Military Mandate Case

Military Mandate Case

Military Mandate Case

Re: the Legality by the DoD to force Covid Injections unto Military Personal who Object on Religious Grounds


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Date Filed: Oct. 15, 2021
  • Location: Florida, USA
  • Court: US District Court, Middle District of Florida
  • Case #: 8:21-cv-2429-SDM-TGW
  • Plaintiffs: Navy Seal 1, et al
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Liberty Counsel
  • Defendant: Lloyd Austin, DoD secretary
  • Trial Type: Human Rights
  • Judge: Steven Merryday
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated Apr 27, 2022



Liberty Counsel on Friday (Oct 15, 2021) announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of members of all five branches of the U.S. military – the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard – against President Joe Biden over his orders they take the experimental COVID shots or face dishonorable discharge. [1]

“The Biden administration has no authority to require the COVID shots for the military or for federal employees or civilian contractors,” explained Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chairman. [1]

“Nor can the Biden administration pretend that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment do not apply to its unlawful mandates. The commander-in-chief must end this shameful treatment and abuse of our brave military heroes. Forcing the COVID shots without consent or consideration for their sincere religious beliefs is illegal.” [1]

It seeks a temporary restraining order preventing Biden and his appointees from “enforcing, threatening to enforce, attempting to enforce, or otherwise requiring compliance with the Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate…” [1]

Other defendants are Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. [1]

Liberty Counsel said the non-military plaintiffs include a Department of Defense contractor who has conducted Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance quantitative and qualitative assessments and studies, whose assessments are briefed to DOD senior leadership to inform decisions on future employment, allocation, and procurement; a federal civilian engineer employed by a large military defense contractor that provides LCD screens used in United States Armed Forces aircraft; a federal civilian contractor employer whose company develops and supports military weapons systems, including current and next generation land vehicles for the Army and next generation Navy vessels; a federal nuclear contractor employee who is a young woman opposed to abortion and who desires to have children of her own one day; and a Department of Energy Civilian Nuclear Tech who works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. [1]

Liberty Counsel has been providing legal assistance to more than 700 service members from the Army, Air Force, Space Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. Liberty Counsel maintains an internal “Service Member Final Denial List” for service members who have contacted Liberty Counsel and whose final Religious Accommodation Request appeals have been denied. Based on this list alone, the U.S. military will continue to lose highly qualified and experienced personnel. [3]

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Liberty Counsel represents plaintiffs from all branches of the military who were denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate. The military has violated the Constitution and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act with this unlawful COVID shot mandate. The abuse of military heroes is inhumane and unlawful. The Department of Defense acts likes it is above the law. This abuse and unlawful action must end.” [3]

The Plaintiffs:

The action in U.S. District Court in Florida is on behalf of two Navy SEALs, a Navy EOD Officer, a Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer, a Navy Chaplain, two Marine Lt. Colonels, two Marine Lance Corporals, an Air Force Major, an Air Force Technical Sergeant, an Army National Guardsman, an Army Colonel, and a Coast Guard Lieutenant. [1] As of March, 30 plaintiffs are listed [4]

The individuals for whom the case was filed are not named, but in a sworn statement on Navy chaplain explained,

“I personally observed (and the Sailors told me in the course of counseling about) tremendous amounts of coercion, bullying, censorship, and intimidation being brought forth by the command to bear against the personnel who expressed objections of any kind to the COVID shot mandates, including religious objections…And clearly, the military has lost more lives to the increase in suicide from 2020-2021 (at least 1,012) than to all of COVID in 2 years (~52), but suicide has not been a focus.” [1]

  • One plaintiff is a U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel who faced immediate and irreparable harm beginning today. Her appeal for religious exemption was denied. Today she was to be added to the Officer Disciplinary Notebook, and her command selection withdrawn, irreparably damaging her career. This event would have begun the process of her ultimate discharge from the Marine Corps.   [5]
  • Another plaintiff, a U.S. Navy Command Surface Warfare Officer, faced immediate discipline on February 3, at which time he would have been removed from command of his ship, irreparably damaging his career because he was denied a religious exemption from the COVID shot. [5]
  • Also under Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin, Liberty Counsel is representing a cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy who is seeking legal relief after the Colorado Springs-based school ordered him to choose either the COVID-19 vaccination or “voluntary” resignation from the Academy. [6]

