GERMAN "JUSTICE" CONTINUED!!! SENTENCED TO 90 TIMES THE DAILY RATE FOR HAVING A HEALTH CERTIFICATE DECLARED ILLEGAL - THOUGH WEARING A MASK BROUGHT ON DIZZINESS, COLLAPSE AND VOMITING

This links with the case of the 80-year-old doctor persecuted on the basis of the claim that he issued false health certificates authorizing mask exemptions.

IN A NUTSHELL (from an email sent to me):

This district court judgment of 25.4.2024  for "mask exemption certificate" is a classic example of this justice system, because a court cannot demonstrate its political obedience more clearly than here!

A daily rate of 90 daily rates is decisive for a previous conviction. If you are sentenced to a fine of up to 90 daily rates, you are not considered to have a criminal record. If you are sentenced to more than 90 daily rates, you have a criminal record.

MASSES OF INFORMATION:

Court of shame – How injustice became law

I still think about April 25th, 2024 very often today. Although only about two months have passed since then, I know that this day was a memorable one that will go down in history. It was the day that Manu C, a righteous woman and enlightener from "Der Runde Tisch" at Amtsgericht Duisburg, stood up for her rights. Unfortunately (so far) without success.

She was sentenced to a fine of 90 daily rates of €25 each for an allegedly unauthorised mask certificate.

Finding the truth was not desired in this trial. The doctor who had issued her mask certificate was not even questioned.

The reasons given, such as dizziness, a tendency to collapse and vomiting, were in fact not sufficient to consider a mask exemption for Manu C. to be justified.

The local judge's argument that the defendant Manu C. should have known that she had used an unauthorised certificate opened up dimensions of insanity that I would never have thought possible in this "constitutional state". This nonsense was only topped by the claim that a lack of symptoms when not wearing a mask was used as an argument to be able to wear a mask again.

It is a judgement reminiscent of Germany's darkest times. The RKI protocols have long since been published, but the „state-savvy“ expert did not want to know anything about them, but he did want to know about Covid training courses that the RKI organised during the pandemic.

On top of that, the defendant was threatened in a one-on-one conversation. This conversation was about pressing charges against the Minister of Education, Mrs. Gebauer, for endangering the welfare of children.

Manu C. was told not to press charges against politicians because a shot like that could backfire.

Only a totalitarian state needs to intimidate honourable citizens in this way. Only a totalitarian state that gets nowhere with arguments and facts and instead wants to impose its green-left ideology, whatever the cost. Anyone who does not bow to the established narrative and even dares to rise up against the "ruling" politicians is to be finished off.

And nothing else is happening in this case against Manu C. This case is so clear, so unambiguous, so steeped in history that „der Runde Tisch“ is keen to publish the associated judgement in English. Following this English version of the introduction, you can read the English version of the judgement and also find the original version of the judgement in German.

THE JUDGEMENT:

Legalization Amtsgericht Duisburg

IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE Judgement

Manuela Ceresa
born February 2nd, xxx self-employed real estate agent
Citizenship: German xxx
resident xxx

use of an incorrect health certificate

In the criminal case against

because of

the Amtsgericht Duisburg
on the basis of the main hearing of April 25th, 2024
in which the following took part:
Judge at Amtsgericht Bohle
as Judge
Prosecutor Dillgen
as Representative of the Duisburg Public Prosecutor's Office

Lawyer Lober from Cologne

as Defense counsel for the Defendant Manuela Ceresa

Justice worker Flüchter

as Clerk of the Registry

ruled:

The defendant is sentenced to a fine of 90 daily rates of €25 each for using an incorrect health certificate.

The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings and her own necessary expenses.

(§279 StGB)

Reasons

The xxx years old, divorced defendant has two children aged xxx and xxx. As a self-employed real estate agent, she earns a monthly net income of xxx €.

The defendant has not yet made any criminal offences.

On March 14th, 2022, the defendant went to the Duisburg police headquarters for an agreed hearing. There she handed the interrogating officer, Detective Superintendent xxx, a medical certificate issued by doctor xxx in Duisburg on November 9th, 2011, which exempted her from the obligation to wear a face mask. It is true that the defendant had actually received medical treatment from the doctor who issued the certificate. However, the medical requirements for exemption were not met at any time. The medical certificate contradicted the rules of the medical profession. It was a so-called certificate of favour. The defendant was aware of this.

These findings are based on the defendant's statement and the other evidence that has been exhausted according to the main hearing transcript.

The defendant did not initially enter a plea. In her last word, however, she declared that the expert opinion was incorrect and that the expert had done a sloppy job. The expert should have examined her, which he did not do. She would have worn the mask for 6 months. Then she felt really bad. That is why she went to the doctor. She had been examined for headaches, dizziness and vomiting. She received the certificate a few days later.

The witness xxx, a police officer in Duisburg, testified that the accused was picked up by his colleague, Mr. xxx, at the entrance to the police headquarters. She had submitted a medical certificate stating that a mask was not recommended for her - and also for her partner - from a medical point of view. During the interrogation, there were no indications that it would have been impossible to wear the mask. He had not been able to detect any shortness of breath.

