Important Judgment exposing corona fraud.
Government cannot put anyone in quarantine on the basis of RT-PCR Test. The probability of person receiving false positive through RTPCR Test is 97% or higher.
On the basis of Executive orders, circulars or instructions the Government cannot put any restriction upon citizen which violates the constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Except Registered Physician i.e. degree holder doctors, no authority is having right to diagnose and declare that a person is sick or having any infection.
Declaration of infection without examination by Doctors and only on the basis of RTPCR tests is illegal.
Any person detained in quarantine on the basis of RT PCR or other tests can file Habeas Corpus petition before High Court and Supreme Court or before local Magistrate under section 97 of Cr.P.C.
It is violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution.
Adv. Nilesh Ojha explained the legal position laid down by Court of Appeal in Lesbon, Portugal of the protocols and Corona Scandal and as to how we are fooled by WHO (World Health Organization), Big TECH, et al.
1.1 In a landmark judgment on covid-19
cases the Lisbon Court of Appeal (Portugal) in its judgment dated 11.11.2020 again reaffirmed on 13.01.2021, strongly condemned the
health authorities of Government for unlawful detention of the citizen in the
name of quarantine.
1.2
Court observed that only RT-PCR
test cannot decide the health position of a person. Court also pointed out the
probability of person receiving false positive through RTPCR Test is 97% or higher.
The examination of person by a
doctor and his opinion on test report is necessary for deciding a health
condition of a person.
Already a detailed complaint is
filed by the Security General of Human Rights Security Council to prosecute
Vaccine Mafia and WHO officials.
Link :- https://indianbarassociation.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/HRSC-LETTER-TO-HONBLE-PRIME-MINISTER-OTHERS-COVID-19.pdf
2. Division
Bench of Gauhati High Court in the case of In
Re: Dinthar Incident Aizawl Vs. State of Mizoram W.P. (C) 37 of 2020, in
their judgment dated 2.07.2021 has warned about any discrimination between vaccinated
& unvaccinated people.
2.1 In addition to the
same the court took one important aspect that the executive orders, circulars
issued by the Government cannot override the Constitutional guaranteed
protection of fundamental rights.
It is ruled as under;
“17. With regard to the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the State Government can make restrictions curtailing the Fundamental Rights of the citizens under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), by way of the SOP, the same in our considered view is clearly not sustainable, as the said clauses in the SOP which are in issue in the present case cannot be said to be reasonable restrictions made in terms of Article 19(6).
The requirement of Article 19(6) of the Constitution is that the restriction has to be made in the form of a law and not by way of an executive instruction. The preamble of the Act clearly states that it is an Act to provide an effective management of the disasters and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. There is nothing discernible in the Act, to show that the said Act has been made for imposing any restriction on the exercise of the rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution. Further, the SOP dated 29.06.2021 is only an executive instructions allegedly made under Section 22(2)(h) & Section 24(1) of the Act and not a law. The provisions of Sections 22 & 24 only provides for the functions and powers of the State Executive Committee in the event of threatening disaster situation or disaster. It does not give any power to the State Executive Committee to issue executive instructions discriminating persons with regard to their right to liberty, livelihood and life and violating the fundamental rights of the citizens, which is protected by the Constitution.”
3. On the similar line the Court of
Appeal (Lisbon, Portugal) in the case of Habeas
Corpus Interest In Act: Sars-Cov-2, RT-PCR Tests Deprivation of Freedom Illegal
Detention Case No. 1783 /20 (7T8PDL,
L1-3) , vide its order dated 11.11.2020.
has given following crucial findings which are squarely applicable in India and
almost all parts of the world.
