Michael Speth -v- Information Commissioner May Update

My submissions in response to the Court's Directions and the ICO

I haven’t posted since February but the case Michael Speth -v- the ICO regarding the ICO releasing alleged SARS-COV-2 experimentation control information has been progressing. The Court issued a cut off date for ICO’s final response which was the end of February, 2023. I received ICO’s final response on April 25th, 2023. Since ICO missed the direction from the court, I objected to the response with the court.

Case Directions

On May 3rd, 2023, I received the case management directions and the ruling on the application for an extension of time (016 020523 CMD from Judge Griffin.pdf).

I was given until May 10th, 2023 to submit on the 2 ICO responses. I created a first draft response on ICO and the Case directions. Christine Massey has generously provided a review and edits to make this a great response. Please checkout Christine’s substack and subscribe if you can as she is an amazing driving force on eliciting responses from Government organisations that disproves virology!

I have submitted my responses to the court and ICO on May 8th, 2023. The next step is for the Judge to decide how to progress this case. If the Judge decides to go ahead, then we will go into the data packet phase which is where I expect argumentation for what evidence can be included.

Court Not Ruling on Virus Existence

Judge Griffin wrote the following:

The appellant should note that this tribunal will not be examining the issue of alleged virus fraud, nor will it be issuing a ruling on whether or not the SARS-COV-2 virus exists or not. This tribunal only has the powers given to it by Parliament and will ONLY be considering the issues raised under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

I wrote to the court the following as a response:

OLG Stuttgart judgement of February 16, 2016, 12 U 63/15 has provided precedence that the measles virus does not exist scientifically [1]. I request the court rely on the German Courts ruling which concluded that the measles virus does not exist. This can be extended to SARS-COV-2 based on the evidence I have supplied.

The court should assume SARS-COV-2 does not exist based on the only court case that challenged the existence of viruses in history.

The court should not assume virus existence.

Thanks to Dr Stefan Lanka expensive and hard work, we have precedence that we can use to our fullest. My argument is that viruses cannot be assumed to be true in court because there is already a court case that disproved the measles virus.

As the court has already said they won’t be ruling on virus existence, then they will be left with no other option but to accept Dr Stefan Lanka’s case. IE, the default position is viruses do not exist unless proven in court. The ICO will not be able to provide any evidence in favour of proving SARS-COV-2 because the court’s direction is they won’t rule on it.

I think this is an undercover win for us because we are using the right argument. Interesting, the court already had received my submitted evidence from Dr Lanka’s case so I wonder if the Judge was thinking of this argument when he wrote this direction?

EA/ 2022/0424

The ICO provided a response to me on February 11th (download it here). This response focuses on the National Security exemption section 24 found in the UK’s FOIA. You can read their specific arguments but it comes down to the HSA’s opinion and the WHO’s opinion.

Christine Massey discovered a fantastic rebuttal to the exemption which is found in section 24(3):

(3) A certificate signed by a Minister of the Crown certifying that exemption from section 1(1)(b), or from section 1(1)(a) and (b), is, or at any time was, required for the purpose of safeguarding national security shall, subject to section 60, be conclusive evidence of that fact.

The HSA nor ICO have provided a signed exemption from any Minister of the Crown. This means the ICO’s entire argument on the grounds of Section 24 are invalid!!!

This argument coupled with Dr Lanka’s Court case completely shuts down the ICO’s Section 24 claims.

There are some additional ridiculous arguments that the ICO makes like the ICO claiming that redacting private information makes the request vexatious. I have addressed these claims in my response.

EA/2023/0054

The final response from the ICO was sent to me on April 25th, 2023 (download it here). In this response the ICO primarily argues for Section 12 of the FOIA. They make some irrational arguments like not being able to understand the difference between the words ‘all’ and ‘any’.

Section 12 provides a limit for organisations to search for records for free and usually allows organisations to charge for services after the free search has completed. The ICO and HSA have stated that my request would take longer than 24 hours of searching time. They do not provide any actual estimates which is a requirement and to me, this is simply an attempt at denying access.

I tried to work with the ICO and HSA by modifying my request. But the ICO/HSA refused to accept my modification and stated originally that it made no difference. Noting that they didn’t provide any assistance in this matter.

I have received Control Information from other organisations and noted this to the court providing evidence. I would certainly be available to work with the HSA to make refinements if needed to reduce any burden on them as this information is critical to exposing scientific fraud.

They also reference a court case that I could not find on the internet and the ICO failed to provide the case to the court or me. All of my arguments which are referenced, I have supplied the court and ICO the documentation. As the ICO have used that court case in 2 of their arguments, I supplied the following response:

I request that the ICO provide any records that they use as an argument to be included in the data packet. Because the ICO uses arguments from assumed data, I urge the Judge to go ahead with this case so that both sides have an opportunity to address the evidence.

The ICO have requested all the way through that this shouldn’t be going to court but given the time requirements and the fact that I simply don’t have access to the court records, I think it is reasonable that this goes to court so that the ICO has to include evidence for their arguments.

Assistance

Section 16 of the FOIA states that the organisation is required to provide assistance for FOIA requests. I think this is common in FOIA legislation. I wrote in my submission:

The HSA made no attempt to work with me and actively worked against me. The HSA summarily denied my request. The ICO and HSA failed to comply with section 16 of the FOIA2000 because they did not provide assistance.

Summary

You can download my full submission here. I will leave you with the summary that I provided the court:

Governments around the world continue to restrict common human behavior based on the recommendations from organizations like the HSA. The spirit of the FOIA is to provide the public with access to records from government organizations that have not released records on their own accord. It is clear by the arguments from the HSA and the ICO that they do not want the public to have access to the scientific records which they should have already published on their own accord as scientific due diligence requires.

It can be assumed the reason the ICO and HSA do not want the control information to be released isthat

a) there are no controls

or

b) the controls are insufficient

This will expose the HSA to scientific scrutiny which is also a requirement of the scientific method. Society can only progress if the public is able to have access to this information and then make our own decisions.

I have already done my due diligence in researching virology and have determined it is based on pseudoscience with origins in the abrahamic religions. Dr Lanka's court case confirms that in the court of law, viruses do not exist. The global human society needs to shed our reliance on such religious beliefs and religious behaviors including making breathing illegal, legalizing governmental coercion to take toxic poison drugs, preventing loved ones from visiting each other, and all of the COVID restrictions.

Humanity is better than this. We can overcome religion.

I urge the court to progress this case as this is pivotal for the progress of humanity.