'Of course, We Take Orders', Head of Germany's RKI Testifies in Court

Referring the sectoral vaxx mandate to the Constitutional Court, the judge provides the epitaph for Covid: 'It would have been better if you had shredded the transcripts.'

Today’s posting is a much-needed follow-up to yesterday’s brief one about the ruling by the Lower Saxon Administrative Court ruling that the ‘sectoral vaxx mandate’ (sektorale Impfpflicht) may be unconstitutional:

Germany's Employer-based C-19 Vaxx Mandate is Headed to the Supreme Court

Today’s posting contains two distinct parts: first, data analyst Tom Lausen was present at said proceedings and, thankfully, shared his in-courtroom notes with Nius.de journalist Janina Lionello; in the second part, we’ll discuss the op-ed (Meinung) by the Nordkurier’s Claudia Marsal about what transpired in the Lower Saxon Administrative Court on 3 Sept. 2024.

Please note that, as always, non-English content comes to you in my translation, with emphases [and snarky commentary added] by me.

Note further that the Lower Saxon Administrative Court reporting is about the interrogation of the current head of the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Dr. Lars Schaade (official profile) who was, in US legal lingo, subpoenaed to testify under oath.

Moreover, note that the exchange between the presiding judge and Professor Schaade read, at times, like the equivalent of a piss-poor, early 20th-century vaudeville routine in the mould of the Marx Brothers.

Finally, this is a ‘big f****** deal’ because, as you perhaps noted already, what transpired on 3 Sept. 2024 in the Lower Saxon Administrative Court is the equivalent of the current head of the CDC testifying under oath in a federal court room (as far as US jurisdictional districts are concerned), with the result being, well, a referral to the US Supreme Court).

And now, without much further ado, ‘enjoy’.

---

RKI Head Admits Political Influence in Court: ‘Of Course, We Take Orders’

By Janina Lionello, Nius.de, 4 Sept. 2024 [source]

The nursing assistant who is suing was working at a hospital in Quakenbrück in 2022 when the district of Osnabrück asked her to prove her [Covid-related] immunity. The authorities invoked Section 20a of the Infection Protection Act [Impfschutzgesetz of 2022]. As the woman did not provide any proof, she was banned from accessing her work place.

‘The independence of official decision-making must be called into question’

The court’s announcement on Tuesday now states: ‘Based on the minutes of the Covid-19 crisis team of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which are now available, and the hearing of Prof. Dr. Schaade, President of the RKI, which took place today in this context, the independence of the official decision-making process must be called into question.’

According to the statement, the court will submit the case to the Federal Constitutional Court and ask it ‘whether Section 20a of the Infection Protection Act was compatible with Article 2 (2) sentence 1 and Article 12 (1) of the Basic Law.’ [see yesterday’s posting linked at the top of this posting]

In plain language, this means that the supreme court is to examine whether the woman’s fundamental rights were violated, as the Infection Protection Act in its version at the time was presumably unconstitutional. This assessment is based primarily on the statements of RKI President Lars Schaade, who was heard as a witness, as well as the RKI protocols recently obtained and published by journalist Aya Velázquez [how strange to note Ms. Velázquez here who acted as a conduit for a ‘leak’, as opposed to Paul Schreyer’s Multipolar magazine that is still (!) fighting in the courts to obtain the un-redacted RKI Files via the ‘official’ way].

Author and data analyst Tom Lausen [kudos!] was present at the trial and reported to NIUS about some of the explosive statements made by the RKI President: ‘Mr Schaade revealed in court that the risk assessment, i.e., the assessment of the danger, was obviously not subject to the professional assessment of the RKI, but it was based on a political directive from the Federal Ministry of Health.’ [remember to ‘follow the Science™’, by which is meant politicians making up stuff] The RKI President literally labelled the risk classification as a ‘management issue’ and distinguished it from ‘scientific issues’ [‘follow the Science™’ also means what is lovingly labelled Sesselkleiberei in German, i.e., ‘glueing oneself to a comfy chair/position’].

Several exchanges between the presiding judge and Schaade, which Lausen, who took notes of during the trial, were made available to NIUS, are explosive [what follows now is the piss-poor, early 20th-century vaudeville routine part of this article: hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen].

