Legal Opinion: PEI Negligence of Duty

Re: the Negligence by the PEI not to investigate the Unusual Death statistics as it is directed to by law


Back to All Cases


This is a summary of the legal opinion of lawyer Frank Großenbach representing data analyst Tom Lausen and the arguments of Martin Sichert (MP) given in a press conference in the Bundestag 12th Dec 2022.

Full (in German) press conference -Dec 12 2022

English subtitled video of M Sichert’s introduction -Dec 12 2022

Link to lawyer Großenbach’s letter to the PEI detailing their obligation under law to investigate unexpected deaths. (in original German and English translation)

The conference concerned itself with results from the analysis of medical diagnostic code data obtained by M Sichert by an FOI requestto the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (BVK). This data base covers about 72 million anonymised patient diagnosticrecords from doctor visits in Germany.

Expert Lausen’s analysis clearly showed an alarming deviation (increase) in the numbers of deaths associated with typical indicator codes temporally associated with onset of vaccination with the Covid-19 vaccines. Additionally, increased frequencies of diagnoses of a range of illnesses were observed also in temporal association with onset of vaccinations.

Link to Tom Lausen’s presentation

Legal Opinion:

The opinion of Sichert, Lausen and their lawyer,Großenbach is that the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute is in clear breach of its duty under law to investigate the significant number of unexpected deaths identified by Lausen using the same data available from the BVK.

The Paul Ehrlich Institute has NOT requested this data so far. They have never requested the data that could be obtained by means of a simple Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. (ref. Tom Lausen presentation slide #24)

Großenbach’s detailed legal argument against the PEI can be found here in his letter (in original German and English translation)

In a German language article published Dec 20, 2022 (English translation here ) The Epoch Times summarised Großenbach’s legal opinion as follows:

Frank Großenbach, a lawyer from Frankfurt, is also of the opinion that there is an “initial suspicion” because of the excess mortality “of at least 30,000 in 2021, the year of the vaccinations”, which is proven by data. This is not only sufficient, but even obligatory, to “withdraw the mRNA active substances from circulation” until it can be “safely excluded” that the excess mortality is due to the vaccinations. According to section 69 of the Medicines Act and due to the legal mandate according to section 13, paragraph 5 of the Infection Protection Act, the occurrence of a “warning signal” is sufficient to immediately withdraw the mRNA active substances from the market. He considers this warning signal to be given after Lausen’s analysis.

At the very least, however, “the population must be informed about the factual connections”, “so that everyone can act in a self-determined manner in their own knowledge of the data on their body”, demanded Großenbach. On 12 December, the day of the AfD press conference, he had already made a statement to the PEI on behalf of Tom Lausen (video at Odysee).

In his estimation, the statements of KBV head Andreas Gassen had even strengthened the position of the vaccination campaign sceptics: “He explains that the presented increased mortality would represent a normal pandemic event. This is a simple assessment of the figures. This assessment is not plausible”. With his statement, Gassen had indirectly “confirmed that the excess mortality determined by Tom Lausen was statistically correct. It is just that his conclusions from the figures presented are different”, explained Großenbach.

Großenbach in his letter to the PEI gave a deadline to respond by Dec 19 2022

If we have not received a statement from you by 12.00 noon on 19 December2022, we must assume that you intend to continue to remain inactive even though the data are now available to you, or if the statement does not make it clear that you are taking appropriate measures, we will immediately report you, the persons addressed in this letter, to the public prosecutor’s office at the Darmstadt Regional Court without further hesitation or waiting, on account of the violation of criminal law associated with the breach of your guarantor status. In order to be able to file a complaint immediately, we will already formulate a complaint now.

