Judge Dettmar Speaks to the Berliner Zeitung
Topics incl. the rule of law, procedural abuse, absurd insinuations, and the refusal of the (federal) judiciary to look at the substance of his ruling: Kafka sends his regards
Not that long ago, we re-considered, once more, the case of Judge Dettmar, the Weimar-based family court judge who, back in early April 2021, ruled against Covid mandates in schools.
The gov’t quickly mobilised, raided his and his presumed associates’ apartments repeatedly, and dragged out proceedings until after the mandates were revoked.
The Federal Court of Justice (sic) ruled in November 2024 that Judge Dettmar’s sentencing wouldn’t be considered; Dettmar has since lost his job and retirement benefits, and he can’t run for office as a felon.
Here, to the great credit of the Berliner Zeitung, he’s given de facto legacy media presence to present his side, and the good judge doesn’t hold back.
It’s a long interview, but I can assure you Judge Dettmar’s case, as the Berliner Zeitung’s Franz Becchi and Martin Meier put it, is ‘a case that could make one lose faith in justice’.
Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.
The Uncompromising Judge [Dettmar] from Weimar: ‘These Were Very, Very Stressful Years’
A judge rules against the coronavirus measures. Today we know [speak for yourself: there’s also people who knew back then]: he was right. But that didn’t help him. He lost his job and is left with nothing.
By Franz Becchi and Michael Meier, Berliner Zeitung, 1 Aug. 2025 [source; archived]
Weimar family court judge Christian Dettmar has lost his job and is left with nothing. He was convicted because he committed a formal mistake in a ruling on mandatory mask wearing: he should have kept notes [ah, rules for thee, but not for Ms. Von der Leyen and her poison/death juice buddy Albert Bourla] on his communication with those affected. Suddenly, he was branded a conspiracy loon. No court addressed the matter itself. The expert opinions requested by Dettmar were not considered—even though the RKI Files and other scientific findings subsequently fully confirmed the questionable nature of the measures. A record of a case that could make one lose faith in justice [sic; I think that kind of patently absurd editorialising may have been necessary to get the interview published (but I don’t know)].
Christian Dettmar, former family judge of Weimar, [as photographed] for the Berliner Zeitung, 30 July 2025.
[Berliner Zeitung] Mr. Dettmar, how did you come to issue court orders against mandatory mask wearing and mandatory testing in schools?
At the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021, parents repeatedly approached me, sometimes during breaks in negotiations or on other occasions. They kept asking me whether anything could be done about these measures in schools, which place extreme strain on their children and, indirectly, on their parents. I had already dealt with the issue. At the beginning of 2021, I joined the ‘Critical Judges and Public Prosecutors’ network (orig. Netzwerk Kritische Richter und Staatsanwälte, or KRiStA) as a founding member together with a colleague here from Weimar. To obtain legal action, an affected person can submit a ‘suggestion’ [orig. Anregung].
At some point, I received such a suggestion from a mother who had two sons in two schools here in Weimar: one of elementary school age and one in a regular school, i.e., at the secondary school-level. She suggested that the measures be reviewed. It concerned the mandatory mask wearing and testing. I did what I’ve done many times in my professional career. I have initiated interim injunction proceedings and, in parallel, main proceedings. In the main proceedings, I obtained three expert opinions: from hygiene professor Ines Kappstein, biologist Ulrike Kämmerer, and psychologist Christof Kuhbandner, who represent different disciplines.
[Berliner Zeitung] The court accused you of the experts being old acquaintances. Is that true?
I initially only contacted Professor Kappstein. I explained to her the questions I had or might have. I’ve always done that. When I had experts I’d never had in my courtroom before, I always called them and asked two questions. First, whether they had the necessary scientific expertise for certain of my questions. And second, whether they could also prepare a possible expert opinion within a reasonable time. Experts often don’t have time at all. I had also asked these questions to Ms. Kappstein. She told me that she had expertise for certain, but not all, questions. For the remaining questions, she referred me to her two colleagues. I had heard of them before, but didn’t know them. So, I obtained expert opinions from three professors with different questions in the main proceedings. They then came forward. They were the only expert opinions available on the subject up to that point. Based on these, I then issued a temporary injunction.
