TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Jury selection began with Judge Hew Locke rejecting defense requests to drop charges based on free speech guarantees. Defense lawyer Douglas Christie wanted to exclude Jews and Freemasons from the jury due to the nature of the charges. However, the judge denied this, stating that Zundel cannot tailor the jury to his liking. Christie expressed concerns about finding an impartial jury given the controversial nature of the case. Locke also denied questioning prospective jurors about the Holocaust, emphasizing the need for a fair trial.

Parents seek guidance from health leaders regarding vaccine decisions. I want to address a serious matter about character. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was initially hired as a babysitter. When confronted, you mentioned you weren't a "church boy" and acknowledged having "skeletons in your closet." You later texted Ms. Cooney an apology but claimed no memory of her account. Can you respond to these accusations in front of this committee? Did you make unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Cooney? No, I did not, and that story has been debunked. Why did you apologize then? I apologized for something else. That’s not my understanding. You can read the text she published; it was not for that.

A Dutch court has ruled that Bill Gates will face trial for allegedly misleading the public about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. The case was brought by seven plaintiffs claiming vaccine-related injuries. Gates' legal team argued against the court's jurisdiction, but the judge confirmed it, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. Notably, other defendants include the Dutch Prime Minister, NATO Secretary General, members of the Dutch government, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and the Dutch state. This ruling is seen as a significant step forward, as those named must now defend themselves against these accusations.

The speaker claims the vaccine saved hundreds of thousands of lives but acknowledges side effects and breakthrough infections. The speaker argues that the vaccine was claimed to stop transmission and infection, but it did not. An argument ensues with someone who disagrees, with accusations of being crazy and shutting up. The speaker denies using ad hominem attacks.

In the Nuremberg courtroom, the trial of 23 Nazi doctors accused of various crimes begins. Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician and a high-ranking SS officer, is the main defendant. Another important figure is Siegfried, a former medical chief in the German army. The only female defendant was a physician at Ravensbruck concentration camp. Despite their pleas of not guilty, the future of these accused individuals will be determined by time and evidence.

Defense lawyer challenges Holocaust expert's testimony on Hitler's involvement in extermination orders. Expert admits lack of concrete evidence for gas chambers in concentration camps. Questions raised about credibility of sources in expert's book on Jewish deaths during WWII. No definitive proof of gas chamber existence found in reports.

Jens Wolfakis has been banned from entering Germany and communicating via Zoom or video due to a speech on universal human rights in Israel Palestine. The speech was banned from the Palestine Congress in Berlin, leading to police intervention. Wolfakis questions if this suppression aligns with German democracy, urging people to read or listen to the speech on his blog. He believes this threatens democracy in Germany.

Today, I draw parallels between the AIDS epidemic and the lies of Hitler, accusing NIH members like Gallo and Fauci of genocide. I challenge them to take me to court, armed with evidence from my book. Renowned virologist Peter Duesberg risks his career to speak out against the deception.

A court hearing took place following the arrest of Arno van Kessel, a key figure in a case accusing Alfred Bourla from Pfizer, news channel editors, and Dutch politicians. The hearing addressed a request to hear expert witnesses, including Catherine Olsen Fitts, in a separate case brought by three victims. The defense argued against the need for witnesses, citing readily available online information, but the victims' lawyer insisted on in-person testimony before the court. The discussion included Bill Gates' lack of defense, with his lawyer deferring to the court. Concerns were raised about van Kessel's arrest, allegedly by a police unit with ties to NATO, which is also accused of involvement in a misinformation campaign related to the pandemic. Van Kessel has been suspended as a lawyer, and is being held in a prison with interrogation rooms and a psychiatric ward, raising concerns about intimidation and due process. Supporters believe the case is of international importance and could spark further legal actions globally.

