ER Editor: This is an excellent legal construction of the case against French MPs and the French President, bringing together all sorts of historical and contemporary points in relation to the PLANDEMIC, applicable to all our governments.
Maître de Araujo-Recchia files a complaint against the parliamentarians who voted for the law of 5 August
INTERVIEW – Maître de Araujo-Recchia, in partnership with her colleague Jean-Pierre Joseph, and two other lawyers, have filed a complaint before the doyen of the examining magistrates on behalf of the associations BonSens.org, AIMSIB and the Collectif des Maires Résistants against the parliamentarians who validated the law of 5 August relating to the management of health crises.
This law aimed to force millions of professionals to undergo experimental gene therapy or risk losing their jobs. The plaintiff associations were informed that the parliamentarians of the Joint Committee (CMP) reached an agreement outside the framework of the CMP for the benefit of private interests in return for their vote for a bill that violates the French Constitution, international law and the rules of both Chambers that parliamentarians are bound to respect. Maître de Araujo-Recchia granted us an interview to explain the ins and outs of this legal action.
Maître DE ARAUJO-RECCHIA, you are a lawyer at the Court of Paris and you are currently filing a criminal complaint on behalf of associations against parliamentarians. What are the facts that led you to file this complaint?
First of all, it is a criminal complaint drafted in committee with my colleague Jean-Pierre Joseph, and two other lawyers, filed on behalf of the associations BonSens.org, the AIMSIB and the Collectif des Maires Résistants.
This complaint concerns actions that could be classified as criminal because they violate binding international law, the Constitution and the rules of the two Chambers that parliamentarians must respect. Consequently, the case is being filed directly with the senior investigating judge.
Indeed, the complainant associations were warned that members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (CMP) responsible for proposing a text on the provisions remaining under discussion in the bill re-establishing and supplementing the state of health emergency, which met on 25 July 2021, negotiated and concluded a secret agreement outside the CMP with a view to satisfying private interests in exchange for their vote in favour of the bill.
As a reminder, it was a question of renewing the health pass (disguised vaccination obligation) and deciding on the vaccination obligation of many professionals (health professionals, firemen, soldiers among others).
In this way, the parliamentarians in question have condemned millions of French people to choose between their job/social life and their health. Indeed, it is not a question of submitting to a compulsory vaccination with a safe product for which there is ten years of hindsight and which is intended to protect against a fatal disease with no available treatment.
It is actually about forcing millions of French people to undergo a clinical trial of biological drugs (i.e. gene therapies that fall into the category of biological drugs under EU law), which had an impressive list of side effects even before they were put on the market.
The report of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) of October 2020 shows this very well: there was already talk of myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease etc.
These pharmaceutical products are the subject of millions of adverse reaction reports:
– 2,880,653 records reported on the WHO VigiAcces database,
– 19,387 deaths as of 18 December 2021 and 1,275,634 adverse reactions, 363,774 of which are serious, on the European pharmacovigilance website EudraVigilance.
These data are extremely alarming compared to the data from all conventional vaccination campaigns combined, bearing in mind that in the field of pharmacovigilance, reports actually concern 1-10% of actual effects according to internal studies by Health Human Services and Harvard).
However, the associations BonSens.org and AIMSIB have constantly alerted parliamentarians by all means (open letters, registered letters, articles, video interviews with the world’s leading experts, intervention within the Independent Scientific Committee, proposals for funding the necessary meetings and investigations).
In spite of all these warnings and the thousands of deaths, the accused parliamentarians seem to have preferred to negotiate private favours rather than to protect the interests of the Nation and the health of the French people, in violation not only of the rules of the two chambers of Parliament but also of binding international law.
We recall point 5 of the Nuremberg Code:
” 5. The experiment must not be attempted when there is a priori reason to believe that it will result in the death or disability of the subject.”
This is a commonly accepted rule of medical ethics, as Dr Mc Cullough, a cardiologist at the Baylor Institute, USA, recalled in May 2021. In principle, the first deaths lead to the immediate termination of clinical trials:
“The limit for stopping a vaccine programme is 25 to 50 deaths. Swine flu, 1976, 25 deaths, they stopped. We have an average of 200 reports of deaths per year in the US for all vaccines. We have over 4,000 reports of deaths in the US! It is by far the deadliest, most toxic biological agent ever injected into a human body.
