Andreas Heisler, Covid Critical MD, Acquitted of Falsifying Mask Exemptions

Lucerne state physician files complaint w/o evidence, public prosecution brings the trial forward (and doesn't show up), and the judge knew the physician--this was unworthy of Kafka's Trial

Courtesy of long-term reader

Ingrun Mason

, I’m posting a brief update about Covid-critic Andreas Heisler, MD, a Switzerland-based physician who once made an appearance in these pages some time ago:

Reinstated 'Vaxx-Critical' MD in Switzerland Opens Clinic for Vaccine-Injured Patients

Yes, you read the header correctly: if, back in the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ main event, Switzerland would also bar ‘critical’ doctors from actually treating patients.

Of course, Dr. Heisler also stood accused of various acts of blasphemy, including, specifically, the allegation that he furnished people who weren’t eligible with mask exemptions.

As always, translations of non-English content and emphases mine.

The State Tries to Stare Down Dr. Heisler

Of course, this is nonsense, and it’s a testament, to a certain extent, that the Swiss judiciary is slowly returning to its senses. Dr. Heisler was acquitted in late August 2024, as per the Luzerner Zeitung’s reporting:

22 mask certificates issued: Court acquits corona-sceptic doctor

The Hochdorf District Court clears doctor Andreas Heisler of Ebikon of the allegation that he wilfully issued false medical certificates on several occasions. The evidence was too thin.

Oh, who would’ve thought that? It might be interesting to you to learn the following about who levelled these frivolous charges:

A week ago, the trial about falsely issued mask certificates during the Covid pandemic attracted a large audience to the Hochdorf District Court: it was about the Ebikon doctor Andreas Heisler, who had attracted public attention as a corona sceptic. The court’s judgement is now available: Heisler is acquitted of the charge of wilfully issuing a false medical certificate on several occasions, according to the ruling. The legal costs of CHF 2100 will be borne by the state.

And this last sentence, in a nutshell, shows you who charged Dr. Heisler: it was the public, or state, prosecution.

Further details are available via Inside Paradeplatz’s 26 Aug. 2024 reporting:

There were a number of fascinating things about the trial. For example, the fact that around 500 people attended the public hearing, which therefore had to be held in a large hall at the local cultural centre [looks like the prosecution didn’t consider that].

Then Heisler once again faced the same judge who had already sentenced him in another trial [I’m unsure this is technically illegal, but I suppose it should be avoided to ensure a fair trial].

But the most exciting thing, and this has little to do with coronavirus, was the behaviour of the public prosecutor, who stayed away from the trial. The evidence was therefore presented by the judge, who asked a few terse questions [now I’m pretty certain that doing so is technically highly problematic; not even military tribunals do that].

However, the judge did not present any evidence that the medical certificates were actually false—and here we come to the main point of this whole legal farce [note the absence of any medical experts™ who would have to argue this, which is yet another huge red flag].

The State vs. One Doctor

Here’s how Claudio Brentini, who penned the above-cited report for Inside Paradeplatz, continues:

Heisler’s lawyer recapitulated in detail, with all the necessary evidence, how this accusation against his client had come about.

This history is really quite something. To summarise, the cantonal doctor [the state physician] of Lucerne filed charges against Heisler years ago, but never provided any evidence [so, why did police and the judiciary take up the ‘case’?]

Not even when the public prosecutor’s office asked for such evidence several times, or rather ‘often’.

The only thing the cantonal doctor had presented was—unfortunately not a joke—a defamatory article in Blick.

Consequently, the public prosecutor's office rightly threatened to discontinue the proceedings, but then suddenly decided out of nowhere to issue a penalty order.

There was still no evidence, and the public prosecutor’s office did not consider it necessary to question even one of the 22 patients.

This led to the absurd situation that 500 people attended a trial where there was absolutely no evidence to support or explain the charges.

No statement, no document, no medical report, no specific case, no medical detail.

The fact that the prosecution was absent is indeed common in certain hearings, but raises many questions here.

The judge was thus unable to put any questions to the plaintiffs; it also remained unclear why the public prosecutor’s office had not endeavoured to obtain evidence.

‘A lack of evidence must not be replaced by a generalised suspicion because the accused was a known critic of the coronavirus measures,’ Heisler’s lawyer stated at the end of his argument.