In his expert opinion, the expert came to the conclusion that the certificate submitted by the defendant is not justifiable according to the rules of medical practice. In the entire treatment documentation of the doctor xxx, there were no findings that indicated a risk from wearing a face mask. A mental or cognitive incapacity to wear a protective mask was also not recognisable. On the contrary, the documentation of the doctor xxx depicts an age- appropriately healthy patient. Occasional respiratory tract infections, a single nosebleed and a single episode of vomiting are not unusual.

Based on the credible testimony of the witness xxx, the court is convinced that the defendant presented the certificate issued by the doctor xxx, which exempted her from the obligation to wear a mouth-nose cover, before her interrogation at police headquarters. There are no contradictions in the testimony of the witness with regard to the presentation of the certificate by the defendant. He was also able to recall further details, namely that a certificate for her partner had also been submitted and that, in his view, there were no indications that it had been impossible to wear a mask. There were no indications that the witness was not credible.

The court also follows the convincing statements of the expert with regard to the finding that this certificate is not justifiable according to the rules of medical art.

The defendants' motion to reject the expert witness due to concerns of bias had to be rejected. Insofar as the application for recusal states that the expert did not deal with the allegation of the offence, but with a forgery of documents that is not the subject of the proceedings, this does not lead to the assumption that the expert is biased. When asked, the expert explained that he had taken this wording from the file cover. A similar situation applies to the defendant's argument that the term "patient file" is placed in inverted commas in the written expert opinion, while the term "patient documentation", which is also used, is used without inverted commas. This distinction also does not indicate any bias on the part of the expert. When asked, he explained this distinction by saying that the term "patient file" was used in the special edition of the file with inverted commas; he had adopted this in the expert opinion. The fact that he took into account the period from February 27th, 2018 to June 7th, 2021 and not the previous period in his expert opinion was explained by the expert in the mandate clearly given to him in this respect.

As a doctor of general medicine, the expert is particularly qualified to assess the question of whether the decision of the doctor xxx to classify an exemption from the obligation to wear a mask was justifiable on the basis of the treatment documentation in accordance with the rules of medical practice. Based on the version of the Corona Protection Ordinance of October 30th 2020, which was also in force at the time of the offence, according to which, according to §3 (4), persons who cannot wear an everyday mask for medical reasons are exempt from the mask requirement, the expert found that there had never been a catalogue to which exemptions were to be issued. Rather, this had remained at the medical discretion of the individual doctor. However, it was clear that there had to be a clear and well-documented danger from a protective mask for an exemption. However, such a danger from a protective mask does not result from the patient file. In the period from February 27th, 2018 to June 7th, 2021, infections of the upper respiratory tract were documented, once with nosebleeds. In April 2019, there were chest complaints with shortness of breath. However, a lung function test and an X-ray of the chest organs on this date had not revealed any pathological findings. A normal lung function test was also carried out as part of a check-up in July 2020. Finally, in the documentation of November 5th, 2020 there was a note "Vomitus (vomiting) and

tendency to collapse when wearing the mask for a long time", four days later the certificate was issued. However, there is no detailed anamnesis, no findings or therapies for this information. There were no findings that plausibly justified the medical decision. On the basis of these findings, the expert comes to the conclusion that the certificate for exemption from the mask requirement was not justifiable according to the rules of medical art. The report is coherent and comprehensible. In particular, the expert also proceeded from correct facts and presented the resulting results logically and without contradiction. Although there is theoretically the possibility that there was a (comprehensible) reason for the exemption from the mask requirement, but this was not documented by the doctor xxx. The expert could not rule this out when asked by the defence counsel. However, the defendant did not explain such circumstances in her last word, in which she also expressly commented on her condition during the period of the offence. It is unrealistic to assume that there was such a reason, but that the defendant deliberately conceals it.

The defendant acted intentionally. She was aware that she had given the police officer an incorrect health certificate on March 14th, 2022. Her state of health, which had not revealed any pathological findings with regard to the respiratory tract and included a single vomiting and tendency to collapse, are not circumstances that can cause serious dangers from wearing an everyday mask, even according to layman's understanding.

The application for alternative evidence for the examination of Mr. xxx had to be rejected. No connecting fact was mentioned on which he should have been questioned. In particular, the defendant did not mention any complaints due to which she would not have been able to wear a mask during the period of the crime for health reasons.

On the basis of the findings, the defendant is to be punished for using an incorrect health certificate. In sentencing, it had to be taken into account in favour of the defendant that she had not yet appeared in criminal proceedings. To the detriment of the defendant, on the other hand, it had to be taken into account that she had exposed other people to the risk of health impairment due to infection with the coronavirus through her act. Taking these circumstances into account, the imposition of a fine of 90 daily rates appeared to be appropriate to the offence and guilt. The daily rate was to be set at € 25 due to the economic circumstances of the defendants.

The decision on costs is based on § 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Bohle
Judge at Amtsgericht engrossed
Böttcher, Judicial Secretary as Clerk of the Registry

ALL THROUGH DER RUNDE-TISCH (The Round Table):

PS. I have been informed that the judgment of 25.04.2024 is a local court judgment, not a regional court judgment. Here is more information:

The first instance = local court.
The second instance = regional court.
And then it goes on.

What is unchanged: that what happened has nothing to do with justice!!!

____________________________

Posted July 2, 2024