# Sondersitzung / Special Session

"International Legal Offensive - Part 3"

Bringt Euch mit Euren guten Fragen ein!
Get involved with your good questions!

(Session in English, some German)

+ Sitzung als Deutsche Simultanübersetzung

Corona-Ausschuss hört die Experten: Rechtsanwältin Gina Cloud (USA), Restaurantbesitzer Tony Roman (StayOpen Activist - California/USA), Rechtsanwältin Ellie Dilmann (Australia), Rechtsanwalt Peter Weis (Slovakia), Rechtsanwalt K. Michael Verstraeten (Belgium), Klimatologe Suji Hameed (India and Japan), Rechtsanwalt Alexis Stylianou (Cyprus).

Moderatoren: Rechtsanwalt Dr. Reiner Füllmich (Veraucherschutzanwalt) und Rechtsanwältin Viviane Fischer (Anwältin für Wirtschaftsrecht und Volkswirtin)

Livestream - 14. May 2021 - 15:00 h MEZ / CET mit Zuschauerbeteiligung ⇊

•StreamedLive - May 14, 2021 - 15 CET [to participate in the discussion, please go directly to the LIVE CHAT]

Corona Ausschuss - Ausweichkanal

Since mid-July 2020, the Corona Committee has been conducting live, multi-hour sessions to investigate why federal and state governments imposed unprecedented restrictions as part of the Coronavirus response and what the consequences have been and still are for people.


Internationale Rechts Offensive - Part 3 - Deutsche Übersetzung


Documents / Comments



Oviedo Convention and its Protocols

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No 164) was opened for signature on 4 April 1997 in Oviedo (Spain) .It is a framework Convention aiming at protecting the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine.

This Convention is the only international legally binding instrument on the protection of human rights in the biomedical field.  

It draws on the principles established by the European Convention on Human Rights, in the field of biology and medicine.

France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, all Scandinavian countries etc. are signatories, and even Turkey has fully ratified it, but GERMANY, THE UK, RUSSIA AND THE USA HAVE NOT EVEN (yet?) SIGNED THE OVIEDO CONVENTION. 



Make Restaurants Great Again




'Make Restaurants Great Again' is an organization founded by 'Basilico's Pasta e Vino', a business that has not just "resisted", but instead has openly and aggressively attacked the lockdowns, and has proudly done so only in defense of American Liberty and Freedom, risking everything for the stated principles. 

Basilico's has never shut down, remaining fully operational without any restrictions, including banning masks,  in total defiance of all tyrannical local and state government orders since the minute they were announced for California on March 19th, 2020. 

'Make Restaurants Great Again' was created as a platform to inspire and encourage other businesses, especially restaurants to defy all lockdowns based on these same beliefs and in the same 'Basilico's Pasta e Vino' spirit !

 Make Restaurants Great Again will recognize and spotlight the independently and family owned restaurants / businesses in California and across the U.S. who take an uncompromising American Patriot stand. 

Because these are the courageous business owners most willing to risk everything in their stand for American Freedom, when fighting against draconian and anti-Liberty orders and mandates, they are most at risk of being targeted by their totalitarian local and state governments, who threaten them with fines, license revocations, criminal actions and even arrests. So 'Make Restaurants Great Again' and 'Basilico's Pasta e Vino' pledge to stand with these special restaurants / businesses, and fight along side them until we together force the Enemies of Freedom to Surrender and we  achieve Complete Victory !


Basilico's Pasta e Vino has been a staple local neighborhood Italian restaurant in Huntington Beach, CA since 1999, when founder Rosemarie created and introduced her original recipes, and traditional home-style rustic Italian cooking to Orange County.  Son  Tony, built the restaurant at its current location as a gift to her, a tribute to her dedication sacrifices, and love for her customers and community.  Now in its 21st year in business, Basilico's continues to serve its food and customers with great care and love!  And in 2020 into 2021, it is no longer just a restaurant, but instead a 1776 Tavern where Patriots gather, as they have pledged their business as a 'Constitutional Battleground' in the fight against all Lockdown Tyranny! 



Corporations Plan To Replace Vaccinated Workforce Within 3-Years - They knew all along

Re-published on BITCHUTE June 14th, 2021.

The laws broken by these criminals subject them to the death penalty. So let it be. Let none of these cowards be shown any mercy. From Doctor and nurse to CEO to cop. Let none go unpunished
Source: Greg Reese on the Reese Report

IMPORTAT NOTICE: The option to provide information via https://securewhistleblower.com/ is NOT 100% secure (see their Impressum | Datenschutz). To drop information there and in order to protect yourself, you need at least a connection via VPN and to use a computer that can not be traced back to you - e.g. from a cybercafe that doesn't request for your ID as user and has no CCTV surveillance system (delete temporay files and the trash after you are done.).Please know that the drop into this simple wordpress webmail-box is like publishing it publicly, since you also do not know, who exatly receives it or who intercepted the clear text transmission (that can be intercepted), which is only secured by simple, standard encryption (that can be broken) for the transfer, and is not encrypted at the storage. To get more advise see HERE or contact us in one of the described ways there.


