Weimar Birthday Case

Weimar Birthday Case

Weimar Birthday Case

Re: Legality of Group Gatherings

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: January 24 2021
  • Location: Weimar, Germany
  • Court: Weimar
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff:
  • Defendant: State
  • Trial Type: Expedited
  • Judge:
  • Status: end
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

 

Background

This is a case of a man who “celebrated a birthday with his seven friends” during a state imposed lockdown to prevent the spread of the disease known as Covid 19.

On the evening of 24.04.2020, the party was held in the backyard of the house in Weimar, Germany. “The eight participants in total were distributed among seven different households.

However, a stay in public space is only authorized alone, in the circle of members of his own household and, moreover, at most with another non-domestic person ”according to local regulations.” (https://ahrp.org/german-court-in-weimar-declares-lockdown-unconstitutional/)

Significance

This case is significant as the judgement of the court strikes down the decrees for lockdowns and other corona prevention measures.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

The accused was acquitted and relieved of the need to pay a fine of 200 euros ($ 243). No sufficient reason for confinement

  • The Weimar judge condemned a restriction limiting private gatherings to members of the same household and to a person outside of the same household, a rule which the accused had not respected. The judge said that the regional government itself had violated the “inviolably guaranteed human dignity” guaranteed by Article 1 of the German Basic Law by imposing such restrictions.
  • According to the court, the government did not have sufficient grounds to impose these restrictions since there was no “epidemic situation of national importance” at the time and the health system was not at risk of failure. collapse, the Robert Koch Institute having reported that the multiplication coefficient of Covid-19 had then fallen below 1.

At no time is there any real danger that the health service will be overwhelmed by a “wave” of patients with COVID-19. According to the register established on March 17, 2020, an average of at least 40% of intensive care beds in Germany were permanently available. In Thuringia, 378 beds were registered occupied on April 3, 36 of which were in covid-19 patients. During this time, there were 417 vacant beds. On April 16, two days before the publication of the regulation, 501 beds were recorded occupied, 56 covid-19, and 528 beds were vacant … Thuringia recorded its highest number of covid-19 patients notified in the spring at 63 (April 28). Thus, at no time has the number of patients with COVID-19 reached a level that could have justified fears of an overflow of the health system.

This estimate of the real dangers of COVID-19 in spring 2020 is confirmed by an assessment of data from 421 clinics belonging to the Qualitätsmedizin Initiative, which found that the number of cases of acute respiratory infections (severe ARI) hospitalized in Germany in first half of 2020 was 187,174 – lower than the figure for the first half of 2019 (221,841 cases), even though that figure included cases of ARI caused by covid. The same analysis showed that the number of cases in intensive care was lower in the first half of 2020 than in 2019 …

  • The judge also said that the regional government did not have the right to introduce such far-reaching measures since it was for the legislator to do so (parliament and not district courts).
  • The Weimar court said the spring containment of Thuringia was a “catastrophically flawed policy decision, with dramatic consequences for almost every area of people’s lives . ”

The confinement imposed in Thuringia represents “the most complete and deepest restrictions on fundamental rights in the history of the Federal Republic, ” the court said, calling these measures a ” disproportionate ” attack against the ” foundations of our society. ”

 

Aftermath

  • The Thuringian Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged a complaint against the court decision, requesting that it be reconsidered and possibly overturned, with the case being handed over to another judge. The judgment must be “revised to develop the law and ensure a unified jurisdiction” regarding the containment and its violation, a spokesperson for the prosecutor’s office, Hannes Gruenseisen, told local media.
  • The decision is not legally binding outside of Weimar, although each German court can render a judgment on the constitutionality of orders issued by any authority other than the Bundestag, federal parliament or regional parliament. Unless a law has been passed, each court can contradict the regulations if they appear unjustified
  • This week, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet extended the restriction until mid-February. (https://www.rt.com/news/513443-german-court-covid-lockdown-unconstitutional/)

 

Further Research

  • Read the original court ruling here:
  • Read the English translation original court ruling here:
  • https://www.panimmunity.org/legal/

 

References

https://ahrp.org/german-court-in-weimar-declares-lockdown-unconstitutional/ https://www.rt.com/news/513443-german-court-covid-lockdown-unconstitutional/ https://justice4poland.com/2021/03/04/german-court-in-weimar-declares-lockdown-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/


 

Keywords

cases in germany, rki



Back to All Cases

 

Weimar School Mask Case

Weimar School Mask Case

Weimar School Mask Case

Re: Legality & Health of mandating the wearing of Masks by Children in Schools

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: 8 April 2021
  • Location: Weimar Germany
  • Court: Weimar District Family Court, Amtsgericht
  • Case #: Beschluss vom 08.04.2021, Az.: 9 F 148/21
  • Plaintiff: Mother
  • Defendant: School
  • Trial Type: Expedited
  • Judge: Christiaan Dettmar
  • Status: Completed
  • Verdict: For the Plaintiff


*updated: March 18, 2022

 

Background

The court case was a child protection case under to § 1666 paragraph 1 and 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which a mother had initiated for her two sons, aged 14 and 8 respectively, at the local Family Court. She had argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, she claimed this constituted a violation of a range of rights of the children and their parents under the law, the German constitution (Grundgesetz or Basic Law) and international conventions. [1][2]

 

Significance

The case is significant not only for the judge’s ruling and subsequent police investigation but for the expert scientific witnesses.