However, it is clear that this major rule of medical ethics has not been followed at all.
For those who would argue that the Nuremberg Code is not enforceable, I would remind you that the Nuremberg Code is part of customary international law (opinio juris site necessitatis).
In this regard, we will quote Mary HOLLAND, professor of law at New York University, who questioned the members of the United Nations in May 2016 on vaccine policies that violate the Nuremberg Code.
“The United Nations, as well as the international community, has an obligation to respect human rights related to vaccination”.
“The Nuremberg Code states that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights echoed this prohibition against involuntary experimentation in its 1966 text, which states: no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” This prohibition is now so universally recognised that some courts and scholars have considered this right to informed consent as a matter of customary international law. (….). “
I also recall that France is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the OVIEDO Convention and that these texts are binding.
On the basis of these elements, the associations therefore wished to question the immunity of the accused parliamentarians, which cannot be applied in an absolute manner.
- Can parliamentary immunity be challenged in this specific case?
After studying case law, constitutional norms and binding international law, we believe that parliamentary immunity is not absolute, particularly when the actions observed are particularly serious and can be qualified as crimes and offences.
Parliamentarians have already been convicted by the courts, particularly in cases where the influence of pharmaceutical laboratories has been demonstrated.
In this case, the plaintiffs believe that the actions of the accused parliamentarians made them accomplices in poisoning and crimes against humanity.
Furthermore, general international law provides for the absence of immunity for Heads of State and their administrations in relation to crimes against humanity and, more generally, any serious violation of international law.
Indeed, binding international law prohibits rulers and their administrations from forcing their citizens to participate in a clinical trial, which is considered a crime against humanity when the experiment results in the death or disability of thousands of people.
Finally, we recall that in the PAPON case, the Council of State considered that the faults of this public agent were committed within the framework of his service, that they are not deprived of any link with the latter.
However, because of their “particular seriousness”, they have the character of an inexcusable personal fault, which makes them detachable from the functions performed.
Consequently, Mr Maurice Papon is found guilty of complicity in a crime against humanity.
The criminal liability of an accomplice to crimes against humanity only requires, from a moral point of view, proof of the intention to commit the common law crimes that serve as a basis for crimes against humanity.
This case law could be used in this case.
- Could parliamentary immunity be called into question in the case of parliamentarians who vote in favour of the bill introducing the vaccine pass?
By voting in favour of the introduction of the vaccine pass, parliamentarians will be ratifying the principle of discrimination within the population between those “vaccinated with X doses of covid” and those “not vaccinated” with covid.
This is tantamount to punishing people who have not broken any law, since no law to date requires covid vaccination.
According to Article 5 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:
“The Law has the right to defend only those actions that are harmful to Society. Anything that is not forbidden by the law cannot be prevented, and no one can be forced to do what it does not order.
According to Article 8 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:
“The Law must establish only strictly and obviously necessary penalties, and no one may be punished except by virtue of a Law established and promulgated prior to the offence, and legally applied.” (in Latin, Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege).
However, there is no compulsory anti-covid vaccine law.
Moreover, in response to a recent article in the mainstream press, studies and reports from hospital data show that people who have been inoculated with an experimental anti-covid gene substance transmit the disease, develop the disease, are probably the source of new variants and are more likely to be in hospital (Omicron is highly contagious but not dangerous).
Therefore, people who have not been inoculated with these products cannot be held responsible for the contamination of others.
Coming back to the criminal responsibility of parliamentarians, it is obvious that the health pass (knowing that the tests are not reliable, Mr Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a research centre of the US Department of Health, has just acknowledged this: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=bAICMQ1D5F8 at 6’27”) and the vaccine pass are unconstitutional and contrary to international conventions, on the one hand, because they discriminate against and therefore punish people who have not broken the law, and on the other hand, because these passes are likely to force the population to participate in a clinical trial of experimental pharmaceutical products that could harm their lives.