[Berliner Zeitung] The judgment against you reads as if it were a conspiracy. Who is behind the KRiStA network?
Well, the word ‘conspiracy’ is completely misplaced. These are honourable colleagues, i.e., public prosecutors and judges, both active and retired. We have a website. Anyone can find it online. It also contains our statutes and our mission statement. We have been publishing articles on legal topics on this website for several years now. You can also write letters to the editor about it. Everything is completely transparent. Some people try to create the impression that KRiStA is dubious. That is fundamentally wrong.
[Berliner Zeitung] Would you say this network is, so to speak, a specialist information platform that existed before you became involved in the mask issue?
Yes, it was founded in early 2021, and my decision dates back to April 8, 2021.
[Berliner Zeitung] Did you tell the experts what their reports should address?
I stated my questions, and I hoped, as always with experts, that they would be able to answer my questions with high scientific quality. I wanted reports that were beyond any doubt.
[Berliner Zeitung] What questions did you ask?
Ms. Kappstein’s discussion primarily concerned the obligation to wear masks and whether wearing masks by laypeople in public spaces, in general and by children in particular, makes any sense. Kuhbandner’s discussion focused on the damage masks can cause to children. Ms. Kämmerer’s discussion focused on the reliability of PCR tests and rapid tests. There is a differentiated order for evidence. The decision I made is published on openJur, where anyone can read it [here’s the ruling with Az. 1 UF 136/21; clocking in at 1,561 paragraphs, I don’t think it’s a wonder no-one read the verdict (I’ve read a sizeable chunk of it): it’s dense, it takes time, and you can’t just simply dismiss it out of hand, all of which has happened for 4+ years now]
[Berliner Zeitung] Have the courts or the Federal Constitutional Court studied these expert opinions or at least read them?
I can’t say for sure whether they have. But so far, not a single court has addressed the content of the expert opinions. Not even the Thuringian Higher Regional Court [Oberlandesgericht], which overturned my decision. An appeal was filed against that decision. The Federal Court of Justice in civil matters hasn’t addressed them either. And the Erfurt Regional Court, which convicted me, hasn’t addressed them either, nor has the Federal Court of Justice in the proceedings against me and the Federal Constitutional Court. Not a single court has evaluated the expert opinions. They said it wasn’t necessary. I was merely accused of commissioning expert opinions from a certain direction [which is why, in my view, the powers-that-be are doubling and quadrupling down on the alleged formality here: to avoid, precisely, engaging with the substance of Judge Dettmar’s ruling].
[Berliner Zeitung] Weren’t the expert opinions mentioned in the prosecution’s closing arguments?
It was merely mentioned in this context, that is, my alleged bias is [said to] also reflected in the fact that I commissioned experts from a particular background.
[Berliner Zeitung] So no one looked into the content?
That’s the curious thing: the selection of experts was one of the accusations made against me. But whether I can really be accused of that could only have been determined by examining the content of the reports. But that wasn’t done [Kafka sends his regards].
[Berliner Zeitung] You were accused of colluding [orig. gemauschelt] beforehand. So that's incorrect?
What exactly does ‘colluding’ [orig. mauscheln] mean? As far as we can tell, I was the first judge, at least in the German-speaking world, to ever obtain expert opinions. You can’t just mail an order for evidence like that to any expert [that’s a fair point, I’d merely add that had Judge Dettmar asked the correct™ experts™, he would have received quite different expert opinions, isn’t it? This problem points squarely at the much-bigger issue at-hand: is there any (scientific, objective) truth any more?]
[Berliner Zeitung] These expert opinions [used in Judge Dettmar’s ruling] are so important because they essentially reach the same conclusion as the RKI Protocols. The courts should have taken that into account.