And emphasised once again: ‘The public prosecutor’s office must prove that the medical certificates are, as they claim, false and favours.’

The authority in question evaded this statement and the questions associated with it by not responding, leaving an uneasy feeling.

So what was this actually about? To set a deterrent example against disagreeable doctors? To interfere in the patient-doctor relationship?

And since when is there an indictment without even a hint of evidence?

The fact that some of the 22 names mentioned by the public prosecutor’s office have been patients of Andreas Heisler for a long time, which he had pointed out several times during questioning, answered the judge’s question as to whether a telephone consultation was sufficient, in addition to the reference to health insurance models that require precisely this.

The non-participant was unable to provide a legal reference to a legal provision that states otherwise.

In the end, the judge neither dismissed the case nor announced a judgement. It will be interesting to see what the latter will be.

Bottom Lines: Kafka Sends his Greetings

If you understand Swiss German, follow this link for reporting about ‘the trial™’.

Virtually everything about this episode—really, the Covid tribulations in a nutshell—is a farce: there is plenty of stuff online about the ‘transgressions’ of Dr. Heusler but the sentencing isn’t available (yet, I presume), and the District Court Hochdorf isn’t exactly forthcoming.

So, I’ll quote once more from Inside Paradeplatz:

Anything other than an acquittal, sympathies aside, would be a problematic sign for the future of the legal profession.

It would mean that in the future the public prosecutor’s office could bring charges without evidence—and get away with it in court.

Why they suddenly did an about-turn in this case after threatening to drop the case due to a lack of evidence remains a mystery [I don’t think it’s mysterious at-all: I think Dr. Heusler and his lawyer would be prepared to move to the higher-level, thus raising the spectre of even more attention: imagine, if you will, for a moment 500 people at the district court—how many do you think would attend a Supreme Court-level trial?].

It is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that political pressure was exerted here in order to warn disagreeable doctors and to support future official orders [hi, Chairman Mao; also, is it ‘perhaps no unreasonable to assume that political pressure’ was also ‘exerted here’ to get the prosecutor not to appear or provide any evidence, and therefore try to avoid even further embarrassment?].

In any case, the public prosecutor’s office explained nothing in this case, proved nothing, and did not even consider it necessary to answer the judge’s questions [perhaps because the judiciary is a sham by now?].

This trial was anything but worthy of serious justice. Corona or not.

And here you may observe, once more, the catastrophic consequences of ‘Covid™’ on our Western societies: sure, they weren’t perfect before—actually, far from it—but before ‘Covid™’ you’d have to be a serious VIP to have such shoddy, if not frivolous, things even make it past law enforcement (because police must recommend criminal complaints to the public prosecutor’s office).

Now, it’s regular people who are subjected to the expenses of trial prep, hiring an attorney, and suffering at the hands of the public prosecution (who, let’s not forget, didn’t even bother to show up and look Dr. Heisler in his eyes: how pathetic).

Are ‘they’—police, state attorneys, judges—all compromised?

What are ‘they’ afraid of? The truth?

Or are ‘they’ merely waking up—much like a pre-pubescent teen who took her mother’s perfume, smelled like it, and denied she ever did anything—realising that ‘they’ did something extremely stupid and, possibly, illegal. And to avoid taking responsibility ‘they’ gaslight everybody.

The Kiss of Death for Free Speech in Central Europe

Still, reality as a nasty habit of catching up with this.

Problem is, without the rule of law, however imperfect it was before ‘Covid™’, it’s a fast track back to the middle ages, albeit without the shared understanding of lords and peasants alike that, at some point, we’d be facing our Creator.

Speaking of it, here’s James Shirley’s The Great Leveller (source)

The glories of our blood and state
Are shadows, not substantial things;
There is no armour against Fate;
Death lays his icy hand on kings:
Sceptre and Crown
Must tumble down,
And in the dust be equal made
With the poor crookèd scythe and spade.

Some men with swords may reap the field,
And plant fresh laurels where they kill:
But their strong nerves at last must yield;
They tame but one another still:
Early or late
They stoop to fate,
And must give up their murmuring breath
When they, pale captives, creep to death.

The garlands wither on your brow,
Then boast no more your mighty deeds!
Upon Death’s purple altar now
See where the victor-victim bleeds.
Your heads must come
To the cold tomb:
Only the actions of the just
Smell sweet and blossom in their dust.