colinnew
At around 5:45 in the evening on Tuesday May 23, Judge Malte Grundmann entered the courtroom at Amtsgericht Plön to deliver his decision in the case of Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi. Following nine hours of deliberations, testimony and final arguments, all who were present in the gallery stood up eagerly awaiting the outcome to be read before the court.
Not guilty.
In an instant, the crowd of supporters outside the courthouse could be heard erupting into cheers and applause. Inside the courtroom, Prof. Bhakdi’s family and friends embraced with relief, the press hastily took notes, the legal counsel remained attentive, and all the focus was on Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi.
A nearly two-year long legal process had come to an end – or so one thought.
Case history
On May 1, 2022, the Kiel Public Prosecutor and new Commissioner for Combating Antisemitism in the state of Schleswig-Holstein, Silke Füssinger, issued an indictment against the defendant, Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, charging him with two counts.
- having incited hatred against a religious group and attacked the human dignity of others by insulting and maliciously disparaging that religious group, while acting in concert in a manner likely to disturb the public peace; and
- having publicly trivialized an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind described in Section 6 (1) of the International Criminal Code in a manner likely to disturb public peace.
(Note: translated from German to English)
The two charges refer to public statements made by Prof. Bhakdi, in which he compared the COVID-19 vaccination program to 1940s Germany. Prof. Bhakdi has opposed this vaccination program from the very beginning.
In an open letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which was co-signed by more than 100 other doctors and scientists, Prof. Bhakdi demanded that the Agency revoke its approval of the gene-based vaccines. He consistently warned the public of its dangers.
His prediction that the vaccines would induce autoimmune-like inflammation and vascular damage throughout the body, leading to severe injury and death, has since been substantiated by the work of pathologists such as Prof. Arne Burkhardt and Dr. Michael Mörz.
While Prof. Bhakdi’s advice had been sought out by high-ranking government officials in previous years, his criticism of the COVID-19 vaccines proved unpopular with the authorities and the mainstream media. The two charges brought against Prof. Bhakdi should be understood in this context. They stem from statements made on two separate occasions.
The first charge of “incitement” relates to statements made during an interview titled “Die Impfung! Die Hölle auf Erden! Professor Bhakdi,” which in English means “Vaccination! Hell on Earth! Prof. Bhakdi.” The interview was filmed on an unknown date in April 2021 and released in excerpts the following month and then released in full in early July 2021. During the interview, Prof. Bhakdi can be heard saying the following:
“… what hit you guys. Faster than lightning. And if you are so indolent and you don’t rise up and say ‘no, you are not doing this with us,’ then you are done for. And then you wouldn’t have the possibility to flee. Israel, the Israelis can no longer flee. The country is closed. That’s what will happen here. And I was once asked by an American what I have to say about Israel, I said, for me the Israelis, this people that I admired more than any other people in the world, I was an admirer of Jews, yes, you know I’m a music lover, art lover. The greatest spirits were the Jews. I’m sorry to tell you this, yes. I’m sorry, I’m a Buddhist … Yes, I admired them. I am, you have seen my record collection, I went after these Jewish musicians to get a signature from them. Isaacson, David Oistrach, yes, I travelled hundreds of kilometres to hear them and to get their autograph. I adored them. And now they’re doing this. They, the people who fled from this land, from this land where arch evil was, and have found their land. Have turned their own country into something even worse than Germany was. So unbelievable. And then I told the Americans, that’s the bad thing about the Jews. They learn well. There is no people who learns better than they do. But they have learned evil now. And implemented it. And that’s why Israel is now “living hell”. And I told the Americans, “and if you’re not careful, America will be living hell too, and I’m telling you now, your country will be turned into living hell if you don’t rise up soon.”
The second charge of “trivialization of the Holocaust” relates to statements made during a speech at a campaign event in Kiel, Germany, on Sept. 24, 2021. During the speech, Prof. Bhakdi could be heard saying the following:
“It is clear to all in the know that with the formal approval of the vaccines, the first milestone of the agenda has been reached and the race is on to achieve the ultimate goal. This final goal is the creation of the new reality and involves nothing less than the second holocaust. The abolition of humanity in its current manifestation.”
According to the indictment, the maximum penalty, if found guilty, was two years in prison and/or a fine.
In October 2022, a hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2023. However, due to a court error, the hearing was postponed to Tuesday May 23, 2023, at 9 am at the Amtsgericht Plön (Local Court).
Public support
Shortly before the hearing began, at around 8:45 am on Tuesday May 23, Prof. Bhakdi and his wife, Dr. Karina Reiss, arrived at the Plön Local Court in Plön, Germany. The pair were met with an outpouring of support from concerned citizens who had traveled from across the country to attend the one-day hearing.