The reports [used in the ruling in spring 2021] have been fully confirmed, if one takes what is now known after the publication of the RKI Protocols as a benchmark. And the real problem is: people always say, yes, with today’s knowledge, it's clear that the measures often don’t stand up to critical scrutiny. But with the knowledge available back then, there was no other way; none of this was known back then. That’s simply not true. The crucial points were already known to the RKI from the beginning of 2020 [so, instead of Judge Dettmar, the gov’t and all the experts™ should be in that courtroom, and all those journos™ who uncritically peddled that kind of nonsense should at the very least lose their jobs]. The question arises: if this was known from the beginning, and if they not only could have known better back then, but even knew better, why were these measures ordered anyway? And for me, that’s the central question that investigative committees, public prosecutors, and courts should actually be addressing [exactly; they won’t, for it’s a bit like in other tyrannical régimes of times past: too many are implicated, so it’s better to not talk about it lest we’ll find yet more unpalatable stuff ranging from mildly related (e.g., the massive fraud and corruption around, say, acquisition of PPE, Von der Leyen’s private chat with Pfizer CEO Bourla, etc.) to other aspects that have not been talked about yet, such as the strange role of the military in the Covid response, the legal framework (of regulatory capture in the US, the ‘outsourcing’ of pharmacovigilance to the European Medicines Agency, which allowed nat’l watchdog agencies to point to the EMA while EMA shrugged and said they’re receiving AE reports™ from member-states’ regulators), and a ton of ‘other stuff’].
[Berliner Zeitung] So the expert reports already had the same findings as the RKI back then? [admittedly, asking these questions is a bit off in the interview, but I think they could have been asked—but I also doubt that the possible answers would have made it through editorial review]?
Yes, what the experts discovered, the RKI already knew back then, and practically everyone knows it today [that is, except for public health officialdom™ and the experts™ of yesteryear]. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the judiciary hasn’t yet used the publication of the RKI Protocols to initiate a self-correction.
[Berliner Zeitung] You were accused of bringing the parents in yourself and helping them prepare their application.
The parents were completely unknown to me. Three or four days before the suggestion was received, a friend who knew these parents—but I didn't!—sent me the parents’ suggestion. He essentially asked me whether it could be submitted as is. I made a few tiny editorial changes. For example, I saw that it said something about regulations from North Rhine-Westphalia, which aren’t applicable in Thuringia. But basically, it wouldn’t have mattered; a single sentence would have been enough as a suggestion. I could have initiated the proceedings without any suggestion at all.
I’ve been asked many times why I waited for such a suggestion. There’s a good reason for that. I mentioned earlier that many parents approached me about whether and what could be done about the measures. I could have taken that as an opportunity, purely theoretically, to say, ‘Okay, then I'll initiate proceedings now.’ I don’t have to wait for a suggestion. I can do it officially. However, many parents said they were afraid that their children would be made fun of, that they might experience mistreatment at school if they didn’t wear masks [I suggest reading up on Ron Jones’ The Third Wave experiment, then]
I didn’t want to impose such a procedure on children and parents who were saying: we don’t agree with the measures, but rather than our child being bullied in class, we’d rather endure it quietly and angrily. I wanted parents who would fully commit to the procedure and therefore waited until parents explicitly suggested it. It wouldn’t have been legally necessary.
[Berliner Zeitung] You were accused of bias because you spoke with the parents.
It is explicitly stated in several commentaries in the specialist commentary on family law that not only the clerk in the office or the judicial officer, but also I, as the competent family judge, may take up such a suggestion. And I am even supposed to work to ensure that the presumed wishes of the person making the suggestion are enquired about. And I am supposed to ensure that the request is clearly formulated. This is explicitly stated in the commentary. And the interesting thing is that the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) also explicitly acknowledged this in its decision. It said, yes, I was allowed to participate in the formulation of this suggestion and provide assistance. But, and now comes the thing the Federal Court of Justice is accusing me of: I should have made a note about it. I failed to do so. And that is the accusation made by the BGH.
[Berliner Zeitung] Not everyone can work as carefully as Ms. von der Leyen, who creates meticulous notes on each of her deals [here’s the rather direct attack on the EU Commission chief and her shenanigans with Pfizer’s Bourla in regard to the missing™ text messages]. You issued the recommendation for two children from one family, but also for two classes, meaning multiple students.
To be precise, that were two schools: a regular [secondary] school and an elementary school. I issued the order for those two children and all children at both schools.
[Berliner Zeitung] So you gave all children who wanted to do so the opportunity to avoid the measures?
