EMAIL PRESS RELEASE 03 March 2022
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Notice of liability and acknowledgement of policy update.
Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal
Firstly, I Katherine, Secretary General would like to clarify that we acknowledge the policy
update that Anglo American has Ended the vaccine policy.I would also like to bring to everyone attention that a meeting was held on the January 26th 2022 between brother-thomas Sa Jural Assembly, Advocate Sabelo Sibanda part of United Peoples Front and myself as Secretary General of the Yes Movement with the Legal Head of Anglo American Mine SA, Fiona Edmundson who is part of the Vaccine Committee.
Fiona Edmundson stated that there is no mandatory Anglo American policy on vaccinations.
There was a consultation process underway of which the Yes Movement, SA Jural Assembly
and United Peoples Front are part of; that the comments will be closed on the 11th of
February 2022 and the results of the consultation process will be handed to government at
the end of February. I Katherine, Secretary General of the yes movement would like to state
that we had no correspondence nor feedback from Fiona Edmunds regarding the
consultation process nor where we included in any discussions, however one cannot do a
consultation based on lies and willful ignorance when the essence is to ascertain the truth;
therefore, you are legally, lawfully and morally obligated to first ascertain the truth of the
matter BEFORE a consultation process can be done; therefore, the notice of liability that was served on the 08 December 2021 via email and witnessed, by tacit agreement, stands; continue at your own risk.
Take note mandatory vaccination is forbidden under section 45E Public Health (Control of
Disease) Act 1984, which forbids regulations requiring a person to undergo medical
treatment, which includes vaccination.
Mandatory vaccination laws presently don’t exist. So, any measure carried out that
effectively coerces people to be vaccinated is illegal and any government official doing so
needs to be held accountable. Even if mandatory vaccination laws are legislated, such are
likely unconstitutional and should be struck down.
Private institutions must respect constitutional rights.
The constitutional prescription that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law or be denied the equal protection of laws is applicable to all and
the responsibility of all.That responsibility has been further legislated specifically in the Civil
Code, particularly Article 19 (every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due), Article 20 (every person
who causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same), and Article 26
(every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons).
The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs or other personal condition.
Then there is Article 32: Any public officer or employer or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages, which includes: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention; the right against deprivation of property without due process of law; the right to the equal protection of the laws; the right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; the liberty of abode and of changing the same; the right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
Hence, why the Department of Labor was quite correct in reminding all that: “any employee
who refuses or fails to be vaccinated shall not be discriminated against in terms of tenure,
promotion, training, pay, and other benefits, among others, or terminated from employment.
No vaccine, no work policy shall not be allowed” (Labor Advisory 03; S. 2021).
Employers can’t require Covid-19 vaccination under an EUA – STAT
Compulsory vaccination is an interference with the human right of bodily integrity, which is a
part of the right to private life enshrined in the Universal Declaratiocn of Human Rights as well
as in the European Convention on Human Rights.
By subjecting employees to this experiment you are in violation and in breach of;
Breach of contract
Requiring your employees to be vaccinated without their express agreement could
amount to a repudiatory breach of contract, entitling them to claim constructive dismissal.
Any employer attempting to apply unlawful coercion and intimidation tactics and metus to
force its employees into conceding to accepting an experimental injection that contravenes
their inalienable rights on grounds of bodily integrity as per the Bill of Rights Section 9.
Equality, s.10 Human Dignity, s.11 Life and s. 12 Freedom and Security of the person,
specifically s.12.2.c; Furthermore, section 9, 10, 11 and 12.2(c) are all non-derogable rights
and cannot be taken away by any agency of state or legislation without one’s express and
informed and written consent:
Mining principals Free, Prior and Informed ConsentThe Merriam Webster Dictionary defines informed consent as: “consent to surgery by a patient or to participation in a medical experiment by a subject after achieving an understanding of what is involved.”
And, the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land and anything contrary is illegal, unlawful
and therefore null and void.
Anglo American MHSA Policy Section 83
83. No discrimination against employees who exercise rights
1) No person may discriminate against any employee for exercising a right in terms of this
Act or in terms of a collective agreement contemplated in this Act; doing anything that the
employee is entitled to do in terms of this Act or in terms of a collective agreement
contemplated in this Act; refusing to do anything that the employee is entitled to refuse to do
in terms of this Act or in terms of a collective agreement contemplated in this Act; refusing to
do anything that the employee is prohibited from doing in terms of this Act or in terms of a
collective agreement contemplated in this Act; and standing for election, or performing any
function, as a health and safety representative or a member of a health and safety
2) For the purposes of this section-“discriminate” means to dismiss an employee or to engage
in any other conduct which has the effect of prejudicing or disadvantaging the employee, or
which prejudices or disadvantages the employee relative to other employees; and
“employee” includes any applicant for employment who has previously been employed at a
If you choose to ignore this statement of truth, it would mean that Anglo American South
Africa CEOs and board directors have chosen to go against its very own rules and policys
and the principals of human rights.