The Power of NO!

By Sandy Barrett - 10. March 2021

In 1997 Eckhart Tolle released his seminal classic book "The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment". This guide for day-to-day living stresses the importance of being present in the moment. Today it is considered a classic in its genre, because of its wisdom and motivational undertones.

In 2021, mid-roll-out of the fast-tracked covid-19 experimental "vaccines"; many people are concerned about how to manage declining them and are fearful of how their decision might impact their day-to-day living.

This has motivated the team at Advocate Me and People for Safe Vaccines to develop a Declining a Vaccine Template, to strongly but politely decline the offer to uptake a Covid 19 Vaccination.

Like Eckhart Tolle's masterpiece, our goal is to empower our members with the right knowledge and information, by giving yourself power to say NO.

Should you be confronted by any person or organisation which pressures you to have a Covid 19 Vaccination, the contents of this template will arm you with the right resources to say NO! For carers and/or residents in residential Aged Care facilities, parents and children, students, and workplace employees and volunteers, this template is especially valuable.

In the potent words of Eckhart Tolle: "Any action is often better than no action." A key message in all self-help books is to imagine how you want it to be, then take action to do it. Saying "no" is you taking real action for your health, and is more powerful and inspiring than you can begin to imagine.

#peopleforsafevaccines #advocateme







Victoria Police, the Victorian Government and the Deputy Chief Health Officer have chosen to detain large groups of people, in a number of public housing estates, under the guise it is in the best interests of public health. We have now launched our Detention Towers Class Action, to give the 3000 residents and visitors of the Estate Towers a voice.




A new organisation has been formed called People for Safe Vaccines Ltd to facilitate dialogue with the Department of Health and TGA, examining the facts, with a view to ensuring proper science and accountability are returned to this critical matter of vaccine safety. It is this company that will take the challenge of expedited vaccines lacking in long-term safety studies, to the Courts.

We invite you to become a member, to support this vital pursuit to restore common sense, choice and trust.




In an extremely brave move at such a critical time, one courageous cop has reached out to the NSW Police Commissioner in an open letter, asking the police not to simply acquiesce to arbitrary government demands and to act in the best interest of its population, not tyranny of government. 




While the AUSTRALIAN HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION AGENCY (AHPRA) continue to choose to muzzle its health practitioners, resulting in them contravening their own purpose, which is to ensure practitioners are doing what is best for public health, we are seeking to commence a Complaint with regards to the unlawfulness of their policy concerning the restrictions they place on their practitioners surrounding communicating and discussing vaccine safety and efficacy risks. 




advocatemelogo.pngTEMPLATES for Australians

Available for Download

We are very aware that many people are impacted daily through coercive tactics, and are forced to acquiesce to false directives or policies that go against the government guidelines, or one's own rights. 

So the purpose of this initiative is to provide you with template letters that will help you address as many of these issues as you encounter them, without the need for our assistance. This means your immediate concerns can be addressed while we continue with our campaigns.

We will be updating and adding to our library of templates, as the need arises. 

Templates for Masking

Covid-19 Vaccinations non-consent letter

Mandating Flu Vaccinations

Covid-19 Vaccination Declination Letter

RT-PCR Testing



Sensational verdict from Weimar:

no masks, no distance, no more tests for pupils

Here is the full-text judgment (including three expert opinions).

In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court ruled on 8 April 2021 prohibiting two Weimar schools with immediate effect from requiring pupils to wear mouth-nose coverings of any kind (especially “qualified” masks such as FFP2 masks); it further prohibited the schools from demanding compliance with AHA minimum distance-keeping; and also prohibited them from demanding that pupils undergo SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests. At the same time, the Court ruled that classroom instruction must be face-to-face [i.e. not remote]. 

This is the first time that evidence has been presented to a German court on the scientific reasonableness and necessity of the anti-Corona measures which have been imposed. Those heard as expert witnesses were the public health doctor Prof. Dr. med Ines Kappstein, the psychologist Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner and the biologist Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Ulrike Kämmerer. 

The legal proceedings are a child protection case pursuant to § 1666 paragraph 1 and 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB). It was initiated by a mother for her two sons, aged 14 and 8, at the Municipal Court – Family Division. She argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and educationally harmed without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, there was violation of numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, under the constitution and under international conventions.

Proceedings under section 1666 of the Civil Code can be initiated ex officio, either on the proposal of any person, or if, in the best interests of the child, the Court considers intervention to be necessary pursuant to §1697a of the Civil Code, in the absence of any such proposal.

After examining the factual and legal situation and evaluating the expert opinions, the Weimar Family Court has come to the conclusion that the measures – now prohibited – constituted a present danger to the children’s mental, physical and psychological well-being to such an extent that, if they continued without intervention, there was a high degree of certainty of considerable harm being inflicted.

