What is going on with the lawsuit against Pfizer Inc. in the NY Supreme Court? Is the criminal complaint in Switzerland against Alain Berset really being pursued by the Attorney General? Does Pascal Najadi really have something to do with termination of the pandemic state in the USA? Attorney at Law Viviane Fischer has questions and some answers.
Najadi filed a criminal complaint on December 13, 2022 against the acting Swiss President and Interior Minister Alain Berset for abuse of office. Najadi accuses Alain Berset of telling the untruth because, contrary to official findings from his own Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH; Virginie Masserey: “Even vaccinated people can pass on the virus.”), he made the statement in a live broadcast on Swiss television shortly before the vote on the introduction of the vaccination certificate: “With the certificate, you can show that you are not contagious.”
On February 6, 2023, Najadi claimed in an article at Global Research that the Attorney General’s Office had already opened a case against President Berset (“To everyone’s surprise, the Attorney General of Switzerland has decided to launch an investigation into the president – the first, of a sitting head of state – over their “vaccine” policies.”). However, this is not true.
On March 9, 2023, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland informed journalists, I cooperate with: “On the part of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland, we confirm the receipt of a criminal complaint in this connection. The criminal complaint is currently being examined by the Office of the Attorney General. As always, the presumption of innocence applies. However, we would like to state that the receipt of a criminal complaint is not the same as the opening of criminal proceedings. The examination of the criminal complaint by the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland will determine whether federal jurisdiction exists and whether there is sufficient suspicion (Art. 309 StPO). Based on this, either no criminal proceedings will be opened and a corresponding non-prosecution will be ordered (Art. 310 Criminal Procedure Code), criminal proceedings will be opened, or the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland may also forward the proceedings to another competent body, e.g. to a canton due to lack of federal jurisdiction.”
Najadi has repeatedly proclaimed publicly that it was his complaint that brought the pandemic and the mandates in Switzerland, Germany and England to a halt. A complaint that is still being examined by the authorities three months after it was received can not have had the extreme impact on the mandates that all other legal activities have not had. I do not know whether Najadi himself believes in a causality of his filing of charges for the end of the mandates or whether he only claims this because it sounds good.
Just as well or better, the end of the mandates could be tied to the 400-page criminal complaint filed by attorney Philipp Kruse in July 2022 against Swiss Medic, which, however, also did not result in the commencement of investigative work.
Najadi continues to make it sound as if U.S. President Joe Biden had to bow to a ruling he allegedly obtained in the New York Supreme Court when he signed H.J.Res.7, which heralded the end of the pandemic. On his new website, nmp.associates, Najadi has linked to the resolution under the heading “Positive Results.”
There you will find the cryptic wording, “The New York Supreme Court has ordered a plaintiff to notify a temporary restraining order (TRO). The NY SUPREME COURT and Pfizer Inc. have been notified of a TRO. April 10, 2023: President Biden terminated EO 14042 (the national emergency) TWO DAYS after notifying the NY SUPREME COURT.”
But there is no ruling at all ordering Joe Biden to end the national pandemic status, much less one obtained by Najadi. Accordingly, Joe Biden’s signature on H.J.Res. 7 has nothing to do with Najadi or with Ana McCarthy, who reportedly supports him.
Of McCarthy, Najadi initially claimed that she is a highly competent U.S. attorney. By her own account, however, she is a translator who studied law for a time and holds a license in Panama; what that license is remains unclear.
Najadi also adorns himself, among other things, in his Twitter podcast with the foreign feather, that his legal proceedings have ended SWISS AIR’s compulsory vaccination of its pilots. However, it is actually the lawyers Therese Hintermann and Philipp Kruse who have filed various lawsuits on behalf of Swiss flight personnel. Najadi is not involved in these lawsuits. Nor did he finance them. The vaccination ban on pilots has nothing to do with any verdicts, especially not with any that Najadi would have won.
McCarthy has filed several lawsuits on her own behalf, without legal representation, in New York against Pfizer Inc. to recover tort damages.
However, one of these lawsuits was dismissed by the court of the Southern District of New York on November 14, 2022, as “frivolous,” which in German legal terminology is best translated as “abusive of rights.” McCarthy lacks standing to sue, the court states. At a minimum, she would need a Panamanian plaintiff aggrieved by Pfizer’s disregard of the alleged Panamanian court order.
The law suit in which Najadi is alleged to be involved, and which he publicly names as the law suit for which he is seeking donations, was again brought by McCarthy in her own name.
Once again, she is not represented by a lawyer. Only a handwritten form for filing the lawsuit can be found on the Internet. When asked, Najadi and McCarthy did not want to provide any other documents – such as a statement of claim – than the status report from the court shown on their website. Nor did they provide any explanation as to how Najadi became a party to these court proceedings.
If one enters the name of Pascal Najadi as “plaintiff” n the search mask of the New York Supreme Court and ticks the box “No” under the item “Return only Cases with Future Appearances”, the information appears that no lawsuits are pending for this name. If you enter Pfizer as “defendant”, a whole list of legal disputes appears. So it is by no means the case that the lawsuits of McCarthy (and possibly Najadi) are the only ones against Pfizer Inc. But it is striking that McCarthy’s lawsuits are the only two without legal representation.
Najadi has now elaborated in a Twitter post that he needs US$500,000 for lawyers and unspecified expenses.
But what is half a million dollars needed for if McCarthy is not represented by lawyers at all? To this end, Najadi and McCarthy provide quite different information. Najadi states that he financed McCarthy’s move to the U.S. and now wants to recoup these moving costs through donations. He further told me that they had to hire lawyers to protect his and McCarthy’s names and reputations. McCarthy has told me that she has not yet recovered at least US$100,000 in legal fees from prior litigation. Are these possibly costs also for the proceedings that the New York court has just rejected as an abuse of rights? In any case, all this is not what Najadi and McCarthy communicate to the public. They are communicating there that supporters should fund the current lawsuit Index Number 100917/2023. It is unclear what costs were even incurred for the lawsuit, which was filed without an attorney.
Najadi and McCarthy claim that their lawsuit (which ever of the at least two active lawsuits this is now) has been “sealed” by the court for 90 days. This, they claim, is the reason they cannot produce documents. Najadi and McCarthy have publicly stated that they are under police protection because of threatening phone calls from the authorities. They have not provided proof that the documents were “sealed” or that the police protection was ordered by the court. I wonder why Najadi, despite his claimed endangerment, is currently speaking at events in front of hundreds of participants without his police protection being noticed.
And I also wonder why he and McCarthy should be the only two plaintiffs against Pfizer who are under police protection when, for example, in Germany, attorney Tobias Ulbrich is representing hundreds of COVID-19 vaccine victims against all vaccine manufacturers (Pfizer, Moderna, etc.) in court without any police protection and his plaintiffs are also apparently without police protection. I have also asked these questions of Najadi and McCarthy. They have not given me an answer.
I would like to publicly request Najadi and McCarthy to provide full transparency regarding their publicly presented legal activities, especially as far as they are accompanied by a call for donations. I currently have many more question marks than answers and will not be putting a full stopp behind this matter anytime soon.
