By Enza Ferreri
European Courts Rulings against Covid Tests and Lockdowns
Reiner Fuellmich, the German top lawyer behind Nuremberg 2, the largest class action case in history, started for “pandemic created by false tests”, believes to have a very strong criminal case. He writes:
What about fraud, intentional infliction of damage and crimes against humanity? Based on the rules of criminal law, asserting false facts concerning the PCR tests or intentional misrepresentation, as it was committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler as well as the WHO, can only be assessed as fraud. Based on the rules of civil tort law, this translates into intentional infliction of damage. The German professor of civil law, Martin Schwab, supports this finding in public interviews.
In an interview, Reiner Fuellmich said: “There is light at the end of the tunnel. We have won lawsuits and are going to win many more.”
“Europe,” Fuellmich continued, “is the main battleground in this war. That’s because it is completely bankrupt. The pension funds have been completely looted. That’s why they want to put Europe under control before people realize what’s going on.”
In Europe, intolerance for novel coronavirus tests and lockdown rules is mounting.
Law courts are issuing orders against measures enforced to combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus as going beyond the constitutional powers of governments and in an attempt to protect the civil right s of citizens.
With regard to the fallacy of PCR tests, we know of the November historic ruling of the Lisbon Court of Appeal, in Portugal, that the PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”.
The Lisbon Court rejected the arguments that individuals could be forced to quarantine after receiving a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2.
Similarly in March, the Court of Vienna, in Austria, pronounced: “PCR tests have no diagnostic value”, as they would not be able to detect the presence of the virus of Covid-19 and would be unreliable in over 90% of cases.
Belgian Government Facing Fines for Imposing Lockdown
In Belgium, at the end of March, a Brussels court decision:
The Belgian Government has been ordered to lift “all coronavirus measures” within 30 days, as the legal basis for them is insufficient, a Brussels court ruled on Wednesday…
The judge gave the Belgian government 30 days to provide a sound legal basis, or face a penalty of €5,000 per day that this period is exceeded, with a maximum limit of €200,000. [Emphasis added]
In February, a court in The Hague ruled that the coronavirus-related lockdown in the Netherlands must be lifted immediately. The court recalled that this lockdown was established on the basis of the Law on Extraordinary Powers of Civil Authority, but considered that there was no emergency situation within the meaning of this law.
The Finnish government of Prime Minister Sanna Marin has had to withdraw the proposal to establish a lockdown, which it had submitted to parliament, after it was rejected by a constitutional law committee. The latter clarified how the choice to confine people to homes in areas with the most infections was inaccurate and at odds with the Constitution. The committee said it was opposed to large-scale restrictions and made clear that these should be targeted at risky events or occasions, such as meetings between individuals.
Finland has been praised in the past for its handling of the pandemic and has been among the countries least affected by Covid-19 in Europe.
In Spain, there has been a real clash between the central government and the regional authorities of the Balearic Islands and Canary Islands over the imposition of the use of masks outdoors regardless of social distance. Both regions are popular tourist destinations, and it is feared that such measures could lead, as happened last year, to a massive series of cancellations by foreign tourists wanting to holiday on the islands. Spain’s tourism sector is in a state of severe crisis and is desperate for a recovery.