How to Ensure Peace-makers become law-makers

Why the Swiss Federal Supreme Court Could  Accept Our Appeal: 

There is an admissibility clause that an 

“Appellant must have participated in the proceedings before the previous instance, or not have been given the opportunity to participate and show to be particularly affected by the appealed decision and have an interest worthy of protection in its annulment or amendment.”

I confirm that the appellants, in all the cases attached, were not given the opportunity for a hearing, and many lost their lives and livelihoods in the process. Official reservations and objections were made by  groups of nations, and these relevant considerations were ignored. 

Approaching the Majestic Federal Supreme Court

I also confirmed that the appellant (me) was “particularly affected by the appealed decision as all men and women are depending on this appeal coming before your honourable court. It has fallen to me, to provide you with the precedents you need, and witnesses, to stop the defendants’ self-promotion to a one world government and becoming international law-makers at the end of May 2024. 

The defendants' sphere of influence and resources must be reduced to nil. The defendants must not have the power to engineer the pathogens, call a pandemic, implement lockdowns or other measure, or mandate their own patented vaccines, or the deployment of engineered vectors or vaccines that they have a financial interest in. They must be arrested and the organizations dismantled.

All life on the planet; people, places and animals will be affected and we all have an interest worthy of protection, in your annulment or amendment.

What happened in the Federal Supreme Court

The Court Can Look at Criminal Ministerial Responsibility (by which I mean Wrong-doing by officials and their personal liability for their actions, decisions and their consequences). 

An Appeal would usually only look at how the law was applied in earlier cases, and not the actual claims of the case. The Federal Supreme Court make an exception in the case of Manifest arbitrariness.

Manifest arbitrariness is where: 

1) "Decisions were made capriciously, irrationally and/or without determining principle". 

I referred them to the decisions made by the defendants to not even acknowledge official correspondence from member states. This can be the only reason why earlier refusals of the Treaty and IHR in civil, administrative and criminal contexts have been ignored. 

2. "The legislature fails to make a classification by recognizing the degrees of harm" 

I referred them to how the WHO, nor any of their delegates or implementers,  do not recognise any of the high degree of harm from deploying their technologies and accept no liability for any harm. 

3. "The purpose ... (of the IHR Amendments, Pandemic Dis-Agreement or the Sustainable financing of the WHO's Treaty and UN Treaty) ... is not in consonance with constitutional values" - national and personal sovereignty and freedoms are values that are under direct threat. 

To give the court an idea of the scale of the treason, terrorism and stripping of sovereignty, I included the in the evidence that Pfizer got governments to sign contracts that put up the nation's natural resources, reserve banks and military bases as guarantees for payments.

4. When “Decisions were based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant considerations, such actions reflect “arbitrariness”. 

Worse than ignoring relevant considerations, these international organizations and their funders, have been able to conduct a reign of terror, and contrive justifications such as health, to kill and extract wealth with impunity.

These are some of the reasons why I asked Switzerland to retain international jurisdiction to examine the merits of the case.

Excerpt from the Appeal