It was cleverly played. Martin Vrijland published this morning that rechtspraak.nl had not published the ruling of restaurant Waku Waku. However, within 15 minutes of publishing that article, the website did an update and the ruling was suddenly there on the news page, but still not on the official case number publication page. Let me post a bit of my research I did prior to that publication:
Original article
The time has come vegan restaurant Waku Waku has a judge's ruling: close or QR code check. Oh yeah and another thing: Waku Waku will not appeal. Why not? Because it was a show trial, the judge is an actor and Saskia Belleman of the Telegraph is the Telegraph's hoax reporter who gets to sell it as a real trial. We are witnessing a collaborative game between the mainstream media and the controlled alternative media.
Let's take a look at the case law verdicts database: nothing to be found. Even the newsfeed of rechtspraak.nl says nothing at all about this rather important case (so now it does). Are the courts understaffed and unable to update the judgments in time? No, because a judgment of 30 September regarding another attempted restaurant closure in Nijmegen is listed:
Arnhem, September 30, 2021 The preliminary relief judge dismisses the request of grandcafé Moeke in Nijmegen for a preliminary injunction. The judge decides not to rule on the substance of the order to close the grand café, because the order has been lifted and the grand café is open again.
Update 15 minutes later
And then I did a similar search 15 minutes later and so suddenly the statement was on the news page, but not on the statements page. Remarkable fact:
At the time of writing, the ruling is still not listed as an official ruling including case number!
Very remarkable. Indeed, this confirms the suspicion that we are dealing with a show trial, as we have often seen in the media. Thesis of the day:
You have been fooled with a show judge and a show ruling. Hence, Waku Waku is not appealing either
We are being fooled on a grand scale by actors of the state to help bring about the following:
- You must have protest leaders leading your action so that the police have a point of contact and you dance neatly within the state's frameworks;
- You must feel that your case will be closed if you are in opposition;
- You must play everything neatly through the courts.
Conclusion
What is the conclusion we can draw from this? The conclusion is that the state has rigged its controlled opposition game through a restaurant that was supposed to serve as a role model, controlled opposition leaders who pretend to help you and a fake trial and a fake ruling that is supposed to give the feeling that you will be shut down and stay shut down if you don't listen.
Well, the judge does look official, the hearing does look official, but the verdict so far really does not seem to be recorded. The suspicion of a show trial arises; a show trial designed to force the rest of the country into line. You can do that if you work with your own rigged resistance that acquiesces to the ruling. You hear the "judge" himself say it: there will be no appeal (see below).
Do resist: see through the fake opposition game
The art of resisting is to not apply for permits, not give advance notice of what you are going to do, not invite a (fake) resistance leader who communicates with the police, and simply not cooperate.
Courts speak outrageously false law in violation of the Constitution. The legal profession is silent because they too swear allegiance to the crown and lose their license if they criticize. It is war and we must do without the official channels and agencies that all swear allegiance to the crown rather than to the people. So in this case there seems to be a fake trial.
There is only one rule that applies from now on and that is: the emperor has no clothes on. The legislature shows itself fascist and the signature of every law is put by the king. Thus, the king has ultimate responsibility and power. However, that power is based on an assumption, namely, the assumption of God's grace. As long as that grace God's cannot be shown to you, you have the right to ignore laws and measures if you feel they are contrary to humanity.
Why do the laws and measures violate humanity? Because they are based on a lie, namely the contagion lie. Its detailed explanation can be found in this article. We have been fooled!
Source link entries: rtlnieuws.co.uk
Please note that the articles on this site are widely shared. It is the social media APIs that block the counters below. Keep sharing, you are not alone. Be wary of state agents; the Pied Pipers of Hamelin.
12 Comments
And William the angel stood by and watched as the hired audience was neatly disposed of....
Yep. And Mordechai, Anna Zeven, Tinus Koops, Frank Ruesink, Jorna Luka..... each time the same boosters of this Theater. The yellow tassels and heart people are real, mind you. Not actors. Stupidly gullible. Are now 10,000s who blindly "follow the new normal leaders" (aka controlled alternative opposition).
Moreover, the courts may not test against the Constitution, this was abolished in 1983 with I think Art 120 Criminal Law. So I answer only to the original creator. The rest is puppetry
"Judges in the Netherlands are prohibited from testing laws against the Constitution."
https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/rechters-moeten-wetten-kunnen-toetsen-aan-de-grondwet~b8a9d7cb/
Idd in a democracy (trias politica) a Constitutional Court would have this role cq. responsibility and there is none here. In addition, judges can also just be members of a political party, where is the separation of powers?
What is interesting and what may not have been discussed or researched until now is the issue of the so-called pledge/eed of allegiance to willem or however that formula is what is used.
1. The question is where does it begin and end, what are the limits to the oath/promise for a citizen of this country?
2. What does the oath/promise entail? What is the need for the oath/sworn?
3. What rights/human rights limit that oath/promise? Does the oath/promise then automatically expire?
4. Is there any voluntariness on the part of the one taking the oath/sworn? After all, without taking that oath/vow, you don't get appointed
by willlem or don't get a job?
5. Is the oath valid now that it is administered to a person not elected by the people and the fact that there is no regulation
in this country to vote willem out?
6. Shouldn't the oath/promise actually be better taken to the people rather than to someone who is not elected?
7. How can the people check willem on his loyalty/promise to the people or should the people just automatically assume that?
8 And if willem would not keep his promise/sworn oath to the people how can he be held accountable for that and in what way?
be held accountable?
Etc.
Food for thought for the readers of this site. Perhaps you could devote an article to it Martin. "Legal scholars" may also respond to my comment , if given permission.
Ok, I have experience with court cases, both in the court and the Division of the Council of State, and this is not how things normally go idd.
And this certainlyrr does not qualify as a judicial decision
In other words: restaurant owners you can just stay open
Operation Waku waku, how do they come up with it. Has Rob Fruithof made a statement yet?
Yes, interesting what the legal tenability of the current schnizzle is. Just for fun. Constitution broken, Hippocratic oath no longer applicable. Well, and Bryan Roy is no longer allowed to tweet. It will just be the last few days.
Virus Truth:
IT IS NEVER TOO LATE : see comment on twitter by Sann Puursann
Martin Vrijland
@MartinVrijland
Restaurant owners you can just stay open until the BOA, uncle cop or judge shows you the case number and ruling on paper. There is none at the moment. #wakuwaku
Restaurant Waku Waku closure court controlled opposition game!
It was cleverly played. Martin Vrijland published this morning that rechtspraak.nl had not published the ruling of restaurant Waku Waku. Within 15 minutes of publishing that article, the...
martinvrijland.nl
4:08 p.m. - Oct. 1, 2021-Twitter Web App
9
Retweets
17
Likes
More Tweets
Sann Puursann
@RecourtSann
-
22 u
My parents!!! ( 73 and 74) are awake!!!
My father: Sorry for all the uncomfortable conversations last time.... You were right in everything, but we could not imagine that the government and government would not have our best interests at heart, We read up 💃🙏