During the first reading of the bill in the National Assembly, Mr Eric Coquerel, MP, submitted an amendment n°390 to remind parliamentarians that the suspension of caregivers without pay was contrary to the norms of the constitutional bloc and international conventions. However, this amendment was rejected, which clearly demonstrates that parliamentarians are well aware that they are violating the highest standards by adopting this text and that they are knowingly complicit in crimes against humanity.
From this point on, their criminal responsibility can be called into question, given that the intentional element can be demonstrated in this way and that the parliamentarians know full well that they are satisfying private interests, whether pharmaceutical laboratories or, more broadly, the globalist oligarchy, which have no interest in the health of citizens.
- Do you think that the immunity of the President of the Republic could be challenged in the same way?
In principle, according to Article 68 of the Constitution:
“The President of the Republic can only be removed from office in the event of a breach of his duties that is manifestly incompatible with the exercise of his mandate. Impeachment shall be pronounced by the Parliament constituted as a High Court.
In accordance also with Article 67 of the Constitution:
“The President of the Republic shall not be responsible for acts performed in that capacity, subject to the provisions of Articles 53-2 and 68.
He may not, during his term of office and before any French court or administrative authority, be required to testify or be the subject of any action, act of information, investigation or prosecution. Any period of limitation or foreclosure shall be suspended.
The proceedings and procedures which are thus impeded may be resumed or initiated against him or her at the end of a period of one month following the termination of his or her duties.
Nevertheless, given that the current President of the Republic has proclaimed on several occasions that citizens have duties before rights, it is essential to remember that in French law, citizens actually have rights above all else and that the executive, legislative, judicial and media powers are at their service.
According to Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:
“The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
I am sorry to have to quote texts that are known to all, but on reading certain articles in the subsidised press, I consider that as a lawyer, it is my duty to remind them.
In accordance with the Preamble of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789:
The Representatives of the French People, constituted as a National Assembly, considering that ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt for the rights of Man are the only causes of public misfortune and the corruption of Governments, have resolved to set out, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of Man, so that this Declaration, constantly present to all the Members of the social body, will constantly remind them of their rights and duties; So that the acts of the legislative power, and those of the executive power, which can be compared at every moment with the purpose of every political institution, may be more respected; so that the claims of the citizens, based henceforth on simple and indisputable principles, may always turn out to maintain the Constitution and the happiness of all.
Citizens are holders of rights, they make society, pay taxes and social charges and respect the laws.
If we only have duties, and freedoms are taken away, then this is modern slavery and totalitarianism.
Moreover, according to Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:
“Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no constitution.”
However, for two years now, the President of the Republic has been permanently calling on the National Defence and Security Council (whose powers have been extended since 2009 by simple decree, without any organic law having been passed to amend the Constitution), in defiance of the deliberative principle, thus arrogating to himself full powers, without Parliament deigning to fulfil its role as guardian of the rule of law, with the Council of State and the Constitutional Council no longer playing their role either a priori or a posteriori.
Yet, according to Article 3 of the Constitution:
“National sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum.
No section of the people nor any individual can claim to exercise it.
What could be the consequences of this statement? If there is no Constitution, what about the immunity of the President of the Republic? Is he justiciable before the courts of common law given his particularly serious actions detachable from his office, in accordance with international law?
Indeed, why should we accept to maintain the immunity of the President of the Republic stemming from the Constitution, when the separation of powers is no more and when the President of the Republic is at the origin of unprecedented attacks on our State of law, on the fundamental interests of the Nation and above all when he undermines the psychological and physical integrity of the French people?
Article 5 of the Constitution is very clear:
“The President of the Republic shall ensure that the Constitution is respected. He ensures, through his arbitration, the regular functioning of the public powers as well as the continuity of the State.
He is the guarantor of national independence, territorial integrity and respect for treaties.
Moreover, if there is no longer a Constitution and the president of the Republic is subject to the ordinary courts, are the consequences of the measures taken since March 2020, in the sole interest of foreign private entities, of “particular gravity”, thus taking on the character of an inexcusable personal fault, which makes them detachable from the functions performed?
The magistrates will probably have to consider this question sooner or later, given that the parliamentarians do not envisage an impeachment procedure after two years of unethical behaviour, serious violation of the supreme norms and destruction of the Nation.