@ 450f1fea:d9473ecc

A German article, published by lawyer Viviane Fisher, available [here](https://2020news.de/bomb-shell-wie-die-italienischen-richter-auf-linie-gebracht-wurden/), proves corruption in the Italian judiciary against Covid injection victims. The whole article is available below, translated to English, and chillingly underlines the need for initiatives like [We The People](nostr:naddr1qqxnzdesxuunydfexumnzdfjqgsy2rclafajlcqg428lgue5rzk3ru6y7vqqlhapju9vwqr9m9rnanqrqsqqqa28s2qdjt) where the general public removes judicial matters from totally corrupt judiciaries. Listen to the article: https://media.nostr.build/av/201d5c6cb80e815f7e42777037230b9bc5c231b13aa3653825f44553062703a3.mp3 ### Bomb Shell: How the Italian judges were brought into line. Italian journalist [Andrea Zambrano](https://lanuovabq.it/it/andrea-zambrano) has discovered what may have been one of the reasons for the almost unanimous rulings in favor of vaccination narratives and against fundamental individual rights throughout Italy: a decision-making guide penned by the Italian Supreme Court. Text modules from the "Report for judges number 103 on legislative novelties of October 28, 2021", with which future lawsuits should be rejected, have found themselves as hot tracks in various judgments. With explanations on the topics of "*safe and effective vaccines*", "*constitutional conformity of the measures*", "*just obligation for oneself and others*", the judges were sworn in to the state narrative, which in Italy included mandatory vaccination for people over 50 years of age and for all healthcare workers, all teachers, law enforcement officers and all employees of the judiciary, as well as extremely strict 2G rules. The statements were based on false assumptions regarding a "*general consensus of the scientific community on the efficacy and safety*" of so-called "*vaccinations*". In part, these assumptions had already been refuted on October 28, 2021, but at the very least there was clear evidence of reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the presentation. The judge's report categorized the "*vaccines*" as absolutely safe and by definition effective, citing the unanimous conviction of all scientists. Compulsory vaccination - out of loyalty to the Republic - is fair and just, both for the vaccinated person and for others. The constitutional requirements were complied with in every case. On this line of argument, the discriminated, injured, disabled citizens and employees without the solidary green passport had to appear like a horde of baselessly rebellious egomaniacs to the judges called upon to rule in civil, criminal and administrative cases. The legally non-binding but impressive decision guide did not come from any judges but from the Italian Supreme Court, the equivalent of the German Federal Court of Justice. The Italian Supreme Court is responsible for the systematic and analytical review of case law and draws up maxims, reports and reviews of everything that is pronounced in the name of the Italian people. What would have happened if this vademecum, this guide to action for judges, had not existed? Would individual judges then have made greater use of their autonomy, which is particularly pronounced in Italy? In Italy, judges are appointed by a body of judges, the National Council of Judges, so their careers are not dependent on the mercy of the Minister of Justice, as they are in Germany. They are, however, dependent on the goodwill of their fellow judges. What is piquant in this context is that the chairman of the National Council of Judges is the President of the Republic, [Sergio Mattarella](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=59f9c62adf8353ec&rls=en&q=Sergio+Mattarella&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgVuLSz9U3ME4uMLQsesRoyi3w8sc9YSmdSWtOXmNU4-IKzsgvd80rySypFJLgYoOy-KR4uJC08SxiFQxOLUrPzFfwTSwpSSxKzclJBACoVJrUWgAAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijy-eAhaOEAxXFqP0HHfx-ABYQzIcDKAB6BAgmEAE), who, together with the then Prime Minister Mario Draghi, constantly proclaimed the fairy tale of safe and effective "*vaccination*" to the public. The two of them repeatedly told the population like a prayer wheel: "*If you don't get vaccinated, you kill yourself and others.*" The document in question, entitled "*The vaccination against Covid-19 and the obligation of the Green Pass in the current constitutional and legislative framework*", which is exclusively available in full to [La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana](https://lanuovabq.it/it/la-cassazione-dettava-la-linea-sugli-effetti-avversi-trascurabili) magazine, bears the signature of Judge Maria Acierno and her deputy Antonietta Scrima. The same document can be found in a slightly condensed version in the 2021 Yearbook, the collection of publications and files of the Supreme Court for the year 2021 ([printed there](https://lanuovabq.it/storage/docs/volume-iv-2021-massimario-civile-approfondimenti-tematici.pdf) from page 116 onwards).  It was written in October 2021, in the middle of the vaccination campaign to administer the third dose. This was the time when the scientific literature was already casting serious doubt on both the efficacy and the risk-free nature of the vaccination. The Astrazeneca product had already been rejected as unsuitable for mass use due to the occurrence of thromboses. The ninth report by AIFA, the Italian regulatory authority, available at the time pointed to 608 deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations. This alarming development was not included in the text written by Judge Milena D'Oriano. The most recently published yearbook for 2022 contains no updates on the topic, and the 2023 yearbook is not yet available to the public. The use of the vaccines to implement the vaccination obligation and the 2G rule constituted an off-label use in Italy, as it was used to allegedly prevent a viral infection with SARS CoV2 instead of only to prevent a severe course of COVID-19.  