I didn’t just obtain the expert opinions. I also appointed a legal representative, a lawyer, for these two children. The law stipulates that this can or even must happen in certain cases. This legal representative is a kind of advocate for the children, who must and should represent their interests. The lawyer provided me with a detailed report on the situation of the two children. Parts of it are also printed in my decision. The report made it clear to me that the situation is the same not only for the two children, but for all children at these two schools. This prompted me to issue a decision by way of an temporary injunction not only for these two original children, if I may call them that, but also for their classmates at both schools.
[Berliner Zeitung] And this decision was such that they said, okay, anyone who still wants to wear a mask voluntarily and wants to get tested can do so?
Any important point that has often been misreported. I didn’t ‘forbid’ children from wearing masks or getting tested, I just forbade them from being required to do so. Anyone who wanted to do so voluntarily could have continued doing so at any time [which begs the question: how brainwashed are the parents?]
[Berliner Zeitung] So you issued this order, what happened after that?
It wasn’t implemented at all.
[Berliner Zeitung] Oh. Why?
That’s a good question. The ministry [of justice] probably worked to prevent it from being implemented. Legal remedies [orig. Rechtsmittel, i.e., formal petitions to enforce the ruling] were then filed.
[Berliner Zeitung] But if you make a decision and it becomes legally binding, we would have thought that you would have to abide by it at first until it is overturned.
Don’t hold me to that; I can’t tell you exactly whether it was implemented for half a day. As far as I know, my decision wasn't implemented at-all, and then legal remedies [appeals] were filed by the Free State of Thuringia, and the Thuringian Higher Regional Court then overturned my decision [this is a true bombshell: the gov’t refused to follow the judiciary, which begs questions about the rule of law, the separation of powers, and whatever other shenanigans are going on behind closed doors].
[Berliner Zeitung] You were accused, among other things, of the fact that the administrative courts [Verwaltungsgerichte] were responsible for such a decision and not a family court.
At the time of my decision, this was legally completely unclear. My decision was based on a specific statutory provision, namely Section 1,666 Paragraph 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB), according to which I can also make decisions with effect against a third party. Who such a third party is, for example, the teachers and principals or the school administration, and whether or not I, as a family court judge, could issue such an instruction to them, was completely unclear at the time. Only now, thanks to my case, is there higher court ruling on this.
[Berliner Zeitung] So, they made the decision. To whom was it addressed?
It went to everyone involved. To the parents who suggested it. It went to the two schools, to the Free State of Thuringia, to the lawyer who was appointed as the children’s legal representative, and to the Youth Welfare Office [orig. Jugendamt, i.e., Child Protective Services (sic)].
[Berliner Zeitung] A broad circle. Actually, anyone at school could have said: here’s a court ruling, no one needs to wear a mask here at all, right?
Yes, but that's not how it was, because, as far as I’ve heard, the decision wasn’t implemented.
[Berliner Zeitung] But that means someone must have told the parents and teachers, yes, you have a decision from an independent judge, but it doesn’t count. Right?
I can only speculate as to who exactly said what. In any case, the decision was not implemented.
[Berliner Zeitung] Within a week, the state of Thuringia filed an appeal [in the interim, the ruling would have to be applied].
That got the schools off the hook. They said, ‘here's a complaint, we have nothing more to do with it’.
[Berliner Zeitung] Next came the house searches?
The first house search—I had two—came pretty quickly. That was in April 2021, and then there was a second one in June 2021. The ruling was issued on 8 April, and the house search occurred on 26 April, just two weeks later [imagine that: there’s a ruling, a week later the gov’t files an appeal, and another week later, police raided Judge Dettmar’s premises: your tax money at-work].
[Berliner Zeitung] How did that go? They were at your front door early in the morning. How many police officers were there? Were they masked?
They weren’t masked, but there were quite a few. A public prosecutor was there, along with several police officers, and they presented the search warrant and then searched my apartment, my office, and my car.
[Berliner Zeitung] What did you think at the time?
I was completely surprised. I had expected my decision to be discussed and, above all, that a discussion would begin on the merits, and that they would discuss whether these measures could be maintained. But I never would have expected that an investigation would be launched against me.
