An article by Attorney at Law Viviane Fischer
The civil lawsuits of Pascal Najadi and Ana McCarthy against Pfizer Inc. before the New York “Supreme Court” are not being pursued professionally, according to the documents now available to me. Whether they have any chance of success is more than questionable.
On May 3, 2023, Najadi announced on his former, now blocked Twitter channel that he had already won the case in New York at the Supreme Court. Well no, this is not true.
First of all: “Supreme Court” is surprisingly the name of the court of first instance in New York, i.e. the German district or county court; it is by no means the highest instance for civil cases in the state of New York, as one might have assumed in view of the name. One might have wondered anyway how Najadi could have brought his lawsuit so quickly to a supreme court without having gone through the courts of appeal. This mystery has now been solved. The lawsuits were simply filed with the U.S. equivalent of a district or county court, where there is apparently no requirement to be represented by an attorney.
Contrary to Najadi’s and McCarthy’s public representations, the court files for the civil lawsuits are not “sealed.” The files could be inspected and copied in their entirety at the archive of the Supreme Court in New York without difficulty by a U.S. attorney retained by 2020News. The inspection took place on May 12, 2023, and the attorney was handed more than 700 pages. We had the entire court files – including duplicates – copied. I have an official letter of representation from the attorney regarding the completeness of all copied and transferred documents (as of May 12, 2023).
McCarthy had indicated in our email correspondence that she did not know why the judge had “sealed the files for 90 days.” But she had at the same time made it sound as if the lawsuits had been sealed because McCarthy had reportedly been threatened by phone by the U.S. Department of Justice and got contacted and taunted by agency via direct message on Twitter. In addition, she had alledgly also received threats via social media from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and DARPA, the Pentagon’s investment arm. One family member had been threatened with a gun to the head – probably in this context, she said. “Approximately 58 restraining orders” have been filed, McCarthy tells me in the same email; it is not made clear against whom they are directed. Najadi has publicly stated that he is under police protection. If the two do indeed enjoy police protection, it can hardly be because of their civil lawsuits in New York. Neither is there even a single police protection order in the court files, nor any of the 58 restraining orders, neither is there any corresponding explosiveness in the lawsuits filed. All the facts presented in them are public knowledge. Most of the documents submitted circulate freely on the web.
If there is a 90- or 91-day deadline at all, it may refer to a service of process requirement. On May 4, 2023, Najadi tweeted that the lawsuit, index number 100197/2023, must be “served” to the defendant in New York within 91 days. However, nothing can be gleaned from the record in this regard either.
The May 4, 2023 tweet names the Law Offices of Davis Polk as counsel of record for Pfizer Inc. However, as of May 12, 2023, no attorneys at all have appointed themselves for Pfizer in lawsuit 100197/2023, according to the court records. An anticipatory self-appointment of a major U.S. law firm at random without prior service of process on Pfizer would be a very remarkable occurrence. In the court file, after a lengthy search, the name of the alleged Pfizer representative is found as McCarthy’s own statement. She herself put this name on a form and also wrote to the law firm in the matter, a copy of her email is attached to the file. Attorneys from the law firm of Davis Polk & Waldwell LLP had been appointed in the lawsuit 101048/2022, which McCarthy initiated in the New York Supreme Court on November 4, 2022. Perhaps McCarthy had simply assumed that the law firm would also be retained for lawsuit 100197/2023.
The wording in the above tweet “at this stage, the instruction from the assigned judge is to award damages to Mr. Najadi” is puzzling, or at least misleading. Should it possibly read “instruction to the assigned judge”? But how could Najadi or McCarthy give legally binding instructions to a New York court? No such instruction emanating from the judge is found in the record.