The judge elaborated: “Such a danger is present here. For the children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and psychological well-being by the obligation to wear face masks during school hours, and to keep their distance from each other and from other persons, but they have already been harmed. At the same time, there is violation of numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions. This applies, in particular, to the right to free development of the personality and to physical integrity under Article 2 of the Basic Law, as well as to the right, pursuant to Article 6 of the Basic Law, to parental upbringing and care (also with regard to measures for healthcare and “objects” to be carried by children)….”

With his judgement, the judge confirmed the mother’s assessment: “The children are physically, psychologically and educationally harmed while their rights are violated without any benefit for the children themselves or third parties.”

According to the Court, the school administrators, teachers and others could not invoke the regional state [i.e. “Land”] regulations, on which the measures are based, because these are unconstitutional and therefore null & void. Reason: they violate the principle of proportionality, rooted in the constitutional rule of law (Articles 20, 28 of the Basic Law).

“According to this principle, also known as the prohibition of excess, the measures intended to achieve a legitimate purpose must be suitable, necessary and proportionate in a narrow sense – that is to say: when weighing their advantages and disadvantages. The measures at issue are not evidence-based, contrary to Section 1(2) IfSG, and are already unsuited to achieving the fundamentally legitimate purpose they pursue, namely to avoid overloading the health system or to reduce the incidence of infection with the SARS-CoV- 2 virus. In any case, however, they are, strictly speaking, disproportionate because the considerable disadvantages/collateral damage caused by them are not compensated for by any recognisable benefit for the children themselves or for third parties,” the judge said.

He made clear: “Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that it is not the parties involved who would have to justify the unconstitutionality of the encroachments on their rights, but, rather, the Free State of Thuringia, which with its State law provisions has encroached on the rights of the parties involved, would have to prove with the necessary scientific evidence that the measures it prescribes are suitable to achieve the intended purposes and, if so, that they are proportionate. So far, this has not been done in the remotest.”


With her assessment of the complete international data on masks the expert Professor Kappstein convinced the Court that the scientific evidence does not support the idea of the effectiveness of masks for healthy people in public.

The ruling states: “Likewise, ‘third-party protection’ and ‘unnoticed transmission’, which the RKI [Robert-Koch Institute] used to justify its ‘re-evaluation’, are not supported by scientific facts. Plausibility, mathematical estimates and subjective assessments in opinion pieces cannot replace population-based clinical epidemiological studies. Experimental studies on the filtering performance of masks and mathematical estimates are not suitable to prove effectiveness in real life. While international health authorities advocate the wearing of masks in public spaces, they also say that there is no evidence from scientific studies to support this. Indeed, all currently available scientific evidence suggests that masks have no effect on the incidence of infection. None of the publications that are cited as evidence for the effectiveness of masks in public spaces allow this conclusion. The same also applies to the so-called Jena Study, as the expert explains in detail in her report. This is because the Jena study – like the vast majority of other studies, a purely mathematical estimation or modelling study, based on theoretical assumptions without real contact tracing, and with authors from the field of macroeconomics without epidemiological knowledge – fails to take into account the decisive epidemiological circumstance, as explained in detail by the expert, that the infection levels had already declined significantly before the introduction of mandatory masks in Jena on 6 April 2020 (about three weeks later in the whole of Germany), and that there was no longer any relevant incidence of infection in Jena as early as the end of March 2020.” 

The masks are not only useless, they are also dangerous, rules the Court: “Every mask, as the expert explained, must, in order in principle to be effective, be worn correctly. Masks can become a contamination risk if they are touched. However, in the first place, people do not wear them properly; secondly, people often touch the masks with their hands. This can also be observed with politicians who are seen on television. The population was not instructed how to use masks properly, it was not explained how to wash their hands when out & about, or how to perform effective hand disinfection. Furthermore, it was not explained why hand hygiene is important and that one must be careful not to touch one’s eyes, nose and mouth with one’s hands. The population was virtually left alone with the masks. The risk of infection is not only not reduced by wearing the masks but increased by the incorrect handling of the mask. In her expert opinion, the expert witness sets this out in just as much detail as the fact that, and for what reasons, it is “unrealistic” to achieve the appropriate handling of masks by the population.”

The judgement goes on to say: “The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through ‘aerosols’, i.e. through the air, is medically implausible and scientifically unproven. It is a hypothesis that has come mainly from aerosol physicists whose specialism, states the expert, understandably does not enable them to assess medical contexts. The ‘aerosol’ theory is extremely harmful to human interactions and leads to people no longer feeling safe in any indoor space, with some even fearing infection from ‘aerosols’ outside buildings. Together with the idea of ‘unnoticed’ transmission, the ‘aerosol’ theory leads to people seeing an infection risk in every fellow human being. 

The changes in the policy on masks, first fabric masks in 2020, then since the beginning of 2021 either OP masks or FFP2 masks, lack any clear rationale. Even though OP masks and FFP masks are both medical masks, they have different functions and are therefore not interchangeable. Either the politicians who made these decisions themselves did not understand what which type of mask is basically suitable for, or they did not care about that, but only about the symbolic value of the mask. From the expert’s point of view, the policy-makers’ mask decisions are not comprehensible and, to put it mildly, can be described as implausible.