[Berliner Zeitung] What was your reaction?
I was alone during the house search, and I was shocked and completely stunned [that’s the gov’t MO here], and I had to digest it first. I only learned at that moment that an investigation was underway against me. You don’t have a quiet moment to digest it either, because the search was going on all around you [the one conclusion to be drawn immediately is: lawyer up, just in case].
[Berliner Zeitung] Did they really turn the apartment upside down or politely ask for the computer?
Well, they behaved fairly civilly, I can say that, but they were looking for all sorts of things: I had the impression that while they superficially knew what they were looking for—phones, computers—deep down, they didn't really know what they were looking for.
[Berliner Zeitung] Did you talk to the police about it, or are you inferring that from the context?
Well, for example, I saw them pull a piece of paper out of my wastebasket. I had written down a [reference to a] paragraph, just the number of the paragraph, I don’t remember in what context. I’ve been doing it like that for decades, so I was probably thinking about something and making a note. And then they look at the piece of paper and decide, is this a lead or not? That showed me that they don’t really know what to look for [your German taxes hard at-work].
[Berliner Zeitung] Then they left with your computers?
Well, my work computer, which isn’t at my home, but at the office. Of course, that was searched too. A group of officials and prosecutors also searched my office. They, of course, also looked at my work computer.
[Berliner Zeitung] It was claimed that nothing could be found on your personal computer because you had installed a new operating system on it.
That’s not true. The computer I had at the time was ancient and wouldn’t have accepted a new operating system. It also wouldn’t accept software updates. And then it broke, so I replaced it. Well, it wasn’t a new operating system, but a new computer, a new laptop, to be precise. It also had a new operating system, of course.
[Berliner Zeitung] What happened next?
I continued working full-time until January 2023, about another year and a half, with the same responsibilities in my department. It wasn’t until January 2023 that I was provisionally suspended from duty.
[Berliner Zeitung] You were suspended after the entire pandemic was already over? After everyone had a completely different understanding?
I can only speculate that the investigation dragged on so long because the public prosecutor’s office was so busy evaluating their data. There were also searches of the homes of a colleague, the parents, the experts, and numerous other individuals. And, of course, that involves a lot of computers, cell phones, and other things. The lawyer who acted as legal counsel for the children also had her home searched [talk about gov’t over-reach here for a moment: the gov’t dislikes a ruling and mobilises the full brunt of the public (sic) prosecution against the opposing™ judge while refusing the abide by the ruling: what do we call it when this happens in a Third World country?].
[Berliner Zeitung] Is it actually legal to do this to a lawyer?
Well, I don’t think it’s okay. I've already said, I don’t know what they were actually looking for. My lawyer, Dr. Strate, once said that the only ‘tool’ I had for the crime was the resolution I passed. And you don’t have to search for it; it’s in the file. You should have just looked at it [but that would have required judging the ruling based on its merits, as opposed to the cold dictate of the gov’t, which is why it wasn’t done].
[Berliner Zeitung] You were then convicted, and the appeal and the Constitutional Court dismissed practically everything in the final instance, right?
I was convicted in the first instance in August 2023. There is no appeal against that; instead, we filed appeals to the Federal Court of Justice. On 20 November 2024, the Federal Court of Justice announced its decision, which dismissed our appeal and that of the public prosecutor’s office.
[Berliner Zeitung] And now you're out of service for good, have lost everything, your pension, benefits, everything?
With the announcement of the Federal Court of Justice’s decision on 20 November 2024, my conviction, which was previously handed down by the Erfurt Regional Court, became final. So, I’m no longer a judge, not even a retired judge, but no longer a judge at-all. I also no longer receive any salary. I’ve completely retired from the judicial service.
[Berliner Zeitung] How and what do you live on now?
From the support of friendly people around me. I’m not allowed to work as a lawyer either. I don’t have a bar license and wouldn’t get one for years. I’m also not allowed to run for any party, no matter which one. It’s a side effect of my conviction that I wouldn’t be allowed to run for such an office for, I believe, five years. So, I’m somewhat handicapped in that regard [in the US, convicted felons frequently lose their right to vote, in Germany, it’s also that].