The presiding judge asked: ‘Was the scientific freedom of the RKI restricted internally?’

Schaade’s answer: ‘I can't remember exactly, but that's how I saw it at the time.’ And: ‘We [the RKI] are between management and scientific recommendation, and the management can therefore make requests.’ [‘follow the Science™’ moreover means ‘we follow orders’]

Presiding judge: ‘If I were asked about the protocols two years ago, I would also have problems, but these protocols are now released to the world, everyone reads them, and the RKI cannot refer to objective science.’

Schaade: ‘I can’t understand your interpretation. We also wanted antigen tests, which was not our opinion at the time [this is entirely incoherent]…that was probably also the reason why scientific freedom was suspended.’

An internal note in the RKI minutes from 10 Sept. 2021 ends with the conclusion: ‘The scientific independence of the RKI from politics is limited in this respect’, shows how directly political influence was perceived at the RKI.

An internal directive dated 3 Jan. 2022, which was actually only intended for official use but was also made public in the course of the RKI files leak, also confirms this:

Discussion: broad coordination process with various expert committees led to a different result than the decision of the political committees; it should be clearly communicated in the future, when published, that it is no longer a purely technical recommendation of the RKI, but decisions of the GMK [Gesundheitsministerkonferenz, the formal forum in which all state-level health ministers meet to discuss policy issues (German Wikipedia link)]/BMG [Federal Health Ministry]/political level that decided.

Judge: ‘Was there any direct influence?’—Schaade: ‘Yes, of course’

In a further exchange of words, the presiding judge asked: ‘Was there direct influence?’

Schaade: ‘Yes, of course, we take orders.’

Presiding judge: ‘Spahn gave the order, was that a typical case?’

Schaade: ‘I wouldn’t describe it as typical, but that’s what happened here. Spahn wanted an addition that we thought didn’t fit thematically.’ [if you, at this point, are still wondering about how, exactly, things go sideways in modern society, this is the answer: not with a bang, but with a whimper by people who could, by ruining their lives, have spoken up but didn’t]

Presiding judge: ‘The BMG refused to change the risk assessment from “very high” to “high”—am I interpreting that correctly: for political reasons?’

Schaade: ‘I don’t know that our proposal was not accepted [this is the functional equivalent of, in US legal parlance, ‘pleading the 5th Amendment: if the head of the RKI ‘doesn’t know’, he’s either incompetent (and shouldn’t be head of the RKI) or lying (which also disqualifies him from being, you know, the head of the RKI)]. The question I hear is: ‘Is this management or science? Risk assessment has a normative character. That’s why it’s a matter for management.’ [I read this as Professor Schaade appearing to be internally conflicted about this entire issue]

Presiding judge: ‘It may be that the BMG has its own technical supervision. Where did or does the responsibility lie?’

Schaade: ‘Ultimately, we decided that and in this case it was different, I won’t dispute that.’ [this is ‘the smoking gun’ in the Covid shitshow: the RKI head just admitted in court, under oath, that he knew the ‘recommendation’ was wrong but did it anyways]

Presiding judge (laughs): ‘You won’t dispute that [political influence]…the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court [when it heard earlier cases about the vaxx mandates] were based on the assumption that the RKI has given the scientific assessment that the legislator has taken as a basis.’ [circular reasoning: the gov’t asked (ordered) the RKI to provide a true assessment, which the RKI just admitted to under oath the RKI didn’t do; and the gov’t used these ‘doctored’ (pun intended) ‘scientific™’ assessments in court to influence the Constitutional Court in certain ways]

Schaade: ‘Surely your question is not about a facility-based vaccination obligation?’

Presiding judge: ‘Yes, I’m asking about everything that your authorisation to testify allows. That’s the legal lever we’re using. That’s why we’ve gone to all this trouble. It would have been better if you had shredded the transcripts.’ [this is perhaps the most damning, if highly relevant, comment by the presiding judge]

Schaade: ‘May I make a comment?’

Presiding judge: ‘Go ahead.’

Schaade: ‘You’re asking how departmental supervision [Fachaufsicht] is carried out, including over higher federal authorities.’

