TREASON - www.treason.tube

Brief Overview:

For those who are new to Bible based Common Law, this is a brief overview in everyday language, of the purposes and practicalities of living free under Bible based Common Law.

What is Bible based Common Law?

Bible based Common Law is God's Law, the law of the Land, which states in essence that all mankind are born free of the land, and are therefore entitled to live on the land and from the land - without interference.

Basic Lore:

• Harm no one
• Cause no loss
• Live in honour

There can be no crime without a victim!

Where harm / loss or victimisation has occurred, you are entitled to dispute resolution by a jury of your peers. (This is different from our current Maritime Court System - as with a jury, the Judge has no power and is a mediator only.) With a jury, the power lies with the defendants, and judgements are reached by a unanimous decision of your peers.

Living in the Private:

..A global system of debt-bondage has been established by "incorporating" governments, and by programming the people to "act" in the fictional "roles" of "artificial persons", which as legal fictions having no innate productive capacity, are debtors by default, serving as "transmitting utilities" for human energy.

An artificial legal "person" is a dead entity. It is a legal fiction "persona" in the "theatre of commerce", and it is under the foreign Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction, the international "Law of the Sea." On the contrary, you are born into your own sovereign Estate of body, mind, and soul. As a sentient man or woman you live within the sovereign Common Law Jurisdiction, the national "Law of the Land."

The "Common Law" follows "Natural Law", a living system of "right or justice" held to be common to all humans and derived from Nature rather than from the rules of society. In "Natural Law", all people are born equal and endowed with unalienable rights.

Your sovereign jurisdiction, including your inborn Unalienable Rights, cannot be taken from you without your fully informed and willing consent.

Legal "person" "actors" for incorporated governments, banks, and all corporate entities, need to contract with other legal "person" "actors" to extract their "commercial energy"...

The difference between Lawful and Legal:

• Lawful pertains to our Creator God (the Highest Authority) - e.g. Bible based Common Law.
  
  
• Legal pertains to man / government / without God (inferior beings / entities) - i.e. millions of fallible and contradictory Statute Laws.

An example of how Bible based Common Law (lawful) is superior to Statute Law (legal) is found in a marriage:

• Lawful Marriage: A holy union between our God (Creator) / Man (husband) / Woman (wife) - aka Holy Matrimony.
  
  
• Legal Marriage: This is a legal contract between your: Government / Man / Woman / Confused / Motorbike / Donkey etc - aka a legal business transaction with the government.

See https://publicnoticesnz.com/insolvency-hearing-8-april-2025-medical-board-and-all-licensing-boards-and-councils-and-tribunal/

Here is the recording of the Court Insolvency hearing where the Medical Board, and all licensing boards, councils and tribunals and associated individuals were all made insolvent and disbanded for actions of harm and negligence which sets case precedence for all others to be charged.

NowFreedomForAll - Admin
Please also see https://publicnoticesnz.com/insolvency-hearing-8-april-2025-medical-board-and-all-licensing-boards-and-councils-and-tribunal/

You will see on the official court insolvency court record the hidden company and NZBN numbers. Someone tried to remove all the names of individuals and company numbers. This shows how real these insolvencies are and what lengths they will go to avoid liability and exposure. Please share this video link and public notice board link far and wide. Accountability is finally coming folks!

Doctors who gave the covid-19 vaccine will be bankrupt within five years. The essay below is taken from my new book `The End of Medicine'.

Back in 2020, I warned that doctors who prescribed the then new and experimental covid-19 vaccine would likely be sued (and also imprisoned) if it turned out, as I expected, that the vaccine caused harm to those who were injected. I warned that doctors' insurers would not be able to cope and that thousands of doctors would go bankrupt.

It seems that my warning was accurate.

According to a ruling by the European Court of Justice in early 2025, all health care professionals who urged individuals to be vaccinated, or who carried out vaccinations, are both civilly and criminally liable.

It was ruled that doctors could have chosen whether or not to administer the vaccines, and could have advised against them, so they can be considered liable for their actions.

