Health Minister Complaint Case

Health Minister Complaint Case

Health Minister Complaint Case

Re: the Legality of a Health Minister knowingly distributing False Information about a new Pharmacological Product regarding its safety & efficacy


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Jan 16, 2023
  • Location: Berlin, Germany
  • Court: State Prosecutor /Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin
  • Case #: TBD
  • Plaintiff: Wilfried Schmitz
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Wilfried Schmitz
  • Defendant: Health Minister Karl Lauterbach & others in Federal Health Ministry
  • Trial Type: Criminal Complaint
  • Judge: TBD
  • Status: complaint submitted
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated Jan 31, 2023


This is a legal complaint [3] formulated and submitted by lawyer Wilfried Schmitz against:

Prof. Dr. Karl Lauterbach, Federal Minister of Health and all other employees of the Federal Ministry of Health who may still be involved in the crime. [3]

on suspicion of:

dangerous and grievous bodily harm (in office) resulting in death according to §§ 223, 224, 226, 227, 340 StGB,

manslaughter and murder according to §§ 212 and 211 StGB,

negligent bodily injury according to § 229 StGB,

involuntary manslaughter according to § 222 StGB,

all possible criminal offences according to §§ 95, 96 AMG,

all other possible criminal offences and forms of participation under the Criminal Code, the War Weapons Control Act, the International Criminal Code.

In essence, this complaint arose from action taken by German Dr. Weikl, vice chairman of Medical Workers and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy (MWGFD), following his interest in a similar complaint against the Swiss president Alain Berset (1). He then began to analyse the legal situation in Germany to establish whether a similar action could conceivably be taken against Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach [2]:

The ball was set rolling by an interview by Dr. Ronald Weikl with the Swiss investment banker Pascal Najadi. The Vice of the Medical Workers and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy (MWGFD) spoke with Najadi about his criminal charges against Federal Councillor Alain Berset, whose responsibilities in Bern include the Health Department. As a triple-vaccinated man, the banker feels he has been hoodwinked by Berset and his “false allegations on the Corona issue”.

The aspect of Swiss law used in the complaint against Alain Berset is not directly applicable in Germany: [2]

Unlike the Swiss Penal Code, the German equivalent does not know the offence of abuse of office in this form. A lawyer who was not named in the MWGFD press release therefore recommended to Dr. Weikl: “The only law that could be invoked is the Heilmittelwerbegesetz (HWG), which requires truthful information […] Or, in the interplay of the Infektionsschutzgesetz (IfSG) and the obligation to vaccinate (or the obligation to tolerate, as in the case of members of the armed forces, for example), possibly the offence of ‘coercion in office’ Paragraph 240….”.

The lawyer Wilfried Schmitz, however, saw in this statement: [2]

a “grossly false” and “extremely trivialising representation” and felt it was clearly “too lax”, which is why he addressed Dr. Weikl directly with an email in which he wrote: [2]

“…If a health minister deceives the entire public, in particular by deliberately misstating that Covid-19 injections are ‘free of side effects’, contrary to his legal duties, then the most serious criminal offences such as murder must also be examined here, in particular (i.e. not only) the murder characteristic of insidiousness. Furthermore, criminal offences under the AMG (Medicines Act): Finally, in this context, at least (!) the aiding and abetting of the serious criminal offences of third parties, which were supported or made possible by such public false allegations, would have to be examined. His statement that the Covid-19 injections were also ‘highly effective’ was – as has long been proven – of course also deliberately false. But with the lie of no side effects, it is even easier to prove. For your information, I am enclosing my criminal complaint against those responsible at the PEI, etc. I assume that your association will inform visitors to its homepage more accurately in future. For you should not give the impression of wanting to divert attention from the true criminal guilt of those primarily responsible for the administration of the Covid-19 injections. A half-truth that distracts from the whole truth is a whole lie!

Lawyer Wilfried Schmitz formulated & submitted the complaint against Lauterbach [3].



First Corona Case in Germany accusing a Health Minister of criminal intent to cause harm


Plaintiff’s Argument

To justify his accusations, the lawyer first refers to a Youtube video in which several experts comment on a complaint filed in Switzerland against Swissmedic and explain the context from a professional point of view. [2] [3]

For an introduction to the facts that gave rise to this criminal complaint, I recommend the YouTube video entitled “Media conference: Criminal complaint against Swissmedic”, available under the link

From this video you will already be able to gather a whole series of highly qualified experts who would certainly not refuse to give expert advice to your authority, in particular:

  • Dr. Michael Palmer on the special mode of action of mRNA injections,
  • Prof. Dr. Andreas Sönnichsen on the (lack of) effectiveness of these injections,
  • Prof. Dr. Dr. Martin Haditsch on the risks of mRNA injections,
  • Prof. Dr. Konstantin Beck on the risk to public health from these Covid 19 injections (excess mortality etc.).

Lawyer Schmitz goes on to argue: [3]

the full text of the criminal complaint filed by the Swiss lawyers Kruse Law on 14.7.2022, which will adequately inform you that and – at the latest – from when and why (also) the responsible persons of the PEI and thus the defendants here had to be positively aware that these Covid-19 injections are questionable medicinal products in the sense of § 5 AMG, so that they were obliged by virtue of their legal competence to prevent these medicinal products – ever and further – from entering the market and being used on humans.

The prerequisites for a conditional authorisation never existed, and this was evident from the very beginning, so that from a point in time yet to be determined, the defendants would also have been aware of it.

Furthermore: [3]

You will certainly remember that the accused Federal Minister of Health, Prof. Dr. Karl Lauterbach, never tired of publicly emphasising at every possible opportunity that the Covid-19 vaccines were very or highly effective and, in particular, “free of side effects”.