The unnamed cadet, according to Liberty Counsel, believes that God has called him to serve in the Air Force – but also holds a sincerely held religious belief that he shouldn’t receive any of the COVID shots because of their connections to abortion. [6]

Gordon Klingenschmitt is a former Navy chaplain who attended the Air Force Academy and runs the Pray In Jesus Name project. He tells AFN

“Cadet X” isn’t the only military cadet taking a stand against the mandate. “I’m told now 16 cadets at West Point and an equal number at the Air Force Academy are in danger of being separated because of their religious views,” he concludes. [6]

How this case is different from the Supreme Court Ruling

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a partial stay, that focused solely on deployment, in the case of Navy SEALS 1-26 v. Austin. Although the names of the cases can be confusing, Liberty Counsel does not represent the case on which the Supreme Court ruled last Friday but does represent about 30 plaintiffs from all military branches seeking class certification in Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin. [7]

In its order last Friday, the Supreme Court issued a partial stay of the preliminary injunction in Navy SEALS 1-26 only “insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.” [7]

In contrast, the preliminary injunction in Liberty Counsel’s case, Navy SEAL 1 v. Austin, enjoins the Department of Defense (DOD) and the respective military branches “(1) from enforcing against Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2 any order or regulation requiring COVID-19 vaccination and (2) from any adverse or retaliatory action against Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2 as a result of, arising from, or in conjunction with Navy Commander’s or Lieutenant Colonel 2’s requesting a religious exemption, appealing the denial of a request for a religious exemption, requesting reconsideration of the denial of a religious exemption, or pursuing this action or any other action for relief under RFRA or the First Amendment.” [7]

As Judge Merryday noted, “[t]he operative language of the preliminary injunction is direct and specific,” and “narrowly and specifically protects Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2 (1) from enforcement of an order to either accept vaccination or undergo discipline, including possible separation from service, and (2) from any adverse action that is retaliatory.” Indeed, “[a]ny interpretation to the contrary is wrong.” The defendants “remain at liberty to issue commands, assignments, orders, and the like in the normal course of business.” The “injunction remains indifferent to that non-retaliatory exercise of command authority.” [7]

This preliminary injunction is more narrow than the Texas preliminary injunction which the Supreme Court considered, as it limits defendants from enforcement of an order to either accept vaccination or undergo discipline (which was not challenged before the Supreme Court or in Liberty Counsel’s case before the Court of Appeals), and from taking retaliatory action on the basis of a RFRA claim. [7]



This is an important case that challenges the Rights of the Individual over the Power of the State


Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiffs all hold sincere religious beliefs against the COVID shots on the basis that their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and to defile it is a sin against God. In addition, the plaintiffs do not want to participate directly or indirectly or otherwise be associated with the destruction of human life through abortion by injecting a product that contains or was tested or developed with aborted fetal cell lines. The plaintiffs have all submitted religious exemption requests from a COVID-19 injection which have been unlawfully denied. [8]

The COVID shots cannot be mandatory under the federal Emergency Use Authorization law, and the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion is protected by the First Amendment. In addition, their free exercise of religion is protected under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Regarding RFRA, the Supreme Court wrote,[8]

“That statute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmental interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Because RFRA operates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal operation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases” (emphasis added).  [8]


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


The Proceedings

(see here for a detailed accounting of the proceedings)

Over the course of several months, the presiding Federal Judge Steven Merryday granted several stays to get vaccinated to the service members. The Judge was also sympathetic to the arguments of the plaintiffs and critical of the DoD’s reasoning. The judge also granted anonymity to 2 plaintiffs [4]

While setting a hearing for February 10, Judge Merryday stated he searches in vain for any justification for the military’s refusal to grant accommodations. He says the DOD is “most unlikely” to meet its burden, and forecasts that he will rule against the government. Judge Merryday wrote, in part: [5]

“The record in this action establishes that the two service members are very likely to prevail on their claim that their respective branch of the military has wrongfully denied a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination. The record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing and without the showing required under RFRA (while simultaneously granting medical exemptions and permitting unvaccinated persons to continue in service without adverse consequence). One struggles to imagine a wholesome and lawful explanation for the results evidenced in this record. The military is well aware of the frailty of their arguments in defense of their practices. Those arguments both procedural and substantive, are rejected in an action that is distinctively parallel to this action. U.S. Navy Seals 1–26, et al v. Biden, 4:21-cv-1236-O, Doc. 66, 2022 WL 34443 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2022) (characterizing the military’s review of requests for a religious exemption as “theater” and granting relief to the service member plaintiffs). Rejection on the same or a more encompassing basis is likely in this action (especially if the conduct of the military continues along the present lines).” 

