New evidence has been submitted to the courts as a judge continues to review an 800-page bundle of evidence alleging Matt Hancock and friends committed crimes against humanity and Covid fraud.

On the 19th March 2021 papers were laid electronically by the People’s Union of Britain (PUB) at Westminster Magistrates Court in a momentous Criminal Prosecution against Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson for Covid fraud.

On the 26th March 2021, the three case files were received and signed for by the court. The PUB were then informed by Westminster Magistrates that the papers were being checked by the court’s legal department and that they would be notified of the case’s progression in due course.

However, a few weeks later the team received an email from the Westminster court, letting them know that the case had been passed to the Deputy Chief Magistrate [DCM] for consideration and his decision was enclosed as an attachment.

---

---

The DCM stated in his judgment that he had given very careful consideration to “126 pages” of evidence, even though the final page count in the three case files was in excess of 800 pages, which included 11 expert witness statements from two professors, three doctors, a dental surgeon, a probate solicitor, a mathematician, a retired nuclear submarine data analyst, an independent data analyst and a former CID fraud detective, in support of the allegations made.

It was then that they realised that the judge’s decision was based entirely on the 126 page Statement of Case and that he clearly hadn’t had sight of the copious prima facie evidence contained in the three evidence files.

Rather than appealing the decision to the High Court on that ground, the PUB suggested that it would be better for all concerned if the judge was willing to set aside his initial decision, despite the fact that they have never known any judge in either the criminal and civil domains to even countenance such an action once a decision has been made.

Nevertheless, within a little more than 24 hours, the PUB were informed that the Deputy Chief Magistrate had decided to grant their request for reconsideration, as if the order dismissing the case had not been made.

As of the 9th June the PUB state that they are patiently awaiting the final decision of the presiding judge, as to whether he issues summonses for the defendants to answer the charges laid at Westminster Magistrates Court. They did however recently contact the court to ascertain what stage the Deputy Chief Magistrate had reached in his deliberations.

The PUB were informed that the judge requires more time because of the sheer weight of the evidence that is now before him. Naturally.

The judge, who has already demonstrated his integrity by honouring their informal request that he set aside his initial decision to dismiss the action, when all he had before him was the Statement of Case, promptly sent them another message, noting that he is incapable of considering electronic evidence contained on a portable hard drive in the evidence files, the judge asked the PUB to provide him with a hard copy of the leaked WHO flu ‘vaccine’ safety study, upon which the PUB based their calculation of the flu vaccine mortality rate with 98% accuracy last Autumn.

However shocking new evidence has since emerged which the PUB have now submitedt as part of their requested criminal prosecution against Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson.

An expert witness testimony was given to the PUB from a scientist who used to work in a GlaxoSmithKline lab, alleging that former president of GSK, Patrick Vallance had prior knowledge that the company’s ‘vaccines’ cause adverse events in a significant proportion of those injected.

Furthermore, the case’s latest expert witness claims that Vallance knows about the likelihood of severe adverse events occurring due to GSK ‘vaccines’, including up to 50% fatalities in the cause of the vaccine against Dysentery widely distributed in West Africa prior to the 2014 Ebola pandemic.

However, Vallance’s open suppression and cover-up of the relevant safety studies did not prevent those facts becoming common knowledge at the lab where thewhistle-blower worked, which resulted in her resignation shortly afterwards, when Vallance refused to comply with a demand that the manufacture and distribution of the potentially fatal chemical treatments be suspended with immediate effect.

The clock is ticking for Hancock, Whitty, Vallance, Ferguson and friends, and the evidence we’ve seen on the use of midazolam during the alleged pandemic could possibly be the final nail in each of their coffins.