Najadi and McCarthy also address in the above post a shift in the burden of proof that alledgly has occurred: “The burden of proof is on the defendant.” This is not true as a general statement. In the U.S., too, the plaintiff must first prove his damages and the acts of harm. Only when, for example, a gross medical error has been established in a medical malpractice suit can the burden of proof be reversed, in which case the doctor must prove that his error did not cause the damage that occurred. Without evidence of the acts of harm, even in the U.S., a court does not automatically presume a shift in the burden of proof, especially at a time when the lawsuit has not even been served, so the opposing party has not had an opportunity to present evidence to exonerate himself.
As shown in the court filings, Najadi and/or McCarthy were not only unrepresented by counsel when filing the lawsuit in the U.S. in November 2022 (lawsuit 101048/2022) and March 2023 (lawsuit 100197/2023), respectively. Despite the high legal fees allegedly already incurred (over US$100,000, as McCarthy stated in an email to me), not a single letter written by a lawyer on their behalf can be found in the files, even in the further course of the lawsuits. According to file notes, court fees have been paid. It is not noted in what amount this was done. According to the official list of court fees, only small fees are charged for the various procedural acts, e.g. US$ 210 for obtaining the index number, US$ 95 for the request of judicial intervention, and US$ 45 for further procedural motions. The fees paid by McCarthy for the procedural acts performed in all the lawsuits known to me probably amount to a maximum of a few US$ 1000. For what do Najadi and McCarthy then want the US$ 500,000 in donations they are asking for? For “legal fees” of “lawyers”, as Najadi writes in his post below, who do not write any pleadings for their clients? Or are there other lawsuits that the two are “successfully” pursuing in New York? If so, why doesn’t Najadi cite their index numbers? Our research did not reveal any lawsuits other than those already known.
In any case, if there are appointed attorneys, they leave their clients out in the cold when communicating with the court.
McCarthy, who according to her own statement in the court documents is a certified translator of Spanish-English legal texts, submitted all of the procedural motions in handwritten form. In some cases, the handwriting is difficult to read.
In the complaint for Index Number 100197/2023, McCarthy states for the item “Describe what you are asking the court to do,” “(Determine, editor’s addition) if Pfizer Inc violated United States laws and to notify the FDA of Pfizer’s violations in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, where their product is promoted as „this vaccination is safe and very high quality“ (Twitter André Simonazzi@BrSprecher@BrSprecher, Alain Berset 6/15/21 – Corona vaccine is effective)…. I should be granted this motion because in doing so Pfizer is violating Federal orders and the vaccine passports constitute a violation of the Federal US orders as the purpose of the passports is to restrict citizens, unvaccinated, and therefore making the vaccine (COVID-19) mandatory. Making the Pfizer Inc COVID-19 vaccine mandatory, when Pfizer is a United States Coporation based in New York (State/Federal) and therefore Pfizer Vaccine Mandates is a violation of Federal Orders/State as only CMS workers (health care workers, editor’s note) are mandated.”
Elsewhere in the handwritten motion brief, McCarthy states that she is requesting: “For Pfizer Inc to stop advertising of their product, the aggressive advertisement, false advertisement, and mandates that violate the Federal Court Orders in place in the United States and per the attached evidence and administrative decision of PMCPA (more on that entity in a moment, editor’s note).”
Where is the claim for damages for Najadi here, which is what the two plaintiffs allege the lawsuits are all about, according to their public representations?
The court filings otherwise consist primarily of an accumulation of pleadings from other court or regulatory proceedings and a complaint procedure with a pharmaceutical industry self-regulatory body in England.
Filed is the criminal complaint of Najadi in Switzerland together with supplementary letters as well as communication with the Swiss Federal Prosecutor’s Office in German with English and Spanish translations. The largest extent in the court file to index number 100197/2023 takes up the 301 sides strong criminal complaint of attorney Philipp Kruse against Swissmedic. This must have been downloaded in the original from the web page www.corona-complaint.ch, on which the Kanzlei Kruse Law made the complaint available to the public in a DeepL translation in English language.
