Legal Opinion Green Mango

Legal Opinion

Re: Experiences in a German Court


Back to All Cases

Report by lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich from the court hearing Green Mango v. Prof. Drosten

Translation of German article:

Dated Nov 9 2021

In today’s hearing before the Berlin Regional Court in the case of Green Mango (Karaoke-Bar) v. Drosten, it was to be expected that either the rule of law would show signs of life, in whole or in part, or that it would become apparent that it had been completely brought into line with the government (or with those who use this government to realise their goals). As we expected, the latter showed itself:

A group of about 30 to 40 people interested in the proceedings, i.e.: the public, wanted to attend the trial. However, only seven people were admitted as spectators. The courtroom was guarded by four security officers; apparently the court feared war-like conditions – without any reason, as evidenced by the fact that completely “normal” people wanted to watch.

After entering the courtroom, while I was still unpacking my files and robe, the presiding judge pointed out to me that I had to wear a mask (the two Drosten lawyers were each wearing FFP 2 masks). I explained to him that I had a mask exemption certificate. The presiding judge then told me that he did not recognise such a thing, that he had the right of domicile here and that I had to wear a mask. I then explained to him the legal situation, namely that this was a case of coercion to which I would not submit. I would not damage my own health on his instructions and, if he persisted, I could not represent my client as a lawyer. Since I thus had to leave the courtroom, the presiding judge – as spectators later told me – asked the opposing lawyer to apply for a default judgment against my client, which he of course gladly did, so that the presiding judge could pronounce the corresponding default judgment. This is what happens when the party, in this case represented by his lawyer, does not appear in court. We will now appeal against this, so that everything will start all over again.

Surprisingly, the presiding judge, as I was told afterwards by spectators who remained in the courtroom, took it on record that he could not check my certificate (which he had not even had shown to him). So the question is what his real problem is: Does he believe that he can deny my client the right to be heard by eliminating her lawyer, so that Drosten, with his, the presiding judge’s, help, could automatically achieve a victory (albeit only a stage victory)? Or does he really believe that he is authorised (moreover, obviously as a medical layman) to check my certificate in any way? Obviously, as this entry in the minutes shows, he was now very unsure whether what he had done before the beginning of the oral proceedings could be reconciled with the requirements of the rule of law.

If necessary, we will also file criminal charges for coercion and all other possible offences, including the suspicion of perverting the course of justice. In any case, we will have to file a motion for bias. Because even an objective observer of the events will at least have the strong suspicion that my client can no longer expect a fair trial before this court in this legal dispute against Drosten: My client is suing Drosten for damages and injunctive relief because Drosten has destroyed my client’s existence with many false claims about his PCR test, which he – Drosten – copied from Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis and misused, and the demand for lockdowns (as well as masks and social distancing, etc.) based on his results (with a high probability of almost 100% false positive “cases”).

The presiding judge bows to this dictate of the defendant without further ado and even in the oral proceedings – with the windows wide open – walks around with an FFP-2 mask, and (this combination might be decisive for the overall assessment) denies my client – moreover with contradictory justification – the right to be heard by preventing her lawyer from participating in this lawyer’s process (the client is not allowed to represent herself, but this is only possible through a lawyer), and suggests to Drosten’s lawyers, after I as the plaintiff’s lawyer had to leave the courtroom, to file a motion for a default judgment, which the latter then does (even though he may have already prepared this in an earlier pleading), so that the presiding judge, on the motion of Drosten’s lawyers proposed by himself, issues the default judgment to the detriment of the now defenceless – because deliberately made defenceless by the presiding judge – plaintiff.



Germany, Wodarg, Drosten, PCR, Green Mango, Karaoke Bar, Attorney, opinion, judges, mask, procedure, Fuellmich, Berlin, Kary Mullis

Back to All Cases