Legal Opinion-Right to Resist

Legal Opinion-Right to Resist

Legal Opinion: Right to Resist

Re: the Right of Resistance to government rules when those rules are a danger to the people


Back to All Cases

The Right to Resist Oppression in Comparative Constitutional Law

INTRODUCTION by Virginie de Araujo Recchia, Attorney at the Paris Bar

When the institutions of a State, whose primary purpose is to ensure the protection of public order, the safeguarding of fundamental principles, freedom and rights of the people, no longer stand in the way of the drift of totalitarian regimes, as it is the case today with some States around the world, it is the duty of every individual to resist oppression.

It is a sacred right, a right of democratic vigilance, the ultimate remedy against tyranny.

Here are some important observations concerning the right to resist oppression extracted and translated into English from the original French language article by Fragkou Roxani.

International Journal of Comparative Law. Vol. No. 654,2013.pp. 831-857;

At the outset, this was research to better understand article 2 of the French Declaration of Human Rights of 1789, which says (in a very discreet way) that the people have a right to resist oppression (the Declaration of Human Rights of 1793 is often cited but it’s not part of the French Constitutional corpus).

This article also mentions the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz), the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 and also the Hellenic Constitutional system.

Selected extracts from: The Right to Resist Oppression in Comparative Constitutional Law

  • The German Basic Law, the US Declaration of Independence of 1776, the Hellenic Constitutional corpus and precisely the article 2 of the French Declaration of Human Rights of 1789 for example, clearly state that the people have a right to resist oppression.

It is however a principle of natural law proper to human nature that can be applied anywhere in the world.

The right to resist oppression was theorized for the first time by Ciceron (and Antigon myth p.835).

John Locke referred more than three centuries ago: “in the face of oppressive power, resistance is legitimate. Injustice of the sovereign releases the subject from the obedience that he normally owes him” (p.832).

  • The article 34 of the French Declaration of 1793 (even it’s not part of the Constitutional corpus, explains):

“There is oppression against the social body when only one of its members is oppressed. There is oppression against each member when the social body is oppressed”. Oppression exists, moreover, even when only one individual is a victim, because the whole social body is united by an “intimate and close solidarity” which creates in them the feeling of being all targeted, even when only one of them is in reality” (p.838).

“For proponents of the natural law thesis, resistance to oppression is a sacred right, emanating from man’s nature and existing beyond and independently of his “positivization”. As a natural right, the safeguarding of the Constitution is similar to the right of every individual to resist an oppressive and authoritarian regime. It is based on natural law, from which it derives its legitimacy. It belongs to the unwritten laws of human nature and logically pre-exists the state and its fundamental and supreme norm.” (p.841)

Indeed,” the right of resistance is a right whose holders are exclusively the citizens. For the constituents, the mission of vigilance towards the maintenance of the established order and the constitutional safeguard exceeds the narrow framework of the control carried out by the state bodies. It is thus attributed to all the citizens of the country, governors or governed, in their capacity as members of the community, of citizens”. (p.851)

According to the author of “Traité de Science Politique”, George Burdeau, “the engine of the resistance it is neither the crowd, nor the tribune, it is the individual who has the political taste and who judges; it is the citizen that does not fascinate “the hypnosis exerted by the Power”; the one that refuses to be dupe”. Because it is necessary that there is “at the beginning of the popular movement, a reaction of individual consciences”, otherwise “it will be a riot or a revolt, it will not be, in the full sense of the word, this refusal to accept any longer the arbitrariness of the rulers which characterizes the resistance to oppression

Resistance to oppression is not revolutionary. On the contrary, it is conservative in nature, its mission being to defend the established constitutional order and to contribute to the return of the to the status quo ante” (p.855).



resistance to oppression, 1776, Antigon, article 34, Ciceron, constitution, de Araujo Recchia, Declaration of Independence, France, French Declaration of Human Rights 1793, German Basic Law, Grundgesetz, Hellenic Constitutional system, Legal Opinion, natural law, Right to Resist, sacred right, Virginie

Back to All Cases


Legal Opinion-Bahner-VaxLegality

Legal Opinion-Bahner-VaxLegality

Legal Opinion

Re: the illegal implementation of the vaccines & violation of German & EU Medical Laws


Back to All Cases

Legal Report written by the German lawyer Beate Bahner, outlining the many violations under German & EU Law of the Covid Inoculation program. (Dated Dec 27, 2021)

  • Section 1 : is the full original document (in German)
  • Section 2 : is a ‘Working English’ translation made by Corona Cases of item “9. Summary” of lawyer Bahner’s document

(i.e. it is not an ‘official translation’ authorized for legal purposes but only intended as an aid to understanding of the main content of the German summary.)

  • Section 3 : is a Video in which she warns of the Criminal Consequences of participating in the inoculation program (with English Subtitles).


Click the “View Fullscreen” button below to get full functionality in fullscreen.


9. Summary

1. A substance may only be used for the manufacture of a medicinal product if the intended use is either described in a monograph in accordance with the pharmacopoeia in a monograph, or extensive additional studies, including toxicity studies and clinical studies are submitted for the new new excipients. 

2. The sense and purpose of all German and European pharmaceutical regulations is the protection of people through the quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal products.

3. EMA [the European Medicines Agency] has imposed special conditions on BioNTech – particularly with regard to the two lipid nanoparticles, ALC 0315 and ALC 0159 in particular, as these are novel adjuvants for the Comirnaty vaccine and used for the first time on humans and in a novel way.

