New Zealand authorities wrote that it is only with "considerable effort" and "with expert knowledge" that they "believe"...., that sounds like lawyer's gobbledygook. Why did they not write that they "are certain" or that "there is no doubt" instead of they "believe"?
May the judge take into account that Barry disclosed that information in…
New Zealand authorities wrote that it is only with "considerable effort" and "with expert knowledge" that they "believe"...., that sounds like lawyer's gobbledygook. Why did they not write that they "are certain" or that "there is no doubt" instead of they "believe"?
May the judge take into account that Barry disclosed that information in order to protect lives and so that people would not be harmed much longer by ill-fated mRNA gene therapies. If the data Barry disclosed shows that people got harmed by mRNA gene therapies, then it was his duty to inform the public.
I imagine this "considerable effort" that one would have to make like having the death certificate of a diseased individual in New Zealand, and then figuring out with "technical expert knowledge" how to match this particular death certificate with one particular anonymized data set. And even then it may not be possible to know for sure that that particular death certificate matches that particular data set. Was it not the case that the data set did not include ALL citizens, only a particular percentage of them? Then how could one possibly know for sure that one particular death certificate matches one particular deceased person? One could perhaps say "one is almost certain" that this death certificate matches this particular person.
I hope the judge will take into account the unlikelyhood/impossiblity of such data breach actually occurring.
A judge with ethics should be able to comprehend that Barry is a man who follows higher ethical values.
New Zealand authorities wrote that it is only with "considerable effort" and "with expert knowledge" that they "believe"...., that sounds like lawyer's gobbledygook. Why did they not write that they "are certain" or that "there is no doubt" instead of they "believe"?
May the judge take into account that Barry disclosed that information in order to protect lives and so that people would not be harmed much longer by ill-fated mRNA gene therapies. If the data Barry disclosed shows that people got harmed by mRNA gene therapies, then it was his duty to inform the public.
I imagine this "considerable effort" that one would have to make like having the death certificate of a diseased individual in New Zealand, and then figuring out with "technical expert knowledge" how to match this particular death certificate with one particular anonymized data set. And even then it may not be possible to know for sure that that particular death certificate matches that particular data set. Was it not the case that the data set did not include ALL citizens, only a particular percentage of them? Then how could one possibly know for sure that one particular death certificate matches one particular deceased person? One could perhaps say "one is almost certain" that this death certificate matches this particular person.
I hope the judge will take into account the unlikelyhood/impossiblity of such data breach actually occurring.
A judge with ethics should be able to comprehend that Barry is a man who follows higher ethical values.