Rule 92. Mutilation, medical or scientific experiments or any other medical
procedure not indicated by the state of health of the person concerned and
not consistent with generally accepted medical standards are prohibited.
1. The prohibition of mutilation was already recognized in the Lieber Code. Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits “mutilation” of civilians and persons hors
de combat. Mutilation is also prohibited by specific provisions of the Third and
Fourth Geneva Conventions. In addition, the prohibition of mutilation is recognized
as a fundamental guarantee for civilians and persons hors de combat by Additional
Protocols I and II. Mutilation constitutes a war crime in both international and
non-international armed conflicts under the Statute of the International Criminal
Court. It is also recognized as a war crime in non-international armed conflicts under
the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and of the Special Court
for Sierra Leone.“Biological experiments” are prohibited by the First and Second
Geneva Conventions, while the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions prohibit
“medical or scientific experiments” not justified by the medical treatment of the person concerned. Conducting “biological experiments” on persons protected
under the Geneva Conventions is a grave breach and a war crime under the Statutes
of the International Criminal Court and of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia. Additional Protocol I prohibits “medical or scientific
experiments”. In the Brandt (The Medical Trial) case in 1947, the US Military Tribunal
at Nuremberg convicted 16 persons of carrying out medical experiments on prisoners
of war and civilians.
2. Additional Protocol I also prohibits “any medical procedure which is not indicated by
the state of health of the person concerned and which is not consistent with generally
accepted medical standards” and makes it a grave breach of the Protocol if the
medical procedure undertaken seriously endangers the physical or mental health or
integrity of the person concerned. Additional Protocol II contains the same
prohibition with respect to persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the
armed conflict.Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, subjecting
persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to “medical or scientific
experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital
treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which
cause death or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons” constitutes a
war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
3. Numerous military manuals specify the prohibition of physical mutilation, medical or
scientific experiments or any other medical procedure not indicated by the state of
health of the patient and not consistent with generally accepted medical
standards. The prohibition is also found extensively in national legislation.
4. Most international instruments, official statements and case-law relating to war crimes
refer to this prohibition without making any specific mention of a possible exception if
the detained person consented to the procedure. The issue was discussed during
the negotiation of the Elements of Crimes for the International Criminal Court. The
conference came to the conclusion that the prohibition was absolute, as a detained
person cannot validly give consent.
5. The prohibition of mutilation is not expressed in such terms in human rights treaties but
would be covered by the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, from which no derogation is permissible. As regards the
prohibition of medical or scientific experiments, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights expressly includes this in its non-derogable Article 7, which prohibits
torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The UN Human
Rights Committee, in its General Comment on Article 7, specifies that special
protection against such experiments is necessary in the case of persons not capable
of giving valid consent, in particular those under any form of detention or
imprisonment. The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by consensus by the UN General
Assembly, prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. The UN Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment on Article
7, specifies that special protection against such experiments is necessary in the case of
persons not capable of giving valid consent, in particular those under any form of
detention or imprisonment. The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by consensus by the UN
General Assembly, prohibits medical or scientific experimentation which may be
detrimental to health, even with the detainee’s consent. The European Court of
Human Rights has held that those medical measures taken in relation to a detainee
that are dictated by therapeutic necessity cannot be regarded as inhuman or
 Lieber Code, Article 56 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 32, § 1423).
 Geneva Conventions, common Article 3 (ibid., § 1407).
 Third Geneva Convention, Article 13 (ibid., § 1410); Fourth Geneva Convention,
Article 32 (ibid., § 1412).
 Additional Protocol I, Article 75(2) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 1414);
Additional Protocol II, Article 4(2) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 1418).
 ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(x) and (e)(xi) (ibid., § 1421).
 ICTR Statute, Article 4(a) (ibid., § 1427); Statute of the Special Court for Sierra
Leone, Article 3 (ibid., § 1422).
 First Geneva Convention, Article 12 (ibid., § 1408); Second Geneva Convention,
Article 12 (ibid., § 1409); Third Geneva Convention, Article 13 (ibid., § 1410); Fourth
Geneva Convention, Article 32 (ibid., § 1411).
 ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(a)(ii) (ibid., § 1420); ICTY Statute, Article 2(b) (ibid., § 1426).
 Additional Protocol I, Article 11(2) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 1413).
 United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, In re Brandt and Others (The
Medical Trial) (ibid., § 1538).
 Additional Protocol I, Article 11(1) and (4) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 1413).
 Additional Protocol II, Article 5(2)(e) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 1419).
 ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(x) and (e)(xi) (ibid., § 1421).
