Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

*updated: Feb 14, 2023

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]

• On Jan 25th 2023 Investigative journalist Boris Reitschuster published the following article about the continuing persecution of Judge Christian Dettmar resulting in his being relieved of his duties. [8]

Further Research

Court Documents:

• Read the Court Ruling (English translation of May 3 2021 article in News2020.de):

In the news:

• April 14 article in News2020.de

Media

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
8. Weimar Judge Removed from Office

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