(This ruling could result in those doctors who were subject to disciplinary proceedings because they opposed vaccinations, or because they criticised the vaccines, being exonerated.)

The ECJ ruled that since doctors were not obliged to prescribe or administer the vaccines they must take responsibility for their actions.

The Court confirmed that doctors have the right to choose the safest and most appropriate treatment for their patients and doctors have a responsibility to assess in individual cases whether or not to administer the covid-19 vaccine. It seems that any national rules which conflicted with this principle were illegitimate.

It is difficult to estimate what damages might have to be paid out if patients claim that their health was severely and permanently damaged by the vaccines. It seems likely, however, that the sum per patient could run into millions of pounds/dollars/euros. I doubt if doctors' insurance companies would have enough money to satisfy millions of claims (with each patient demanding millions of pounds) and so the vast majority of doctors in the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, the EU, etc., etc., would go bankrupt.

In the UK, doctors who go bankrupt because of professional misconduct may lose their licences to practice and this is probably true in other countries. The end result could well be that human doctors would have to be replaced by robots and computers. (It is important to remember that the conspirators' style is to create a problem and then offer a solution. In this instance the problem will be an absence of doctors and the solution will be their replacement with cheaper, more efficient robots and Apps on smart phones and computers.)

And if GPs are sued, it seems likely that bodies which suppressed the truth about covid might also be sued.

The BBC boasted that it did not interview anyone who criticised vaccines and vaccination. And YouTube removed all my videos and closed my channel because I told the truth about the vaccine. Social media outlets banned me for the same reason. And so the BBC, YouTube, etc., etc., might all be sued for hiding the truth and suppressing vital information. Similarly, medical licensing bodies (such as the General Medical Council in the UK) might be sued and go bankrupt.

Note:
The above is taken from `The End of Medicine' by Vernon Coleman. To purchase a copy CLICK HERE

Copyright Vernon Coleman March 2025

Lioness of Judah Ministry
According to a ruling by the European Court of Justice, all healthcare professionals who urged or vaccinated you against Covid are civilly and criminally liable.

European Court of Justice: Doctors Will Be Solely Responsible for the Consequences of Covid Injections

Eddy
The hospital administrators are more responsible than individual doctors. All who colluded with the pharma companies should go to prison for life.

Marta Gillette
The purpose of this ruling isn't to vindicate anyone. The purpose is to put all the doctors out of business (and remember they were also forced to go along with the psyop), take away their licenses, and put our "healthcare" into AI's purse. That's the only reason this is happening (in my estimation).

Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?

In today's show, we're diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what's ahead.

We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID - from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.

To help us navigate this, we've got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.

With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He'll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.

A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He's not interested in opinions, just the facts.

Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.

Tune in for a powerful conversation.

Hairtherapy
Fabulous INTERVIEW I SHARED it EVERYWHERE! Dr. David Martin and His Wife Kim have been TRUE and Loving Humanitarians and HEROS

Sammee
Thank you, good sirs.
I've been following Dr Martin since 2020.
It's great to hear him sum everything up - as well as knock out irrefutable facts.
Certainly, no person of integrity in an official capacity can ignore this collation, and not pursue it to the fullest extent of the law.

Hairtherapy
I hope Dr. Altman feel better!! OXOX

Stephenp1963
Excellent podcast guys. Great work

Sazac2009
Thank you again for spreading Dr. Martin's knowledge!!

CrossCreations
This is the clarification needed to see clearly through all the smoke and mirrors. Data-driven and unmatched experience from real and honest experts. When Dr. David Martin speaks, LISTEN! The Australian pharmacologist adds much to this discussion as a pharmacologist. Appreciated and shared.

Isit1984
One of the best interviews I have seen in regard to the total criminality of what has gone before us, and I have seen a lot...

..Thank you very much gentleman, this is going far and wide! Keep up the good work!

A call for accountability.