3.1. The Judgment says; Regarding Diagnosis without Doctors examination & only on the basis of RT PCR.
“15. Thus, any diagnosis or any act of health surveillance (such as the determination of the existence of viral infection and high risk of exposure, which are covered by these concepts) made without prior medical observation to the applicants, without the intervention of a doctor registered with the OM (which carried out the assessment of its signs and symptoms, as well as the exams it deemed appropriate to its condition), violates such Regulation, as well as the provisions of article 97 of the Statute of the Medical Association, being liable to configure the crime P. and p. by article 358 al.b) (Usurpation of functions) of the Criminal Code, if dictated by someone who does not have such quality, that is, who is not a physician registered with the Medical Association.
viola also paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which Portugal has subscribed to and is internally and externally obliged to respect, since there is no document in the file proving that the informed consent that this Declaration imposes has been given. .
It is thus clear that the prescription of auxiliary diagnostic methods (such as tests to detect viral infection), as well as the diagnosis of the existence of a disease, in relation to anyone and everyone, is a matter that cannot be carried out by Law, Resolution, Decree, Regulation or any other normative means, as they are acts that our legal system reserves the exclusive competence of a doctor, given that the doctor, in advising his patient, should always try to obtain the your informed consent.
16. In the case we are dealing with, there is no indication or proof that such a diagnosis was actually carried out by a qualified professional under the terms of the Law and who had acted in accordance with good medical practices.
In fact, what follows from the
facts given as established is that none of the applicants was even seen by a
doctor, which is frankly inexplicable, given the alleged seriousness of the
infection.
17. In fact, the only element that
appears in the proven facts, in this regard, is the performance of RT-PCR
tests, one of which had a positive result in relation to one of the applicants.
i. Now, given the current
scientific evidence, this test is, by itself, unable to determine, without a
reasonable margin of doubt, that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the
infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, by several reasons, of which we
highlight two (in addition to the issue of the gold standard which, due to its
specificity, we will not even address):
Because this reliability depends
on the number of cycles that make up the test;
Because this reliability depends
on the amount of viral load present.
ii. In fact, the RT-PCR
(Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests, molecular biology tests that detect the RNA
of the virus, commonly used in Portugal to test and enumerate the number of
infected (after nasopharyngeal collection), are performed by amplification of
samples , through repetitive cycles.
From the number of cycles of such
amplification, the greater or lesser reliability of such tests results.
iii. And the problem is that this
reliability proves, in terms of scientific evidence (and in this field, the
judge will have to rely on the knowledge of experts in the field) more than
debatable.
This is what results, among
others, from the very recent and comprehensive study Correlation between 3790
qPCR positive samples and positive cell cultures including 1941 SARS-CoV-2
isolates , by Rita Jaafar, Sarah Aherfi, Nathalie Wurtz, Clio Grimaldier, Van
Thuan Hoang, Philippe Colson, Didier Raoult, Bernard La Scola, Clinical
Infectious Diseases, ciaa1491, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491, at
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093 /cid/ciaa1491/5912603
, published at the end of September this year, by Oxford Academic , carried out
by a group that brings together some of the greatest European and world experts
in the field.
This study concludes [2] , in free translation:
“At a cycle threshold (ct) of 25,
about 70% of the samples remain positive in cell culture (ie were infected): at
a ct of 30, 20% of the samples remain positive; in a ct of 35, 3% of the
samples remained positive; and in a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell
culture (see diagram).
This means that if a person has a
positive PCR test at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as is the case in most
laboratories in the US and Europe), the chances of a person being infected are
less than 3%. The probability of the person receiving a false positive is 97%
or higher”.
iv. What follows from these
studies is simple -the eventual reliability of the PCR tests carried out
depends, from the outset, on the threshold of amplification cycles they
support, such that, up to the limit of 25 cycles, the test reliability will be
around 70%; if 30 cycles are performed, the degree of reliability drops to 20%;
if 35 cycles are reached, the degree of reliability will be 3%.
v. In the present case, the
number of amplification cycles with which PCR tests are carried out in
Portugal, including the Azores and Madeira, is unknown, since we were unable to
find any recommendation or limit in this regard.
