home

LegalOpinion-VaxMandate-BB

LegalOpinion-VaxMandate-BB

Legal Opinion: Vaccine Mandate

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

 

Back to All Cases

content

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

1

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 www.beatebahner.de and on my Telegram channel at https://t.me/rechtsanwaeltin_beate_bahner.

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: https://t.me/rechtsanwaeltin_beate_bahner

My homepage: www.beatebahner.de

2

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 www.beatebahner.de und auf meinen Telegramkanal unter https://t.me/rechtsanwaeltin_beate_bahner.

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: https://t.me/rechtsanwaeltin_beate_bahner

Meine Homepage: www.beatebahner.de

3

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

Keywords

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;

http://www.persee.fr/doc/ridc_0035-3337_2013_num_65_4_20282


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).

 

Keywords

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

 

Legal Opinion-Bahner-VaxLegality

Legal Opinion-Bahner-VaxLegality

Legal Opinion

Re: the illegal implementation of the vaccines & violation of German & EU Medical Laws

 

Back to All Cases

Legal Report written by the German lawyer Beate Bahner, outlining the many violations under German & EU Law of the Covid Inoculation program. (Dated Dec 27, 2021)

  • Section 1 : is the full original document (in German)
  • Section 2 : is a ‘Working English’ translation made by Corona Cases of item “9. Summary” of lawyer Bahner’s document

(i.e. it is not an ‘official translation’ authorized for legal purposes but only intended as an aid to understanding of the main content of the German summary.)

  • Section 3 : is a Video in which she warns of the Criminal Consequences of participating in the inoculation program (with English Subtitles).

1

Click the “View Fullscreen” button below to get full functionality in fullscreen.

2

9. Summary

1. A substance may only be used for the manufacture of a medicinal product if the intended use is either described in a monograph in accordance with the pharmacopoeia in a monograph, or extensive additional studies, including toxicity studies and clinical studies are submitted for the new new excipients. 

2. The sense and purpose of all German and European pharmaceutical regulations is the protection of people through the quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal products.

3. EMA [the European Medicines Agency] has imposed special conditions on BioNTech – particularly with regard to the two lipid nanoparticles, ALC 0315 and ALC 0159 in particular, as these are novel adjuvants for the Comirnaty vaccine and used for the first time on humans and in a novel way.

4. The corresponding special conditions of the EMA (specific obligations SO2, SO4, SO5) for these novel adjuvants had to be fulfilled by Biontech by July 2021.

5. Both the EMA report on the extension of the conditional marketing authorization in October 2021 as well as the safety data sheet of Pfizer for Comirnaty dated 7.12.2021 show that these conditions have not been fulfilled and that the required documentation is not available. It says: “No data available”. 

6. This is a violation of the principles of good manufacturing practice and thus also a a violation of the recognized pharmaceutical rules in the sense of § 8 para. 1 no. 1 AMG. According to this, it is forbidden to bring medicinal products into the market such that “by deviation from the recognized pharmaceutical rules, their quality is not insignificantly reduced”.

7. The quality is already reduced by the fact alone that two essential ingredients contained in Comirnaty are not intended for use in or on humans and are therefore considered “novel excipients” for which special documents and evidence must be provided.

8. In addition, lipid-related impurities in the vaccine are already documented in EMA’s registration dossier. Impurities of the vaccine are documented. These impurities are likely to increase in the light of further information on the reduction in filtration processes of the adjuvant nanolipid ALC-0315, these impurities may have even increased. With the reduction of the filtering processes, the marketing authorization holder would also violate S02, SO4 and SO5 of EMA in the marketing authorization notice.

9. Finally, according to the safety reports of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the vaccine shows an alarming number of harmful effects that far beyond what is “justifiable” according to medical science.

10. Due to this fact, there is furthermore a violation of § 5 para. 1 AMG namely, a violation of the prohibition of the marketing and use of questionable medicinal products. Thus, not only the manufacturers but also the vaccinating physicians, as well as all persons responsible for a vaccination with Comirnaty are subject to the regulations of the Medicinal Products Act.

11. Violations of § 8 AMG and § 5 AMG are classified as criminal offenses according to § 95 para. 1 no. 1 and no. 3a and are punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment. Negligent commission is also punishable, § 95 para. 4 AMG.

12. A particularly serious case of this offense with imprisonment of up to 10 years if another person is exposed to the risk of death or serious injury to body or health, § 95 (3) No. 2 AMG. In this case is the manufacture, distribution and use of the vaccine Comirnaty contrary to the prohibitions of §§ 5 and 8 AMG. is intentionally realized.

13. Furthermore, vaccination may not be carried out in the case of allergies to a component of the vaccine. Therefore, all persons to be vaccinated must be tested in advance for a possible allergy to one of the components in order to exclude any contraindication to the vaccination.

14. Therefore, a person may not be vaccinated until he or she has been tested for tolerance to each of the components of the vaccine with respect to allergic compatibility and the tolerance to all components of the Comirnaty vaccine has been medically confirmed.

15. Until then, vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine must be prohibited due to the possibility of a serious health hazard.

16. An infringement not only violates the aforementioned provisions of the Medicinal Products of the Medicines Act, but also other principles of general criminal law.

17. All statements also apply to the vaccine Spikevax from MODERNA!

Heidelberg, 27 December 2021

Beate Bahner[signed]

3

Source: shortXXvids

 

Keywords

Bahner, Beate Bahner, BioNTech, Cominarty, EMA, European Medicines Agency, germany, imprisonment, Legal Opinion, Pfizer, prison, punishment

Back to All Cases