Speaker 0 questions the idea that Doctor Fauci is involved in a plot to kill millions, seeking clarity on the claim. Speaker 1 says they are reasonable and that Fauci is not an innocent bystander; he is aware of what he’s doing, but the extent of involvement is not known to them. Speaker 2 cites the Center for Countering Digital Hate, stating Dirashad Bhattar is one of the top spreaders of COVID disinformation, once with more than a million followers. Bhattar allegedly claimed “More people are dying from the COVID vaccine than from COVID,” and that “the Red Cross won’t accept blood from people who have had the COVID nineteen vaccine.” He posted that “most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025,” and promoted the overarching conspiracy that COVID was a planned operation as part of a secret global plot to depopulate the earth. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 2 believes the pandemic was planned; Speaker 2 confirms there is a suspicion of a plan to reduce the population, though Speaker 1 says they have no idea. Speaker 2 criticizes Bhattar, saying it would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous and that Qatar (Qatar’s commentary) compares COVID and the vaccine to World War II and Doctor Anthony Fauci to Adolf Hitler. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking to what extent Fauci would be equated with Hitler. Speaker 3 asserts that lies cost lives in a pandemic, and that encouraging people not to vaccinate will cause people to lose their lives. Speaker 2 describes Qatar as encouraging distrust of life-saving vaccines and using false, twisted information and unproven conspiracies to do so. Speaker 0 asks if the COVID vaccine works. Speaker 1 states the vaccine is very effective at what it was designed for, but “it’s not preventing death. Certainly not.” Speaker 2 contradicts, claiming that Bhattar believes life-saving vaccines are more dangerous than the virus itself, and Speaker 1 asks why the vaccine would cause more deaths than the problem itself, noting 6,340,000,000 doses administered. Speaker 0 requests the completion of a sentence about what each vaccine is geared up for, but Speaker 1 says he’s not a vaccine developer and mentions “Scientific corruption.” Speaker 2 notes Qatar has been removed from Facebook and Instagram due to disinformation but remains on Twitter, Telegram, and his own site, filled with falsehoods. Speaker 0 recalls a September 5 retweet of a doctored AstraZeneca packaging photo suggesting the vaccine was made in 2018; Speaker 1 says the photo was perhaps fake, and questions why Speaker 0 would challenge the agencies that have caused deaths. Speaker 0 argues it’s reasonable to question agencies, noting Speaker 1 had 1,200,000 followers who received false information; Speaker 1 admits if a tweet with a doctor’s photo was sent in error, it was a mistake, and he cannot make mistakes on the numbers. Speaker 2 notes vaccine studies showing vaccines remain ninety percent effective in preventing hospitalization and death, while Qatar claims the vaccine is the danger. Speaker 1 counters that thousands are dying and the delta variant is “vaccine injured,” citing CDC data, which Speaker 0 disputes as not true. Speaker 1 asserts he does not want to be part of a mass genocide and suggests this era will be remembered as a worst time in history, even worse than World War II. Speaker 0 concludes by calling Speaker 1 crazy. Speaker 2 ends with a reference to North Carolina’s Board of Medicine reprimanding someone prior to COVID.

A court hearing took place following the arrest of Arno van Kessel, a key figure in a case accusing Alfred Bourla from Pfizer, news channel editors, and Dutch politicians. The hearing addressed a request to hear expert witnesses, including Catherine Olsen Fitts, in a separate case brought by three victims. The defense argued against hearing these witnesses, citing readily available online information. The lawyer for the victims argued that court testimony is necessary. The discussion included Bill Gates' lack of defense, with his lawyer deferring to the court. Concerns were raised about van Kessel's arrest by a special police unit with alleged NATO links, his suspension as a lawyer, and his detainment in a prison described as a dangerous facility where prisoners can be interrogated without public access. The case involves charges of genocide and the use of biological weapons, potentially leading to a Nuremberg-style trial. Supporters believe this case is an international precedent and could spark justice globally, while his arrest is seen as intimidation.

I was jailed for speaking out, do you agree? I don't want another lockdown. The speaker presents a book exposing research fraud behind vaccine mandates to a senator.