“This is the first time that expert evidence has now been presented before a German court regarding the scientific reasonableness and necessity of the prescribed anti-Corona measures.The expert witnesses; hygienist Prof. Dr. med Ines Kappstein, the psychologist Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner and the biologist Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer were heard.” [3]

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Expert Witnesses testified to the significant inaccuracies of the PCR test used to determine Covid “Cases” and to the physical as well as psychological damages of wearing masks

 

Defendant’s Argument

more information is required

 

Decision

The judge summarized his decision as follows:

The compulsion imposed on schoolchildren to wear masks and to keep their distance from one another and from third parties damages the children physically, psychologically, educationally and in their psycho-social development, without any more than marginal benefit for the children themselves or third parties. Schools do not play a major role in the “pandemic” event. [4]

The PCR tests and rapid tests used are on their own in principle and not even initially suitable for determining an “infection” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. According to the statements in the expert report, this already results from the own calculations of the Robert Koch Institute. According to RKI calculations, such as expert Professor Dr Kuhbandner explains, in mass tests with rapid tests, regardless of symptoms, the probability of actually being infected if a positive result is obtained is only 2% with an incidence of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%). [4]

That would mean: For every two genuinely positive rapid test results, there would be 98 false-positive rapid test results, all of which would then have to be retested with a PCR test. [4]

A (regular) compulsion to carry out mass tests without cause, on asymptomatic persons, i.e., healthy people for whom the medical indication is already lacking, cannot be imposed because it is disproportionate to the effect that can be achieved with it. At the same time, the regular compulsion to take a test puts the children under psychological pressure, because their ability to go to school is constantly put to the test. [4]

In conclusion, the judge noted:

Based on surveys in Austria, where masks are not worn in primary schools, but rapid tests are carried out three times a week, according to the explanations of the expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner: [4]

100,000 primary school students would have to put up with all the side effects of wearing a mask for a week in order to prevent just one infection per week. [4]

To describe this result as disproportionate would be a completely inadequate description. Rather, it shows that the state legislature regulating this area has gotten far removed from the facts, which has taken on seemingly historic proportions. [4]

 

Aftermath

  • The Weimar Administrative Court, classified the decision of the family judge as “obviously illegal”. They stated that “The family court has no authority to issue orders to authorities and their representatives” and that “The administrative courts are responsible for decisions on hygiene concepts state does not enforce court’s order” [5]

  • The public prosecutor’s office in Erfurt initiated an investigation against the lawyer, said the authority’s spokesman, Hannes Grünseisen. on the grounds “the judge has exceeded his jurisdiction”. [5]

  • Despite this new ruling, the Thuringian Ministry of Education said that the court ruling will have no impact on the Corona rules in Thuringian schools and the mask requirement will remain. It is also possible to appeal the decision to higher courts. [6]

  • 2020news.de reports that a court in Karlsruhe “upholds sensational Weimar verdict: no legal basis for the accusation that justice was perverted” [7]

 

Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:

 

Media

Dr Malone on Mask Harms

source: Rumble

Governor signs bill banning mask mandates for schools in Virginia

source: Rumble

Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania School Mask Mandate

source: Patriotic Elephant

 

References

  1. German judge investigated by police after ruling compulsory mask-wearing in schools unconstitutional
  2. English translation of  2020news article
  3. German judge investigated by police after ruling compulsory mask-wearing in schools unconstitutional
  4. Weimar Court Prohibits Mask-Wearing, Distancing Measures and Rapid Testing At Schools
  5. Weimar: Controversial mask judgment – investigations against judges
  6. Weimar Court: No more masks, tests, and distancing for students
  7. Karlsruhe ruling upholds sensational Weimar verdict: no legal basis for the accusation that justice was perverted

Keywords

Karlsruhe Weimar Verdict, PCR, Kammerer, Face Masks, Asymptomatic, Aerosols, Social Distancing, Lockdown, Cycle Threshold, Risk vs Benefit, Constitution, Asymptomatic, RKI, Rapid Test


Back to All Cases