John Waters read a report in The Independent1Alternative archive about “an application from three Irish citizens seeking to assert their constitutional rights to a legal hearing in order to challenge the unprecedented events of the past two years in the context of what are termed ‘Covid vaccines’… Sharon Browne, David Egan and Emmanual Lavery… “
The judge’s remarks and media coverage reminded him of his own legal proceedings.
One of the most frustrating things about the case brought by Gemma O’Doherty and me in April 2020 was that we had no effective way of getting into the public realm the actual detail of what we had submitted to the court, so that a pincer movement of judge and journaliar2His term for mainstream journalists was able utterly to misrepresent the nature and content of our case, and deprive the public of its right to know what was actually being asserted. For this reason, I wish to do what I can to put into the public domain the true facts of this case, so that people can at least make up their own minds. I urge those who have even an inkling of what is happening here to do what they can to ensure that the establishment is unable to pull the same trick a second time. I accordingly request that anyone reading this who has access to social media platforms and, yes, ‘blogs’ or ‘internet sites’, or any other way of circumventing the corrupt legacy media hegemony, might consider putting this article out with all possible expedition, so as to ensure that as many people as possible come to understand what is happening here.
John Waters
You can read it on Substack or in full here, below (click “Continue reading”).
A disturbing and quite nauseating article was published in an Irish newspaper on Tuesday. It concerns an ongoing court case, arising from an application from three Irish citizens seeking to assert their constitutional rights to a legal hearing in order to challenge the unprecedented events of the past two years in the context of what are termed ‘Covid vaccines’. Though the applicants — Sharon Browne, David Egan and Emmanual Lavery — are not known to me, I had become broadly aware of the case and its essential nature. A third party, who is not known to me either, last week sent me links to a database on which the various pleadings and submissions in the case are available. I read these cursorily at the time and was impressed by their detail and scope.
The iteration of the report that caught my attention was on the website of independent.ie, the online version of the Irish Independent, though it undoubtedly appeared on other platforms also.
Consider that this case relates to what are — without a shadow of a doubt — the gravest issues of public health and safety to arise in this country for many decades. Then consider the Independent’s headline:
‘Covid vaccine conspiracy theorists to be hit with legal bill over “scandalous” lawsuit’.
My immediate response was one of recognition. It was déjà vu all over again.
The opening paragraphs of the report read:
‘Anti-vax conspiracy theorists, who claim the Covid-19 vaccine is a “bioweapon” inserting “nanochips” into recipients, face being hit with a legal bill for tens of thousands of euro by a High Court judge to discourage them from continuing their “unmeritorious and scandalous” lawsuit against the State.
‘Among the “baseless allegations” made in the lawsuit taken by Sharon Browne, David Egan and Emmanual Lavery are that the HSE was responsible for “mass killing” comparable to Nazi Germany and that the vaccine was “part of a plan by Bill Gates to depopulate the world”’.
This is beyond shocking: that three citizens who have put their very beings on the line to confront a wicked establishment should be described, in the very first words of this scandalous report, as ‘anti-vax conspiracy theorists’, and their detailed case, comprising several millions of words, be reduced to a single tendentious sentence. The placing of the words bioweapons and nanochips in quotation marks, as though to insinuate that these are bizarre, unheard-of concepts, is simply puerile.
The report continues:
‘Mr Justice Michael Twomey said the “breath-taking” claims were made in 5,000 pages of affidavits and exhibits in which the “alleged evidence” was “a combination of hearsay, speculation, commentary, questions, internet sites, blogs and YouTube videos”.’
The judge was making these comments not at a full trial of the issues but in the course of a pre-trial application by the three plaintiffs for a protective costs order, which would have removed the risk of a crucifying bill for legal costs in the event of their not succeeding. This is standard procedure in a public interest case of this nature, and it is entirely inappropriate that the judge has used this opportunity to disparage the case in such a prejudicial manner as properly ought to disqualify him from any further participation in it.