Judge Merryday’s order continues: [5]

“The two moving service members face either (1) a most-likely-unlawful deprivation of their accumulated status and standing in the United States military, as well as prospective advancement and benefits, or (2) deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights to Free Exercise and the statutory right to receive a religious exemption unless the military can meet the statutory burden of proof, which the military has not and likely cannot. On the other hand, the military faces a trivial, if any, prospect of material injury as a result of permitting the service members continued service under the same terms and conditions and with the same privileges and emoluments as currently prevail, especially because the military permits a large group of unvaccinated persons to serve without adverse consequence…Finally, the military is most likely unable to establish, and certainly has not established, that permitting the relatively small number of RFRA objectors, even if every request for exemption (much less the two at issue in this motion) were sincere and successful, to serve without adverse consequences to their standing and the terms and conditions of their service will adversely affect the public’s interest in the maintenance and readiness of the nation’s military forces. In fact, the public undoubtedly has some considerable interest in maintaining the services of skilled, experienced, highly trained, patriotic, courageous, and esteemed service members, such as the two moving service members, in whom the public has an immense financial investment and who are not, to say the least, readily replaceable.” [5]


Judge Merryday pressed the Department of Justice counsel about the fact that the military is not showing that removing service members is the least restrictive means available. Judge Merryday also noted that he has to weigh the adverse impact of removing a highly qualified and skilled service member who is not easily replaceable against the minimal, if any, benefit of a “vaccine” in view of the fact that it is not preventing the transmission of Omicron. He pointed out that the military is now at its highest rate of vaccinated service members and also at the highest rate of COVID cases. With the shot not preventing transmission, “why,” he asked, “cannot a small number of service members remain unvaccinated because of their religious beliefs?” [9]


Judge Merryday previously ordered each branch of the military to file a detailed report regarding religious exemptions from the COVID-19 shot every 14 days beginning Friday, January 7, 2022. The documents prove that the military continues to deny religious exemptions while granting medical exemptions. According to the court, after three filings, [10]

“the Navy has denied 81 appeals and granted none, the Marine Corps has denied 119 appeals and granted 3, and the Air Force has denied 443 appeals and granted 1 appeal (and granted 8 initial requests). According to the notice, neither the Army nor the Coast Guard has resolved an appeal.” [10]

Witnesses & Experts

On March 10,2022 the court heard several witnesses.

Liberty Counsel presented compelling testimony from the Navy Commander and three military flight surgeons, Lt. Col. Peter Chambers, Lt. Col. Teresa Long and Col. (Ret.) Stewart Tankersley. [3] one of whom was injured by the COVID shots. [3]

In contrast, the Department of Defense (DOD) declined to present witnesses. The Department of Defense counsel refused to produce the Commodore of the Navy to be subjected to cross-examination. [3]

Dr. Long testified in federal court that she was ordered by high-level command not to discuss the controversy over Department of Defense data indicating a massive spike in serious injuries and illnesses among military personnel when the vaccines were rolled out in 2021. [2]

“I have so many soldiers being destroyed by this vaccine. Not a single member of my senior command has discussed my concerns with me,” she said amid tears. “I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking about it,”

She added that she is willing to lose her career “because I am watching people get absolutely destroyed.”

She said she regularly has been contacted by military personnel who have been injured by the shots, and most are pilots, who “have to meet one of the highest fitness standards.”

Amid the pressure to get vaccinated, Long described an atmosphere of low morale in which there have been at least two suicides.