- The mRNA on plasmids was produced, and after processing, much DNA from plasmids remained; Kevin MacKinnon found that vials were full of plasmid DNA, the whole plasmid and parts of it, and this was published. Authorities claimed it doesn’t matter and that vaccines have saved millions of lives, so why not have some DNA in them. - The DNA in the vaccine vials was packaged in lipid nanoparticles and was shown by colleagues last year (the INMODIA publication) to enter human cells in culture and remain stable in cells for days, as did the mRNA. Despite this, the message given was to poof, never mind, don’t worry, be happy. - A radical change occurred due to a discovery by Kevin MacKinnon three weeks ago: during transcription on the chromosome, byproducts are generated; some mRNA strands do not detach from the DNA where they’re formed, creating hybrids of DNA and RNA that come off together. These hybrids are dangerous. - In cells, an enzyme called RNase H takes care of these sparks and extinguishes them immediately; otherwise they can cause damage to the chromosome, potentially lighting “fires” on the chromosomes. If not extinguished, the fires can cause diverse damage depending on where they occur, potentially leading to illnesses described in medical textbooks, including tumors (neoplastic disease), autoimmune disease, developmental impairment, birth defects, or death. - The speaker asserts these hybrids and their mishandling could lead to a broad range of illnesses, and emphasizes that this situation is not limited to the COVID vaccine but applies to all Moderna RNA vaccines, including new Moderna RNA vaccines entering the market, such as a flu vaccine, and mentions veterinary RNA vaccines as well. - The claim is made that these vaccines will be heavily contaminated with deadly dangerous hybrids, and it is the duty of authorities and controlling authorities to stop proceeding and not turn away; otherwise they will face court for not fulfilling their duties. The speaker has been giving interviews and asserts this narrative is spreading worldwide, framing it as akin to attempted murder and urging physicians to refuse vaccination.

We've seen police raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online, framed as combating misogyny. I must address the US Vice President's speech. Our motto in the Bundeswehr is "We fight for your right to be against us," and it represents our democracy. The Vice President questioned this democracy, not just in Germany, but across Europe, likening Europe's condition to authoritarian regimes. Early Tuesday morning, we accompanied state police as they raided an apartment in Northwest Germany. Six armed officers searched the suspect's home, seizing his laptop and cell phone. Prosecutors allege these electronics were used to post a racist cartoon online. Simultaneously, over 50 similar raids occurred across Germany, part of a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech.

In a rally opposing COVID mandates, Speaker 1 made controversial remarks comparing the current situation to Hitler's Germany. Speaker 0 questions the insensitivity of these remarks, while Speaker 1 defends them, claiming they were misinterpreted. Speaker 1 argues that the advancements in technology, such as AI, GPS, and facial recognition, can potentially lead to totalitarian control if misused by a tyrant. Speaker 0 highlights the upset caused by the comparison, but Speaker 1 denies equating COVID lockdowns to Hitler's Germany. The discussion revolves around the potential dangers of increasing surveillance and control, including low orbit satellites, 5G, digital currency, and vaccine passports. Speaker 1 emphasizes the need to resist these developments.

The speaker states they were relaxed in court due to greater worries about the WHO and gene-transforming vaccinations, making their personal situation trivial. The case against them was based on three minutes taken out of a 90-minute period, which, when viewed in full, showed the charges were out of context. The speaker read a letter from Holocaust survivors comparing vaccinations to a second Holocaust, which was used against them, accusing them of trivializing the Holocaust. The judge acquitted them after a nine-hour meeting. The speaker felt gratitude towards the judge for upholding the honor of German jurisdiction by going against the mainstream. The speaker believes the acquittal was a good day for the world and hopes it sets an example.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they personally administered any COVID-19 vaccinations and informs them they may be personally liable and prosecuted under the Nuremberg Code. Speaker 0 claims COVID was a hoax and the shots are for depopulation, having killed or permanently disabled millions. Speaker 1 states the company is liable, not them, because they made sure beforehand that the company would take responsibility and support them administering the shots.

