The Ghost of Covid Nightmares Past: The Plight of the Good Judge Dettmar
A longish update on the end of the rule of law that--in true Orwellian fashion--must be abused and distorted to protect the perpetrators of the Covid Mania
Today, we’ll have to talk about Judge Christian Dettmar once more, an otherwise quiet and, upon first look, certainly un-imposing (former) family judge in Thuringia.
I’ve written about Judge Dettmar before; in fact, quite a few times, as it turns out; he is the family judge who, back in 2021, lifted mask mandates in schools citing—which I believe to be his true thoughtcrime—the documentation coming from public health™ officialdom, however biased and misleading these files were. Judge
Thus, Judge Dettmar considered the mask mandates an abuse and ruled against them; needless to say, the gov’t came after him like a rabid hound—and, while far less prominent as, say, the cases of the Thai-German physician Sukharit Bhakdi (who was eventually acquitted) or the Kafkaesque persecution of American wordsmith C.J. Hopkins, the case of Judge Dettmar is, arguably, way more consequential—because it shows the state’s unwillingness to consider new™ evidence contradicting previous false accusation.
Here’s a run-down of my dedicated postings:
And the reason we’ll have to talk about this charade once more is this:
The key issue here is that a primal abuse occurred in spring 2020 when the judiciary virtually summarily failed—Judge Guericke being the notable exception—to hold both the government and public health authorities™ to account.
And now we’ll turn to the ‘mop-up’ operation with Judge Dettmar caught in the crossfire: he virtually single-handedly embarrassed the gov’t, experts™, and journos™ alike, which is why the state, legacy media, and the juste milieu goes after him with a vengeance.
This posting brings a few choice passages from select legacy media pieces about the case (state broadcaster ARD and the Bild Zeitung, as well as a slightly differing take from the Berliner Zeitung). I’ll also consider several passages of the Federal Constitutional Court’s—Germany’s supreme court—ruling.
Translations, emphases, and [snark] mine. As is the raging anger over the Covid Coup.
Judge’s Constitutional Complaint Fails
A family judge in Weimar had suspended the compulsory wearing of masks at two schools during the coronavirus pandemic—for which he was convicted of obstruction of justice. Now he has failed in Karlsruhe with a constitutional complaint against the verdict.
Via Tagesschau/ARD, 3 July 2025 [source; archived]
A family judge in Weimar has been rightly [orig. zu Recht, because the state broadcaster is neutral] convicted of obstruction of justice—he had ordered mask bans at two schools in 2021 and received a suspended sentence [orig. Bewährungsstrafe] at the time. As the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe has now ruled, his constitutional complaint against the conviction is inadmissible [don’t be fooled here expecting the verdict; it’s merely a link to the court’s press release]. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had not acted arbitrarily by approving the two-year suspended sentence, according to the court.
Not Competent as a Family Judge
In April 2021, the judge at the Weimar district court at the time had issued a temporary injunction prohibiting both management and teachers of two Weimar schools from enforcing some of the infection prevention measures in force at the time against the children—such as the obligation to wear masks [isn’t it odd that the piece couldn’t say the name, Christian Dettmar?]…
He acted as a family judge and based his decision on the best interests of the child—but lacked responsibility for this decision at all. It was overturned a few weeks later by the Jena Higher Regional Court [all I can do at this point is to recommend (re)reading the long consideration of the case by Judge Guericke, which I documented in two parts here and here; these are the top-linked postings dated 5 April 2025 and 6 April 2025, with the following choice quotes by Judge Guericke pointing at the heart of the issue:
The issue was not the factual content of the opinion at issue, but rather that Dettmar had refused to allow the ‘official authorities’ to dictate his opinion…The criminal proceedings were not about defending the coronavirus measures—it would be best not to discuss them at all. The aim was to fend off the accusation that the judiciary systematically failed during the coronavirus crisis, which was associated with Dettmar’s decision. And given the extent of the provocation, that meant that Christian Dettmar had to be convicted.]