Sparked by the recent class action law suit in Australia led by the heroic Dr Melissa McCann, in which the TGA attempted to get the case dismissed before it started by claiming it has no duty of care to the Australian public, our team asked our New Zealand regulator Medsafe if they have a duty of care.

A duty of care can be defined as: "A legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others."

"The responsibility of a person or organisation to take all reasonable measures necessary to prevent activities that could result in harm to other individuals and/or their property."

This week we received a response under the Official Information Act (OIA) leaving us stunned, yet not surprised.

The Ministry of Health's reply regarding Medsafe was clear:

"It does not have a defined duty of care to the New Zealand public."
Medsafe New Zealand

This is an astounding statement, especially when you consider the responsibility medical professionals and regulators have when it comes to public health.

The moment you intervene in someone's health-whether by offering advice or regulating medical treatments-there is an implicit obligation to ensure that the care provided is safe, effective, and accountable.

The MCNZ refers to a duty of care: "Strive to use resources efficiently, consistent with good evidence based patient care, and balance your duty of care to each patient with your duty of care to the community and wider population." (So doctors do have a duty to the wider population, eh? Interesting, for those doctors punished for speaking out…)

The NZ Nurses Organisation also refers to a duty of care: "Legally, all people owe a duty of care to people who could foreseeably be harmed by their actions or inactions."

So the fact of a duty of care goes without saying then for health care staff. But the true "burden" of responsibility goes much much deeper than this for doctors, and perhaps only older ones still appreciate this.

Little wonder our agencies-associated-with-health can't or won't meet these standards, but you would think medicine's history of at least some practitioners taking a proverbial bullet for their patients might rub off on the humans who comprise these regulatory bodies.

This is not just about making purchasing decisions; it's about protecting human lives.

Yet we have seen our government and its agencies treat the New Zealand public like disposable products.

For those in the health and regulatory sectors, the stakes are even higher. People who are vulnerable or unwell rely on these professionals to ensure their safety.

However, this response from Medsafe suggests those in charge of public health in New Zealand, senior managers and politicians alike, are not obliged to uphold any moral duty or responsibility for the consequences of their decisions on affected health consumers.

"Ignorance of its governing laws is no defence."
NZDSOS

Perhaps it was unfair to expect Medsafe, in a dry OIA reponse, to have waxed lyrical about them being a caring organisation – of course – with altruistic staff defending the public against rapacious corporates and interfering politicians.

But, Medsafe (as well as MoH, MBIE, NZPolice, Crown Law etc etc) should know that it is bound by the principle of legality, which says all government bodies MUST see all their actions though the lens of the Bill of Rights Act (BORA), which has been affirmed repeatedly by the highest courts.

It took a big hit during covid with the mandates, but BORA still controls the behaviour of government towards the people.

Even more foundational is the Nuremburg Code which is considered settled international law, beholding NZ and

whatever wiley officials might say. So Medsafe et al need to uphold our rights – to life, to medical freedom, to full disclosure; in short, to care for us, over and above their political masters or corporate patrons

Maybe the person answering the OIA request, along with the rest of Wellington, need some basic grounding in their responsibilities under the law. However, we hear they have returned from summer to be schooled instead on tighter control over sensitive communications.

Just the wrong people at the wrong time, or a lawless systemic callousness?

How can they reconcile claims of testing safety and efficacy, and hiding documents, with the admission that they have no formal duty of care?

This apparent contradiction raises serious concerns about the integrity of our public health system. It seems that individuals entrusted with the responsibility for the health of the nation may not be held to the standards necessary to protect people's well-being.

For those in charge of public health to have no enshrined duty of care to the public is deeply troubling. It raises an uncomfortable question: are New Zealanders merely rats in a cage of a larger experiment, with no guarantee of protection, all for the benefit off 'big pharma' and the obsequious cohort of agencies bowing to the World Health Organisation?

It is time for transparency, accountability, and a serious examination of the role our health regulators play in safeguarding public health.

The New Zealand public deserves better than this.

