PDF-Sönnichsen-Acquittal-Article
Article
Re: the Acquittal of Dr Sönnichsen for Issuing Vaccine Exemption Papers
Click the “View Fullscreen” button below to get full functionality in fullscreen.
Exemption Certificates Case
Exemption Certificates Case
Re: the Legality of a Medical Doctor Issuing Vaccination Exemption Certificates
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
References
- Freispruch für Impfkritiker, heftige Kritik an CoV-Politik .>>> Click here for English translation
- short video of Sönnichsen describing his hearing in the Salzburg court on Feb 9th
- Hörtest gegen die Maskenpflicht
Keyword
Exemption, Exemption Certificates, Fraud, Hospital, Medical Act, professor, Salzburg, Schwurbler, Sönnichsen, University, Vienna
FPO PCR Case
FPO PCR Case
Re: the Legality & Efficacy of the PCR test to make a Covid diagnosis & prohibit meetings
Facts of the Case
- Dates: March 24, 2021
- Location: Austria
- Court: Vienna Administrative Court/ Verwaltungsgericht Wien
- Case #: GZ : VGW- 7A3 / A4e I 3227 /2A2r-2
- Plaintiff: Austrian party FPÖ
- Defendant:
- Trial Type:
- Judge:
- Status: End
- Verdict: for the Plaintiff
*updated: Jan 26 2022
Background
In reaction to the the government’s prohibition of a meeting by the Austrian party FPÖ registered for January 31 in Vienna , the FPÖ took the government to court. [1]
Courts in Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands have previously ruled that PCR tests are not suitable for COVID-19 diagnosis and that lockdowns has no legal or scientific basis. [4]
Based on the definitions of the Minister of Health, “Case definition Covid-19” from December 23, 2020, a “confirmed case” [4]
- is any person with evidence of SARS-CoV-2-specific nucleic acid (PCR test), regardless of clinical manifestation or
- any person with evidence of SARS-CoV-specific antigen that meets the clinical criteria or
- any person with evidence of SARS-CoV-specific antigen that meets the epidemiological criteria.
Significance
Since all covid measures rest on the accuracy and believability of the PCR test to diagnose the covid disease, any decision against this throws into doubt the entire pandemic narrative.
Plaintiff’s Argument
The Plaintiff argued that the PCR test used to justify the prohibition is flawed and “not suitable for diagnostics”
Even according to the World Health Organization (WHO), “a PCR test is not suitable for diagnosis and therefore does not say anything about the disease or infection of a person”. However, the Minister of Health uses a completely different, much broader case definition for Covid-19 diseases, which cannot be used to justify the prohibition of a meeting.
In cases where the number of people infected with the corona was defined based on the Austrian Minister of Health and not on the WHO, any determination of the numbers for “sick/infected” is wrong.
Defendant’s Argument
…More information is needed…
Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases
- In October 2020, an Austrian court also declared lockdowns unconstitutional [3]
- In a similar ruling, a Portuguese appeals court has ruled thatPCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test. [4]
- A German court in a landmark ruling has declared that COVID-19 lockdowns imposed by the government are unconstitutional. [4]
- Thuringia’s spring lockdown was a “catastrophically wrong political decision with dramatic consequences for almost all areas of people’s lives,” the court said, justifying its decision. [4]
- Earlier, an American federal judge ruled coronavirus restrictions in Pennsylvania as unconstitutional. [4]
Even the Hague Court has ruled that the COVID-19 lockdown which was imposed by the Dutch Govt had no legal basis and that it was illegal. [4]
However, the Dutch appeals court overturned the ruling within hours which ordered the government to lift the “illegitimate” measure immediately. [4]
The appeals judges argued that they wanted to avoid what they called a “yo-yo effect,” referring to public confusion around whether the curfew was still in force. [4]
Decision
Austrian court issued a sensational judgment on March 24, which slapped the government’s covid policy. The court states that a PCR covid-test is not suitable for determining infectivity. This factually correct judgment indirectly rejects the entire corona policy in Austria, which is based on this test. [1]
“The prohibition was wrong,” it says. Based on scientific studies, the court stated that the grounds for the prohibition put forward by the Vienna State Police Department are completely unfounded. The court agrees with the statements in the complaint “on all points” and even goes far beyond the arguments put forward by the FPÖ itself. The criteria and definitions used to determine the number of corona victims is massively questioned. [1]
The court came to the conclusion that the “information” from the Vienna City Health Service, on which the prohibition by the Vienna State Police Department was based, “did not contain any valid and evidence-based statements or findings on the epidemic”. [1]
The court says that based on scientific studies, the prohibition put forward by the Vienna State Police Department is completely unfounded. The ruling also states that the case definition used by the Ministry of Health contradicts that of the World Health Organization, which refuses to rely solely on PCR tests to diagnose infection [see WHO finally admits the problem of PCR tests for a brief summary]. [2]
It is expressly pointed out that, even according to the World Health Organization, “a PCR test is not suitable for diagnosis and therefore does not in itself say anything about the disease or infection of a person”. [4]
“However, the Minister of Health uses a completely different, much broader case definition for Covid-19 diagnosis, which cannot be used to justify the prohibition of a meeting.”[4]
The court came to the conclusion that the “information” from the Vienna City Health Service, on which the prohibition by the Vienna State Police Department was based, “did not contain any valid and evidence-based statements or findings on the pandemic”. [4]
Aftermath
Despite this ruling the Austrian Government in November pushed harder on its emergency measures by becoming the first nation to mandate covid vaccines for all by Feb 1 2022.
Further Research
Court Documents:
In the news:
Media
……
source: ….
….
source: ….
References
- Austrian court overturns judgment: PCR test not suitable for diagnosis
- Austrian court: PCR test not suitable for diagnosis
- Sensationeel: Oostenrijks Hof verklaart lockdownmaatregelen ongrondwettig
- Austrian Court Rules PCR unsuited For COVID, lockdowns unlawful
Keyword
Austria, Diagnosis, FPÖ, PCR, Test, Vienna