The contents of the court file for lawsuit 100197/2022 also include a complaint filed by UsForThem, the British equivalent of the German organization “Parents Stand Up”, with a pharmaceutical industry-appointed mediation service. UsforThem had obtained that an “industry-appointed appeals panel upheld the PMCPA’s initial determination ” that “Dr. Bourla’s statements about vaccinating 5- to 11-year-olds contained promotional claims and were both misleading and inadequately substantiated with respect to the safety of vaccinating this age group.”
The PMCPA, which is spelled out as “The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority,” is a private sector self-regulatory organization of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), a limited company based in Wales.
McCarthy refers to the PMCPA in her complaint as an “administrative agency,” and appears to be under the misconception that the private sector pharmaceutical lobbying organization is part of the U.K. executive branch.
Accordingly, UsForThem complain in their analysis of the decision that the industry association’s correct statement about the misinformation on childhood vaccination in England ultimately has no legal implications for Pfizer. At most, Pfizer would have to pay a small fee for conducting the complaint process with the PMCPA.
A direct connection between the overall UsForThem litigation with the PMCPA and Najadi’s publicly expressed claim for damages for himself – and not for a child – in the USA is not apparent.
A realistic claim by Najadi for damages in the U.S. would have to overcome a variety of legal hurdles: As a Swiss and British citizen, does Najadi even have standing to sue in the U.S.? Can he successfully assert liability against the parent company in the USA or is he possibly required to turn to the Swiss subsidiary? Can he prove causality of his damages with the vaccine doses administered? Do his damages match the damage potential of the so-called “vaccinations”? Nothing has been presented on all this.
The only place where information about possible damages of Najadi is found is the attached criminal complaint against Alain Berset in Switzerland. Najadi writes in it: “Since the substances in question also contain lipid nanoparticles, which are officially classified internationally as a poison, it has also been proven that the bodily harm to me and to numerous Swiss people has been carried out in a qualified manner with a poison…. Aggravating and for me psychologically very stressful is the fact that the reporting in the available media about severe side effects and about the impairment of the immune system by the COVID-19 vaccination increases daily. Thus, I have not been able to sleep peacefully for weeks out of concern for my own health and that of my wife and mother… Another source of serious concern for me is the evidence of adverse effects that is publicly available in the criminal complaint filed by six injured parties against Swissmedic, which was published on November 14, 2022, as mentioned earlier. The reports of the aggrieved parties are readily available from the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland at: www.corona-anzeige.ch“. Under the heading “Reservation of Damages and Satisfaction,” Najadi adds, “Should I or my wife or mother suffer any actual physical harm in the future as a result of being injected with Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine (BioNTech preparation), I expressly reserve all rights to damages and satisfaction.”
This sounds as if, as of the filing date of the U.S. lawsuit on March 6, 2023, Najadi had not yet suffered any demonstrable harm from the three “vaccine” doses applied to him, except for (more than understandable) worry and lack of sleep. Najadi’s public statements had given me the impression that he was already suffering very manifest physical damage. It would be very pleasing, if there should be no severe vaccination consequences with Najadi. In this case, however, it could be that the clear proof of causality will be legally challenging, especially in view of the still uncritical attitude of most judges towards the efficacy and absence of side effects of the “vaccinations”.
What can be said now about the chances of success of the lawsuits?
McCarthy has already filed a lawsuit on her own behalf against Pfizer Inc. at an earlier time. She was without legal representation then, too. In the lawsuit, she makes the case that Pfizer Inc. is disobeying an order of the Supreme Court of Panama by refusing to recall the COVID 19 “vaccine” in Panama. This action was dismissed by the judge in charge of the case in extraordinarily clear terms as an abuse of rights. She used such strong words that a US-American lawyer colleague said she had never seen such a clear rejection of a claim in her many years of practicing law. Justice Katherine Polk Failla, in her November 14, 2022 decision, wrote : “A claim is frivolous (i.e., abusive of rights, ed. note) if it has ‘no arguable basis in law or fact.'”…. see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (noting that “a finding of factual frivolity is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the outright incredible”); … district courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff (plaintiff without attorney representation, Editor’s Note) leave to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required if it would be futile…. Because the defects in plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured by amendment, the court declines to grant plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses the complaint as frivolous.”
