WEBSITE NOT LOADED CORRECTLY

PLEASE NOTE: If you see this text, it means that certain resources could not be loaded and the website is not displayed correctly. This can happen when browsing on Apple devices (iPhone, iPad etc.) due to a bug in their software. Try the refresh button to reload this website, or use a different device not running Apple's iOS. Stop using Apple products.
Type what you’re looking for and press Enter.

Court Cases against the COVID-19 measures

People are taking the local criminal governments to court in various countries because of the lockdown measures in response to the COVID-19 ‘pandemic.’ You probably won’t be hearing much about these cases in the mainstream media, so you need to make sure you follow alternative news websites and bloggers who talk about these efforts. I’ll discuss a few noteworthy ones below.

Court case in Weimar, Germany

In Germany a judge ruled that the COVID-19 measures taken by the criminal government were against fundamental human rights. Here’s from The Fire Online, “German Judge: ‘Corona policies catastrophically wrong political decision with dramatic consequences for human life'” (January 23rd 2020):

“The question of whether the legislature was allowed to view the extension of the lockdown as ‘necessary’ to prevent overburdening of the health system must be answered with a clear ‘no'”

This month, a court in Thüringen (Weimar) ruled after a violation of Article 2 of a SARS-CoV-2 emergency ordinance, as in effect since April 18, 2020. The complete ruling (translated to Dutch) can be found below this short article. Also as a download in pdf.

The grounds on which all measures were taken in the spring of 2020 were not supported by an epidemic even then, writes the court after first extensive assessment of those figures. For example, the figures would not justify the designation ‘pandemic’ or ‘epidemic’ based on the data published by the German RIVM (the Robert Koch Institute) itself. Rather the designation of a severe flu, it says.

‘Wrong assumptions about lethality of virus’

From there, the court reasons outright scathingly about the current freedom-restricting measures, which they define as ‘undignified,’ ‘ineffective’ (with respect to the stated goal, “multiple scientific studies show that lockdowns do not lead to significant reductions in disease rates”) as well as being “many times more deadly” than the virus itself (they substantiate this as well).

‘Citizens are turned into objects’

In short, the corona measures are therefore disproportionate to their intended purpose, turn the citizen into “an object,” and lead “without a doubt” to many more deaths from the measures themselves, cost a fortune (over 1.2 trillion euros in benefits and tax losses alone), and are “a catastrophically wrong political decision with dramatic consequences for almost all aspects of human life.” On the citizen as an ‘object,’ the court has another clear message:

“If every citizen is seen as a threat from which others must be protected, he is also deprived of the ability to decide to what risks he exposes himself, which is a fundamental freedom. Whether the citizen visits a café or a bar in the evening and accepts the risk of infection with a respiratory virus for the sake of sociability and the enjoyment of life, or whether she is more cautious because she has a weakened immune system and therefore prefers to stay at home, is no longer a decision that can be made under a blanket ban on contact.

The free subject who takes responsibility for his own health and that of his fellow men is hereby suspended. All citizens are seen by the state as potential sources of danger to others and thus as objects that must be kept “at bay” by state coercion.”

The original ruling in the German language can be found on openJur.

Court case in Portugal

In Portugal judges ruled that the PCR test used to supposedly detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in people is unreliable. Here’s from The Portugal News, “Covid PCR test reliability doubtful – Portugal judges” (November 27th 2020):

The PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal.

The judges quoted a paper published in The Lancet by Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy and Francis Drobniewski, which stated: […]

“Prolonged viral RNA shedding, which is known to last for weeks after recovery, can be a potential reason for positive swab tests in those previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. However, importantly, no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed with laboratory culture based methods.

“To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels (panel).”

The judges concluded by stating that: “The problem is that this reliability is shown, in terms of scientific evidence (and in this field, the judge will have to rely on the knowledge of experts in the field), as being more than debatable.

“Thus, with so many scientific doubts, expressed by experts in the field, which are the ones that matter here, as to the reliability of such tests, ignoring the parameters of their performance and there being no diagnosis made by a doctor, in the sense of existence of infection and risk, it would never be possible for this court to determine that C … had the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor that A., B … and D … had high risk exposure,” concluded the judgement in relation to the case which has ultimately calls into question the reliability of the tests.

The other study cited in the judgement was Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates, whose results were published by Oxford Academic in late September.

“The proportion of samples that were no longer able to infect cells maintained in culture in the laboratory increased with the increase in the number of cycles required to obtain a positive signal. This is because after our body controls the infection there are fragments of the virus’s genetic material that persist and decrease over days, when the individual no longer poses a danger to others, ”explains Vasco Barreto. […] Now, from reading the article, the judges conclude that “the probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher”.

RT also published an Op-ed on this.

It’s almost unbelievable that the criminal governments around the world are taking such far reaching decisions in the lives of other people based on highly unreliable tests. Fundamental human rights are being violated worldwide on a massive scale based on questionable science.

Here’s from The National News, “False negatives and positives: how accurate are PCR tests for Covid-19?” (November 19th 2020):

False positives can happen because of the methods used, according to Prof Anthony Brookes, bioinformatics group leader at the University of Leicester in the UK. Usually beginning with a nasal or throat swab and looking for viral RNA, the test involves repeated cycles in which the genetic material is multiplied. As many as 35 or 40 cycles may be carried out, which Prof Brookes said is too many because it increases the chance of a positive result even without coronavirus RNA being present in the original sample. “At this level you would find things just because of the chemistry,” he said.

And from The New York Times, “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.” (August 29th 2020):

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

And it’s not just the PCR tests that are unreliable; other tests such as the Rapid Antigen tests are also very unreliable, as Elon Musk experienced himself on November 13th 2020. Here’s what he said on Twitter:

Something extremely bogus is going on. Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse. Rapid antigen test from BD.

Court cases in The Netherlands

Lawyer Jeroen Pols from Viruswaarheid in the Netherlands has started several cases against the local criminal government, some of which are still ongoing. You can find the details over on the Viruswaarheid website (Dutch).

The foundation “Ik wil gewoon naar school” in the Netherlands is currently also fighting a case against the criminal government regarding the mandatory wearing of masks in schools. Details can be found on their website (Dutch).


Seeing as how the “judicial system” and the criminal government are part of the same system of enslavement, it’s surprising when people win these kinds of court cases against the criminal government. Most of the time you’d expect the judges to side with the criminal government since they are appointed and paid by the same system. It’s good to see that some judges still have the courage to make the right decisions. As I recently said in a discussion, judges are humans in the first place and they have a conscience like everyone else. There’s always a possibility that they might decide to side with their conscience instead of the criminal government, and therefore, it’s worth trying to fight back in court. At the same time, it’s also the best way to put the criminal government legally on notice about what they’re doing, so that they can’t claim later (for example when criminal proceedings against them start) that they were unware of the facts and of complaints.

Comments

There are 3 responses. Follow any responses to this post through its comments RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply to SF Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.