Suspended Sentence of Two Years
The family judge had to answer to the Erfurt Regional Court on charges of obstruction of justice. The court sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of two years in 2023. The court considered it proven that he had made a biased decision at the time...[which, if you read the long piece by Judge Guericke, wasn’t the crux of the matter]
[Now] the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the procedural violations constituted a violation of the law.
The conviction was therefore upheld. This also has professional consequences for the judge: According to the German Judges Act [orig. Richtergesetz], a judge convicted of an intentional offence and sentenced to at least one year’s imprisonment must be dismissed from office.
Court: Offence not Conclusively Demonstrated
The Weimar judge appealed against the BGH ruling to the Federal Constitutional Court. In his view, the BGH had ‘deviated from the standards established in established case law on the offence of obstruction of justice without sufficient justification’ [this is also what Judge Guericke found]. It saw this as a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness arising from the Basic Law.
However, he was unable to convince the supreme judges with his argument. ‘The interpretation of criminal laws and their application to individual cases is a matter for the competent courts’, emphasised the responsible chamber [re-read this sentence, if needed: a family judge cannot, by definition, rule on stuff unrelated to his or her competence (yet, Judge Dettmar made his decision based on matters he was competent—child welfare) and now all higher-up appeals courts and, ultimately, the supreme court determined that they know better: talk about Orwellian newspeak, to say nothing about the refusal to look at themselves in the mirror]. Intervention by the Constitutional Court could only be considered in rare exceptional cases where the prohibition of arbitrariness had been violated. However, such a violation had not been conclusively demonstrated here [if that arbitrariness wasn’t found, why did the Constitutional Court overturn the ruling of the appeals court in the first place? Only if Judge Dettmar’s true™ crime was forming his own opinion, as opposed to swallow gov’t expertise™ hook, line, and sinker, as well as asking for more™].
Probation for Judge Who Lifted Mask Requirement
Via Bild Zeitung, 3 July 2025 [source; archived]
Opponents of the coronavirus measures celebrated him [as if that’s the issue here]. District judge Christian Dettmar wanted to overturn the coronavirus mask requirement—and ended up in court himself. Now his legal battle is finally over...
In April 2021, Dettmar lifted the mask requirement in two cases. Following a complaint by Doreen B. from Weimar, whose children (8, 14) had allegedly suffered from headaches, nausea and insomnia because of the masks, the district judge banned the state Pestalozzi primary school and the state Pestalozzi regular school in Weimar from forcing their pupils to wear masks, social distancing and rapid testing [that link directs you a piece in the Bild Zeitung from 2023 on the occasion of his sentencing; Judge Dettmar is cited as follows:
I still don't know why I’m sitting here. I have three grown-up children of my own. At the time, I was preoccupied by the everyday life of schoolchildren. I saw imminent danger. The expert opinions I consulted came from experienced university professors [who were not gov’t experts™ as they didn’t parrot the gov’t li(n)es].
Judge Exceeded his Powers
However, the Thuringia Higher Regional Court overturned the decision. Reasoning: Dettmar was not competent [orig. zuständig] for the case. The public prosecutor’s office accused him of obstruction of justice [how would the prosecution know what was right or wrong? By relying on external experts™, of course, which is exactly what Judge Dettmar did]—and was proved right. The Erfurt district court sentenced him to two years’ probation.
The judges there accused Dettmar of having deliberately ‘organised’ the proceedings. Among other things, he had chosen experts in advance who would judge in his favour [Franz Kafka actually wrote about this kind of stuff…]
Corona Mask Mandates: District Judge Dettmar Also Loses in Last Instance
Karlsruhe has ruled: a judge from Weimar who lifted the mask requirement for pupils remains on probation.