Live Free or Die Trying
Legally (man's law / without God) the medical profession may have no 'Duty of care' towards their patients; however, lawfully (of God) they have a duty of care / moral obligation to the New Zealand public.

The NZ government, big pharma, doctors, nurses and all those complicit in mass medication procedures (including mainstream media), are knowingly and willingly culpable in committing Crimes Against Humanity – in-particular, for denying people the basic right of making a 'fully informed' decision of participating in democide!

Mac
Do not lie, cheat or steal. The government hates competition!

Curious
For Medsafe to assess the "quality, safety and efficacy" I wonder if it's safe to assume they employ medically trained/qualified people?

If so, then wouldn't they be registered with various regulating bodies? Some even with MCNZ?

Would that then imply that these people are bound by the duty of care definitions stipulated by the various regulating bodies they are registered with?

So although Medsafe may not have a defined duty of care would it be safe to assume they are indirectly bound by the duty of care that their employees are bound by?

Going further up the chain wouldn't they also be bound by any definitions of duty of care assigned to those responsible for Medsafe, like MOH or the Minister?

NZDSOS Media Team
Reply to Curious
Great questions there. We have asked for further information regarding this and hopefully will hear back at some stage, although there has been no acknowledgement of receipt yet…

Jason Rawles
So, according to Medsafe, there is no duty of care, only an obligation to assess vaccine quality, safety and efficacy (presumably prior) to approving vaccines or injections labelled vaccines. Well, they have totally failed in their assessments (an understatement) and coupled with a lack of duty of care, can someone show me what is the value to NZ citizens of Medsafe? As a tax payer, I expect more.

Peter Van Eeden
OK that's the standard set by government so then is there any duty of care necessary for employers, retails, manufacturers, councils, repair people employees, and civilians to act in good faith and have a duty of care towards another? This is a crazy attempt by authorities to avoid blame which will backfire. You reap what you sow.

Always.

Peter Van Eeden
There is a legal obligation in law to act in 'good faith' as a employee especially in employment law. Legally now Medsafe CEO is in default and it should be shutdown as a safety and efficiency regulator. This would be true to of the medical council executives if the haven't act in good faith having a obligation under law to "do no harm" and up hold "informed consent". Likewise MP's have their own pariamentary oath "not to lie or decieve" Minister of Health needs to resign, this can't go on.

Ralph
Reply to Peter Van Eeden
It is fraudulent because they led people to think they had a duty of care! Maybe by omission ,but under law the intent was there,otherwise ,we wouldn't be surprised that there was no duty. There is an implied "duty" in the name, MEDSAFE. There is all their authoritative statements and their implications. This is clear cut fraud and saying you can't have a duty to a whole population didn't stop them them fraudulently pretending they did. Non-disclosure invalidates their social contract but not the fraud.

Ralph
But what bothers me is that it fraudulent in the eyes of the law to frame their statements showing intent to care about safety etc without disclosing that they have no duty in the matter. This is deceit in their contracts, written or implied, to the people who listen to them based on their receiving incomes, status and credibility. They imply to to the public that the government listens to them because they have a paid duty to advise them, all the while knowing their is no duty . This is clear fraud in my eyes.

KermitAU
Morrison, Hunt, Butler, Skerret, sutton, spurrier, Gunner, McGowen, Marshal, and many more, guilty of Murder, and attempted murder.
They all knew, and were paid to say nothing.

CSIAuatralia
Still cannot work out here in Melbourne without 2-3 Covid injections.
Potentially Largest Crime Since Adam Ate In The Garden
We will not rest until the perpetrators at every level ie Local Council CEO, Pharmacist, Church Minister & Rabbi, Employer, Police, Chief Medical Officers, Prime Ministers, Legislators, TGA, ASIO, US DOD, etc etc are implicated and held to account.

Rickterscale
If you are expecting the truth to come from a process through the Australian police you are wasting your time.

They are as corrupt as any organisation in the country.

