Exemption Certificates Case

Exemption Certificates Case

Exemption Certificates Case

Re: the Legality of a Medical Doctor Issuing Vaccination Exemption Certificates

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Feb 9, 2023
  • Location: Salzburg, Austria
  • Court: Regional Court Salzburg
  • Case #: ?
  • Plaintiff:  Public Prosecutor
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: Dr Andreas Sönnichsen
  • Trial Type: Criminal Complaint
  • Judge: ?
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Defendant


*updated Feb 13, 2023

Background

Dr Andreas Sönnichsen, a German national, was employed as a teaching and research professor at the university hospital in Vienna from 2018 up to end of 2021 when he was fired from his position because of his fierce criticism of Corona vaccination policy. [1]

He was accused of having issued digital certificates for provisional vaccination incapacity against payment of 20 euros, although he was not authorized to do so. [1]

The Medical Association had seen the general practitioner’s actions as a violation of the Medical Act and reported this to the public prosecutor’s office. In the court hearing, he was accused of his opinions being issued via the internet without having conscientiously examined the patients in advance. [1]

He was also accused by defenders of the government and Corona policy Corona policy of being a “Schwurbler” (indiscriminate conspiracy theorist, lateral thinker etc). [1]

 

Significance

First legal case in Austria of a medical doctor found innocent of issuing vaccine exemption certificates.

 

Plaintiff’s (State Prosecutor’s) Argument

Dr Sönnlichen was further accused of issuing his expert opinions via the Internet without having conscientiously examined the patients beforehand. [1]

 

Defendant’s Argument

Sönnichsen protested his innocence in the trial. The judge could not recognize any subjective facts and no intent to enrich. [1]

Via his lawyer, Dr Sönnichsen argued [2] that he:

“…never committed fraud or abused his powers.” further stating that: It is legal, that if people are afraid of having an allergic reaction to an untested vaccine, to issue them with a certificate [of vaccination exemption] up until the time that the ingredients and effects of this vaccine are clarified.”

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

A similar case was held in Germany where entrepreneur Markus Bönig was on trial for brokering “vaccination certificates” for a fee. [3]

in the view of the Lüneburg Regional Court, the vaccination certificate is not a health certificate at all, because it does not certify an individual state of health. “The ‘certificate’ is also not incorrect, since the statement made in it that no examination had taken place corresponds to the truth,” the court said. The extent to which the certificate is then useful in practice – for example, in the case of a workplace-based vaccination requirement – was not before the court.[3]

According to Bönig, the certificates are in any case simply expert opinions “which merely reflect what the user himself has stated, namely that he does not know at all whether he could react allergically or not.” This determination does not require personal contact with a doctor.[3]

 

Decision

The trial against the physician, university lecturer and well-known CoV vaccination critic Andreas Sönnichsen ended in Salzburg with an acquittal. [1]

 

Aftermath

After the acquittal, Sönnichsen strongly criticized the CoV policy. Those who had not been vaccinated had been severely defamed and discriminated against. [1]

He told ORF after the verdict was handed down that there was now a great deal of work to be done in society. [1]

He criticizes the fact that there is now a great silence – after many months of expensive media campaigns against the unvaccinated:

“I am very glad that Corona is now coming to an end. On the other hand, we now have to come to terms with the past. We now know that many political measures were completely inappropriate. It is now openly admitted that the kindergarten and school closures were unnecessary. Now two studies have come out that the mandatory masking was also unnecessary. The lockdowns certainly did more harm than good.” [1]

Of course, a lot was learned in this crisis, Sönnichsen said,

“But the people who predicted this, and I count myself among them, they were massively defamed and called right-wing radicals. I have never had any radical right-wing thoughts in my head. [1]

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
  • Read the Court Ruling
In the news:

 

Media


Interview -Jan 2023

source: ….


Interview -Sept 2022

source: ….


