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

Background

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].

 

Significance

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…

 

Decision

TBD

 

Aftermath

…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:

 

Media


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

 

References

  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

 

Keyword

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


Back to All Cases

 

Vaccine Pass Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Pass Case: Supreme Court

Vaccine Pass Case: Supreme Court

Re: the Legality of imposing “Passports” to legitimize health as a condition for entering restaurants, hotels, clubs & other hospitality venues

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Feb 2, 2022
  • Location: Czech Republic
  • Court: Supreme Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: woman from Brno
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: Health Ministry
  • Trial Type: Supreme Court
  • Judge: Chief Justice Peter Mikes
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff


*updated Feb 3, 2022

 

Background

The Supreme Court -Nejvyšší správní soud (NSS)- heard a lawsuit filed by a woman from Brno challenging the Covid Health Pass aka Digital Green Certificates. The provisions (established Dec 29, 2021) prohibit customers from entering food service establishments, music, dance, gambling and similar social clubs and discos, gambling halls and casinos, and from using short-term and vacation accommodation services unless they meet what the ministry calls “infection-free” conditions. These conditions are either completion of vaccination or having contracted covid-19 within the last 180 days. Only in exceptional circumstances is it possible to prove oneself by PCR test. [1]

This case comes at a time when several European countries are lifting Emergency restrictions, including the UK, Denmark, Bosnia.

Finland’s Prime Minister Sanna Marin has announced that the country will be lifting all Wuhan coronavirus restrictions by mid-February as the country starts easing some restrictions this week. [2] https://t.co/ACwJZuE0vl

 

Significance

This case is highly important as it challenges the very fundamentals of the Rights of the individual in a “free” society.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

In Spain, [2]

the Basque High Court ruled against the introduction of the vaccine passport for certain venues in November, arguing the measure was unjustified.

Despite the ruling, the vaccine passport was later approved after the case was taken to the Spanish supreme court in December.

Just months prior in August, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that Spain’s 2020 strict lockdown policies had been unconstitutional but claimed that businesses and people were not eligible to take the government to court to sue for monetary damages incurred during the lockdowns.

 

Decision

  • The Supreme Administrative Court (NSS) has dealt another heavy blow to the Health Ministry’s measures restricting the operation of restaurants or accommodation in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. The court overturned an extraordinary measure, according to which people without completed vaccinations or after an illness were banned from entering catering establishments, clubs and short-term accommodation. [1]
  • The Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic has ordered the abolition of vaccine passports for restaurants, hotels, and other venues, arguing that the measure is tantamount to vaccination coercion, and therefore not legal. [3]

  • The judges left the measure in place for one more week, after which it will cease to apply. [1]
  • Judge Mikeš ruled that the government’s pandemic laws do not allow for the specific regulation of restaurants, clubs and hotels and that measures would only be justified if the government could prove the entire country was at risk of the Wuhan coronavirus or if the government were to enact a state of emergency and use emergency powers to force venues to accept the vaccine passport. [2]

“The Supreme Administrative Court has already stated in the past that the Ministry of Health has no basis for restricting this type of establishment in the so-called Pandemic Act, unless it is technical measures, such as the use of disinfection or the placement of seating,” Mikeš stated. [2]

  • According to NSS Chief Justice Peter Mikes, the ministry had no support in the pandemic law for restricting services. [1]

“The ministry has no justification for restricting these types of establishments in the so-called pandemic law, unless they are technical measures, such as the use of disinfection or the placement of seating. The ministry could only restrict their activities under the Public Health Protection Act, but only against persons suspected of being infected,” Mikes explained, adding

that not everyone can be suspected of being infected without further ado. This would only be conceivable if the entire Czech Republic was designated as an outbreak.

 

The aim of the measure cannot be to indirectly force citizens to vaccinate

The state may not force people to vaccinate, referring to the ministry’s argumentation, which is voluntary. [1]

“However, the aim of the measure cannot be to indirectly force citizens to vaccinate. This would turn voluntary vaccination into compulsory vaccination by means of an emergency measure, since unvaccinated persons would have no choice but to be vaccinated if they wanted to live a normal life,” Mikeš stressed. [1]

  • Supreme Administrative Court Judge Petr Mikes described the measure banning unvaccinated people from going to restaurants as illegal. [1]
  • “The ministry has three options under the current legislation. [1]
  1. Either assess the situation to be so bad that everyone can be considered suspected of being infected,
  2. or appeal to the government to declare a state of emergency.
  3. And of course there is the option of leaving the area unregulated,” Mikes said.
  • The SAC erred when it did not address the objection to the recognition of antibodies, the Constitutional Court ruled [1]

“Under the current wording of the Pandemic Act, the Ministry of Health could only adopt a similar regulation if the conditions of the Public Health Protection Act were met. If these conditions are not met, then it is up to the government to decide whether it is able to manage the pandemic without such regulation or whether this is not the case, and if other conditions are met, this is grounds for declaring a state of emergency and adopting similar regulation through a government emergency measure,” Mikes added. [1]

 

Aftermath

Statement from Prime Minister Petr Fiala

The Czech Republic will stop requiring COVID passes for entry to restaurants and other service or entertainment venues starting next week, opening them up to unvaccinated people, Prime Minister Petr Fiala said. [3]

As Novinky.cz reports, the change will take effect on February 9, following a decision by Czech cabinet ministers on Wednesday evening. [3]

“Taking into account current developments, the government will abolish the obligation to prove with a certificate of vaccination or negative test when entering restaurants, services, cultural and sports events on February 9,” said Prime Minister Petr Fiala (ODS).