The flight surgeon Chambers testified that he was ordered to make sure troops received the shots and was told that religious exemptions would be denied. He said that up to 80% of military personnel have contracted COVID-19 despite having had two shots. However, he said, among the unvaccinated, the infection rate was 15%. Chambers said he has had to delay his plan to retire in 2023 because he developed demyelination of his central nervous system after being vaccinated. [2]

Tankersley, a recently retired flight surgeon, said he has witnessed during the pandemic an unprecedented “suppression of scientific dialogue.” He said the shots are neither safe nor effective, explaining the delivery mechanism of the mRNA vaccines bypasses the natural immune system and creates inflammation that can inhibit the body’s innate immunity. Tankersly said he has treated more than 200 COVID patients with no fatalities using treatments such as ivermectin. Meanwhile, the Defense Department insists that the only way to combat COVID is to force vaccination and get rid of personnel who won’t comply. [2]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

On September 9, 2021, Joe Biden signed an executive order attempting to force COVID shots on more Americans, including federal employees, all private employers with 100 or more employees, health care workers, educators and even children. [11]

The courts recognize the constitutional protections against these lawless mandates and are striking them down one by one. For example, here’s the various courts’ recent actions: [11]

  • 11-30-21 – Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove (KY) grants preliminary injunction against mandate for federal contractors in KY, OH, TN.
  • 12-7-21 – Judge Stan Baker (GA) grants nationwide injunction against mandate for federal contractors in GA, AL, ID, KS, SC, UT, WV.
  • 12-15-21 Judge Dee Drell grants preliminary injunction regarding contracts and grants with the states of IN, LA, MS.
  • 12-20-21 – Judge David Noce (MO) grants preliminary injunction against mandate for federal contractors in AK, AR, IA, MO, MT, NE, NH, ND, SD, WY.
  • 12-22-21 – Judge Steven Merryday (FL) grants preliminary injunction against mandate for federal contractors in FL.
  • 12-31-21 – Judge James Wesley Hendrix (TX) issues preliminary injunction against Head Start shot mandate in TX.
  • 1-1-22 – Judge Terry A. Doughty (LA) grants preliminary injunction against Head Start mandate in AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, LA, IN, IA, KS, KY, MS, MO, MT, NE, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, WV, WY.
  • 1-13-22 – The U.S. Supreme Court (6-3) issues a stay against OSHA mandates. OSHA has now repealed the mandate.
  • 1-21-22 – Judge Jeffrey Brown (TX) grants preliminary injunction against mandate for federal workers nationwide.





US Navy Doctor Whistleblower on Vaccine Deaths -Apr 13, 2022

source: odysee\shortXXvids

US Navy Dr Long Testifies to Sen Johnson’s Panel on Vaccine Injuries

source: nicorster

Camp Pendleton Marine joins legal fight for vaccine exemptions

source: ABC 10 News

Back to All Cases


Bundeswehr Vaccine Case

Bundeswehr Vaccine Case

Bundeswehr Vaccine Case

Re: The Legality of Vaccine Mandates for Germany’s Armed Forces


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Complaint filed Dec 2021
  • Location: Leipzig, Germany
  • Court: Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG)
  • Case #: BVerwG 1 WB 5.22 und BVerwG 1 W-VR 3.22 & AZ. BVerwG 1 WB 2.22 und BVerwG 1 W-VR 1.22
  • Plaintiffs: 2 Air Force officers
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Wilfried Schmitz
  • Defendant: German Federal Ministry of Defense
  • Trial Type: military complaints procedure
  • Witnesses: Prof Bhakdi, Prof Burkhardt, Tom Lausen
  • Judge: 3 Judges & 2 lay judges from the Air Force
  • Status: Decided (July 7, 2022)
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated July 10, 2022


In November 24, 2021 the German Federal Ministry of Defense introduced a vaccine mandate for all army personnel numbering over 200,000. Already by Nov 2021 the German lawyer Wilfried Schmitz was supporting two Air Force Officers who had rejected the obligation to be vaccinated as prescribed by this order. The basis for refusal was their own research which led them to realise that the Covid vaccine is not a conventional vaccine but a genetic concoction which clearly:

  • does not stop the transfer of disease from one individual to another and also,
  • does not fight disease

These soldiers were vilified by their superiors and labelled as ‘Querdenker’ (lateral thinkers) as commented by RA Schmitz in an interview during the Corona Ausschuss Session# 99 [1]

Application for annulment of the orders were filed on 6 December 2021 and 12 December 2021

According to army legal protocol (para #21 of military law), any challenge to such an order has to be dealt with in the highest Federal courts. [1] Accordingly, in March 2022, RA Schmitz assembled a team of qualified lawyers to prepare the case for the plaintiffs. The team comprised the following legal experts:

Beate Bahner, Dr. Brigtte Röhrig, Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab, Sven Lausen,  Göran Thoms