The expert further points out that, outside of medical patient care, there are no scientific studies on social spacing. In summary, in her opinion and to the conviction of the court, only the following rules can be established:

1. Keeping a distance of about 1.5 m (1 – 2 m) during face-to-face encounters when one of the two persons has symptoms of a cold might be described as a sensible precaution. However, it is not scientifically proven; there is only evidence – or it can be said to be plausible – that it is an effective measure to protect against contact with pathogens through droplets of respiratory secretion if the person in contact has signs of a cold. Keeping distance with all & sundry, however, is not an effective way to protect oneself if the other person has a cold. 

2. Maintaining an all-round distance or even just a face-to- face distance of about 1.5 m (1 – 2 m), if none of the people present has signs of a cold, is not supported by scientific data. However, this greatly impairs people living together and especially carefree contact among children, without any recognisable benefit in terms of infection protection.

3. Close contacts, i.e. under 1.5 m (1 – 2 m), among pupils or between teachers and pupils, or among colleagues at work, etc., do not pose a risk even if one of the two contact persons has signs of a cold, because the duration of such contacts at school or even among adults, somewhere in public, is far too short for droplet transmission to occur. This is also shown by studies from households where, despite living in close quarters with numerous skin and mucous membrane contacts, few members of the household become ill when one of them has a respiratory infection.”

The Court also follows Professor Kappstein’s assessment regarding the transmission rates of symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people. It writes:

“She states that pre-symptomatic transmission is possible, but not inevitable. In any case, according to the professor, they are significantly lower when real contact scenarios are evaluated than when mathematical modelling is used.

From a systematic review with meta-analysis on Corona transmission in households published in December 2020, the professor contrasted a higher, but still not excessive, transmission rate of 18% for symptomatic index cases with an extremely low transmission of only 0.7% for asymptomatic cases. The possibility that asymptomatic people, previously referred to as healthy people, transmit the virus is therefore meaningless.”

In summary, the Court states, “There is no evidence that face masks of various types can reduce the risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 at all, or even appreciably. This statement applies to people of all ages, including children and adolescents, as well as asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic persons.

On the contrary, there is the possibility that hand-to-face contact, which becomes more frequent when wearing a mask, increases the risk of coming into contact with the pathogen oneself or bringing fellow humans into contact with it. For the normal population, there is no risk of infection in either the public or private sphere that could be reduced by wearing face masks (or other measures). There is no evidence that compliance with social distancing regulations can reduce the risk of infection. This applies to people of all ages, including children and adolescents.”

Even after the extensive findings of the expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner, according to the reasons for the judgement, “there is no high-quality scientific evidence to date that the risk of infection can be significantly reduced by wearing face masks. According to the expert’s findings, the recommendations of the RKI and the S3 guideline of the professional societies are based on observational studies, laboratory studies on the filter effect and modelling studies, which only provide low or very low evidence, because the underlying methodology of such studies does not allow any really valid conclusions to be drawn on the effect of masks in everyday life, or at schools. Moreover, the results of the individual studies are heterogeneous and some more recent observational studies provide contradictory findings.”

The judge states: “In addition, the achievable extent of the reduction in the risk of infection by wearing masks in schools is very low, because infections occur very rarely in schools even without masks. Accordingly, the absolute risk reduction is so small that a pandemic cannot be combated in a relevant way… According to the expert’s explanations, the currently allegedly rising infection figures among children are very likely to be due to the fact that the number of tests among children increased significantly in the preceding weeks. Since the risk of infection at schools is very low, even a possible increase in the infection rate of the new virus variant B.1.1.7, in the order of magnitude assumed in studies, is not expected to significantly increase the spread of the virus at schools. This small benefit is countered by numerous possible side effects with regard to the physical, psychological and social well-being of children, from which numerous children would have to suffer in order to prevent a single infection. The expert presents these in detail, among other things, on the basis of the side-effects register published in the scientific journal Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde.”


On the subject of the PCR test, the Court writes: “The expert witness Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein has already pointed out in her testimony that the PCR test can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication (i.e. capable of reproduction).

The expert witness Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Kämmerer confirmed, in her testimony on molecular biology, that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not.

This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.

For example, PCR is also used in forensics to amplify residual DNA from hair remains or other trace materials by means of PCR in such a way that the genetic origin of a [putative] perpetrator(s) can be identified (“genetic fingerprint”).

Even if everything is done “correctly” when carrying out the PCR, including all preparatory steps (PCR design and establishment, sample collection, preparation and PCR performance), and the test is positive, i.e. detects a genome sequence which may also exist in one or even the specific “corona” virus sequence (SARS-CoV-2), this does not mean, under any circumstances, that the person who was tested positive is infected with a replicating SARS-CoV-2 and is therefore infectious = dangerous for other persons.

Rather, in order to determine an active infection with SARS-CoV-2, further – indeed specific – diagnostic methods, such as the isolation of replicable viruses, must be used.