According to Fiala, the obligation to wear respirators indoors will remain in force. “According to experts, it proves to be highly effective and at the same time minimally restrictive,” he said.

The limit on the number of participants in mass events will also continue to apply, added Fiala. [3]

  • Measures requiring mask wearing indoors and limits to the number of people at public events will remain. [3]
  • Those who have not suffered from covid-19 or are not vaccinated will also be able to enter restaurants and hotels. [3]
  • Compulsory wide-ranging coronavirus testing at work and in schools will also end on February 18. [3]

 

Statement from Health Minister Vlastimil Válek 

Health Minister Vlastimil Válek (TOP 09) first planned to comment on the verdict at a government press conference. However, he commented on the verdict at the plenary session of the lower house, which is dealing with an amendment to the pandemic law, saying that this is why the norm needs to be adopted. The SPD MPs are complicating its discussion by obstructing it. [1]

The minister supports amendments to the controversial pandemic law, which entail a wider range of COVID-19 restrictions, including the introduction of mandatory testing of entrepreneurs, students, and teachers, as well as a separate set of measures by the defence and interior ministries.

If the amendment to the pandemic law were already in force, the current situation would not have arisen, according to Válek. “This measure would be unassailable,” Válek told the plenary. [1]

Válek told Novosti on Saturday that entry to restaurants for the unvaccinated is under discussion in the Czech Republic. [1]

Despite Válek’s support for more pandemic laws, he also stated

“I believe that in March we will be able to cancel all [coronavirus] measures to the maximum. The current development of the epidemic and the forecast for the near future prove that [it is possible],” Valek said at a meeting with lawmakers. [4]

  •  

The Supreme Court has other actions on the table against existing measures, and it is possible that it will overturn them on similar grounds. [1]

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…

related:

 

Media


……

source: ….


….

source: ….


….

source: ….

 

References

  1. Konec. Soud pustil neočkované do restaurací
  2. Czech Court Abolishes Vaccine Passports For Restaurants and Hotels
  3. BREAKING: Czech Government to End COVID passes as of February 9
  4. Czech Health Minister Expects All COVID Measures to Be Lifted in March

 

Keyword

antibodies, Chief Justice Peter Mikes, constitution, Constitutional Court, Covid Health Pass, Czech, Czech Republic, Digital Green Certificates, Health Minister, Ministry of Health, Nejvyšší správní soud, NSS, Pandemic Act, Public Health Protection Act, Supreme Court, TOP 09, Unconstitutional, Vaccine, Válek, Vlastimil


Back to All Cases

 

Public Entertainment Closure Case

Public Entertainment Closure Case

Public Entertainment Closure Case

Re: the Legality of Closing Cinemas & Theatres for Covid

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: December 2021
  • Location: Brussels
  • Court: Council of State
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Actors & Theatre Union
  • Defendant: PM DeCroo
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: For the Plaintiff


Background

In December 2021, Prime Minister Alexander De Croo announced the closures, introduced to curb the spread of the Omicron variant of Covid-19. De Croo also restricted people from sports stadiums and imposed capacity limitations in stores, in addition to shutting down entertainment venues. Belgium was not the only European country to enact similar legislation, as Denmark and the Netherlands had done previously. [1]

A union representing actors, performers, and movie theatre owners petitioned the government to overturn its ruling. Thousands of entertainment workers and supporters marched in Brussels on Sunday, accusing the government of “contempt, discrimination, and abuse,” but to no avail, as Health Minister Frank Vandenbroucke told state broadcaster RTBF earlier on Tuesday that “there is no possibility to immediately revise the decision.” [1]

 

Significance

This case challenges the legality for government enforced closures

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

A court in Wallonia declared earlier this month that requiring vaccination passes to enter cafes, restaurants, gyms, and other locations was illegal in the region. While the pass is a national government initiative, individual regions are in charge of enforcing its use. (Authorities in Wallonia, on the other hand, have appealed the ruling and stated that vaccine passes will continue to be required.) [1]

 

Decision

The government’s decision to close cinemas, theatres, and other entertainment venues in Belgium has been overturned. [1]

The judgment was made on Tuesday by Belgium’s Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, nearly a week after Prime Minister De Croo announced the closures. [1]

 

Aftermath

…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…

 

Media

……

source: ….

….

source: ….

 

References

  1. Belgium’s court rules on Covid’s closure of cinemas and theatres after protest
  2.  

 

Keyword

Belgium, Brussels, Capacity, Cinema, Cinemas, Closure, Council of State, De Croo, Entertainment, Health Minister, Passes, Prime Minister, Stadiums, Theatres, Vandenbroucke, Wallonia


Back to All Cases