Speaker 0: Mandatory vaccination is nonsense. No one in Germany will be forced to get vaccinated against their will. The idea that those who choose not to get vaccinated should lose their basic rights is also absurd and malicious. Let's remember the experiences we've had in Germany and reject such claims. Personally, I am open to technological and medical advancements. If German authorities approve a vaccine, I would be one of the first to get vaccinated. However, I will also advocate for the freedom of those who choose not to, as they should not be forced into it.

The speaker acknowledges the risks of their actions but believes that exposing the truth is worth it. They are prepared to face imprisonment and are confident that the world will support them. The IT worker accused of accessing sensitive health data and spreading misinformation about vaccine-related deaths appears in court. The health agency is working to recover the data and reassure the public about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine. The speaker lists several cases of individuals who allegedly died after receiving the vaccine. They express their willingness to be targeted and emphasize that their goal is to stop the situation.

Speaker 0 describes a judge threatening a witness with prosecution for testifying to their best knowledge and skills, saying that would make the witness criminally liable; asserts that such a threat by a judge constitutes a felony. Speaker 1 adds that many countries (27) have strict limits on defenses, often labeling real defenses as holocaust denial, preventing witnesses that counter official narratives and effectively blocking a proper defense; calls the situation insane. Speaker 0 reflects on lessons as an expert witness: he was never allowed to take a stand and was always moved off the stand. He states that German judges are obligated by case law to systematically deny any motion to introduce that kind of evidence, and that threats accompany this denial. Speaker 1 responds, though the exact wording is unclear. Speaker 0 recounts events from the early 1990s, noting that repeated appearances as a witness prompted panic and the introduction of new case law. He describes an incident where, in 1996, a defense lawyer wanted him to testify again, and the defense lawyer was prosecuted for merely filing a motion to introduce the evidence. He explains that in Germany, the defense cannot introduce evidence; only the prosecution and the judges can introduce evidence. The defense is defenseless because a defendant must file a motion for the judge to introduce evidence, and the judge not only systematically denies it but the prosecution prosecutes the defense lawyer for filing the motion. This pattern is described as serious and as something upheld by the German Supreme Court. Since then, filing motions to defend oneself in historical matters is described as a crime, with the act of defending oneself seemingly criminalized.

I'm in Helsinki to give a witness statement in a case against the Finnish government and a catering company for human rights violations related to the COVID pass. We aim to fight for freedom against medical tyranny. This is a unique case globally where the government is being sued. We are determined to expose corporate crimes and mistakes in history. Though we can't film the court, the transcript will be available. Let's stand up for freedom and justice.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker mentions being in 3 seats and wanting power. They tell someone to leave and make a crude comment about subscribing to someone's beliefs.

In Germany, the speaker questions the lack of evidence for the Holocaust, leading to the conclusion that it didn't happen. They criticize the justice system for punishing those who deny it. They mention hosting open conferences to discuss the issue. They express disappointment in the lack of response from authorities. Another speaker highlights the tyranny in the country and the thousands of trials related to Holocaust denial. They emphasize the importance of freedom of speech and inquiry.

We just finished a 2-hour testimony in court. The speaker felt it went well, covering issues like evidence-based medicine, industry influence, and whistleblower suppression. They mentioned ASEAN's strong defense against attacks on credibility, with recordings from court to be released. The testimony involved deep personal details, implicating figures like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. Overall, they hope justice will prevail.

The chief editor of Deutschland Kurier, David Bendelz, received a seven-month prison sentence for a meme posted by his team accusing Interior Minister Nancy Faeser of hating free speech. The speaker argues that the verdict proves Faeser hates free speech and questions if she is "retarded or just a power obsessed bitch." German defamation law, specifically paragraph 188, gives politicians special protection, making it illegal to insult them. The speaker claims the judiciary has criminalized speaking the truth if it damages a politician's reputation, calling it tyranny. The prosecutor in Bendelz's case, Alexander Baum, also initiated a house raid against Stefan Mihov for calling Minister Robert Habeck a "stupid head," traumatizing Mihov's daughter with Down syndrome. The speaker asserts that Faeser ordered the raid. They vow not to limit their free speech and accuse Faeser of being a fascist, while noting it is still legal to insult politicians from the AFD party.