Greetings and Best Wishes, This is a very brief (22 min) update from no-virus colleague and Justice for Jabbed advocate courtenay on the Isle of Man. courtenay is a former healthcare innovation advisor in “Isle of Man Government’s” Cabinet Office. He is now being demonized and coerced to attend “court” again tomorrow (Tuesday March 12, 2024) for "sentencing" with the possibility of imprisonment for, via emails and tweets, identifying and attempting to prevent crimes/trespasses.
Thank you for your time and energy put into researching and gathering all of this information. Your service to Humanity is very noble and honorable. With this evidence no one can deny that viruses and germs are a fairy tale. And the whole process virologists have to go through to make their supposed viruses is insane and laughable.
Thanks, Christine. Purveyors of the official story, including many "freedom" people, are all playing the little Dutch boy trying to use his fingers to plug growing holes in the official "virus proven to exist, isolated, sequenced,..." narrative.
Repeating that he does not understand to any and all questions, statements of non-consent, and questioning the 'judge,' and prosecutor as to their bona fides, their full name, DoB, address for service and personal indemnity insurance is always helpful.
Also proof of mens mea and actus reus are requirements for the prosecutor;
see this - In criminal law, Actus reus, Latin for "guilty act", is one of the elements normally required to prove commission of a crime in common law jurisdictions, the other being mens rea ("guilty mind")
and this - Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
An act does not make [the doer of it] guilty, unless the mind be guilty;
that is, unless the intention be criminal.
3 Inst. 107.
The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime.
The Santa Claus analogy had me hooting with laughter! 😂 🤣 😂 I wish him the best of luck.
He may be able to escape conviction if the judge and prosecution can dream something up that kinda excuses him and which doesn't escalate. He should be on the lookout for this and, I would say, accept it. The reason I say this is because there's a legal protocol (which isn't quite the right word) that I learnt about some 30 years ago (about the time of the Birmingham Six and I think it was applied earlier on in that case, prior to them getting their acquittal) from a barrister girlfriend I was living with at the time. It's to do with "opening the floodgates" and essentially means they can decide what the hell they like if the alternative means that thousands of people will come forward with similar cases. I remember being absolutely horrified when I heard this - and not a little surprised at how unconcerned my barrister gf was about its existence. (She's now a judge.) It has been used in all sorts of important cases, but the one that comes to mind is Thalidomide. So, very close to this!
This is not legal advice and I'm not a lawyer, but just mentioning the phrase "opening the floodgates" to an actual lawyer should elicit a decent explanation of the principle and some examples of its application in past cases.
I don't like taking the position of recommending acquiescing to a self-interested legal system, but martyrdom is a serious decision and not necessarily the best solution, however principled. From what I remember of the conversation around the floodgate concept, it seems to me that it is going to be a brick wall to any "winning" outcome, irrespective of how much good evidence he presents to the court. Another perspective that is worth considering is that they are going to do whatever the hell they like anyway, and the degree of severity of the punishment they think is appropriate will probably boil down to how cooperative they feel the defendant has been (I assume this is a Crown Court rather than a Magistrates, and if not, is there a reason why?). I know this is jaded but it's also realistic. The judgment will be couched in all sorts of well-practiced, arse-covering language, which is the stock-in-trade of the legal system. Personally, I would do my best to assist them in reaching a face-saving and arse-covering solution and then put the matter behind me. Certainly, be in no doubt that they are not there to produce a fair and just outcome. The status quo is FAR more important.
Thank you, Christine and Courtney, for you dedication and perseverance in standing for humanity and refusing to lie to and deceive the public. It takes integrity to do what you are doing and I sincerely appreciate you and all of your efforts.
The 2 Tier (il)legal system even throws its weight around in small jurisdictions like the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. When I say 2 Tier, I mean that us proles aren't even in the 2nd Tier....
Sad news: apparently courtenay has been "sentenced" to 8+ months in jail - thanks to the covid fraudsters on Isle of Man.
Thank you for your time and energy put into researching and gathering all of this information. Your service to Humanity is very noble and honorable. With this evidence no one can deny that viruses and germs are a fairy tale. And the whole process virologists have to go through to make their supposed viruses is insane and laughable.
These criminals must be expunged from our world.
Many thanks just for the education.
Thank you!
Yeah
Thanks, Christine. Purveyors of the official story, including many "freedom" people, are all playing the little Dutch boy trying to use his fingers to plug growing holes in the official "virus proven to exist, isolated, sequenced,..." narrative.
Repeating that he does not understand to any and all questions, statements of non-consent, and questioning the 'judge,' and prosecutor as to their bona fides, their full name, DoB, address for service and personal indemnity insurance is always helpful.
Also proof of mens mea and actus reus are requirements for the prosecutor;
see this - In criminal law, Actus reus, Latin for "guilty act", is one of the elements normally required to prove commission of a crime in common law jurisdictions, the other being mens rea ("guilty mind")
and this - Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
An act does not make [the doer of it] guilty, unless the mind be guilty;
that is, unless the intention be criminal.
3 Inst. 107.
The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime.
Lord Kenyon, C.J., 7 Term 514; Broom, Max. 206.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st edition, 1891.
And there will be plenty more like that
The Santa Claus analogy had me hooting with laughter! 😂 🤣 😂 I wish him the best of luck.
He may be able to escape conviction if the judge and prosecution can dream something up that kinda excuses him and which doesn't escalate. He should be on the lookout for this and, I would say, accept it. The reason I say this is because there's a legal protocol (which isn't quite the right word) that I learnt about some 30 years ago (about the time of the Birmingham Six and I think it was applied earlier on in that case, prior to them getting their acquittal) from a barrister girlfriend I was living with at the time. It's to do with "opening the floodgates" and essentially means they can decide what the hell they like if the alternative means that thousands of people will come forward with similar cases. I remember being absolutely horrified when I heard this - and not a little surprised at how unconcerned my barrister gf was about its existence. (She's now a judge.) It has been used in all sorts of important cases, but the one that comes to mind is Thalidomide. So, very close to this!
This is not legal advice and I'm not a lawyer, but just mentioning the phrase "opening the floodgates" to an actual lawyer should elicit a decent explanation of the principle and some examples of its application in past cases.
I don't like taking the position of recommending acquiescing to a self-interested legal system, but martyrdom is a serious decision and not necessarily the best solution, however principled. From what I remember of the conversation around the floodgate concept, it seems to me that it is going to be a brick wall to any "winning" outcome, irrespective of how much good evidence he presents to the court. Another perspective that is worth considering is that they are going to do whatever the hell they like anyway, and the degree of severity of the punishment they think is appropriate will probably boil down to how cooperative they feel the defendant has been (I assume this is a Crown Court rather than a Magistrates, and if not, is there a reason why?). I know this is jaded but it's also realistic. The judgment will be couched in all sorts of well-practiced, arse-covering language, which is the stock-in-trade of the legal system. Personally, I would do my best to assist them in reaching a face-saving and arse-covering solution and then put the matter behind me. Certainly, be in no doubt that they are not there to produce a fair and just outcome. The status quo is FAR more important.
Thank you, Christine and Courtney, for you dedication and perseverance in standing for humanity and refusing to lie to and deceive the public. It takes integrity to do what you are doing and I sincerely appreciate you and all of your efforts.
🙏 for both of you.
Sending Courtenay HUGE LOVE and STRONG VIBES for peace, calm, and strength.
The 2 Tier (il)legal system even throws its weight around in small jurisdictions like the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. When I say 2 Tier, I mean that us proles aren't even in the 2nd Tier....
You have bolstered my heart, much thanks