The judge states that “[t]o satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact-[her] pleading and proof that [she] suffered the ‘injury to a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and that ‘affects the plaintiff in a personal and individualized way.'”…. In general, an injury-in-fact “must be concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”…. In her complaint, the plaintiff does not explain what injury she suffered as a result of the defendant’s alleged conduct.”
In her concluding remarks, Justice Polk Fialla even refuses to consider possible legal remedies with regard to the complaint. She writes: “The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for purposes of appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (finding that an appellant is of good faith when seeking review of a matter that is not an abuse of rights). The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case.”
When McCarthy nonetheless appeals the order of dismissal, a note as of December 13, 2022 is found in the New York Supreme Court’s electronic docket: “Plaintiff’s supplemental declarations, many of which do not appear to relate to the allegations contained in the complaint… , do not alter the Court’s assessment that this case is frivolous and that Plaintiff lacks standing. In any event, Plaintiff now appears to be indicating that she wishes to “withdraw” her complaint in this matter, even though the Court has already dismissed this case. Accordingly, this case remains closed. The court will not consider any further correspondence from the plaintiff that is unrelated to the allegations in the complaint.”
Meanwhile, the case is before the appropriate appellate court, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Appellant McCarthy remains unrepresented by counsel. The Appeals court has again rejected the case as frivolous this time with warning of penalties should plaintiffs attempt to further appeal or resurrect the matter.
Case 101048/2022, filed on November 4, 2022, again has as its subject the Panama Supreme Court decision so indignantly rejected by Judge Polk Fialla. The question here is whether it is even possible to file a lawsuit again in the same matter. This would not be possible in Germany. The decision of the Supreme Court of Panama is not attached to the complaint, although it is listed as Appendix A. Judge Polk Fialla had stated in her reasons for the decision that the ruling from Panama proved the opposite of what McCarthy had claimed. For final clarification of whether the cases are indeed identical, it would now be necessary to inspect the court file of the dismissed claim from the Southern District. Irrespective of the question of which Panama decision is now the exact subject of the lawsuit, McCarthy again does not allege any damage caused by Pfizer, so that this lawsuit should also be rejected on the basis of the criteria set out by Judge Polk Fialla. Najadi, it should be noted, is not even part of this lawsuit in the first place.
Since therefore also in the actions 100197/2023 and 101048/2022 the legal standing is questionable and in each case no concretely recognizable factual presentation of the liability of Pfizer Inc. has been made, it is to be feared that the new actions will also be dismissed as unfounded, possibly already as inadmissible.
On May 2, 2023, I published the article “Mr. Najadi, I have some questions” with the request for more detailed information regarding Najadi’s legal activities in Switzerland and the USA.
The very next day, Najadi confirmed via Twitter message that, contrary to his previous representation, the criminal charges in Switzerland are indeed not being prosecuted, but that in the meantime there has been a non-acceptance decision by the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland. In an article at Zentralplus on May 3, 2023, he then let it be known that he intended to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. The article probably gives an abbreviated account of Najadi’s legal activities in Switzerland. Najadi would first have to file a complaint in criminal matters with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (not the Federal Supreme Court). The Federal Criminal Court is the competent first instance in Switzerland for criminal proceedings against magistrates of the Swiss Confederation. In order to be able to appeal, another negative decision – this time by the Federal Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction in the first instance – would have needed to be issued in the meantime. The second instance would then indeed be the Federal Supreme Court. Here the further development remains to be seen.