By Michael Maier, Berliner Zeitung, 3 July 2025 [source; archived]
[…] The Federal Constitutional Court writes in its press release:
According to the findings of the specialised court, the plaintiff, who was acting as a family judge, issued a temporary injunction in April 2021 prohibiting the management and teaching staff of two schools from enforcing some of the infection protection measures in force at the time to contain the spread of the coronavirus against the children taught there. The plaintiff had purposefully worked towards ensuring that a corresponding procedure would fall within his area of responsibility under the administrative organisation [orig. geschäftsplanmäßig, meant is the distribution of cases according to competence], decided on a suggestion he had helped to process and, in doing so, purposefully used and abused the judicial office assigned to him.
Bottom Li[n]es
I’m sampling these pieces to show you the extent of legacy media coverage. The state broadcaster starts with spin and is very light on facts, although the piece links to the court’s press release; tabloid Bild is at least providing some background and less agit-prop; and the Berliner Zeitung at long last cites from the Supreme Court press release.
As such, these three pieces are very much illustrative of gov’t and legacy media during the Covid Mania, by the way: lots of spin, very few facts, and, if in doubt, virtue-signal your way out of any issues arising citing a press release. That stuff applies to gov’t, experts™ and academia™, and for journos™. Change my mind.
Let’s look at the ruling (court case no. 2 BvR 373/25), however briefly, shall we?
The constitutional complaint has not accepted the complaint for consideration [oh, that’s interesting, eh? Instead of all the spin, the Constitutional Court refused to hear the case]. Interpretation of criminal statutes and their application to the individual case are a matter for the competent courts and are therefore generally not subject to review by the Federal Constitutional Court; constitutional court intervention against decisions of the specialised courts can only be considered in rare exceptional cases under the aspect of a violation of the principle of equality in its meaning as a prohibition of arbitrariness, as alleged by the complainant (cf. BVerfGE 74, 102 <127>; BVerfG, decision of the 2nd Chamber of the Second Senate of 27 May 2020 - 2 BvR 2054/19 -, para. 35; decision of the 3rd Chamber of the Second Senate of 20 October 2023 - 2 BvR 499/23 -, para. 26). The constitutional complaint does not conclusively demonstrate such a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness.
This decision may not be contestable.
Langenfeld—Fetzer—Offenloch [the three judges]
That’s literally it.
Isn’t it interesting that the last word in this whole messy charade is the one discussed—dissected at-length—by Judge Guericke? Let’s reconsider his reading of the now-final ruling of the Erfurt Regional Court:
In its ruling of 23 August 2023, the Erfurt Regional Court stated that the accusation of legal malpractice arose neither from the assumption of its own jurisdiction nor from a violation of the right to be heard by failing to hear the children and parents prior to the decision or the use of the expert opinions before the other parties had been granted the right to be heard. It also does not arise from a violation of the jurisdiction by including children in the decision for whom Judge Dettmar was not responsible. These accusations from the indictment were all not elementary violations of the law within the meaning of § 339 StGB [Criminal Code] (ruling, p. 124 f.). However, the defendant was guilty of obstruction of justice in that he ‘disregarded judicial independence for extraneous motives’ and conducted the proceedings ‘precisely because of his bias and prejudice’ (ruling, p. 125). The obstruction of justice should therefore consist of the fact that Judge Dettmar had conducted the proceedings ‘in a state of bias’, so to speak. In contrast, according to the district court, the accused’s behaviour, such as the selection of expert witnesses, should not itself justify the accusation of obstruction of justice, but only prove bias.
So, pray tell why the Constitutional Court is arguing™ that this case is about obstruction of justice? One more paragraph from Judge Guericke’s piece shows what this shitshow is all about:
Lack of neutrality and bias can of course also be the cause of specific procedural violations. However, if a judge does not violate any procedural rules or substantive law, a lack of neutrality can never justify an accusation of legal malpractice. Ultimately, only specific violations of the law count, because criminal law only sanctions external behaviour and not internal attitudes. Lawful behaviour carried out with the ‘wrong’ inner attitude remains lawful.