Judge: ‘The [sad] joke is that the Federal Constitutional Court must trust that the RKI’s expertise is independent [of political meddling]. I want transparency, there is technical expertise, there is nothing in the rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court about politics and the BMG.’ [but there soon will be because the Karlsruhe-based Constitutional Lawyers were lied to, under oath, by the government’s lawyers on, apparently, orders by cabinet ministers: this is a huge scandal and a constitutional crisis-in-the-making]

Another Scandalous Exchange Concerns Vaccine Effectiveness [sic]

In response to the presiding judge’s question: ‘Was there a procedure to monitor whether a set standard was effective? Was there any communication between the legislature and you? Did you communicate specific findings with the BMG (Federal Ministry of Health, editor’s note) or the legislature?’

Schaade: ’We only recorded the vaccination status and how it developed, but not the transmission, i.e., whether the standard was effective.’ [Prof. Schaade just admitted in court, under oath, that all the measures—including esp. the harassment, degrading statements, and prohibitions of ‘the unvaccinated’ were based on: made-up shit]

Then, another hammer-blow to the official narrative came from the RKI President: ‘There is no causal relationship, no research between compulsory vaccination, and reduction of infection that has been demonstrated.’

Despite the lack of evidence, compulsory vaccination was discussed in the Bundestag in spring 2022! [in other words: the government LIED = the gov’t broke the constitution and the social contract]

The further exchange of words between the judge and the witness Schaade on the subject of vaccine-induced protection [i.e., prevention of transmission] and [emergency use] authorisation also contains explosive material. Here is the transcript of the conversation by Lausen:

Presiding judge: ‘Was there reliable data on third-party protection for the emergency authorisation?’

Schaade: ‘BioNTech wanted to conduct such studies.’ [of course they said that, but, apparently, they never did those studies]

Presiding judge: ‘What about the authorisation study?’

Schaade: ‘In principle, it was known since the beginning of 2021, but I have no recollection of it. Authorisation is not our business.’ [this is—technically—true, because national regulatory agencies have outsourced this to the European Medicines Agency, which is a construct that permits everyone to point fingers to everybody else and obfuscate responsibility]

As a reminder: third-party protection was THE argument in favour of mandatory vaccination in institutions!

After a break, the interrogation continued as follows:

Presiding judge: ‘Have you read the studies on emergency authorisation?’

Schaade: ‘According to the studies, there was protection against symptomatic disease, not against onward transmission. I was aware of that.’ [and here, ladies and gentlemen, we have it once more in writing and admitted in court, under oath, that the powers-that-be knew from the get-go that discrimination based on vaccination status was—fraudulent]

The presiding judge dictates [to the stenographers]: ‘Authorisation was granted for the prevention of a disease, not against transmission, i.e., not for protection against transmission.’

Presiding judge, turning once more to Schaade: ‘Did you have any information on protection against transmission? The formulation: vaccinated people are less likely to become infected and therefore there is less transmission—is that true?’

Schaade: ‘That is not the whole truth, it depends on which studies it is derived from. I’m confused as to whether I’m being called as a witness or as an expert witness? I have to categorise that. With the first variants it was correct, but not quite complete, plus the fact that the viral load is lower and stops earlier. The effect is lost over time, very quickly. Within weeks, months.’ [remember: that junk was hailed as ‘(almost) 100% effective’ once…]

Later, the presiding judge quotes from the RKI Files: ‘It literally says: “The actual effect of 2G is not greater external protection, but greater self-protection. This is a problem with regard to the encroachment on fundamental rights.” Were vaccination and testing for third-party protection considered the same?’

Schaade: ‘That was obviously the assessment here. I can’t recapitulate the basics, but it doesn’t seem unrealistic from my point of view.’

---

C-19 Vaxx Mandates: This Ruling Comes Too Late for Geriatric Nurse Angela

The court hearing on compulsory vaccination in Osnabrück didn't make it into the top 10 news stories. But it definitely belongs there.

By Claudia Marsal, Nordkurier, 4 Sept. 2024 [source]

I don’t know about you, dear readers: Do you still listen when the news reports on the demand for a reckoning of the corona crisis, vaccination victims, RKI files, etc.? No? Well, then welcome to the club! In my circle of friends, people roll their eyes when I point out that something new has come to light again and are outraged that many journalists continue to simply look the other way. ‘Give it a rest’, they usually say—they finally want to return to normality. Sorry, but unfortunately I can't do that.