The déjà vu aspect of my response was somewhat personal, since — almost word for word — this was more or less precisely identical to the treatment of the case taken by Gemma O’Doherty and me back in April 2020, when we submitted an application for a judicial review of the lockdown measures: the same judicial contempt and abuse, the same media distortions and lies, the same emphasis on the costs of the proceedings, designed to titillate the public by exciting a toxic schadenfreude, the same elevation of minor sidebars of the application to the level of headlines, so that they appear to the innocent reader to be the sole substance of the case.
My initial sense of revulsion was followed by an intense sense of shock that, even after two years of globalised off-mainstream ventilation of the facts relating to what are called the ‘Covid vaccines’ — the injuries, the deaths, the mounting statistics — it was possible for a judge to speak as the judge is reported as speaking in this case.
I cannot over-emphasise the extent to which the judge’s remarks align with what occurred in our case three years ago. Preposterous as this may seem, it is as though some agreed protocol is being operated. The judge puts out a distorting and incomplete sense of the content of the application, couched in pejorative and prejudicial language, designed to be picked up by purchased journalists and fed to the gullible public as an accurate account of what is unfolding. Everyone goes back to whatever they were doing. Nothing to see or hear here.
There is far more in the case submitted by Sharon Browne, David Egan and Emmanual Lavery than ‘hearsay, speculation, commentary, questions, internet sites, blogs and YouTube videos’, and more than enough evidence for a judge to simply peruse it, leave down the file and say something like, ‘If even a fraction of this can be substantiated before the court, this will amount to the most serious case of public malfeasance in the history of the State.’
The point of an initial set of submissions is to establish whether there is a prima facie case. It is not possible at this stage for applicants to wheel in experts and have them submit their arguments in person. Ergo, some of the evidence submitted at the initial stages will consist of videos, studies, papers, commentary, et cetera. That some of this may have been gleaned from ‘internet sites’ or ‘blogs’ (insofar as there is any difference) ought to have no bearing on whether or not some or all of it might contribute to establishing a prima facie case. This is the 21st century — as we keep being told by the very people who stand to be exposed as the evil-doers in this case — so why can we not consider evidence gleaned from 21st century sources?
I say that, in my opinion, the evidence submitted in this case would bring a pallor to the face of any sentient person. The truest words of the judge that I read in the Independent report was when he described them as ‘breath-taking’.
But don’t take my word for it. Here are two links which will take you to the databases on which the chapter and verse of the application can be studied:
Link 2
In reading these, or even in scanning them, you will in very short order realise that the impressions conveyed of the case by Mr Justice Michael Twomey is broadly incorrect and unjust. The application contains many different elements, including affidavits and reports from medical experts, detailed scientific studies and accompanying graphs, pathology and autopsy reports, details of different ‘vaccine’ batches, coroners’ and autopsy reports, details of ‘vaccine’ adverse effects and illnesses, embalmer reports, as well as copious evidence and documentary exhibits gleaned from multiple national and international sources, all of which — no doubt — the applicants are more than willing to elaborate before the court, with expert evidence where so required. The submissions of the applicants, in fact, amount to an encyclopaedia of the issues relating to the so-called ‘Covid vaccines’ and the dreadful consequences of these. Why did Mr Justice Michael Twomey omit to refer to this evidence in his diatribe delivered for the benefit of the purchased media? What form does the judge propose that what he calls ‘evidence’ should take? (If there are formatting issues or other technical issues with the documentation {I personally don’t believe there is any such difficulty}, could the judge not simply have so advised the litigants and suggested how they might seek to resolve the problem?)
What we seem to be observing here is a judge trying to insinuate that there is something missing from the application made by these three good people, perhaps some arcane element that only judges and lawyers can really be expected to understand (and therefore what is the point in explaining the omissions or lacunae to mere plebs?), when in reality there is manifestly an immense wealth of information in the pleadings and submissions that, if verified, would bring down the entire corrupt edifice of governmental and Big Pharma collusion in what is, on its face, a concerted attempt to damage the population of Ireland in the most egregious and unprecedented way.
Actually, on perusing the documentation of this case in the first instance, my first thought was: This will never be allowed. This is Lord Denning’s ‘appalling vista’ all over again!
Does the judge exist in the Irish system, I wondered, who will simply look up from reading this evidence and ask his clerk for a glass of water before complimenting the applicants for having had the courage to take this case? And still I wonder.