Independent of the fact that, in principle, it is impossible to detect an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus using the PCR test, the results of a PCR test, according to the expert witness Prof. Dr. Kämmerer, depend on a number of parameters which, firstly, cause considerable uncertainties and, secondly, can be manipulated in such a way that many or few (apparently) positive results are obtained.

Of these sources of error, two striking ones may be singled out.

One of these is the number of target genes to be tested. The WHO guidelines reduced these from originally a sequence of three to just one. The expert witness calculated that the use of only one target gene to be tested in a mixed population of 100,000 tests, with not a single person actually infected, would result in a count of 2,690 false positives; this is based on a mean error rate determined in an interlaboratory comparison. Using three target genes would result in only ten false positives.

If the 100,000 tests carried out were representative of 100,000 citizens of a city or district over a period of seven days, this reduction in the number of target genes used would alone result in a difference of 10 false positives compared to 2,690 false positives in terms of the “daily incidence” and, depending on this, the severity of the restrictions on the freedom of the citizens.

If the correct “target number” of three or even better (as e.g. in Thailand) up to six genes had been consistently used for the PCR analysis, the rate of positive tests and thus the “7-day incidence” would have been reduced almost completely to zero.

Furthermore, the so-called Ct-value, i.e. the number of amplification/doubling steps up to which the test is still considered “positive”, is an additional source of error.

The expert witness points out that, according to unanimous scientific opinion, all “positive” results that are only detected from a Ct-value of 35 upwards have no scientific (i.e. no evidence-based) foundation. In the Ct range 26-35, the test can only be considered positive if it is matched with virus cultivation. Yet the RT-qPCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, which was propagated worldwide with the help of the WHO, was (and following it, all other tests based on it as a blueprint) set at 45 cycles without defining a Ct-value for “positive”.

In addition, when using the RT-q-PCR test, the WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05 must be observed (No. 12 of the court’s legal notes). Accordingly, if the test result does not correspond to the clinical findings about an examined person, a new sample must be taken and a further examination performed, as well as a differential diagnostic; only then, according to these guidelines, can a test be counted as positive. According to the expert report, the rapid antigen tests used for mass testing cannot provide any information on infectivity, as they can only detect protein components without any connection to an intact, reproducible virus.

In order to allow an estimation of the infectivity of the tested persons, the positive test carried out in each case (similar to the RT-qPCR) would have to be individually compared with the cultivability of viruses from the test sample, which is impossible under the extremely variable and unverifiable test conditions.

Finally, the expert witness points out that the low specificity of the tests causes a high rate of false positive results, which lead to unnecessary personnel (quarantine) and social (e.g. schools closed, “outbreak reports”) consequences until they turn out to be false alarms. The error, i.e. a high number of false positives, is particularly high in tests on people who have no symptoms.

It remains to be noted that, in principle, neither the PCR test nor the antigen rapid test can detect an infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as has been demonstrated by the expert witness. Moreover, besides those described above, there are other sources of error, which are listed in the expert opinion as having serious effects, such that an adequate detection of the infection with SARS-CoV-2 in [the Federal Constitutive State, or Land, of] Thuringia (and nationwide) is not remotely possible.

In any case, the term “incidence” is misused by the Land executive. “Incidence” actually means the occurrence of new cases in a defined group of persons (repeatedly tested and, if necessary, medically examined) in a defined period of time, cf. No. 11 of the Legal Notes of the Court. In fact, however, undefined groups of people are tested in undefined periods of time, so that what is passed off as “incidence” is merely reporting data, pure & simple. 

In any case, according to a meta-analysis study by medical scientist and statistician John Ioannidis, one of the most cited scientists worldwide, which was published in a WHO bulletin in October 2020, the infection fatality rate is 0.23%, which is no higher than that of moderately severe influenza epidemics.

Ioannidis also concluded, in a study published in January 2021, that lockdowns have no significant benefit.


The right to informational self-determination as part of the general right to personal privacy pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Basic Law is the right of the individual to determine, in principle, for himself or herself, the disclosure and use of information about their person. Such personal information also includes the result of a test. Furthermore, such a result is a personal health “data” within the meaning of the Data Protection Regulation (DSGVO) and is, in principle, of no concern to others.

This encroachment on fundamental rights is also unconstitutional. This is because, given the practical procedures of the testing in schools, it seems unavoidable that numerous other people (fellow pupils, teachers, other parents) would, for example, become aware of any “positive” test result.

This applies accordingly if similar test barriers are erected for access to shopping or cultural events.

Furthermore, compulsory testing of schoolchildren under regional [i.e. Land] law is not warranted by the Infection Protection Act (IfSG) – irrespective of the fact that this Act itself is subject to considerable constitutional objections.

According to § 28 IfSG, the competent authorities can take the necessary protective measures in the manner specified therein if “sick persons, persons suspected of being sick, persons suspected of being infected or of being carriers of germs”, are identified. Pursuant to § 29 IfSG, these persons can be subjected to observation and must then also tolerate the necessary examinations.