The conviction expressed in the action guide and thus conveyed to the judges is that "*all legal acts in the first phase of the emergency, such as the Emergency Ordinance, the D.P.C.M., and the ordinances of the Ministry of Health have also entailed restrictions on rights and constitutional freedoms*", but that these have been borne by the "*concern of authoritative jurists*". The difficult relationship between "*compulsory vaccination and the burden of vaccination*" requires the "*expression of the individual's duty of solidarity towards the community*" to be weighed against the "*expression of the individual's right to self-determination*". It is clear that, if one contrasts a supposedly risk-free "vaccination" that protects everyone with the seemingly excessive, individual self-determination excesses of the "vaccination opponents", a decision in favor of the solidarity-based vaccination requirement of a "small prick" is likely to be made. "*Self-determination is certainly a valuable asset, but it can exceed limits based on the duty of solidarity in the interest of the community*," writes Judge D'Oriano, concluding that "*the periodic bulletins on the course of the epidemic by the ISS (...) prove that vaccination prophylaxis is effective both in containing the symptoms of the disease, drastically reducing the risk of severe syndromes and in preventing the transmission of the infection*". The ISS, or Instituto Superiore de la Sanità, is the Italian equivalent of the RKI and attracted attention during the crisis by unleashing a huge shitstorm against its own critical employees who dared to express doubts about the safety of the "vaccinations" in the summer of 2022. Just as in Germany the word of the PEI and RKI about safe and effective "vaccination" was and is considered irrefutable - despite a large number of contradictory expert opinions such as those presented in the Solden trial - only the officially announced findings should be relevant to the Italian judges' decisions. However, why then did Judge D'Oriano not also take note of the EMA documents that had already appeared on the AIFA website on December 21, 2020, on the eve of the mass vaccination campaign, proving the inability of the Pfizer "vaccine" to prevent infection, giving the lie to Draghi's infamous catchphrase "*They don't get vaccinated - he, she gets infected and dies*"? Further evidence of substantial problems with the "vaccines" came from science and industry: The British Medical Journal published the news on February 10, 2022 that vaccinated people could become infected just as easily as unvaccinated people. Lancet publications also showed that the effectiveness against symptomatic Covid infection in vaccinated people decreases rapidly until it drops completely after about 6-7 months and even becomes negative. Wolfgang Philipp, Director of the European Health Agency HERA, told the European Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into COVID19: "*If you want to have a vaccine that prevents transmission, good luck. We have not managed to find it, it is not yet available*". By order of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pfizer was forced to submit a report on its pharmacovigilance, which was conducted from December 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021. It revealed that "there were a total of 42,000 cases containing 158,000 reported adverse reactions, of which 25,000 were from Italy alone". None of this was included in the judge's report in 2022. Following the Supreme Court's assessment, the judges dismissed most of the lawsuits filed by citizens for suspension of work and wages due to their refusal to submit to the - allegedly constitutional - solidarity act of vaccination. The magazine La Bussola names cases: e.g. the tragic story of young Runa Cody and his unexplained death from pericarditis. The mother had already brought many documents to the courtroom in June 2021 proving the occurrence of perimyocarditis after "vaccination" by providing Aifa documents. The response of the competent judge in Civitavecchia was: "*At the time of administration and even today, the scientific literature on this subject was extremely scarce or absent*". Although deaths and harm had already been documented in international pharmacovigilance and addressed by renowned scientists, the Supreme Court report of October 28, 2021 shows a willingness to completely deny the existence of significant adverse effects. It relies exclusively on the latest available AIFA report of October 22, 2021, which later turned out to be manipulated. Worrying information about serious side effects has been deliberately suppressed by the decision-makers, which is now the subject of proceedings before the court in Rome and the ministerial court for former health minister Roberto Speranza, 2020News reported. On page 13 of the guide to action for their fellow judges, judges Maria Acierno and Antonietta Scripa write: "*It is scientifically proven and recognized that vaccines are one of the most effective preventive measures with a particularly high risk-benefit ratio and a very relevant ethical value as an expression of the duty of solidarity*". And - to justify compliance with Article 32 of the Constitution - they point out that "according to the Constitution, compulsory health treatment complies with the requirements of Article 32 if it is aimed at improving or maintaining the state of health of the subject to whom it is addressed and does not affect the health of the recipient". The constitutionality of compulsory vaccination could therefore only be claimed if all the already known and dramatically emerging multiple harms were consistently denied or if the sacrifice of the individual for the collective could be affirmed in a false risk-benefit assessment. In reality, however, the risk must be weighed up on an individual basis: the risk of the individual becoming infected with the virus and ending up in hospital in danger of death must be assessed in comparison to the (alleged) benefits they would gain from a "vaccination". On page 18 of the report, the judges state: "*In terms of safety, the monitoring carried out by AIFA through the pharmacovigilance system, which collects and evaluates all adverse event reports, shows a perfectly acceptable risk-benefit balance, since the harms resulting from the administration of the vaccine for SARS COV 2, which, given the extreme rarity of occurrence, must be considered rare and correlatable events that meet a statistical normality criterion with a very low and slightly higher incidence of short-term adverse reactions than has been known for years for ordinary vaccines*". They conclude that a possible Covid vaccination obligation, which would be provided for by law, would most likely have to be considered constitutional. A judge who would have wanted to counter such a convincing assessment of the factual and legal situation presented by the highest authority with his own arguments would have had to fear being exposed to similar hostility as the alleged "*anti-vaccinationists*" themselves.  How many judges have trusted this official and authoritative Supreme Court report and therefore dismissed the claims of the many victims who were forced to be vaccinated? It is high time to update the report with all the evidence that has emerged in the meantime and thus provide judges, public prosecutors and lawyers with better guidance for the legal proceedings. Not only with regard to the alleged effectiveness, but also and especially with regard to the high risks of the "vaccinations". Have other countries also been influenced in this way from "the very top"? We are staying on top of the issue.