According to the independent.ie report of the hearing, the judge said it was the court’s provisional view that the applicants should ‘almost immediately face the costs of the pre-trial application and that steps could be taken to enforce the order against them.’ This, issued before the full complement of evidence has been heard in this case, amounts to the issuing of inappropriate menaces in the context of what is a constitutionally protected right of citizens to confront their government in their own courts, and in doing so to protect the public interest, which is to say defend themselves and their fellow citizens against risks and dangers liable to arise from corrupt or incompetent practices, malfeasance or nonfeasance on the part of State actors.
The Independent report also claims that the judge said that his provisional view was that the costs should be measured by the court and that no stay should be put on the order, allowing the State parties to enforce payment as soon as possible. He said he would hear submissions from the parties on all of these issues next month before finalising the terms of any final orders. Let us hope that, by the time that hearing comes about, the judge will have taken the opportunity to reconsider his position.
The report continues:
’While acknowledging their right of access to the courts, [the judge] said the litigants could not have a “free go” and that if the case was to continue, possibly hundreds of thousands of euro in court resources and taxpayers’ funds would end up being expended.’
What is a ‘free go’? Are the courts to be regarded as a form of dodgems? Ultimately, what the judge is saying is that the legal profession is entitled to act as franchised gatekeeper on citizens right-of-access to the courts, jealously protecting the entitlement of members of the legal profession to ‘fees’ over and above the right of citizens to have their rights, health and lives — and the health and lives of their children — protected by courts that exist for no other actual purpose.
The report moved to its conclusion:
’The judge said his approach to the issue of costs would reduce “the risk of the administration of justice being brought into disrepute by the court room being used at taxpayers’ expense as a cheap way for litigants to air scandalous claims against civil/public servants and achieve publicity for conspiracy theories or other causes, as if the courts were some sort of debating society”’. What on earth gives a sitting judge a right to defend civil or public servants against criticism in legal documents put before him by citizens before he had heard the full complement of evidence concerning such allegations?
This, the report helpfully informed readers, ‘is evidence of a get-tough stance by the court against “scandalous litigation”.’
No: It is, yes, prima facie evidence that, yet again, the establishment is closing ranks around the perpetrator of the most heinous crime in the history of the Irish State, taking advantage of the corrupt omertà of the media to insist that there is nothing to see here — despite the fact that these same issues are now being discussed right across the globe, and are very soon likely to result in a major revelatory breakthrough. In this way, whereas it should rightly be able to take a front-row seat at these proceedings, the public is blindsided, being unable to read a truthful or accurate account of the material actually submitted to the court, and therefore likely to take at face value characterisations of affairs that are lamentably subject to a spin calculated to favour those with most to lose if this case were to receive a fair hearing.
One of the most frustrating things about the case brought by Gemma O’Doherty and me in April 2020 was that we had no effective way of getting into the public realm the actual detail of what we had submitted to the court, so that a pincer movement of judge and journaliar was able utterly to misrepresent the nature and content of our case, and deprive the public of its right to know what was actually being asserted. For this reason, I wish to do what I can to put into the public domain the true facts of this case, so that people can at least make up their own minds. I urge those who have even an inkling of what is happening here to do what they can to ensure that the establishment is unable to pull the same trick a second time. I accordingly request that anyone reading this who has access to social media platforms and, yes, ‘blogs’ or ‘internet sites’, or any other way of circumventing the corrupt legacy media hegemony, might consider putting this article out with all possible expedition, so as to ensure that as many people as possible come to understand what is happening here.
One further point: Even if we had not just come through a period when immense sums of public money were expended in pushing a spurious health narrative that was really aimed at gaining control over the population, the judicial emphasis on costs in this matter would be deeply inappropriate in view of the very grave matters raised by this case. Where there are even remotely plausible assertions of possible harm to human health — including, as in this case, voluminous evidence of possible manslaughter or murder — money ought not be mentioned.
Here again are the links to the databases containing, as I understand it, the entirety of the submissions made in these proceedings to date. These, and not the assertions of the judge broadcast via the corrupt media, ought to be the basis for any public assessment of the value or merits of this case.
- 1Alternative archive
- 2His term for mainstream journalists