In its decision of March 2, 2021, ref.: 20 NE 21.353, the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal refused to consider employees in nursing homes as sick, suspected of being sick or carriers from the outset. This must also apply to pupils. Even a classification as “suspected of being infected” is out of the question.

According to the adjudications of the Federal Administrative Court, anyone who, with sufficient certainty, has had contact with an infected person, is considered to be suspected of being infected within the meaning of § 2 No. 7 IfSG; a distant probability is not sufficient. It is necessary that the assumption that the person concerned has ingested pathogens is more probable than the opposite. The criterion for a suspicion of infection is, exclusively, the probability of a past infection process, cf. judgement of 22.03.2012 – 3 C 16/11 – juris marginal no. 31 et seq. The BayVGH, loc. cit., has rejected this for employees in nursing professions. Nothing else applies to school children.”


On the children’s right to education, the judge states: “Under Land [i.e. federal state] law, children of school age are not only subject to compulsory schooling law, but also have a legal right to education and schooling. This also follows from Articles 28 and 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is applicable law in Germany.

According to this, all nations party to the treaty must not only make attendance at primary school compulsory and free of charge for all, but also must promote the development of various forms of secondary education of a general and vocational nature, make such education available and accessible to all children and must take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and the provision of financial support in cases of need. In this, the educational goals contained in Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are to be adhered to.”


The judge summarised his decision as follows:

“The compulsion imposed on school children to wear masks and to keep their distance from each other and from third persons harms the children physically, psychologically, educationally and in their psychosocial development, without being counterbalanced by more than, at best, marginal benefit to the children themselves or to third persons. Schools do not play a significant role in the “pandemic”.

The PCR tests and rapid tests used are, in principle, not suitable on their own to detect an “infection” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is already clear from the Robert Koch Institute’s own calculations, as explained in the expert reports. According to RKI calculations, as expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner explains, the probability of actually being infected when receiving a positive result in mass testing with rapid tests, regardless of symptoms, is only two per cent at an incidence of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%). This would mean that, for every two true-positive rapid test results, there would be 98 false-positive rapid test results, all of which would then have to be retested with a PCR test.

A (regular) compulsion to mass-test asymptomatic people, i.e. healthy people, for which there is no medical indication, cannot be imposed because it is disproportionate to the effect that can be achieved. At the same time, the regular compulsion to take the test puts the children under psychological pressure, because in this way their ability to attend school is constantly put to the test.”

Finally, the judge notes:

« Based on surveys in Austria, where no masks are worn in primary schools, but rapid tests are carried out three times a week throughout the country, the expert witness Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner concludes: ‘100,000 primary school pupils would have to put up with all the side effects of wearing masks for a week in order to prevent just one infection per week.’ »

To call this result merely disproportionate would be a completely inadequate description. Rather, it shows that the Land [i.e. federal state] legislature regulating this area has lost contact with reality to an unprecedented extent.”


Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss

Wir untersuchen, warum die Bundes- und Landesregierungen beispiellose Beschränkungen verhängt haben und welche Folgen diese für die Menschen hatten.

Der Corona Ausschuss wurde von vier Juristen ins Leben gerufen. Er führt eine Beweisaufnahme zur Corona-Krise und den Maßnahmen durch.  Der Corona Untersuchungsausschuss wird vertreten durch die Rechtsanwältinnen Viviane Fischer, Antonia Fischer sowie die Rechtsanwälte Dr. Reiner Füllmich und Dr. Justus. P. Hoffmann

Erfahren Sie mehr über den Ausschuss: https://corona-ausschuss.de und

Telegram: https://t.me/s/Corona_Ausschuss

Haben Sie Fragen für den Untersuchungsausschuss? Können Sie als Zeugin oder Zeuge zur Aufklärung von Umständen beitragen? Können Sie als Expertin oder Experte Fachwissen beisteuern?

Schreiben Sie uns: 

Anonyme Hinweise an den Corona-Ausschuss: https://securewhistleblower.com/ [Anmerkung d.R.: Dieser Dienst, der auf einem Server in der Schweiz gehostet ist, ist nicht wirklich sicher, verschlüsselt lediglich die Übertragung (nur mit SSH), nicht die Mitteilungen oder Anlagen selbst (d.h. Servermanager oder Hacker finden Klartext) und sollte keinesfalls ohne VPN oder TOR angesteuert werden. Dienste, die auf einem Server oder seiner "cloud" basieren, speichern die Meta-Daten des Senders etc. - Read: https://ecoterra.info/index.php/de/about - you can contact us for advise how to transmit very sensitive material.]

Wer Hintergrundinfos / Insiderwissen zum Thema "Corona und die Rolle der Medien" hat bitte per E-Mail an 

Sie können unsere Arbeit mit einer Spende unterstützen. Spendenbescheinigungen können wir derzeit leider noch nicht ausstellen.

