Sir Doctor Death

Time Magazine awards tyrants for advancing oblivion destined tyranny. The Crown awards doctors for guessing horribly wrong to "keep the peace".

Do it! Cut his fucking head off!

Sadly, this should have been written a while ago. Like most of you, I’ve been distracted by follower in-fighting over a lack of political “leadership” accountability. Distractions and demoralization are hallmarks of our struggle to build the solution to a continued tsunami of issues. When we properly dissect the distraction that started it all maybe we will move on to the correct solution. We could just build a solution to the thing that is creating all the problems, but we would have to agree on who or what that is, so back to the distraction.

This article is about the actions of a man that was a key part of the main distraction. The narrative of Sir Doctor Death, Ashley Bloomfield.

The distraction was the “virus” and a flow-on of never-ending “unsolvable problems”, including the failed remedy to the initial “pandemic”. Those who lost loved ones to this cull/experiment know the truth. Those who refuse to acknowledge it are in for a heart attack, because those who do acknowledge it consume our media. The media that grabs the attention of our fighters, our competitors, our engineers, our builders, our farmers, our Conservatives. In a word, the Masculine of this world. The one’s who confront you to your face when you are being a weasel, a snake, a gossiper, or a manipulator. The people who make the things you need. The people you all tried to target. Many of our best are invisible to your technology, we engage in proper planning and preparation to prevent piss poor performance. You effeminate types tend to overlook the details, which will be your undoing.

For those of you who are wondering what we need to do about the stupid trend toward war, press the button above. Here at Horus Media, we precisely define the problems and work with you to build the solution. As for this problem, did a doctor accidentally promote dud medication for a form-identified virus? Or, did he promote a health and safety response against a substance-identified virus? Or, is your version true? The one where he saved thousands from a concerning, but not really concerning gain of function virus. One that started as a naturally-occurring virus from bat soup because we needed to protect China’s economy to protect our economy. Lab-leaked viruses are no good for China’s exports and no one eats bat soup here.

Actually the first claim was: “there is a really dangerous virus that needs an extreme response that steals billions from the people, and puts it into the hands of big tech, big data, and big government.

This is an example of diversity of perspective, trying to observe from many different points of observation. Then, you gather data on all of these perspectives to see which one has the most proof and evidence. All are claimants after all. However, the central claimant is the one forcing people to abide by their response to SARS-CoV-2 - The COVID-19 Response. So, in the late aftermath of the knighting of Sir Doctor Death, let’s ascertain whether he deserves the name Doctor Death. Innocent until proven guilty you say? Not in this country, popularity of opinion rules in this banana republic. In order to practice “law” here, they need you to identify as something you are not. They can’t govern through Constitutional jurisdiction, they don’t have any.

If you want to view the Constitutional Situation section of the private workshop I’ve been giving, email me at: Brad_Flutey@hotmail.co.nz

Don’t like that we don’t have Constitutional jurisdiction? You shouldn’t it’s not good if everything is legal for a fee. If you make it that way, people who accumulate power and money put themselves out of reach of the law, and nothing should escape the law. You should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and the proof should pursue the truth of the situation, but to determine your penance through status derived from your proficiency to accumulate energy is wrong. All are equal before the law, avoid it for long enough and the universe will take its necessary pound of flesh from all of you.

To ascertain the truth you need proof. To know proof is to know the difference between proof and evidence. The best proof is the confessions of your opposing arguer. So, in this article we will determine what happened by picking apart what our opposition told you, and what they didn’t produce as evidence for their case. This is the functional application of civil law, it’s why we built it. It’s a useful reminder of the need to investigate, so that we may pursue the truth competently. You can gather evidence to make your proof stronger, but if your opposition tells you how they are a fraud in their own words, why bother? Just listen carefully, and respond accordingly.

They won’t be able to deny it in a court either, we recorded them saying it in public.

Let’s ascertain the innocence of a man who should have known. The guy who was knighted for his “services to health”; Dr Ashley Bloomfield. To do this, I will do what no bar-bound lawyer can do in the Crown’s courts. Show how their employers (The New Zealand Crown) wage war on the people of this land with the careful use of fraud.

First Question: Why a COVID-19 Response instead of a SARS CoV-2 Response?

The story is, SARS CoV-2 was too expensive to respond to directly, so they deemed it not reasonably practicable to address SARS CoV-2 at all. This wasn’t true, we had a National response plan to biological weapons and safety standards that informed us of the correct PPE to use against said hazard. Sadly, there was more money and ideology in promoting the response that didn’t work. They decided to attempt to restrict the risk of SARS CoV-2, Coronavirus Disease, later abbreviated down to COVID-19. There’s some debate around whether COVID-19 is the symptoms or the disease. The truth is, very few of the official responses protected workers from the disease in a manner that can be interpreted as eliminating or minimizing the effects/symptoms of the disease by treating the disease. Why would they need to change Coronavirus disease to COVID-19?

The answer to that is simple, addressing hypothetical future symptoms of a disease with an unlicensed medicine masquerading as a vaccine, is not a Health and Safety response. Why? Because health and safety responses are not for symptoms, they are for hazards and risks. If you are trying to address symptoms, it’s because you failed to address the hazard and the risks. You only need to look at section three of their Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), to know that a COVID-19 Response was never going to meet its obligations to hazards and risks originating in the workplace. They had to make it look like they were addressing the disease, which is the potential risk of the hazard SARS-CoV-2. They couldn’t say that attempting to minimize the spread of particulate symptoms that may or may not contain the hazard, is a legal effort to minimize the impact of the disease. Why? Because that’s the wrong PPE protection for a virus or water vapor. How do we know they used the wrong PPE? It said so on the directions for use on the particulate mask, which derives its directives from our ASNZ Safety Standards.