saw. In turn, in a very recent
study by Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy and Francis Drobniewski,
accessible inhttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext
, published in the equally prestigious The Lancet, Respiratory Medicine ,
refers (in addition to the multiple issues that the Lancet itself). The
accuracy of the test raises, regarding the specific detection of the sars-cov 2
virus, strong doubts regarding compliance with the so-called gold standard )
that (free translation):
"Any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual possibility of the disease, existing before its realization . For Covid-19, this decision to perform the test depends on the prior assessment of the existence of symptoms, previous medical history of Covid 19 or the presence of antibodies, any potential exposure to this disease and no likelihood of another possible diagnosis. ” [3] “One of the potential reasons for presenting positive results could be the prolonged shedding of viral RNA, which is known to extend for weeks after recovery in those who were previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. However, and most importantly, there is no scientific data to suggest that low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equate to infection, unless the presence of infectious viral particles has been confirmed by laboratory culture methods .
In summary, Covid-19 tests that
accuse false positives are increasingly likely in the current epidemiological
climate scenario in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal,
health system and societal level .” [4]
18. Thus, with so many scientific
doubts, expressed by experts in the field, which are the ones that matter here,
as to the reliability of such tests, ignoring the parameters of their
performance and with no diagnosis made by a doctor, in the sense of the
existence of infection and risk, it would never have been possible for this
court to determine that AH___ was a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor that
SH__SWH__ and NK_ had been exposed to high risk.”
3.2. REGARDING UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF QUARANTINE:-
“quarantine is used on people who
are supposed to be healthy, but may have been in contact with an infected
patient; isolation is the measure used in sick people, so that through social.
Having arrived here,
let us analyze the legal value of norms/guidelines of the General Directorate
of Health and normative circular 39B, of 08/04/2020, of the Regional Health
Directorate,leaving no doubt that we have entered the sphere of administrative
guidelines.
And, to make it clear that the regulations invoked by the Regional Health Authority that upheld the deprivation of liberty imposed on the Claimants through notification of prophylactic isolation are non-binding administrative guidelines for the Claimants. By the way. just pay attention to who they are addressed respectively to.
In this sequence,
and, in summary, this court cannot fail to emphasize that the present case, we
allow ourselves to say aberrant, of deprivation of liberty of persons,
absolutely lacks any legal basis, and do not come back with the argument that
the defense of public health is at stake because the court always acts in the
same way, that is, in accordance with the law
- On 8/21/2020, the
following message was sent to the four applicants by the Health Delegate Dr.
JMS___, via email: "In other words, when they finish the quarantine they
have to take a test and if it is negative they can leave from home” (sic);
- The deprivation of
liberty of the Applicants was not subject to any judicial review.
Finally, and because
this court has been pronouncing successively and recently within the scope of
this institute of "habeas corpus" in light of the orders issued by
the Regional Health Authority, we allow ourselves to subscribe and underline
the following excerpt from the first decision of this Criminal Investigation
Court:
"The issue of
compulsory confinement in case of contagious diseases, and the terms under
which it should occur, is a pressing issue, and one that is not supported by
article 27, paragraph 3, of the CRP, namely in its subparagraph h), where only
provision is made for the hospitalization of a patient with a mental anomaly in
an appropriate therapeutic establishment, decreed or confirmed by a competent
judicial authority. It is urgent to legislate on this matter, clearly establishing
the fundamental principles to which it must comply, leaving the detailed
aspects to secondary law - and only these.
For, as Professor Gian Luigi Gatta, who we quote here in a free translation, says,“Right now, the country's energies are focused on emergency. But the need to protect fundamental rights, also and above all in an emergency, requiring the Courts to do their part. Because, in addition to medicine and science, also law - and human rights law in the first place - must be at the forefront: not to prohibit and sanction - as is being stressed too much these days - but to guarantee and protect everyone we. Today the emergency is called a coronavirus. We don't know tomorrow. And what we do or don't do today, to maintain compliance with the system's fundamental principles, can condition our future.” (in “I diritti fondamentali all the proof of the coronavirus. Perché it is necessary a legge sulla quarantine”,)”.