4. The corresponding special conditions of the EMA (specific obligations SO2, SO4, SO5) for these novel adjuvants had to be fulfilled by Biontech by July 2021.

5. Both the EMA report on the extension of the conditional marketing authorization in October 2021 as well as the safety data sheet of Pfizer for Comirnaty dated 7.12.2021 show that these conditions have not been fulfilled and that the required documentation is not available. It says: “No data available”. 

6. This is a violation of the principles of good manufacturing practice and thus also a a violation of the recognized pharmaceutical rules in the sense of § 8 para. 1 no. 1 AMG. According to this, it is forbidden to bring medicinal products into the market such that “by deviation from the recognized pharmaceutical rules, their quality is not insignificantly reduced”.

7. The quality is already reduced by the fact alone that two essential ingredients contained in Comirnaty are not intended for use in or on humans and are therefore considered “novel excipients” for which special documents and evidence must be provided.

8. In addition, lipid-related impurities in the vaccine are already documented in EMA’s registration dossier. Impurities of the vaccine are documented. These impurities are likely to increase in the light of further information on the reduction in filtration processes of the adjuvant nanolipid ALC-0315, these impurities may have even increased. With the reduction of the filtering processes, the marketing authorization holder would also violate S02, SO4 and SO5 of EMA in the marketing authorization notice.

9. Finally, according to the safety reports of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the vaccine shows an alarming number of harmful effects that far beyond what is “justifiable” according to medical science.

10. Due to this fact, there is furthermore a violation of § 5 para. 1 AMG namely, a violation of the prohibition of the marketing and use of questionable medicinal products. Thus, not only the manufacturers but also the vaccinating physicians, as well as all persons responsible for a vaccination with Comirnaty are subject to the regulations of the Medicinal Products Act.

11. Violations of § 8 AMG and § 5 AMG are classified as criminal offenses according to § 95 para. 1 no. 1 and no. 3a and are punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment. Negligent commission is also punishable, § 95 para. 4 AMG.

12. A particularly serious case of this offense with imprisonment of up to 10 years if another person is exposed to the risk of death or serious injury to body or health, § 95 (3) No. 2 AMG. In this case is the manufacture, distribution and use of the vaccine Comirnaty contrary to the prohibitions of §§ 5 and 8 AMG. is intentionally realized.

13. Furthermore, vaccination may not be carried out in the case of allergies to a component of the vaccine. Therefore, all persons to be vaccinated must be tested in advance for a possible allergy to one of the components in order to exclude any contraindication to the vaccination.

14. Therefore, a person may not be vaccinated until he or she has been tested for tolerance to each of the components of the vaccine with respect to allergic compatibility and the tolerance to all components of the Comirnaty vaccine has been medically confirmed.

15. Until then, vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine must be prohibited due to the possibility of a serious health hazard.

16. An infringement not only violates the aforementioned provisions of the Medicinal Products of the Medicines Act, but also other principles of general criminal law.

17. All statements also apply to the vaccine Spikevax from MODERNA!

Heidelberg, 27 December 2021

Beate Bahner[signed]


Source: shortXXvids



Bahner, Beate Bahner, BioNTech, Cominarty, EMA, European Medicines Agency, germany, imprisonment, Legal Opinion, Pfizer, prison, punishment

Back to All Cases


Legal Opinion-deBuisseret-Crimes Against Humanity

Legal Opinion-deBuisseret-Crimes Against Humanity

Legal Opinion

Re: Who Will be Held Liable Under The Law for Crimes Against Humanity for Lockdown Measures & Experimenting on the People with drugs


Back to All Cases

Anna de Buisseret Explains Who Will be Held Liable Under The Law for the“Biggest Crimes Against Humanity Ever Committed”

Dated Nov 21, 2021

“There is nowhere to run, there is nowhere to hide!”

In this brilliant interview, lawyer Anna de Buisseret explains clearly and eloquently how those responsible for causing harm will be held liable under the law in relation to the experimental injections currently being rolled out, especially to young children. She describes how those who have explicitly or implicitly aided and abetted governments in a military grade psychological operation have essentially committed crimes against humanity and that they will inevitably be held accountable, as has happened throughout history.

“The Idea that a bunch of bureaucrats in 2020-21 get to come along and set aside our rule of law, claiming there’s a Public Health Emergency is NOT legal, it’s NOT lawful!”

Having been accused of issuing threats, Anna declares she is simply a messenger and that the law is the law. She is simply pointing out what the law is because people need to be aware of what they are doing and the harms they are causing.

“Under Common Law: Over his/her own mind or body the individual is sovereign”

Source: Blue Cat Media

Notice of Liability for mRNA vaccinations

This Notice of Liability was written by UK lawyer Anna de Buisseret. Its intended use is to be signed and sent to teachers or head masters of schools in the United Kingdom, in order to warn the recipients of the grave harm that mRNA vaccinations may cause to children.

You will need to edit all parts of the notice that are highlighted in yellow.


Anna de Buisseret has further informed Corona Cases that: the Notices have been – and are continuing to be – served on people both here in the UK and globally. The NoLs have to be adapted to quote the relevant domestic law in each country, but the European and International law is the same.



UK, Crimes Against Humanity, Anna de Buisseret, Buisseret, Lawyer, Solicitor, Attorney, opinion, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, European Convention of Human Rights, UK Human Rights Act, International Covenant of Social & Economic Rights, Human Rights, Common Law, First do no harm.

Back to All Cases