Documentation to support the plaintiff’s case amounted to 500 pages of evidence and legal argument. [2]

The first Hearing was set for May 2 2022 (see summary below)

A second Hearing will be on June 7, 2022 (see summary below)

A third Hearing will be on July 6 and 7, 2022

(See more under Proceedings below)

Relevant Statistics
In the German armed forces, there were just under 60,000 cumulative cases of Corona (positive test) from March 2020 to the end of April 2022. On 29 April 2022, 6,950 soldiers were Corona positive. With 180,000 soldiers, this is a fairly high incidence, about five times higher than in the (civilian) population. And this with a higher vaccination rate in the troops (94 percent) than in the population as a whole. [6]

Just two soldiers have died with or from Corona in the German Armed Forces in two years of pandemic. And this despite the fact that it is part of the military’s DNA to frequently move in condensed groups. [6]
47 cases of vaccination side effects have so far been reported by the Bundeswehr to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. Among them 5 x myocarditis, several thromboses, skin diseases, allergy outbreaks, etc. [6]
A soldier, over 50 years old, died in connection with the Corona vaccination after atrial fibrillation. [6]



First legal challenge to a military vaccine mandate in Germany.


Plaintiff’s Argument

A key point in lawyer Schmitz’s legal argument is that according to Article17a of the military law, the soldier has to do everything to maintain his/her physical integrity so if they submitted to the vaccine in full knowledge of its known adverse effects, they would be risking impairment of their own health which is a contradiction to Art. 17a


Defendant’s Argument

(From the Court Hearing Announcement)

The Federal Ministry of Defense considers the application already inadmissible because the amendment of the administrative regulations does not yet encroach on the soldier’s legal sphere. Moreover, the inclusion of the Covid 19 vaccination in the list of basic vaccinations to be generally carried out was lawful. The soldier’s fundamental right to physical integrity was effectively restricted by § 17a para. 2 sentence 1 no. 1 SG. The provision permitted the ordering of a protective vaccination against the coronavirus Sars-Cov-2. The vaccination served to prevent a transmissible disease, even if it did not offer complete protection. It was sufficient that it reduced the probability of infection and the risk of severe courses of the disease. This was proven on the basis of current scientific studies and according to the surveys of the Robert Koch Institute. There are also no disproportionately high vaccination risks associated with vaccination. The use of the vaccine is continuously monitored by the competent European authorities and the Paul Ehrlich Institute. In its safety report, the PEI comes to the conclusion that serious side effects occur very rarely and do not change the positive risk-benefit ratio of the vaccination. The vaccination also does not violate national or international regulations. [3]


The Proceedings

Hearing: May 2, 2022

A first hearing took place on 2nd May in the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig

The soldiers’ complaints were heard in detail by the 1st Military Service Senate of the Federal Administrative Court. The court has jurisdiction in the first and last instance. The presiding judge emphasised that a decision would only apply to the two officers because of the special features of the law on military service appeals. In total, the court had received about ten complaints from soldiers from different areas. [4]

The applicants were represented by Beate Bahner, a lawyer specialising in medical law, and by Göran Thoms, a lawyer. Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, the data analyst Tom Lausen and the pathologist Prof. Arne Burkhardt were among the witnesses who were very well prepared. The lawyers and representatives of the opposing side, on the other hand, were unable to adequately answer specific questions about robust figures, data and facts. The lawyers for the plaintiffs have requested the release of further data concerning the Corona situation and the side effects of vaccination from the Federal Armed Forces. Further motions for evidence are being filed. [5]

The court no longer had to make a decision in the summary proceedings, as the Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg) has undertaken not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the complainants as long as these proceedings have not been concluded; a decision on the merits has not yet been made. [5]