It will not be
difficult to admit and accept that the legislative turmoil generated around the
containment of the spread of COVID-19 had - and will continue to have - in its
raison d'être the protection of public health, but this turmoil can never harm
the right to death. freedom and security and, ultimately, the absolute right to
human dignity.
It remains to decide
accordingly.
(…)
Therefore, in light
of the above, as illegal the detention of Claimants SH__SWH___, AH___ and
NK___, I decide to uphold the present request for habeas corpus and,
consequently, I order their immediate return to freedom.
10— From this, it
follows, from the outset, that the possibility of promoting the isolation or
hospitalization of people with infectious-contagious diseases is not provided
for in this law, as was provided for in Law No. 2036 of 09-08-1949. On the
other hand, since the measures taken by the health authorities must respect the
Constitution and the law and the Constitutional Law does not provide for the
deprivation of liberty of people with infectious diseases, the interpretation
to be given to the expression «separation of people who are not patients, means
of transport or goods that have been exposed”, in order to comply with the
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, it cannot reach the core of the right
to liberty, that is, it must not constitute a total deprivation of liberty.
13 — It follows that, since the measures taken by the health authorities must respect the Constitution and the law, and the Constitutional Law does not provide for the deprivation of liberty of people with infectious and contagious diseases, if the interpretation to be given to the expression “hospitalization or the compulsory provision of health care to individuals in a situation of harming public health' either in the sense that health authorities may order the internment, or other measure restricting the freedom of movement, or the compulsory provision of health care from people with infectious and contagious diseases, such interpretation of the law is materially unconstitutional for violation of art. 27(1) of the CRP.
14…we can conclude
that serious situations of public health, such as the current pandemic, are not
included in the public interest relating to civil protection, therefore, are
not included in the concepts of "serious accident" and
"catastrophe" referred to in art. 3 of the Civil Protection Law.
15 — From this it can
also be concluded that the Resolutions of the Council of Ministers — and the
Resolutions of the Council of the Regional Government — which were based on the
Basic Civil Protection Law to declare "the contingency and alert
situation, within the scope of the disease pandemic COVID-19", namely the
Resolutions of the Council of Ministers No. 55-A/2020, of 07/31/2020, of 08/14,
68-A/2020, of 08/28, and 70-A/2020, of 11-09 — revoked by Resolution of the
Council of Ministers no. 88-A/2020, of 14-10, currently in force —, which
provide in point 2 the "mandatory confinement, in establishment of health,
in the respective household or in another place defined by the health
authorities: (...) «a) Patients with COVID-19 and those infected with
SARS-CoV-2; (...) "b) Citizens for whom the health authority or other
health professionals have determined active surveillance", have no legal
basis, asthe Civil Protection Law does not apply to situations of danger to
public health.
16 - We can thus conclude that the Resolutions of the Council of Ministers No. 55-A/2020, of 07-31, 63-A/2020, of 08-14, 68-A/2020, of 08-28 , 81/2020, of 29-09 - the latter revoked by Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 88-A/2020, of 14-10, currently in force -, and respective Annex, which were issued by the Government, in use administrative powers, created a regime that restricts the freedom of citizens with infectious and contagious diseases (quarantines, prophylactic isolation, etc.) and, to reinforce the application of a deprivation of liberty not allowed by the Constitution or provided for in the law enabling situations of people with a contagious disease or danger to public health, established the commission of a crime of disobedience for such violations and the aggravation of the penalty provided for such crime,directly violate art. 27, no. 1, of the CRP, therefore, as unconstitutional, they should be disapplied in the present case, contrary to the request made by the applicant.
D. Given the current
scientific evidence, this test alone is unable to determine, without a
reasonable margin of doubt, that such positivity in fact corresponds to the infection
of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for various reasons. , of which we
highlight two (in addition to the issue of the gold standard which, due to its
specificity, we will not even address):
Because this
reliability depends on the number of cycles that make up the test;
Because this
reliability depends on the amount of viral load present.
