Monday, May 3, 2021

International Criminal Court asked to hear a case against government of Finland for lockdown measures that intentionally caused harm and violated fundamental rights

A Scandinavian correspondent pointed out that a group of attorneys and scientists in Finland have filed a case against their government on April 30 with the International Criminal Court, and asked to join a related case filed by Israeli attorneys. Here is a summary.  The entire file can be viewed as a pdf at

The action concerns measures taken by the highest institutions of the Finnish state, including the government of Finland, which have caused and will continue to have unprecedented consequences for public health and the economy, as well as large-scale violations of the fundamental rights of citizens. Finnish government has decided and implemented the prohibitions and regulations listed above, which have severely restricted citizens' fundamental rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and the right to conduct a business. These measures have been both ineffective and misdirected in the light of scientific knowledge and completely excessive in relation to the health threat they are intended to address. At the same time several political measures can reasonably be expected to cause significantly more harm than good to public health. Such ineffective and unhealthy decisions concerns in particular the use of a face masks, which has been made compulsory in many places like transport and work. Highly manipulative propaganda has been used for general recommendation for the use of facemasks. This call for continuous use of the mask has been made contrary to well-established scientific knowledge about the detrimental effects of long-term use of the face mask. Especially concerning is recommendation of facemask for children and youth as it causes disturbances in the brain development of young children. Similarly, the country's top government agencies, together with the authorities listed above, have put extraordinarily strong pressure on the public to take experimental vaccinations against the covid-19 virus. In addition to the intimidation campaign, which is inappropriate and goes against the valid statistical data, the preparation of a the so called vaccination passport project, would result in refusal of a number of domestic services for those persons who won't take a corona vaccination and would cause significant violations of their fundamental rights of free movement. Similarly, a pressure campaign, organized through a large-scale, one-sided and inaccurate propaganda, has almost exclusively promoted a vaccination certificate, thus ignoring alternative evidence of virus resistance, such as antibody tests or other coronavirus infection certificates. (1)

The above and several other measures related to the same coronavirus epidemic can reasonably be considered to be planned and intentional in terms of their consequences and objectively arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to known scientific knowledge. Due to the fact that state decision making bodies has had access to the best possible knowledge and scientific information, and as they are subject to the obligation under Chapter 6, Section 31 of the Administrative Procedure Act (6.6.2003 / 434) to investigate the matter thoroughly prior to taking a decision thereof, the signatories consider that the above harmful and illegal criminal activities are of a malicious nature - per se as dolus determinatus, but at least as dolus directus. Decision-makers must be deemed to have either explicitly sought the adverse consequences described above, or at least to have been fully aware of the harmful and illegal consequences of their decisions.

This request for an inquiry contains prima facie evidence of the enormous and partly irreversible damage, referred above, to the mental, physical and economic well-being of the people caused from March 2020 by the claimed "lawful, effective and necessary" actions of the people. These illegal activities must be stopped immediately and those who decide on them must be held criminally liable. The evidence is requested to be supplemented on the basis of new material and information gathered during the proceedings.

In Finland, the restrictive measures imposed on the people are mainly based on the incorrect application of the Infectious Diseases Act in force (21.12.2016 / 1227) and the Preparedness Act (29.12.2011 / 1552). The Finnish government has made unfounded recommendations and "guidelines" that are badly exaggerated in terms of the viral epidemic, the practical implementation of which has taken place on the basis of regulations issued by THL and regional authorities. The "Corona Epidemic" does not meet the criteria of the Communicable Diseases Act for general danger, the Emergency Preparedness Act for exceptional circumstances or the requirement for a serious infection required by the Communicable Diseases Decree (9.3.2017 / 146, 69/2020). Established and globally comprehensive statistics show that coronavirus infection can pose a risk of serious illness and death in practice only to the oldest age groups, and that serious illnesses such as diabetes or high blood pressure are almost always present in severely ill individuals. Globally, the proportion of seriously ill people is less than half a percent of all those infected, including the risk groups referred to above. In the case of Finland, it can also be stated with certainty that the viral epidemic has not increased mortality in any part of the population. In this respect, it is clear that corona viral infection cannot meet the criteria of general danger mentioned above.

The signatories request the Criminal Court to investigate the actions taken by the above-mentioned parties in violation of Finnish law and international agreements binding on Finland. In Finland, numerous protests, complaints and criminal reports have been filed on the same subject matter from the above-mentioned bodies to the competent law enforcement authorities, without, however, leading to judgments or even investigations.

In the view of the signatories, there is a need for judicial protection before the International Criminal Court, given the exceptionally large and systematic nature of the action at issue and the collective and complex crimes which required the active involvement of the State. For this reason, they have been and will continue to be unexamined and not convicted by national courts... 


Anonymous said...

A federal case must be filed at once in a district court or alternatively, with US Supreme Court directly.

Citing Griswold v. Connecticut -- that ensconced principle of the Right to be Let Alone.

And citing Roe v. Wade, that hyper-focused this principle involving pregnant women.

These decisions as much as any in US history established beyond any doubt what we have known all our lives:
1] the government has zero right to play around with our bodies, 2] interfere with our liberties, and
3] zero right to force anyone to be forced to ingest any substance into our bodies [especially those that can cause harm -- such as the experimental drugs/the so-called COVID-19 vaccines.

These decisions made clear that the right to be let alone and right to privacy and individual liberty, even if not explicitly spelled out in Bill of Right --- are fundamental civil rights and human rights for all Americans.

There are two broad issues here:
1] CDC's claim that abnormally large number of after covid-vaccination deaths, abortions, hospitalizations, permanent disabilities, etc. are random events
2] After covid-vax adverse event propotions based on 1990-2020 historical averages indicate an out of control process

The CDC is not disputing #2.

No one is disputing this.

Instead: they are all ignoring #2.

No one is disputing fact that Emergency Use Authorization [by which experimental vaccines, not FDA approved, can be sold and marketed and injected into human beings absent any definitive proof that they are safe drugs] can only occur if and only if there are no adequate prophylactics.

The fact there was, more than a year ago, adequate prophylactics, such as Ivermectin, to treat and cure covid patients is the elephant in the room.

Neither the CDC, big media in general, and the censoring and cancelling artists at GOOGLE, YouTube and Twitter, etc. -- none of them and few in government are curious about this.

Curious or not, tens of thousands died needlessly from virus and many thousands injured and thousands are dying and injured after being shot up with this alleged "cure."

Why did Napoleon and Hitler believe they could conquer Russia?

Why did Bismarck know that was a fools errand?

The moral equivalent, in this public health matter -- Napoleon and Hitler dug in and kept going with their deadly fantasies.

Big media reportage, and the big tech censoring armies, etc. etc. -- all Black Marks on Civilization.

Is this pandemic obviously planned to line pockets of the richest on earth; and not about public health -- a 21st century version of Siege on St. Petersburg?

The leaders of that siege ultimately faced Nuremburg.

Hitler's 'Warp Speed' Blitzkrieg fantasy, how well did that turn out with Operation Barbarossa?

A new Nuremburg is in order to judge the apparent criminality against the American people and all people on earth subjected to this moral turpitude resulting in preventable suffering and death and great loss and immeasurable harm to people.

". . . there is a need for judicial protection before the International Criminal Court, given the exceptionally large and systematic nature of the action at issue and the collective and complex crimes which required the active involvement of the State."

Power always resides with the people.


Ron Goes said...

More fuel for the fire: Latest talk from Dr. Kory and Dr Mobeen Syed.