In an email dated May 8, 2022, in which McCarthy cc’s me, she asks the recipient to obtain an injunction against me for my questions about the lawsuits in the U.S. that were allegedly “sealed for cause.” She writes that she has forwarded my press inquiry to the U.S. State Department and has retained an attorney in Israel. Are such communications intended to prevent further research into the matter? Does McCarthy herself believe so intensely in what she publicly proclaims – success of the lawsuits in New York that has already occurred, causality of the lawsuits for the lifting of the measures in the U.S. by Joe Biden, etc. – that this obscures her clear view of the facts? Does Najadi feel the same way?
It is astonishing that the well-known filmmaker (“Grounding – the last days of Swiss Air”) and former investment banker Najadi, the son of the murdered Swiss entrepreneur and politician Hussain Najadi, is involved in such a dubious legal process, for which he is also intensively seeking donations. According to the newspaper Handelszeitung, Pascal Najadi worked in various companies, for example together with Paul Dennison in Investment Advisors Zurich AG (IAZ AG) as well as in the management of the internationally operating AIAK Group founded by his father. Against this background, shouldn’t he know exactly how solidly managed legal disputes work? Why is he not represented by lawyers in New York but by the private person Ana McCarthy?
Little is currently known about McCarthy. She was first presented by Najadi (inaccurately) as a successful U.S. attorney, then she was touted as a legal prodigy who claimed to have helped write Panama’s constitution at a young age. In a Twitter podcast, she disclosed not being licensed to practice law in Panama either. As mentioned, according to self-reporting in court filings, she is probably licensed as a translator of legal texts. In Twitter posts, she speaks of her kinship relationship with a former president of Panama. She further mentions that her family was involved in the Odebrecht affair, a major corruption scandal involving contractor Odebrecht in Brazil, where they were deprived of large assets. Whether these allegations are true, I am not in a position to judge.
Apparently, however, McCarthy has also come to attention with abusive litigation activities in the U.S. even before the Corona crisis and independently of issues critical of the measures. In 2019, a lawsuit filed in New York’s Eastern District Court along the familiar lines by herself without attorney assistance and handwritten on form sheets, this time against the Republic of Panama, has also already been dismissed by the judge in charge, William Francis Kuntz II, as “frivolous,” i.e., abusive of the law. The judge wrote: “Plaintiff’s vague and inferential allegations of confiscated assets in 1941-1951 and destruction of property in 2013 and 2019 are insufficient to establish a “taking” in violation of international law…. Moreover, the Plaintiff cannot show that the unspecified property is either (1) present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on by Panama in the United States, or (2) owned or operated by a Panamanian agency or entity engaged in commercial activity in the United States.”
In another lawsuit filed in the New York Eastern District Court on December 2, 2022, seeking damages against various defendants for the alleged deprivation of lands in Panama, McCarthy unsuccessfully sought to have the records “sealed.” As to the course of the trial, it is noted that “The pro se plaintiff makes no argument to support her motion to have the case sealed. Generously construing the plaintiff’s allegations, the court assumes that the plaintiff fears that the lawsuit will jeopardize her safety and that of her family. This allegation is too speculative to overcome the great importance of public access to court documents.” On March 24, 2023, this lawsuit is also finally dismissed by Judge Ann M. Donnelly, noting “The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith because there are no non-law abuse issues to appeal.”
What the heck is going on here? Could Najadi have been taken in by a possibly cross-dressing permanent plaintiff who fooled him into thinking there was a chance of success in the U.S.? If so, how was this possible given his business experience? Or do the two collude in the intention to attract donations for a something or rather nothing of legal activity in the USA? Or do they simply please themselves in the role of seemingly being able to determine the fate of the world with lawsuits and criminal charges (ending the measures in Switzerland, England, the USA through the Swiss criminal charges and/or the New York lawsuits)?
It seems to me that the improbable comrades-in-arms Najadi and McCarthy have got themselves into something, whether in bad faith or in naivety remains to be seen.