Related Articles & Videos
  1. Media report from News24 about the press conference–Dec 12 2022
  2. Media report from ‘The Gateway Pundit’-Dec 13 2022
  3. Article in MOVIE –Dec 15 2022
  4. Corroboration of findings. Another German data analyst, responding to BVK and ZI criticism of Tom Lausen’s findings based on claims that the raw data set was somehow faulty and that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn from it, published this video on Dec 16 2022. In it he broadly agrees with the main findings of Lausen after demonstrating that the data set can be relied upon to extract results which look very plausible.
  5. A US doctor published this article on Dec 13 2022 containing links allowing anyone who cares to check the data set themselves to download it and search on the various diagnostic codes using an excel program provided.
  6. VID: Florida Gov DeSantis Announces Vaccine Grand Jury -Dec 14 2022
  7. VID: Vaccine Injuries in Australia -Dec 6 2022
  8. VID: Vax Victims are ‘Ghosts’ -Dec 7 2022
  9. VID: Prof Fukushima “Stop the Vax – You’re Killing People!” -Nov 29 2022
  10. VID: Science Summit Uncensored: Dutch Excess Mortality Data -Aug 15, 2022
  11. VID: Science Summit Uncensored: 2nd Experiment -Aug 15, 2022
  12. Proposed German Vaccine Mandate
  13. Austrian Doctors Warn of Vaccine Dangers & Un-Informed Consent
  14. Vaccine Crimes: German Lawyer B Bahner’s Legal Opinion on illegal implementation of the vaccines & violation of German & EU Medical Laws Legal Opinion-Bahner-VaxLegality


Article, Bundestag, BVK, Darmstadt Regional Court, Data, Death, Duty, FOI, Gassen, germany, Großenbach, Lausen, Legal Opinion, Mandate, National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Negligence, Obligation, Paul Ehrlich Institute, PEI, Sichert, Vaccine, Violation

Back to All Cases




Legal Opinion: Vaccine Mandate

Re: how to respond to the German Government’s proposed Covid Vaccine Mandate


Back to All Cases


German Lawyer B Bahner’s letter of advice to those seeking Legal council against the mandates – Mar 7, 2022


My current response to the many inquiries around the planned general vaccination obligation:

At the moment, I recommend waiting and keeping a cool head. The general vaccination obligation in the form of the presentation of a vaccination certificate has not yet been introduced, there are still no fines, and therefore we cannot react at all. There is only a first draft law that provides for compulsory proof of Corona vaccination for all adults from the age of 18.

The law is not to come into force until 1 October 2022 – and is to expire just over a year later, on 31 December 2023.

However, the bill does not provide for compulsory vaccination, but only for compulsory proof of vaccination – presumably digitalised…. Pregnant women and persons for whom vaccination is contraindicated are exempt from the obligation to provide proof of vaccination.

So no one will be forcibly vaccinated or even taken away by police or soldiers and forced to be vaccinated at gunpoint or against their will.

At most, a fine of a maximum of €2,500 may be imposed.

Here, too, it must be waited and seen whether and how quickly the missing proof will be checked and then sanctioned with a fine at all! In the case of a penalty notice, the competent authority must receive an objection by fax or letter within two weeks, otherwise the fine will become legally binding.

However, if millions of non-vaccinated citizens receive fines and defend themselves against them, then any court dates will probably not be scheduled for many months or even one or two years. Then the question of the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination will have to be fundamentally clarified before the courts.

However, I am sure that no fines will be imposed this year, so it is also a case of waiting and keeping a cool head.

Getting individual advice from me at this stage would therefore be a waste money. Of course, in the event of the introduction of compulsory vaccination (which has not yet been decided!!), many lawyers will take legal action against this and of course there will also be constitutional complaints. So really wait and see and don’t let yourself be frightened.

On 27.12.2021 I prepared a legal opinion on the punishability of the Corona vaccination, you can find it on my homepage. It could be helpful, you are welcome to use it and forward it, like all my documents on my homepage.

In my opinion, the most important thing is close networking with like-minded people and those affected. Together we are strong, only through joint activities can we make a difference. We are much more than we think. So find these people, especially in your local area and in professional and social networks and support each other, unfortunately this is not a sprint but a marathon!

You will find a lot of free information not only in my book “Corona Vaccination: What Doctors and Patients Absolutely Need to Know”, which is also available free of charge as an eBook, but also on my homepage at and on my Telegram channel at

Unfortunately, I cannot provide further free information by email and telephone due to the enormous number of inquiries, for which I am sure you will understand.

Beate Bahner, specialist lawyer for medical law

Author of the book “Corona vaccination: What doctors and patients should absolutely know”.