NEUE BANKVERBINDUNG: Treuhandkonto von Rechtsanwalt Dr. Reiner Füllmich - Verwendungszweck: “Spende Corona-Ausschuss” IBAN: DE06 3701 0050 0989 9305 04 - BIC: PBNKDEFFXXX


Die Corona-Krise hat die Menschen auf der ganzen Welt hart getroffen. Ganz besonders den Unternehmen wurden bereits mit den ersten Einschränkungen „das Wasser abgedreht“. Gerade für viele Kleinstbetriebe, kleinere und mittlere Unternehmen muss daher rasch eine Lösung her und die heißt Schadenersatz.

Marcel Templin 
Kreuzbergstraße 72, D-10965 Berlin 



Die Filmemacher von OVALmedia haben diese live-Übertragen ohne Budget umgesetzt. Wir produzieren zudem einen Kinofilm zur Coronakrise.

Ihr könnt uns unterstützen, z.B. über das Crowdfunding, siehe www.corona.film, oder auf dem direkten Weg: Bank transfer: OVALmedia Berlin GmbH Volksbank Lippstadt IBAN: DE82416601240017170703 Paypal: OVALmedia Berlin GmbH https://www.paypal.me/ovalmediaberlin Bitcoin (primary address) bc1q7xfc7ppuw5jwz77sy29txy0efwqnpxw70swgy6 Monero (primary address) 4ATT5z6TgvR6aH9HsPjjLENB6wMaF36aMYwFs2N6sXXWfMZpgz5Vs2GNBrtLAJxVdZEPnvRiF4c56R1k2pfGEvvfFfBztpn


Corona Committee of Inquiry Seeks the Truth

By SCA - 01. Juli 2020

We want to investigate why the federal and state governments have imposed unprecedented restrictions and what consequences they had for people. We support scientific studies in this field. 

In Germany, coronavirus activity is almost at a standstill. A large number of studies have shown that lethality and mortality are similar to influenza. Throughout the entire coronavirus measures, the German health care system was never overwhelmed.

However, the government's coronavirus interventions, which were imposed in a great panic, have caused massive social, psychological, health, cultural and economic collateral damage.

This is becoming increasingly clear and is in particular due to the lockdown. We are seeing millions of additional unemployed and short-time workers, companies in bankruptcy, excess mortality among the isolated elderly, reduced health care services for the general public due to a large number of postponed operations and a lack of doctors visits due to fear, an increase in suicides, a large elevation of child abuse cases, general traumatisation and "new" anxiety-ridden social behaviour.

Many basic rights have been restricted as a result of hastily enforced legal changes. Due to the new legislation, the federal and state governments are authorized to restrict civil rights beyond the end of this pandemic. Furthermore, democratic processes have been shortened and suspended (e.g. postponed elections). Our liberal democratic structures have been changed. Democracy has thus suffered great damage. Many people feel that the measures taken were degrading and discouraging.

Now that the virus panic has abated, it is time for an objective and unsparing analysis of the overall events, including the state crisis management of the German federal and state governments. Among other things, this will allow us to be better prepared for future pandemics, für the purpose of structured pandemic preparedness. This also includes an (interim) assessment of the damage that has occurred, which must be assigned to the virus or the prescribed measures in each case.

Time is of the essence as there is always a chance that a virus event and/or suboptimal crisis management could potentially lead to avoidable damage and victims. 

It is nonviable to wait for the establishment of a parliamentary committee of inquiry, since experience has shown this needs a longer lead time. Therefore, the Foundation is now setting up its own Coronavirus Committee of Inquiry. Over a period of four to six weeks starting shortly, this committee will hear experts and witnesses in weekly meetings on a wide range of issues concerning the virus, the crisis management and the consequences. In particular, the collateral damage of the lockdown, which has not yet been evaluated in detail, will be examined in greater detail.

Our committee of inquiry will commence its work shortly. All meetings will be live-streamed. 

The sessions will be streamed live and remain available as recordings. Citizens will be invited to participate in the discussion through contributions in the chat and by e-mail. The commission's findings will be presented to the public. 

The Executive Board and the Advisory Board are composed exclusively of persons who are committed to the principles of scientific evidence and who are willing to conduct an objective discussion on the various topics without personal, scientific or economic conflicts of interest. Further experts from science and practice support the search for answers.

Our work

The Corona committe of inquiry was founded by four lawyers. It carries out impartial and independentinvestigations into the corona crisis. The committee isrepresented by the attorneys at law Viviane Fischer, Antonia Fischer, Dr. Reiner Füllmich und Dr. Justus. P. Hoffmann.

Read more about the work at: https://corona-ausschuss.de and

Telegram: https://t.me/s/Corona_Ausschuss

Please follow on the official YouTube Channel

Doyou have questions for the committee of inquiry? Can you serve as witness to shed light concerning the situation and circumstances on the corona cisis? Can you contribute your knowlege as expert in any of the fields concered?

Write to us via: 

Anonymous information should be sent via: https://securewhistleblower.com/ [N.B.: This service, hostet on a server in Switzerland is not really secure, encrypts only the transmisstion (just using SSH), not the message or attachments (i.e. server-manager or hacker find the clear text) and it should in any case never be accessed without VPN or TOR. Services that arebsed on a server or its cloud also log and store meta-data of the sender etc. - Read: https://ecoterra.info/index.php/de/about - you can contact us for advise concerning very sensitive material that you need to send to the commission of inquiry.]