[Berliner Zeitung] Yet you don’t seem bitter, but friendly, cheerful, and balanced. Is this all for show, or do you have something up your sleeve that says you can handle the situation?
It’s not for show. Those were very, very stressful years for me. But at the moment, I’m coping and happy that there are people who support me. That gives me stability.
[Berliner Zeitung] Do you feel socially ostracised, or do you see yourself more as a silent hero?
I don’t see myself as a hero, not even a silent one. I was just trying to do my job. I notice the social divide, but I don’t have anything special to say about it. Millions of other people in Germany, and not only in Germany, can tell the same story.
[Berliner Zeitung] Do you actually still have a chance of legal recourse, perhaps at the European level?
We still need to discuss and consider that. There is a way to go to the European Court of Human Rights, the ECHR [which, even if said court™ would hear the case, is highly problematic as its questionable jurisdiction merely affirms the tyrannical power wielded by those who had Judge Dettmar sentenced in the first place].
[Berliner Zeitung] Would you make the same decision today as you did back then, knowing everything that happened to you afterward?
I would do the same as back then, namely examine everything carefully and then make a decision. There are differences compared to the situation back then. Today, there is higher court jurisprudence, for example, on actual or presumed jurisdiction. This didn’t exist back then.
Note: The following video features the Federal Court of Justice’s reasoning. It becomes clear that the Federal Court of Justice is adopting the narrative of the lower courts that the judge’s actions were some kind of insidious conspiracy. At no point does the Federal Court of Justice mention the content of the expert opinions, let alone the findings from the RKI Files. The Federal Court of Justice insinuates the possibility of adjudication in a vacuum, discredits the experts without any factual basis (‘one expert had previously expressed criticism’), and ignores the fact that at the time of the decision, public debate about the measures was suppressed by politicians, sometimes using brutal methods (‘panic tactics’ by the Ministry of the Interior). The Senate of the Federal Court of Justice maintains the unsubstantiated allegation that the judge was not at all interested in the child’s welfare. It ultimately sides with the Free State of Thuringia, which suffered disadvantages as a result of the judge’s suggestion. The Federal Court of Justice does not explain what these disadvantages consisted of. The impression arises that the judicial authorities in these proceedings—notwithstanding their obligation to neutrality, which they pathos-reminded the judge—wanted to give priority to the unconditional enforcement of the state measures, even ‘ex post’ and without considering relevant, new findings. [the video is in German].
Bottom Lines
What do we call it when the gov’t ignores a court ruling it dislikes?
What do we call it when the gov’t subsequently goes after said judge, their perceived opponents in the case, incl. the lawyer, and drags out the proceedings until after the fact?
What do we call it when the federal judiciary to this day refuses to engage with the substance of the ruling while totally destroying the judge?
If you answered, ‘it’s tyranny, stupid’ three times (it’s a charm), you’re right on the money.
The most insidious thing, though, is that the Covid criminals, such as the EU’s Ursula Von der Leyen and Pfizer’s Albert Bourla continue to get off scot-free, at least for the time being.
I can merely point you to two well-credentialed academics who wrote about the problem—inverted totalitarianism, as the late Sheldon Wolin would have it (see his Democracy, Inc., Princeton UP, 2017) and ‘fascism’ being ‘the wave of the future’, as Edward Luttwak so presciently related it back in 1994:
For—once one performs the tyranny (duck) test, one quickly arrives at the inescapable conclusion that it’s very likely a tyranny (duck) we’re looking at here.
Stay strong, judge Dettmar, and thank you for having the courage to stand up.
Maybe Judge Dettmar should speak to me. I was unlawfully jailed as a political prisoner on the direct orders of Angela Merkel in October 2014 for blowing the whistle on her mass immigration plans. Plans that have now happened leaving many german women and girls raped and or dead. For example Maria Ladenburger.
Are there any germans here?
At least there aren't any colonies to send him to, Dreyfus affair-style.
This is on par with that, and is a testament to the rot in the judicial systems of the West, because it is by no means an isolated incident, and the common thread are prosecutors, police chiefs and judges all tied to politically tinted guild-like organisations for networking, and the WEF.