The fine print might tell you it's the wrong protection for the wrong hazard. This is the proper reason for the exemptions. Read article here.

Imagine you are a worker, working for a PCBU and a hazard is identified by you or the PCBU. That hazard is broken glass. You’ve identified it in substance, so you know that it is a real hazard. You’ve also been a good person and you’ve written down that there’s broken glass. You’ve identified it on a certain date, and in a defined area. You’ve acknowledged expressly that something needs to be done about it. So far, you’ve met your obligations to the HSWA by identifying the hazard in substance (exists in the real world) and form (exists on paper). The latter is a necessity for the courts because they only acknowledge things that are in form. They don’t care about whether something actually exists or not, they don’t have Constitutional jurisdiction on the land, so they’re not even a real law system.

If you’ve watched Mark Passio’s De-Facto Satanism Presentation on Youtube, you’ll know why they inverted this.

Now that you’ve done the most important part of the hazard and risk process (substance identification), you can engage with the hierarchy of controls. Can you eliminate the hazard known as SARS-CoV-2? Who cares? We’re not addressing the hazard, we are addressing the symptoms/disease that may or may not contain the hazard. Ok so future unavoidable bleeding from the hazard that is broken glass? Cool! What do we do to meet our obligations to the “COVID way” we interpret the Health and Safety at Work Act? Bandage yourself with glass imbued bandages to “inoculate” yourself from the inevitable bleeding you will receive from the cut risk and the remedy. Yep, that’s what we do now. We are going to claim that we live in a constant environment of COVID-19. Thus, we need to inject ourselves with the worst part of the “virus” and then bandage our faces so it stays in there! In one action we’ve inverted the hierarchy of controls and applied “Personal Protective Equipment” in two wrong ways. Everyone has to engage in the wearing of ineffective and pointless particulate masks while they get “vaccinated” with glass shards.

Question: What did the “vaccinations” do to protect us from the hazard?

In two words, nothing good. However, I acknowledge “diversity of perspective”. So, I’m going to engage in mental gymnastics to cater to all the intellectually arrogant types out there. The jab provokes an immune response by turning your cells into spike protein manufacturing plants. The aim is to create a copious amount of cytotoxic proteins in your body. That way, when an external biological hazard comes along, your active immune system is in overdrive trying to deal with the toxicity within that it hypothetically repels external biologicals. That’s the theory anyway. Poison you with something that costs twenty dollars a dose before something else that makes you sick does it for free and generates T-cell immunity!

But you protest, that’s not what it does! Really? why do you have to keep getting boosters every ninety days then? If you manage to flush out all your synthetic spike proteins your active immune system calms down, and you need another top up of spikes to get it going again. Do you really get “vaccine-induced” immunity? Or are you just intermittently poisoning yourself until your active and innate immune system runs out of gas? Or, and this is a worst-case scenario we experienced in our family, you have a spike blockage induced heart attack.

How hard is it to put it in those simple terms? That’s what they said it did, they just used scientific jingoistic jargon to make it sound like a new form of vaccination. If we now call vaccination a form of intermittent poisoning to create a hypothetically strong immune system, why not call small-dose rat poisoning a form of vaccination? After all, none of you have T-cell immunity to coronaviruses and none of you are protecting the vulnerable with a reduction in transmissibility. If you had secured both of those necessary requirements for a “vaccine” you wouldn’t need boosters!

The worst part of this scenario is that the case has already been won outside of the court. Why hasn’t it been won in the court? The cowardice of lawyers and judges who are bound to contracts and confidentiality agreements. How do we know this? Because we sought answers in law books that are usually reserved for those who are bound to contracts and confidentiality agreements. What did we find? Maxims of Law that use the proof in their words against them.

Maxim: An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury.

Idem est scire aut scire debet aut potuisse. To be able to know is the same as to know. This maxim is applied to the duty of every one to know the law.
Abundans cautela non nocet. Abundant caution does no harm.
Actio exteriora indicant interiora secreta. External actions show internal secrets.
Augupia verforum sunt judice indigna. A twisting of language is unworthy of a judge.
Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent. However…
Ex malificio non oritur contractus. A contract cannot arise out of an act radically wrong and illegal.
Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions.
Dolo malo pactum se non servabit. A pact made with evil intent will not be upheld. This maxim is sometimes written Dolo malo pactum se non servaturum (meaning “an agreement induced by fraud will not stand”).
Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.
Culpa lata aequiparatur dolo. A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything.
Confessio facta in judicio omni probatione major est. A confession made in court is of greater effect than any proof.
Consentientes et agentes pari poena plectentur. Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same punishment. However…
Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.
Actus non reum facit, nisi mens sit rea. An act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty.
Est autem vis legem simulans. Violence may also put on the mask of law.

Will lawyers and politicians help you get justice for what they allowed to happen to you and your loved ones? No, but learning the law and standing with the masculine in your society will. People like Dr Death need to be held accountable to the law so our path forward is a lawful one. Intent is irrelevant, if the result is harm, injury, or loss because of your words or actions, you have something to answer for; serial avoidance has only ever made the world worse. Why? Because the masculine needs proper accountability to move on, if they don’t get it, those who did the crime might not receive mercy. We all need to avoid the wrath of the masculine so it does not doom us to more pointless conflict and trauma for future generations. You have been warned.

Maxim of Law: Cum confitente sponte mitius est agendum. One making a voluntary confession, is to be dealt with more mercifully.