Anyone with specific knowledge or insider informationon the topic "Corona and the Role of the Media", please write to

Kindly support our work with a donation. At present we can not yet issue tax-eductible receipts. Bank details: Treuhandkonto von Rechtsanwalt Dr. Reiner Füllmich Verwendungszweck: “Spende Corona-Ausschuss” IBAN: DE06 3701 0050 0989 9305 04 - BIC: PBNKDEFFXXX

With your donation you make our work possible. Unfortunately, we cannot issue donation receipts at this time. The bank details are: Lawyer's escrow account/trust account: Lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Intended purpose "Donation Corona Committee" IBAN: DE06 3701 0050 0989 9305 04 BIC: PBNKDEFFXXX Address: Dr. Reiner Fuellmich Senderstr. 37 37077 Goettingen Germany


The main language of the site is English - Go to: https://www.translatetheweb.com/ or click for SpanishGermanDutchDanishFrench translations or e.g. for German to English - Note: Translations may take a moment to load.


Mostly in German Language:


Sondersitzung / Special Session - International Legal Offensive - Part 3 (English, Deutsch)

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 52 - Zuckerbrot und Peitsche

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 51 - Der Realitätscheck

Sondersitzung / Special Session - International Legal Offensive - Part 2 (English, Deutsch)


Sondersitzung / Special Session - International Legal Offensive - Part 1 (English, Español, Deutsch)

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 49 - The Oath of Disclosure

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 48 - Of Lionesses and Lions



CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 45 - Can Arithmatics be a Sin?


CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 43 - Once Fascism and Back

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 42 - The Systemic Crisis

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 41 - Troy Is Everywhere (German / English)

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 40 - The Great Recall (Part I German | Part II English)

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 39 - The global context and the press: Russia, Sweden, Italy, etc.

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 38 - Attack on the Human and Society

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 37 - The Billing: Legal System and mRNA Technology

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 36 - Is it a devil's stuff? - mRNA technology in sheep's clothing

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 35 - Recht und Gesundheit / Lex et salutem - Der blinde Fleck

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 35 - Law and Health - The Blind Spot

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 34 - Those in the Dark You Can't See

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 33 - The Closing Line 2020

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 32 - The role of churches and religious communities in the Corona crisis

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 31 - The Dam Breaks with Love

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 30 - Under the Magnifying Glass

- The Attack on Body and Soul

 - Lawsuit involving PCR, Drosten & Co. filed at HighCourt Berlin / Germany


CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 27 - A Swiping Blow (mostly in English)

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 26 - PCR-Test - the Dominoes fall

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 25 - The danger of equalisation of our legal system, police violence and Attacks by private individuals

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 24 - The strenght of our Immune-System and the Voices of the Children

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 23 - Games and Reality& A look into the interna of a labour union

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 22 - The Players: Drosten, Ferguson, Wieler, the Charité and the Role of TIB Molbiol

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 21 - The Power of the Corporations and Corruption

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 20 - Finance-System and Hartz IV-Regime

 - Risiks of Medical Treatment & Insights from the Schools

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 18The Dangers of Corona Measures & Risks due to medical interventions

 - The Economy in the Grip of the Pandemic & The Corona Vaccination

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 16 - The Corona-Counsel: Help to Self-Help concerning Masks, Tests and Quarantine

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 15 - Hypnosis, Rituals, and ways out of the corona trauma crisis

SPECIAL SESSION with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - The problems of vaccinations and the demonstration in Berlin (mostly English)

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 14 - Astroturfing and the Berlin Demonstrations

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 13SMEs in crisis, State Debt, Pandemic Sharks

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 12 - Misincentives of the System - The Role of the Media II & MONEY TALKS II - The Plan to achieve compensation

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 11 - Data Protection - 1mio Genomes, Health-ID, Tracking App / Legal System - Basics for measures, Violations of Basic Rights

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 10 - The Dangers of the Virus, Treatment of the Disease, Is Vaccination a Solution?

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 9 - The Role of the Media

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 8 - USA - the view from inside & Present situation in Schweden, Frankreich, Italien, Ireland etc. (English/German) 

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 7 - The Masks - Protection or Danger? Present situation in Schweden, Frankreich, Italien, Netherlands etc. (English/German) 

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 6 - The Situation of the Children - SCA hears Psychologists or Children

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 5 - The Situation of the Small Entrepreneurs and the Self-employed & Intermediate Report & MONEY TALKS I

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 4 - The Drosten-Test, Immunity and the second wave

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 3 - Bergamo - what happened there? with Top-Experts from Italy

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 2 - The situation of the elderly in the care homes

CORONA UNTERSUCHUNG TAG 1 - Workplan of the commission, focal points of the inquiry & The Swineflu Pandemic

Corona Commission of Inquiry starts its work - International Media Event