Neugie
Thank you for all your work to bring the truth to the Australian people and the world

YeahMate
I'm a teacher in VIC. I could type an essay of the bullying I faced in the "education" system as a result of not getting jabbed. Instead I'm going to write about the jab injured I know. My grandma had just turned 80 and then took the first two pfizer jabs and suddenly ended up with stage 4 ovarian cancer. She died within 6 months.

There's no history of cancer on that side of the family. My brother ended up with pericarditis two days after his pfizer booster shot. He's since thankfully made a full recovery so far. A former colleague ended up with myocaridtiis after the pfizer booster shot. She has never been the same and has since retired a few years early.

A year 10 student died suddenly in may of 2023. I know he had at least two injections but couldn't confirm if he had any more. Another colleagues father died of a heart attack 2 weeks post pfizer booster. He was fit and healthy for his age (early 70's) and also served Australia during the Vietnam War. I personally know others who ended up with chronic fatgiue, menstrual cycle problems, achne, shingles and I know of people who've had turbo cancers, including a few under the age of 30. It's disgraceful that this has happened, I think what's even worse than the huge crime is the apathy, ignorance and cowardice across our society.

oz4me
The truth will come out and people will be charged with serious offences like negligent manslaughter

deletegooglenow
Fantastic work. Well done guys.

talli
Absolutely shocking information. Truth finally comes out. The people responsible must be held accountable for this tragedy. It seems eugenics is behind these crimes. Crimes against humanity. So many lies and propoganda from our government and mainstream media. Shame on you all. So damn sad. Trust has gone.......safe and effective...really????

hightreason1
The chain of errors is too many to be just plain old gross incompetence and gross criminal negligence.

Realistically, those who have "just followed orders" MUST be made to reveal who put them up to it, then those higher ups need to be forced to reveal. Go as far up the chain of command as possible. I suspect it will be only 5 or 6 such levels of chain of command before it is revealed that Federal MPs bowed down to foreign powers, in violation of 44i of the Constitution. This then opens a can of worms in terms of compensation under section 46. Remember, 100 pounds was the equivalent of 6 ounces of gold or a quarter of a backbencher's annual salary per DAY they sat in treason. It was invalid MPs that watered down the penalty, violating the Constitution.

Since the crimes are the most egregious you can imagine and human rights flagrantly violated, those involved automatically lose their human rights. There will be no tactic that is out of bounds to get that information. Old taboos will be out the window. Those that refuse to divulge who put them up to it or lie will bear the full wrath of the People who have suffered the ultimate betrayal. Silence will NOT be an option.
There is a limit to how long the coverup can continue-the truth will eventually emerge and the calculated and deliberate lies to cover malfeasance will give certainty to their guilt leaving no hope for mercy. Those that call for mercy upon those that have committed multiple crimes against humanity will find themselves tarnished with their treason. These fools will find that mercy has its limits.
The first step we can all take is to remember which so-called leaders and their political parties rode the bandwagon of trampling down human rights. Didn't take long for them to abuse power. Only a fool would vote for them again. Take note of which brave political figures stood up against tyranny-they are the true leaders. It is ONLY those that stood up to defend YOUR rights that are worthy of your vote.

Laughalot77
Thank you!

Basilp
thank you at last a concise statement from the people, it cannot be denied

Five Elements of Common Law:

1. Claim - Notice of Demand
2. Create - Notice of Remedy
3. Exert - Notice of Breach of Default
4. Court Process - Form Filing
5. Enforce - Court Hearing

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law:

"Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."

Without Prejudice UCC1-207 – (without impairing any pre existing right)

"I reserve my right not to be compelled to preform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."

The Church is an alternative that operates according to the perfect law of liberty. This is why historians called the early church a "viable republic in the heart of the Roman empire" as opposed to what we see today, a social club of mutual superstitions.

Ultimately the court we should be concerned about Is His Holy Court, which we will all face someday.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church #2242:

"The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of Civil Authorities, when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons, or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to Civil Authorities when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community."