 See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 1432–1433), Australia (ibid.,
§§ 1434–1435), Belgium (ibid., § 1436), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 1437), Burkina
Faso (ibid., § 1438), Canada (ibid., § 1439), Ecuador (ibid., § 1440), France (ibid., §§
1441–1443), Germany (ibid., § 1444), Israel (ibid., § 1445), Italy (ibid., § 1446), Morocco
(ibid., § 1447), Netherlands (ibid., § 1448), New Zealand (ibid., § 1449), Nigeria (ibid.,
§§ 1450–1451), Russian Federation (ibid., § 1452), Senegal (ibid., §§ 1453–1454), South
Africa (ibid., § 1455), Spain (ibid., § 1456), Sweden, (ibid., § 1457), Switzerland (ibid., §
1458), United Kingdom (ibid., §§ 1459–1460) and United States (ibid., §§ 1461–1464).
 See, e.g., the legislation (ibid., §§ 1465–1533). See First Geneva Convention,
Article 50 (ibid., § 1408); Second Geneva Convention, Article 51 (ibid., § 1409); Third
Geneva Convention, Article 130 (ibid., § 1410); Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 147
(ibid., § 1411); Additional Protocol I, Articles 11 and 85 (adopted by consensus) (ibid.,
§§ 1413 and 1415); ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(a)(ii), (b)(x) and (e)(xi) (ibid., §§
1420–1421); Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Article 3 (ibid., § 1422);
United States, Concurrent resolution of the Congress (ibid., § 1543); Chile, Appeal
Court of Santiago, Videla Case (ibid., § 1534); Poland, Supreme National Tribunal atPoznan, Hoess trial (ibid., § 1536); United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Milch
case (ibid., § 1537) and Brandt (The Medical Trial) case (ibid., § 1538); United States,
Court of Military Appeals, Schultz case (ibid., § 1539).
 Elements of Crimes for the ICC, Definition of physical mutilation or medical or
scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or
hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, as
war crimes (Footnote 46 relating to Article 8(2)(b)(x) and Footnote 68 relating to
Article 8(2)(e)(xi) of the ICC Statute).
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7 (cited in Vol. II, Ch.
32, § 1412).
 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 (Article 7 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (ibid., § 1549).
 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, Principle 22 (ibid., § 1424).
 European Court of Human Rights, Herczegfalvy v. Austria (ibid., § 1550). The Court
held that forcible administration of food and drugs to a violent and mentally ill patient
on hunger strike was not a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human
The legal and lawful notice of liability may be used as evidence in court if
needed and is intended to enlighten you and protect you from attracting civil
and criminal liability, whether domestic or international and whether in an
existing court or one to be convened under Natural Law principles, in relation
to your action(s) and all your omissions in relation to the alleged SARS-CoV-2
pandemic and the measures that have been/are being taken within this
country and world-wide to control its alleged spread and effect(s) including,
but not limited to, terrorizing the population for a political agenda to facilitate
the administration of experimental COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 mRNA/modRNA
gene therapies/chemical Bio-weapon injections / (and or viral vector
The individual/corporation, company or personal will be held personally liable
for and/or privately liable for and/or civilly and/or criminally liable for
participating in unlawful, illegal and/or criminal activity and/or for supporting
crimes against humanity, murder, genocide, terrorism, bio-warfare and/or
failing to prevent acts so defined, including but not limited to acts that are
purposely committed as part of a widespread depopulation agenda/or
systematic political, ideological policy, directed against the environment, living
men, women and children.
Pfizer has dropped 10,000 documents after being Court Ordered to do so. PFIZER MARCH 1 DOCUMENTS
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the FDA must by the end of this month
make public 12,000 pages of the data it used to make decisions about
approvals for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine — and then release 55,000
pages every 30 days after that until all 450,000 requested pages are public.
The request for FDA’s Pfizer/BioNTech data flows from an August 2021 Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request from the nonprofit group Public Health and
Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).
It is written, “No man is ignorant of God’s Law” (Maxim). The Scripture saith,
“There is one lawgiver (James 4:12). The Lord is our lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22).” It is
also written in your law, “We are all bound to our lawgiver, regardless of our
personal interpretation of reality (Maxim). Legality is not reality” (Maxim). The
reality is what God says it is, not what your perception of it is. It is also written in
your law, “There is no fiction without law. Fictions arise from the law, and not law
from fictions” (Maxim).
By what authority are you doing these things?” “And who gave you this authority?” Mark 11:28
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and
those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct,
but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do
what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your
good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For
he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the
wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath
but also for the sake of conscience. …
Kindly refer to the attached Mandamus to COURTS OF SA, a Notice to the President of RSA Inc., SA Cease & Desist Order to the UN, Notice & Order to the SANDF, Notice & Order to SAPS and the Notice and Cease & Desist Order to World Bank & SA National Treasury in support of this Notice & Order for WHO and RSA Inc. Health Department to Cease and Desist.
The people shall govern.
Govern yourselves accordingly; By Order.
END OF STATEMENT
First Secretary General