I Don’t Want to Forget

I can’t forget what I experienced myself during this time and I don’t want to forget what so many affected people have told me that I’ve written about over the last three years: the doctor who went on the barricades for her four children because of the mask requirement and other corona mandates that she felt were nonsensical and had to put up with a lot of hostility for it. The cardiologist who told me back in February 2023 that 120 of the 170 patients in his care were PostVac patients, i.e., people who had contracted the disease shortly after being vaccinated. He summarised in an interview at the time: ‘I see destroyed lives and suicides.’ Or 29-year-old Sarah, who suffered a brain haemorrhage a few days after the first injection and then fought in vain to have her vaccine damage recognised. I could go on and on and on.

Touched by Fate

But one of the stories that touched me the most was one that I didn’t write down. It is the fate of Angela, a woman in her mid-fifties from my circle of friends, who broke down mentally because she could no longer work in her beloved profession as a geriatric nurse. She became mentally ill because she could no longer stand the bullying from her colleagues, the daily testing, the reprisals from the authorities, and the terrible climate in society. Seriously ill, in fact.

I don’t know if she’s currently following what’s been going on at Osnabrück Administrative Court. It was about whether the compulsory vaccination in the healthcare system from November 2022 was at all legal or simply unconstitutional, with reference to the RKI Files. Angela no longer speaks, so I can’t ask her whether she didn’t cry with rage when the President of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), who was called to the witness stand, literally squirmed at certain questions and then had to admit that it wasn’t just scientific facts that were decisive, but that there was political influence. And whether she did not cheer when even the court president let it be known that he felt personally deceived because he had supported state measures during the corona period in the belief that the RKI & Co. were doing a swell job.

Clenched Fists

In her stead, I clenched my fist when I heard that the presiding judge had questioned the independence of the Robert Koch Institute from politics and that now the Federal Constitutional Court has initiated a re-examination of the compulsory vaccination programme.

And you wouldn’t believe how shocked I was when I read an article by Burkhard Ewert, editor-in-chief for Politics & Society at NOZ [Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung] Medien and Medienholding Nord, wrote:

A similar reappraisal apparently characterises the (defendant!) district of Osnabrück. Its representative stated on record that decisions at the time had been made in the confidence that RKI & Co had worked freely and to the best of their knowledge. In the meantime, he had become ‘thoughtful’. He is now sorry about the current ban on a care-worker—he would prefer to reverse it.

Unfortunately, in the late summer of 2024, this will no longer help people like my friend. A return to her beloved retirement home is out of the question for health reasons. But hopefully it will be engraved in the minds of decision-makers so that something like that happens never again.

---

Bottom Lines

If you’re not angry as hell after reading this, well, I can’t help you.

At least we now have this all in writing, under oath, and at least the Constitutional Court in Germany will discuss this.

I’m unsure what to make of this; there is massive collusion, if not outright collaboration, between the federal government and the constitutional court. This is all documented:

The Decay of the Legal Profession

I suppose it’s better than nothing to have the court hold hearings and rule on this entire shit-show once more.

I doubt that the powers-that-be will receive more, if anything, than a slap on their wrists and a stern look from the judges: ‘It would have been better if you had shredded the transcripts.’

That’s how this will likely play out, if ‘only’ because any ruling that hints at something like (personal) responsibility and bad faith on part of state-level, federal, and EU-level actors is poised to usher in a meta-constitutional crisis.

At a time the EU Commission is hell-bent on re-enacting Unternehmen Barbarossa.

It would have been better if you had shredded the transcripts.

That phrase haunts me ever since I read Tom Lausen’s transcript late last night.

It’s also a kind of ‘order’ for the RKI and public health officialdom elsewhere: hire only ‘reliable’ (compromised) staffers who may be blackmailed into silence.

‘Official data™’ is becoming more and more of a joke, with no end in sight.

And I find Yates’ poem ‘The Second Coming’ (1921) more and more apt to describe the above:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Somehow, although used frequently before, its first stanza appears very appropriate now.