Witness for the BundesWehr

The Bundeswehr lawyers and doctors…did not deviate one millimeter from their opinion during the trial that only the supposedly super-effective vaccination could reduce the number of infections.When asked by the plaintiff side how many Corona cases there had been in 2020, 2021 and in 2022, ideally broken down by before vaccination and since vaccination, the Bundeswehr side could not provide any information.One of the Bundeswehr doctors interviewed stated that in the case of minor complications following Corona vaccination, a delay of up to two years in reporting to the PEI was assumed. However, the 47 serious cases (see above) were reported immediately. [6]
Witness for the Plaintiffs: Data analyst Tom Lausen
reported on the data of the German company health insurance funds of 10 million insured persons on vaccination side effects. These had increased disproportionately in 2021. According to the analyst, this was proven by the figures he had seen. [6]
Last year, 4.2 times more vaccinations were given than in the previous year, there were 16 times more reported serious side effects and, according to hospital calculations, 282 deaths. Lausen’s conclusion from this: the Bundeswehr data are under-reported. [6]
Lausen continues: With a ratio of 383,000 to 373,000 days, the dependent part of the German population had been on sick leave from 1.1.22 until today more often because of the vaccination and its reactions and consequences than because of Corona.  [6]
Witness for the Plaintiffs: Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi
He had learned in his studies what the Nuremberg Code is. According to it, medical experiments must always be voluntary. In the case of harmful effects, termination is mandatory. Prof. Bhakdi explained the essence of a meaningful and protective, vaccination. The Covid vaccination does not fulfil these requirements. [6]
He described how Pfizer had cheated in the registration trial. PCR-positive patients in the unvaccinated control group were listed as “sick”. In addition, no side effects were observed in 20,000 vaccinated patients in the registration trial. Prof. Bhakdi considers this to be falsified. He says it is known that humans have natural immune cells that protect them against the Coronavirus. [6]
Two people knew this at that time in Germany and now we are both sitting here next to each other,” said Prof. Bhakdi, addressing directly the Bundeswehr infectiologist Dr. Roman Wölfel, who was also present, and who had said exactly this in an interview a few months ago. [6]
Prof. Bhakdi explained in his questioning that a brand new study from the Charité in Berlin, in which Prof. Drosten participated and which was published in the internationally renowned medical journal‘The Lancet’, would show the ineffectiveness of the Covid vaccination against Corona. [6]
From Prof. Bhakdi’s point of view, people are being poisoned with these untested substances. Autoimmune diseases in unprecedented numbers will be the result, so-called killer lymphocytes threaten to destroy various body organs of the “vaccinated”. The scientist’s appeal is clearly and directly addressed to the Bundeswehr representatives: They could do the country a great service by dropping compulsory vaccination in the armed forces, Prof Bhakdi said. “Corona vaccination is a cardinal crime against humanity” [6]
Witness for the Plaintiffs: Prof Arne Burkhardt
a pathologist who has diagnosed the Corona vaccination as the cause of death in 80 per cent of those he has autopsied, was due to speak afterwards. [6]
Hearing: June 7, 2022

In the continuation hearing of 7.6.22, an expert from the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) was scheduled to be heard and to explain how the PEI works and in particular how it collects data on Covid-19 vaccine side effects.(5)

The PEI is the government funded organisation charged with the task to evaluate vaccine safety. [6]

An expert witness from the Paul Ehrlich Institute told the court that the PEI does not receive the data concerning vaccine adverse reactions from the Krankenärztlichen Vereinigung (the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians). This confirms the statement made by the lawyers of the plaintiff. [6]

Based on this new finding, and very early into the second day, the court decided to adjourn the hearing and has set dates of 6th & 7th July for the continuation of the process. [6]

Aftermath & Media from the Hearing of June 7, 2022

On June 22, 2022, German Health Minister Lauterbach admits in tweets and on video admits that there were “very serious side effects” & even deaths. [7]

In the Berliner Zeitung article of June 21, 2022 which reports on German Health Minister Lauterbach’s statements admitting covid vaccine side effects and deaths: Professor Bernhard Schieffer, MD, is Director of the Clinic for Cardiology, Angiology and Internal Intensive Care Medicine at the University Hospital in Marburg. He looks after patients with post-vac syndrome in a special outpatient clinic. Schieffer comments on Karl Lauterbach’s statements as follows: [8]

“Unfortunately, your statements on the severity of Post-Vac, which is supposed to be lower than Long-Covid, do not correspond to our clinical experience. I would recommend that such statements be guarded as sufferers of any disease entity will be blindsided.” [8]


Lawyer Großenbach reports on the hearing -June 19 2022


German lawyer Großenbach Speech outside the PEI on June 14, 2022


Statement from Expert Witness Tom Lausen (Data analyst)

source: Lawyer B Bahner & shortXXvids

Epoch Times Reports on 2nd Hearing -June 9, 2022

source: Epoch Times

Epoch Times Report on 2nd Hearing -June 7, 2022

source: Epoch Times


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

A very interesting prior decision is the Verdict from June 21, 2005 – BVerwG 2 WD 12.04.