III. Any diagnosis or
any act of health surveillance (such as the determination of the existence of
viral infection and high risk of exposure, which are covered by these
concepts)carried out without prior medical observation of patients and without
the intervention of a physician registered with the OM (who carried out the
assessment of their signs and symptoms, as well as the exams they deemed
appropriate to their condition), violates Regulation No. 698/2019, of 5.9. , as
well as the provisions of article 97 of the Statute of the Medical Association,
being liable to configure the crime of usurpation of functions, p. and p. by
article 358 al.b), of the Criminal Code.
“Portugal is a sovereign Republic, based on the dignity of the human person and on the popular will and committed to building a free, just society and solidary.”. Hence, it is clear that the unity of meaning in which our system of fundamental rights is based is based on human dignity – the principle of the dignity of the human person is the axial reference of the entire system of fundamental rights.
One of them, the most
relevant given its structuring nature of the democratic state itself, is the
principle of equality, provided for in article 13 of the CRP, which states, in
paragraph 1, that "All citizens have the same social dignity and are equal
before the law.”, adding paragraph 2, that “No one may be privileged,
benefited, harmed, deprived of any right or exempt from any duty on account of
ancestry, sex, race, language, territory of origin, religion, political or
ideological convictions, education, economic status, social status or sexual
orientation.”.
Continuing
to make any communication and, in this way, the evident restriction of the
freedom of the Claimants SH__SWH__ and NK_ will always be illegal.
They
are not binding on individuals or on the courts. And this is either
organizational regulations, which define rules applicable to the internal functioning
of the tax administration, creating working methods or modes of action, or
interpretative regulations, which interpret legal (or regulatory) precepts.
3. In his response,
the MºPº drew the following conclusions:
1— The judgment of the Constitutional Court of
07/31/2020 (Proc. 403/2020; 1st Section; Cons. José António Teles Pereira),
after concluding that mandatory confinement, either through quarantine or
through prophylactic isolation, constitutes a true deprivation of liberty not
provided for in art. 27, no. 2, of the CRP, and that all deprivations of
liberty require the prior authorization of the Assembly of the Republic, which
was not the case with the Resolutions of the Regional Government of the Azores
that imposed a mandatory quarantine, considered the organic unconstitutionality
of the aforementioned norms.
2 — These norms, declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, are in all materially identical to those contained in Resolutions of the Council of Ministers nos. 55-A/2020, of 07-31, 63-A/2020, of 08-14 , and 70-A/2020, of 9/11, and No. 88-A/2020, of 10/14, insofar as they provide for deprivations of liberty not provided for in an appropriate legal diploma issued by the competent entity, as well as are not found in the exceptions provided for in art. 27, paragraph 3, of the CRP, so they must also be unapplied for violation of art. 27(1) of the CRP.
"If it is the
legal detention of a person liable to spread a contagious disease, a mentally
insane person, an alcoholic, a drug addict or a vagabond', we can conclude that
the deprivation of liberty of a person likely to spread a contagious disease is
a form of detention and that, according to the Convention, States provide in
their domestic legislation for the detention of these persons.
c) The arrest was
made or ordered by an incompetent entity;
d) Be the detention
motivated by a fact for which the law does not allow it.
Actually,in view of the Constitution and the Law,
the health authorities do not have the power or legitimacy to deprive any
person of their freedom - even under the label of "confinement",
which effectively corresponds to a detention - since such a decision can only
be determined or validated by a judicial authority, that is, the exclusive
competence, in view of the Law that still governs us, to order or validate such
deprivation of liberty, is assigned exclusively to an autonomous power, to the
Judiciary.