Member of Lawyers for Enlightenment

My Telegram channel:

My homepage:


Meine aktuelle Antwort zu den vielen Anfragen rund um die geplante allgemeine Impfpflicht:

Im Moment empfehle ich, abzuwarten und einen kühlen Kopf zu bewahren. Noch ist die allgemeine Impfpflicht in Form der Vorlage eines Impfnachweises nicht eingeführt, noch gibt es keine Bußgelder, noch können wir deshalb überhaupt nicht reagieren. Es liegt lediglich ein erster Gesetzentwurf vor, der eine Nachweispflicht der Corona-Impfung für alle Erwachsenen ab 18 Jahren vorsieht.

Das Gesetz soll erst zum 1. Oktober 2022 in Kraft treten – und bereits ein gutes Jahr später, am 31. Dezember 2023 wieder außer Kraft treten.

Der Gesetzentwurf sieht allerdings keine Impfplicht vor, sondern nur eine Nachweispflicht über die Impfung – vermutlich digitalisiert…. Ausgenommen vom Impfnachweis sind Schwangere und Personen, bei denen eine Impfung kontraindiziert ist.

Niemand wird also zwangsgeimpft oder gar von Polizei oder Soldaten abtransportiert und mit Waffengewalt oder gegen seinen Willen Zwang geimpft.

Es droht allenfalls ein Bußgeld in Höhe von maximal 2.500,- €.

Auch hier muss abgewartet werden, ob und wie schnell der fehlende Nachweis überprüft und dann überhaupt mit einem Bußgeld sanktioniert wird! Im Falle eines Bußgeldbescheids muss in jedem Fall binnen zwei Wochen per Fax oder Brief der Einspruch dagegen bei der zuständigen Behörde eingegangen sein, sonst wird das Bußgeld rechtskräftig.

Wenn jedoch Millionen nicht geimpfte Bürger Bußgelder erhalten und sich hiergegen wehren, dann werden etwaige Gerichtstermine vermutlich erst in vielen Monaten oder sogar erst in ein oder zwei Jahren anberaumt. Dann wird die Frage der Verfassungsmäßigkeit der Impfpflicht fundamental vor den Gerichten geklärt werden müssen.

Ich bin jedoch sicher, dass in diesem Jahr keine Bußgelder verhängt werden, es gilt also auch hier, abzuwarten und einen kühlen Kopf zu bewahren.

Eine Beratung durch mich zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt wäre daher unnötiges Geld. Freilich werden darüber hinaus im Falle der Einführung einer Impfpflicht (diese ist derzeit noch nicht beschlossen!!) viele Anwälte hiergegen vorgehen und freilich wird es auch Verfassungsbeschwerden geben. Warten Sie also wirklich ab und lassen Sie sich nicht verängstigen!

Ich habe am 27.12.2021 ein Rechtsgutachten zur Strafbarkeit der Corona-Impfung erstellt, dieses finden Sie auf meiner Homepage. Es könnte hilfreich sein, Sie können es gerne verwenden und weiterleiten, wie alle meine Dokumente auf meiner Homepage.

Das Wichtigste ist nach meiner Einschätzung eine enge Vernetzung mit Gleichgesinnten und Betroffenen. Gemeinsam sind wir stark, nur durch gemeinsame Aktivitäten können wir etwas bewirken. Wir sind viel mehr, als wir denken! Also finden Sie diese Menschen, vor allem bei sich vor Ort und in beruflichen und sozialen Netzwerken und unterstützen Sie sich gegenseitig, dies hier ist leider kein Sprint, sondern ein Marathon!

Viele kostenlose Infos finden Sie nicht nur in meinem Buch „Corona-Impfung: Was Ärzte und Patienten unbedingt wissen sollten“, das auch kostenlos als EBook erhältlich ist, sondern auch auf meiner Homepage unter und auf meinen Telegramkanal unter

Weitere kostenlose Auskünfte per Email und Telefon kann ich leider aufgrund der enormen Anzahl von Anfragen nicht erteilen, wofür Sie sicherlich Verständnis haben.