In this trial, a soldier was vindicated who had disobeyed orders, the execution of which would have made him a knowing participant in the war of aggression against Iraq instigated by the United States and Great Britain.



The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig today rejected as unfounded the petitions of two Air Force officers against the obligation to tolerate Covid-19 vaccination. [9]

In a court Press release it was stated:

the General Regulation was found to be formally and substantively lawful. The Federal Ministry of Defense issued the regulation in a proper procedure and, in particular, involved the soldiers’ representatives. Within the scope of its authority to issue directives under Section 10 (4) of the General Regulations, it was entitled to determine the group of necessary protective vaccinations by administrative regulation at its own discretion. This is because the Soldiers’ Act contains an explicit provision in § 17a SG* that every soldier is obligated to keep himself healthy in the interest of fulfilling his military mission and to tolerate medical measures to prevent communicable diseases against his will. The reason for this is that military service has always entailed a particular risk of spreading communicable diseases due to working together in confined spaces (vehicles, ships, aircraft), exercises and deployments in special natural hazards, and communal life in barracks. The law expects every soldier to contribute to his personal operational capability and thus to the overall functioning of the Bundeswehr (Article 87a of the Basic Law) by tolerating protective vaccinations. The maintenance of one’s own operational capability is a central duty in the soldier’s sovereign service and loyalty relationship (Art. 33 Para. 4 GG). [9]

The Federal Ministry of Defense did not exceed the discretion granted to it when it introduced the toleration requirement in November 2021. At that time, the delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus posed a significant threat. While existing vaccines could only reduce the risk of infection and transmission, they reduced the risk of severe courses by 90%. In its decision on the facility-based vaccination requirement, the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed the existence of a worsening pandemic situation in the winter of 2021 and explained in more detail that, according to the prevailing expert assessment at the time, a significant reduction in the risk of infection and transmission was assumed as a result of the Covid-19 vaccination (BVerfG, decision of April 27, 2022 – 1 BvR 2649/21 – paras. 157 ff., 173 f.). [9]

The Federal Ministry of Defense was justified to rely on the safety reports of the Paul Ehrlich Institute in its assessment of vaccination risks, even though this specialized authority has not yet received the data from the associations of statutory health insurance physicians, contrary to Section 13 (5) IfSG. The persuasiveness of the official information provided by the two specialist authorities has not been thoroughly shaken by the numerous objections raised by the applicants. [9]

However, the Federal Ministry of Defense is obliged to evaluate and monitor the maintenance of the Covid 19 vaccination. This is because standing orders must always be reviewed to determine whether they remain proportionate and discretionary in light of changed circumstances. The waning of the threat posed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the reduction in the effectiveness of currently available vaccines are circumstances that make a renewed discretionary decision to order further booster vaccinations appropriate. In addition, an evaluation of the decision has been promised to the full Board of Trustees in the conciliation process. [9]



Court witness, Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer (who has decades of experience in clinical research and works as a freelance medical writer) wrote an opinion: [10]

A political verdict that makes a mockery of all evidence and logic.

It was probably already the case that some of the mainstream narratives were refuted. At least the one about the overloading of the intensive care units.

In any case, the presiding judge was already more restrictive in June and allowed only a few arguments from the complainants’ experts. Thus, Prof Kämmerer was the last from this side to be allowed to give a presentation. All further presentations were rejected. The experts could only ask questions to the experts of RKI and PEI. And even there the presiding judge kept a strict time management. And my impression was: The trickier the questions to the government representatives, the more the questions were hindered or prevented.

Dr. Mentzer from the PEI, for example, only knew how to stammer in response to the question of how many 2500 by 2500 was that one would have to ask a statistician about this, and that he was only a medical doctor. The representative of the RKI, Dr. Wichmann, could at least at one point make the claim that the vaccination effectiveness against severe courses was 99%. If I remember correctly, this statement remained more or less uncommented in a jumble of many others.