It follows that any person or entity that issues an order, the content of which leads to the deprivation of physical freedom, ambulatory, of others (whatever the nomenclature that this order takes: confinement, isolation, quarantine, prophylactic protection, etc.), which does not comply with the legal provisions, namely the provisions of art. 27 of the CRP and without having been granted such decision-making power, by virtue of Law - from the AR, within the strict scope of the declaration of a state of emergency or siege , subject to the principle of proportionality - which mandates and specifies the terms and conditions of such deprivation , will be carrying out an illegal detention, because ordered by an incompetent entity and because motivated by a fact that the law does not allow (it should be said, in fact, that this issue has been debated, over time, in relation to other public health phenomena, namely with regard to HIV infection and tuberculosis, for example. And, as far as is known, no one has ever been deprived of their freedom, for suspicion or certainty of suffering from such diseases, precisely because the law does not allow it).
It is in this context
that, without any shadow of doubt, the situation under consideration in this
case is included, given that the appropriate means of defense against illegal
detention is subject to the appeal for habeas corpus , provided for in art.
220, als. c) and d) of the CPPenal.
And, correctly, the
“a quo” court ordered the immediate release of four people who were illegally
deprived of liberty.
ii.Second, because
the request made in the appeal proves to be impossible .
If not, let's see:
11. In fact, it is
requested that “the mandatory confinement of the applicants be validated, as
they are carriers of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (AH___) and because they are under
active surveillance, for high risk exposure , decreed by the authorities of
health (SH__SWH__ and NK_).”
12. It is with great
astonishment that this court is faced with such a request, especially
considering that the appellant is active in the health sector.
Since when is it the responsibility
of a court to make clinical diagnoses, on its own initiative and based on the
eventual results of a test? Or to ARS? Since when is the diagnosis of a disease
made by decree or by law?
13. As the appellant
has more than an obligation to know, a diagnosis is a medical act, the sole
responsibility of a doctor .
This is what results unequivocally and peremptorily from Regulation No. 698/2019, of 5.9 (regulation that defines the proper acts of physicians), published in DR.
There it is
determined, in an imperative way (which imposes its compliance by all,
including the applicant) that (our emphasis):
Article 1
Object
This regulation
defines the professional acts of physicians, their responsibility, autonomy and
limits, within the scope of their performance.
Article 3
Qualification
1 — The doctor is the
professional legally qualified to practice medicine , qualified for the
diagnosis , treatment, prevention or recovery of diseases and other health
problems , and able to provide care and intervene on individuals, groups of
individuals or population groups, sick or healthy, with a view to protecting,
improving or maintaining their state and level of health.
two -Physicians who
are currently registered with the Portuguese Medical Association are the only
professionals who can practice the actions of physicians , under the terms of
the Statute of the Medical Association, approved by Decree-Law No. 282/77, of 5
July, with the amendments introduced by Law No. 117/2015, of 31 August and this
regulation.
Article 6
Medical act in
general
1 — The medical act
consists of the diagnostic , prognostic , surveillance , investigation,
medico-legal expertise, clinical coding, clinical audit, prescription and
execution of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic measures.
pharmacological, medical techniques , surgical and rehabilitation, health
promotion and disease prevention in all its dimensions, namely physical, mental
and social of people, population groups or communities, respecting the
deontological values of the medical profession.
Article 7
Diagnosis
The identification of
a disorder, disease or the state of a disease by studying its symptoms and
signs and analyzing the examinations carried out constitutes a basic health
procedure that must be carried out by a doctor and in each specific area , by a
specialist physician and aims to establish the best preventive, surgical,
pharmacological, non-pharmacological or rehabilitation therapy. 14.
Even under the Mental
Health Law, Law No. 36/98, of 24 July, the diagnosis of the pathology that can
lead to compulsory hospitalization is obligatorily carried out by specialist
physicians and their technical-scientific judgment - inherent to the assessment
clinical-psychiatric - is excluded from the judge's discretion (see articles 13
nº3, 16 and 17 of the said Law).”
Download Related Document
MARGARIDA RAMOS DE ALMEIDA 11 NOV 2020 (RT-PCR TEST) Download Now