Beate Bahner, Fachanwältin für Medizinrecht

Autorin des Buches “Corona-Impfung: Was Ärzte und Patienten unbedingt wissen sollten”

Mitglied der Anwälte für Aufklärung

Mein Telegramkanal:

Meine Homepage:


related articles
  1. Vaccine Crimes: German Lawyer B Bahner’s Legal Opinion on illegal implementation of the vaccines & violation of German & EU Medical Laws Legal Opinion-Bahner-VaxLegality
  2. Proposed German Vaccine Mandate


article, Berliner Zeitung, BKK, CEO, deaths, evaluation, germany, Insurance, Letter, Paul Ehrlich Institute, PEI, Petition, ProVita, risks, Schöfbeck, side effects, underreporting, Vaccination, Vaccine

Back to All Cases


Legal Opinion-Right to Resist

Legal Opinion-Right to Resist

Legal Opinion: Right to Resist

Re: the Right of Resistance to government rules when those rules are a danger to the people


Back to All Cases

The Right to Resist Oppression in Comparative Constitutional Law

INTRODUCTION by Virginie de Araujo Recchia, Attorney at the Paris Bar

When the institutions of a State, whose primary purpose is to ensure the protection of public order, the safeguarding of fundamental principles, freedom and rights of the people, no longer stand in the way of the drift of totalitarian regimes, as it is the case today with some States around the world, it is the duty of every individual to resist oppression.

It is a sacred right, a right of democratic vigilance, the ultimate remedy against tyranny.

Here are some important observations concerning the right to resist oppression extracted and translated into English from the original French language article by Fragkou Roxani.

International Journal of Comparative Law. Vol. No. 654,2013.pp. 831-857;

At the outset, this was research to better understand article 2 of the French Declaration of Human Rights of 1789, which says (in a very discreet way) that the people have a right to resist oppression (the Declaration of Human Rights of 1793 is often cited but it’s not part of the French Constitutional corpus).

This article also mentions the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 and also the Hellenic Constitutional system.

Selected extracts from: The Right to Resist Oppression in Comparative Constitutional Law

  • The German Basic Law, the US Declaration of Independence of 1776, the Hellenic Constitutional corpus and precisely the article 2 of the French Declaration of Human Rights of 1789 for example, clearly state that the people have a right to resist oppression.

It is however a principle of natural law proper to human nature that can be applied anywhere in the world.

The right to resist oppression was theorized for the first time by Ciceron (and Antigon myth p.835).

John Locke referred more than three centuries ago: “in the face of oppressive power, resistance is legitimate. Injustice of the sovereign releases the subject from the obedience that he normally owes him” (p.832).

  • The article 34 of the French Declaration of 1793 (even it’s not part of the Constitutional corpus, explains):

“There is oppression against the social body when only one of its members is oppressed. There is oppression against each member when the social body is oppressed”. Oppression exists, moreover, even when only one individual is a victim, because the whole social body is united by an “intimate and close solidarity” which creates in them the feeling of being all targeted, even when only one of them is in reality” (p.838).

“For proponents of the natural law thesis, resistance to oppression is a sacred right, emanating from man’s nature and existing beyond and independently of his “positivization”. As a natural right, the safeguarding of the Constitution is similar to the right of every individual to resist an oppressive and authoritarian regime. It is based on natural law, from which it derives its legitimacy. It belongs to the unwritten laws of human nature and logically pre-exists the state and its fundamental and supreme norm.” (p.841)

Indeed,” the right of resistance is a right whose holders are exclusively the citizens. For the constituents, the mission of vigilance towards the maintenance of the established order and the constitutional safeguard exceeds the narrow framework of the control carried out by the state bodies. It is thus attributed to all the citizens of the country, governors or governed, in their capacity as members of the community, of citizens”. (p.851)

According to the author of “Traité de Science Politique”, George Burdeau, “the engine of the resistance it is neither the crowd, nor the tribune, it is the individual who has the political taste and who judges; it is the citizen that does not fascinate “the hypnosis exerted by the Power”; the one that refuses to be dupe”. Because it is necessary that there is “at the beginning of the popular movement, a reaction of individual consciences”, otherwise “it will be a riot or a revolt, it will not be, in the full sense of the word, this refusal to accept any longer the arbitrariness of the rulers which characterizes the resistance to oppression

Resistance to oppression is not revolutionary. On the contrary, it is conservative in nature, its mission being to defend the established constitutional order and to contribute to the return of the to the status quo ante” (p.855).



resistance to oppression, 1776, Antigon, article 34, Ciceron, constitution, de Araujo Recchia, Declaration of Independence, France, French Declaration of Human Rights 1793, German Basic Law, Grundgesetz, Hellenic Constitutional system, Legal Opinion, natural law, Right to Resist, sacred right, Virginie

Back to All Cases