He of all people had to know better from the very beginning, so that his misleading statements in any case already justify criminal liability according to § 95 para. 1 nos. 1 and 3 a AMG.


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…






…More information is needed…

Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:



Media Conference Against SwissMedic -Nov 14 2022

source: Odysee/ longXXvids

MUST WATCH: C19 Death Data Analysis for Every Country pre & post mRNA -Jan 12 2022

source: Odysee/ yabba

Germany Vaccination Consequences -Dec 12 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids



  1. Corona Cases: Presidential Crimes Case
  2. link to translation of Reitschuster article on the case
  3. Original Criminal Complaint Document (Deutsch)
  4. Corona Cases: mRNA Injury Case



Beck, Berlin, Criminal Complaint, Germany, Haditsch, Health Minister, Injections, Karl Lauterbach, lauterbach, mRNA, Palmer, Sönnichsen, Swissmedic, Switzerland, Wilfried Schmitz 

Back to All Cases




Arrest: Dr. Brandenburg

Re: the persecution of a Doctor who dared to exercise his Right to Free Speech & Resistance to challenge the government position on the safety & effectiveness of Covid Vaccines


Back to All Cases

23 May 2022

“Early this morning the Berlin police forced open my door, handcuffed me and searched my flat. During the search my telephones were confiscated. On the advice of a lawyer, I will not comment on the details for the time being.”


Berlin Police Arrest Doctor for criticizing the Corona Measures -May 23 2022

source: Reitschuster

Interview mit Paul Brandenburg (Deutsch) -May 8 2022

source: Reitschuster



Arrest, Berlin, Brandenburg, Critic, Disinformation, Dissident, free speech, Germany, Höckertz, Misinformation, Police

Back to All Cases


Legal Opinion Green Mango

Legal Opinion Green Mango

Legal Opinion

Re: Experiences in a German Court


Back to All Cases

Report by lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich from the court hearing Green Mango v. Prof. Drosten

Translation of German article:

Dated Nov 9 2021

In today’s hearing before the Berlin Regional Court in the case of Green Mango (Karaoke-Bar) v. Drosten, it was to be expected that either the rule of law would show signs of life, in whole or in part, or that it would become apparent that it had been completely brought into line with the government (or with those who use this government to realise their goals). As we expected, the latter showed itself:

A group of about 30 to 40 people interested in the proceedings, i.e.: the public, wanted to attend the trial. However, only seven people were admitted as spectators. The courtroom was guarded by four security officers; apparently the court feared war-like conditions – without any reason, as evidenced by the fact that completely “normal” people wanted to watch.

After entering the courtroom, while I was still unpacking my files and robe, the presiding judge pointed out to me that I had to wear a mask (the two Drosten lawyers were each wearing FFP 2 masks). I explained to him that I had a mask exemption certificate. The presiding judge then told me that he did not recognise such a thing, that he had the right of domicile here and that I had to wear a mask. I then explained to him the legal situation, namely that this was a case of coercion to which I would not submit. I would not damage my own health on his instructions and, if he persisted, I could not represent my client as a lawyer. Since I thus had to leave the courtroom, the presiding judge – as spectators later told me – asked the opposing lawyer to apply for a default judgment against my client, which he of course gladly did, so that the presiding judge could pronounce the corresponding default judgment. This is what happens when the party, in this case represented by his lawyer, does not appear in court. We will now appeal against this, so that everything will start all over again.

Surprisingly, the presiding judge, as I was told afterwards by spectators who remained in the courtroom, took it on record that he could not check my certificate (which he had not even had shown to him). So the question is what his real problem is: Does he believe that he can deny my client the right to be heard by eliminating her lawyer, so that Drosten, with his, the presiding judge’s, help, could automatically achieve a victory (albeit only a stage victory)? Or does he really believe that he is authorised (moreover, obviously as a medical layman) to check my certificate in any way? Obviously, as this entry in the minutes shows, he was now very unsure whether what he had done before the beginning of the oral proceedings could be reconciled with the requirements of the rule of law.

If necessary, we will also file criminal charges for coercion and all other possible offences, including the suspicion of perverting the course of justice. In any case, we will have to file a motion for bias. Because even an objective observer of the events will at least have the strong suspicion that my client can no longer expect a fair trial before this court in this legal dispute against Drosten: My client is suing Drosten for damages and injunctive relief because Drosten has destroyed my client’s existence with many false claims about his PCR test, which he – Drosten – copied from Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis and misused, and the demand for lockdowns (as well as masks and social distancing, etc.) based on his results (with a high probability of almost 100% false positive “cases”).

The presiding judge bows to this dictate of the defendant without further ado and even in the oral proceedings – with the windows wide open – walks around with an FFP-2 mask, and (this combination might be decisive for the overall assessment) denies my client – moreover with contradictory justification – the right to be heard by preventing her lawyer from participating in this lawyer’s process (the client is not allowed to represent herself, but this is only possible through a lawyer), and suggests to Drosten’s lawyers, after I as the plaintiff’s lawyer had to leave the courtroom, to file a motion for a default judgment, which the latter then does (even though he may have already prepared this in an earlier pleading), so that the presiding judge, on the motion of Drosten’s lawyers proposed by himself, issues the default judgment to the detriment of the now defenceless – because deliberately made defenceless by the presiding judge – plaintiff.



Germany, Wodarg, Drosten, PCR, Green Mango, Karaoke Bar, Attorney, opinion, judges, mask, procedure, Fuellmich, Berlin, Kary Mullis

Back to All Cases