At the July 7 hearing, PEI statistician Dr. Dr. Oberle was to be questioned about the safety analyses, first and foremost the OvE and SMR (more details in these TKP articles from May and June). Because Dr. Oberle had reported a positive PCR test, the questioning took place by video link. Prof. Kuhbandner had taken on the task of teasing out a number from her as to when her SMR analysis would show a signal in terms of deaths. After much back and forth, she admitted that this would only be true at a number well above 70,000 for one vaccine alone, i.e., when a medium-sized city was wiped out. .. And she vehemently defended the per-dose analysis, but that increases the denominator by about three times, so reduces the signal even further.

The court allowed the attorneys to question the relevant expert from PEI, Dr. Wagner. In fact, the judge allowed a longer questioning here, as long as they did not specifically go into the nitty-gritty. But when Prof. Matysik asked concrete questions, the judge started pushing again. At least Prof. Matysik was able to tease out a few surprising points:

  • The allowed pH range for Comirnaty is 6.9 to 7.9, which is surprisingly wide, since the final product is buffered and should therefore be set to point. The wide range indicates significant quality issues in the manufacturing process.
  • PEI does not have a Raman microscope that would allow detection of graphene or graphene hydroxide.
  • In general, PEI does not pay attention to any external reports such as the findings on graphene or graphene hydroxide or the “how bad is my batch” page.
  • No “next generation sequencing” is done.

Unfortunately, the question was lost as to whether PEI also checks peptide expression of modRNA or DANN. Such an analysis would be important to determine the quality of action of the vaccine. Even then, however, “next generation sequencing” would have been more than appropriate. It is possible that the PEI can refer back to the licensed specification, which does not provide for this. But then one has to ask: Why did PEI, as an essential EMA member, not insist on such analyses? Without them, neither the identity nor the integrity of the modRNA or DNA sequences can really be assessed.

It was also important to note that although PEI receives information on batches in addition to the adverse reaction reports, it has not yet evaluated them. Also a significant deficiency.

The court criticized the quality of the data collection, but said the PEI’s signal finding, despite some question marks, could not be faulted on the whole.

It ordered the Federal Ministry of Defense to present a benefit-risk analysis before further booster vaccinations and to introduce a vaccination evaluation within the Bundeswehr.


The Berliner Zeitung reports: [11]

According to Presiding Judge Richard Häußler, in November, when the decree came, the coronalage was “very serious.” Incidences had risen, he said, and there had been an increase in the compared to even more dangerous delta variant prevailed, and there was concern that hospital capacity would be insufficient. There had also been a warning signal to politicians through the recommendations of experts and scientists, so that they had seen the need for vaccination of soldiers.

The court also agrees with the Federal Constitutional Court when it declared mandatory vaccination in nursing and medicine to be constitutional at the end of April.

“We agreed with this assessment,” Häußler said. According to the court, vaccination could only reduce the risk of infection and transmission, but at the same time reduce the risk of a severe course by 90 percent.

The Court agreed with the assessment that the vaccination still had a relevant protective effect even against the omicron variant. The positive effect clearly outweighs the risk. According to the current recommendation of the Robert Koch Institute, this also applies to younger adults under 60 years of age.

However, the ministry must evaluate and monitor the vaccination requirement, the court demanded. Standing orders must always be reviewed to determine whether they continue to be proportionate and discretionary in light of changed circumstances. Therefore, before ordering further booster vaccinations, the findings must be re-evaluated, because the dangerousness of the virus is decreasing and the currently available vaccines are becoming less effective.

Häußler said at the announcement of the verdict that side effects could occur and that there were gaps in the data collection – but that the court concluded in its evaluation that the benefits of the vaccination outweighed the disadvantages. He had already made it clear at the start of the hearing in May that the decision in the present case concerned only the two officers who had filed the lawsuit. Other cases involving soldiers from different units are pending before the Federal Administrative Court.

After the ruling, one of the two plaintiffs, Marcus B., said he had to “acknowledge” it.

The other plaintiff, Christian B., left open whether he would now be vaccinated. “I need a summons for a vaccination,” he said, and did not rule out dismissal.



German MSM reports on Hearing 1 of Armed forces Vaccine Case -May 4 2022


German MSM reports on Vaccine Injuries


German Pathologists Say Vaccines Kill

source: mwgfd

Mark Steyn Talks to Widows of Vaccine Victims : Thursday 5th May

source: GBN

German Insurance Companies Sound Alarm on Vaccine Injury


Geman MPs Punishable for Vaccine Deaths if Mandate


Back to All Cases