, a person commits manslaughter if their grossly negligent act or omission causes death. Obviously though, positive actions in furtherance of an enterprise causing harm are prosecutable too, and this is the guts of it and a simple way forward. It is a positive act to omit or hide information deliberately that could prevent harm. Ironically, being mindful of this liability is what got many NZDSOS doctors into hot water. Not only would toeing the party line – keeping quiet and inactive – breach our fiduciary obligation to patients, but this could be criminally derelict if people got hurt, and many surely have been.
But the duty of care owed by non-doctor public officials to children is also beyond dispute. Ignoring expert advice, suppressing safety information, and coercing children – behind their parents’ backs not infrequently – into a medical procedure that carries known risks, including of death, is reckless endangerment. If a doctor acted in this way, they could face criminal charges and the rightful loss of their medical license. Conscientious ‘Covid crime’ doctors like us round the world have been struck off for far less. Public officials should not be held to a lower standard.
So, How Might it be Done?
The legal bar for a private prosecution is high, but not insurmountable. In New Zealand, any person can present any information alleging an offence, and the court may issue a summons if there is sufficient evidence. Of course the financial costs can be huge, not just to pay for the criminal barrister team. Most of the time required is spent in dogged investigation work, assembling evidence, preparing witness statements. A typical police operation leading to a criminal trial can run into the millions. So far, Justice Watch has worked almost entirely for free and a large slab of the work is done, but now fund raising has to begin.
The Crown has a power to take over (or discontinue) a private prosecution, but it must act in the public interest. In this case, the overwhelming public interest lies in holding the powerful to account and in establishing that no official is protected in law from knowingly hurting other people.
NZDSOS tried to interest NZ Police in 2022 but they seemed unwilling or unable to hear Covid evidence. Are they any more interested in upholding the law than back then? As discredited as the top cops in charge back then have been, and although the police remain legally agents of the Crown and not public servants, has the culture shifted towards protecting the community? The shift seems real at the level of rhetoric. Whether it reaches the level of the law is another matter entirely.
In Australia, a determined team put their own evidential complaint into the form of a documentary, Witness Statement. Same crimes, different players – and same disinterest from the police.
Summing Up
The scale and evidence of Covid crimes available is massive – too much for many even to begin to accept – but just that assembled by Philip Crump’s Cranmer substack, by the NZ Herald, and by NZDSOS in our companion article, on the hidden heart risks for teens now coming out, could on its own provide a sufficient basis for a court to consider issuing a summons. We say the scope and harms of the Covid crimes is far wider though, and the investigation that many want to see must attach all available evidence into the circumstances and the law, so that defendants and appropriate charges then become clear.
As some reassurance, though, compared to the ultimate responsibility of top level decision-makers, most government workers who helped facilitate this health train-wreck by genetic assault are unlikely to be called to account by the courts. Facing their communities, and their own consciences, may be a different matter.
A prosecution would not be about revenge. It would be about establishing the truth for the world, about holding public officials accountable for their decisions, and showing that such a seismic betrayal of public trust must not happen again.
Post script: Different Leopard, Same Spots
It is hard to avoid the parallels here with the assault on children by the ‘transing’ industry. NZDSOS has noted that some of the most vociferous pro-Covid vax, anti-caution doctors have also carried the avant-garde flag for ‘gender affirming care’. This is a cynical, Orwellian misnomer for the pharmaceutical and surgical castration of manipulated and identity-undermined children. This medical ethics disaster too will have its reckoning soon, and its many days in court.
This article was originally published by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science.