This is what this entire charade is about: what in German is called Gesinnung, or conviction, is explicitly not covered by the criminal code, but this is precisely the reason™ given by the court of appeals in Judge Dettmar’s case. And it is this absurd ruling that the Constitutional Court has refused to consider.
Why, you may ask? Well, it’s simple: Judge Dettmar’s thought-and-deed-crime™ was to deviate from the official narrative about the Pandemic™.
Here is one of the more readable considerations of what’s at stake, courtesy of Jörg Benedict, Professor of German and European Private Law, Legal History, and Philosophy of Law at the U of Rostock, Germany (faculty profile):
It is part of the propaganda of rule to make the political enemy hated in the eyes of the public. It is not the law that is distorted, but the truth…Not because it was actually right, but because it was proclaimed to the people as right…
Propaganda proclaims the lie as truth. And the crowd carries it through the streets and from house to house. The mad enthusiasm celebrates the atrocities as acts of justice. Thus implanted, the epistemes grow in the manipulated faith of the time. The degree of suppression of doubt and the persecution of non-believers or dissenters then characterise the degree of tyranny that accompanies the lie…
Nothing is safe anymore that comes close to a zealous courts: epistemic injustice completely melts away any awareness of rationality along with the civil normality that existed until just a short time ago. Hundreds are accused, imprisoned and driven to make ludicrous false statements [this is called brainwashing]…
Law, which is built on lies, is proclaimed and mercilessly executed…‘Flatten the Curve!’, ‘Follow the Science!’, ‘Pandemic of the Unvaccinated!’…There was no separation of powers, no judicial control of the executive. The synchronisation of the three powers became part of the new normality. And that meant one thing above all: there was no legal review of the epistemes underlying the measures.
This is, in my view, the importance of the Dettmar case: the underlying facts cannot be reviewed, lest one finds the house of lies—known as the WHO-declared Covid Pandemic™—in ruins and society awakens to consider the betrayal by gov’t, experts™, and journos™.
The clarification of the truth, which is otherwise a matter of course for every court case, did not take place during the coronavirus pandemic…
A district court judge [Christian Dettmar] dared to articulate his opposition to the basic assumptions of the coronavirus policy in a clear legal form. No, it was not about a bit of legal cosmetics, such as using the principle of equality and proportionality to object to the closure of hairdressers compared to the opening of DIY stores or similar. No, the Weimar ruling [by Christian Dettmar] constituted a fundamental criticism of epistemic hysteria as a whole: The measures are not just a bit disproportionate, they are not just perhaps inappropriate, no, on the contrary, they are actually harmful; harmful to the ‘mental, physical and emotional well-being’ of children.
I’ll close this overly long piece by pointing to yesterday’s admission by the Austrian gov’t that Judge Dettmar was, in fact, correct. This is a direct quote from the Covidian authorities:
On the one hand, the school psychology hotline was monitored to record the reason for the calls and the content of the telephone counselling sessions [there goes your privacy, by the way]. On the other hand, the individual case files and documented counselling cases were evaluated as part of the school psychology activity reports. This revealed a clear trend towards increasing and increasingly complex individual case work.
And then there is this:
the number of young patients and prescriptions of psychotropic drugs to children (such as Ritalin for the treatment of ADHD) has risen sharply. While the number of patients with corresponding prescriptions rose from 21,500 in 2018 to 29,300 in 2023 (an increase of 36%), the number of prescriptions issued rose from 138,100 to 216,400, which corresponds to an increase of 57%.
Here are the receipts for these two quotes.
Judge Dettmar was correct, and he proved the Covid Emperors and all their camp followers were naked.
This is why he must be convicted.
I’ll end by resorting, once more, to George Orwell’s warning:
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
The judicial system lacks robust independence. Judges will not save us.
"The issue was not the factual content of the opinion at issue, but rather that Dettmar had refused to allow the ‘official authorities’ to dictate his opinion…"
In other words, Judge Dettmar stands convicted of not obeying orders, despite said orders being unethical, factually wrong, and detrimental to innocents.
Irony just died, again.