Debionne on the Current RKI FOIA Trial

The German gov't argues that the public has no right to know the grounds for public (sic) policy decisions, revealing at-once the charade of 'democracy'

Yesterday, I posted a brief update from the Berlin Administrative Court trial (charade) surrounding the so-called ‘Robert Koch Institute Files’, or RKI Files. An intrepid physician, Christian Haffner, MD, took it upon himself to sue the Federal Government to release the protocols and minutes of the German public health agency, which eventually happened, albeit in heavily redacted form.

Judge Considers the Redactions of the RKI Files 'Not Convincingly Argued'

Today, I shall present you with Philippe Debionne’s long-form reporting of yesterday’s trial hearing; as always, translation and emphases mine.

---

Corona Protocols: Government Fears for ‘Life and Limb’ of its Experts

Fear for coronavirus experts and a strain on relations with China: the German government does not want to release the redacted passages. What does the court say?

By Philippe Debionne, Schwäbische Zeitung, 13 May 2024 [source]

The German government and its lawyers want to prevent the minutes of the Corona Expert Council from being published completely unredacted at all costs. On Monday, four lawyers attended the hearing at the Berlin Administrative Court [orig. Verwaltungsgericht], where a lawsuit for this very publication was heard. The plaintiff, doctor Christian Haffner, wants to fight for maximum transparency in court: all minutes, all unredacted, with all names, with all statements, with all assessments and recommendations made by the Council of the Federal Government under Chancellor Olaf Scholz. A sentence has not yet been issued, but it became clear during the trial that the air is getting thinner and thinner for the German government and its legal team.

Specifically, it was the question of how the redactions of the respective passages were justified in concrete terms. The presiding judge divided the redactions into three parts.

‘Protection of international relations’

The first part concerns the passages that were blacked out with a view to possible foreign policy disputes with countries such as China. The court was told [by the German gov’t lawyers] that this was about the ‘protection of international relations’. Among other things, a passage was mentioned in which the Expert Council had given an ‘assessment of China’s actions in the pandemic’—this passage was completely redacted. The German government’s legal team explained that China would interpret this statement as an ‘official statement’ by the German government and that it would subsequently put a strain on the ‘relationship with China’. [did I mention that Germany is the castrato of Europe?]

In addition to China, passages dealing with assessments and statements on Ukraine are also said to play a role, but no further details were provided. Here, the judge indicated that he could recognise a certain justification for the redactions from a legal perspective—without, however, committing himself definitively. [I don’t understand this—if that is an ‘official statement’ by the German gov’t, why can’t ‘the German people’ in whose name said gov’t ostensibly governs, see it?]

‘Danger to life and limb’ of Members of the Expert Council

The second session dealt with the redaction of ‘names of experts and guests’ of the Expert Council. Although it is known who sat on the Expert Council, the minutes of many of the statements blacked out who exactly made each statement. The German government’s lawyers argue that there could be a ‘danger to life and limb’ of the individual members if the statements could be attributed to specific individuals. Lawyer Patrick Heinemann, who represents the doctor Haffner, on the other hand, argued that his client found it unsatisfactory if he could not address his professional criticism as a medical doctor in a targeted manner in the sense of a scientific discourse. [and then there is the whole issue about public health officials being, well, public servants, hence there’s no justification to withhold these names and statements from the taxpaying public, isn’t it?]

A statement by Council member Hendrik Streeck caused surprise in this context. He had told Haffner and his lawyer on Sunday with regard to the redaction of his name:

No, I have not yet been asked whether my name can be redacted from the minutes of the Expert Council. But I wouldn’t mind either. [at least someone still has balls—and/or a clear(er) conscience than his fellow councillors]

In this context, the judge wanted to know from the government lawyers why the individual council members had not been asked. The judge was not satisfied with the answer, which was answered rather obscurely, with [gov’t lawyers citing] all kinds of paragraphs. The judge held out the prospect that he would most likely order the individual members to be questioned before he could decide on the desired redaction.

Assessments of the Corona Council on the Covid-19 Vaccines

The third part dealt with vaccines and drugs in connection with coronavirus. The Federal Government’s explanatory memorandum states, among other things, that ‘names of pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmaceutical preparations (medicines or vaccines), or sources of supply of medicines may be redacted’ because ‘the disclosure of such information is likely to impair the economic framework conditions of the Federal Republic of Germany in the procurement of vaccines and medicines and thus the fiscal interests of the Federal Government in commercial transactions’. [two things: first, ‘fiscal’ literally means tax-related, i.e., this is a non-argument as the only reason that would make sense is—a tax revolt by enraged citizens on wasteful spending on so-called ‘vaccines’; second, the ‘economic framework conditions’ mean, I think, demands for liability of both the gov’t and Big Pharma, neither of whom has any interest in this]

And further: ‘Consequently, providing information on the Corona Expert Council’s assessments of pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmaceutical preparations, and sources of supply can lead to disadvantages in future vaccine procurement, for example through price mark-ups by pharmaceutical manufacturers whose preparations are assessed by the Corona Expert Council as more effective than those of other pharmaceutical manufacturers.’ Therefore, ‘providing information would considerably weaken the negotiating position of the Federal Republic of Germany with regard to the procurement of vaccines and medicines that are procured centrally.’ [I read this the following way: ‘we screwed up, everyone knows this, but if we acknowledge it, which we would have to do if these passages weren’t redacted, we’d be in major trouble’]

Here, too, there was initially much discussion on the basis of individual sections of the legal. Summarising the argumentation regarding these redactions, the judge then finally said: ‘That simply doesn’t convince me.’

To summarise, following an assessment on site, the court was inclined to order the clearing of the redactions relating to vaccines and pharmaceutical manufacturers. As regards the name and statements made by Expert Council members, it is likely that the respective persons have yet to be questioned. On Monday, the court considered the redactions of those passages that could impair international relations with other countries (the focus here was on China), to be legally justifiable—without, however, wanting to commit himself.

A Sentence to be Expected in the Next 14 Days

After the plaintiff’s lawyer once again made it clear that his client was not prepared to make a compromise in which, for example, names would be released but redactions would be omitted elsewhere, the judge said that he would not pass judgement this Monday.

He will deliver his judgement in the next few days and then send it in writing to the plaintiff (the doctor Haffner) and the defendant (the federal government) within the next 14 days. Only then will it become clear whether—and if so, which—passages may remain blacked out. Doctor Christian Haffner had already announced for this case: ‘I certainly won’t back down. We want to create transparency. If necessary, we will go to the next instance.’

---

Bottom Lines

Thank God for committed and steadfast people like the good doctor Haffner.

As regards the ‘bigger picture’, well, if ‘democracy dies in darkness’, the sustained insistence, on part of the German gov’t, that the public must not be permitted to know who (of ‘the Experts™’) said what to the Federal Gov’t (about virtually everything related to the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’) suggests that democracy has died.

We now live in a régime that insists on secrecy, fights tooth and nail to preserve this secrecy, and refuses to accept responsibility for its actions.

Any self-respecting citizen should rise up in both disgust and resistance due to the arrogance, irresponsibility, and, yes, totalitarian nature that emerges from the gov’t’s arguments in court.

If a citizen cannot see the grounds for his mistreatment at the hands of the gov’t, can he still consider himself a sovereign individual with certain inalienable rights?

You guessed it: no, he can’t.