Sönnichsen describes his hearing in the Salzburg court -Feb 10 2023

source: shortXXvids

 

References

  1. Freispruch für Impfkritiker, heftige Kritik an CoV-Politik .>>> Click here for English translation
  2. short video of Sönnichsen describing his hearing in the Salzburg court on Feb 9th
  3. Hörtest gegen die Maskenpflicht

 

Keyword

Exemption, Exemption Certificates, Fraud, Hospital, Medical Act, professor, Salzburg, Schwurbler, Sönnichsen, University, Vienna


Back to All Cases

 

SA Mandate Case: Supreme Court

SA Mandate Case: Supreme Court

SA Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of Violating the Rights of a person’s Medical Autonomy via a state enforced injection

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: March, 2022
  • Location: South Australia
  • Court: Supreme Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Varnhagen, police, education & health workers
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Loretta Polson
  • Defendant:
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated March 11, 2022

Background

Nurse and AFLW Adelaide Crows player Deni Varnhagen is among a group of four education and health workers seeking a judicial review of the mandates, which they claim are invalid. In addition, The Supreme Court heard two police officers who also want to be added to the case, challenging the mandatory vaccination policy for SA Police. [1]

Two healthcare workers and two education workers all claim to have lost their jobs due to vaccine mandates introduced under SA’s Emergency Management Act. [3] Dual Adelaide AFLW premiership defender Deni Varnhagen will not be allowed to play in the competition this season after refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. [4]

The applicants are seeking an expedited hearing and have asked for a three-day trial during the week beginning March 14, which falls five days before the state election. [1]

Nurse Deni Varnhagen, the primary Plaintiff said: [2]

“We are all just here for freedom of choice basically, we all deserve the right to decide what we put into our bodies,” Ms Varnhagen said. 

“Coercion is not consent. We shouldn’t be losing our jobs or even be forced. 

“I wish I was at work caring for people, doing the things that I’m good at.” 

  •  

The mandatory vaccination direction came into effect yesterday (Nov 1, 2021), but hundreds of staff across the health system have not met the deadline. On Tuesday (Nov 2, 2021), Women’s and Children’s Hospital CEO Lindsay Gough confirmed that at her hospital alone 133 people had not been vaccinated. [1]

  •  

Lawyers for the state government said although they agreed the matter needed to be heard urgently, they may apply for an application to vacate that trial date depending on preparations and the ability to get its own expert witness. [1]

  •  

A lawyer for the applicants also foreshadowed an application to have an auxiliary judge — either retired or from interstate — hear the trial due to any perceived bias arising out of the Courts Administration Authority imposing its own vaccination mandate. [1]

The court heard the applicants would call Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky to give evidence about “technical matters relating to the vaccine”. [1]

The group’s lawyer, Loretta Polson, said outside court that “compelling, scientific, medical evidence” would be presented “to demonstrate that vaccination does not prevent COVID-19 transmission”. [1]

She also questioned the power of SA Police Commissioner Grant Stevens — the state coordinator during the coronavirus pandemic — to impose mandates. [1]

“We are amending the application to challenge a further mandate directed to police officers,” Ms Polson said. [1]

“Police officers are now being advised that they need to be vaccinated at the risk of losing their livelihood and careers. [1]

How many more insidious mandates are to be imposed upon the workers of South Australia by a public servant?” [1]

At a directions hearing on Thursday (Feb 17 2022), the court set down four days to hear the case starting on March 17. [5]

 

Significance

This case challenges the right of a government or employer to force unwanted substances into its citizens/employees

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

…More information is needed…

 

Aftermath

…More information is needed…


Further Research

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

 

Media


……

source: ….


SA Police Join Mandate Challenge

source: 7NEWS Australia


….

source: ….

 

References

  1. SA Police officers want to join Adelaide Crows AFLW player in vaccination mandate appeal
  2. More than 100 staff at Adelaide’s Women’s and Children’s Hospital refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19
  3. AFLW Crows player Deni Varnhagen challenges SA’s COVID vaccine mandate in court
  4. Unvaccinated Crow Deni Varnhagen out of AFLW season
  5. Trial over SA vaccine rules next month
  6.  

 

Keyword

AFLW, Adelaide, Australia, Crows, Deni, education, Flinders University, health workers, judicial review, Loretta Polson, mandates, Nikolai, Nurse, Petrovsky, player, professor, South Australia, Supreme Court, Vaccine, Varnhagen


Back to All Cases