Supporters outside the courthouse could be seen holding signs that read “I stand with Sucharit” and “Sucharit, Unser Freund, unser Glück, Wir stehen an Deiner Seite,” which in English means “Sucharit, our friend, our luck, we are at your side.” Many of those in attendance stated that Prof. Bhakdi had made “a sacrifice” and that by sharing his scientific knowledge with the public, he “saved my life.” Several supporters cited Prof. Bhakdi’s book co-authored with his wife, Dr. Reiss, titled “Corona: False Alarm?”
Legal proceedings
The court hearing began at 9 am, and on that morning, crowds queued at the courthouse door for hours. The gallery accommodated approximately 40 people including the press. Several judicial officers monitored the courtroom throughout the day due to the high profile and politically charged nature of the case.
Judge Malte Grundmann opened the hearing announcing that based on the current evidence, he did not consider that the defendant, Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi, committed a crime. However, Judge Grundmann made it clear his assessment could change during the hearing.
The defense counsel representing Prof. Bhakdi consisted of lawyers Martin Schwab, Tobias Weissenborn and Sven Lausen. Lead lawyer Martin Schwab began his opening statement with Prof. Bhakdi’s biography, highlighting the defendant’s contributions to the fields of science and medicine. The defense then addressed the legal irregularities in the process and argued several reasons for the court to drop the case, including:
1) The prosecution did not have the full video of the interview “Vaccination! Hell on Earth! Prof. Bhakdi” at the time in which the prosecutor issued the indictment on May 1, 2022.
2) The prosecution did not make a timely effort to obtain and review the full video of the interview “Vaccination! Hell on Earth! Prof. Bhakdi.”
3) The indictment included sensitive information such as Prof. Bhakdi’s address, which could put him at risk.
It is worth noting that the prosecutor issued the indictment, requested access to the full video footage and declared the investigation closed on a single day – May 1, 2022, which is a public holiday in Germany.
The court adjourned for the judge to consider the arguments presented by the defense.
The court reconvened following a short break. Judge Grundmann allowed for the case to proceed. Prosecutor Füssinger agreed to omit mentioning the defendant’s address and began reading the indictment.
Following the prosecution’s reading of the six-page indictment, the defense claimed that Prosecutor Füssinger based the indictment only on having seen portions of the video from the interview “Vaccination! Hell on Earth! Prof. Bhakdi.” Therefore, the prosecutor’s assessment outlined in the indictment was irrelevant as the defendant’s statements were taken out of context.
“According to the jurisdiction of the German Constitutional Court, a person may not be sentenced for public incitement unless (1) their entire public statement is acknowledged uniformly and (2) any legally permissible interpretation of their public statement can be excluded,” said lead defense lawyer Martin Schwab. “The State Attorney is not allowed to take a single part of the statement out of its context.”
Furthermore, the prosecution had several opportunities to obtain and review the full video interview and did not do so. Instead, the prosecutor requested from the police a copy of the full video on the same day that she issued the indictment and closed the investigation.
Campaign video
The court watched Prof. Bhakdi’s campaign speech which took place in Kiel, Germany, on Sept. 24, 2021. The campaign speech was the source of the second criminal charge, “trivialization of the Holocaust.” The full speech was approximately 30 minutes long, and the statements in question constitute roughly two minutes and 15 seconds of the video.
Following the video, the first defense witness, a police officer, Mario Fritz, was called to testify. Fritz led the security and safety measures at the campaign event.
Fritz reported that the security team had two task forces in place, each consisting of six police officers to ensure a safe and peaceful event. Two of the mission cars were placed at the Rathaus Platz in Kiel to enable immediate action if needed.
The witness explained that the event was correctly registered for 200 participants for a time frame of three hours (5 pm to 8 pm). The event was closed by the event organizer one hour early, and the participants left the premises. The event was peaceful during its entire duration, and there were no administrative offenses or disturbances of any kind.
Fritz was unable to make a comment on the substance of Prof. Bhakdi’s speech as he had been on duty as a security and safety guard.
While his testimony was brief, it established before the court that Prof. Bhakdi’s speech did not incite a disturbance. As Fritz left the courtroom, he wished the defense team success.
In her rebuttal of the arguments, Prosecutor Füssinger argued that the defendant used aggressive words that belittle the Holocaust and scare people.
Court adjourned for a brief break.
A lesson in immunology
The court watched the video interview titled, “Vaccination! Hell on Earth! Prof. Bhakdi,” which included the statements that were the source of the first criminal charge, “incitement to hatred.”
The 90 minute long interview is played before the court in its entirety. The majority of the interview is focused on the dangers of the mRNA vaccines and their inefficacy. Prof. Bhakdi described basic immunology and why the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cannot provide immunity or prevent transmission of a disease.
The portion of the video in which the defendant made the alleged criminal remarks constitutes approximately two minutes and 30 seconds of the 90 minute video.
It is clear that the purpose of the interview is to provide a detailed explanation of the mechanism of harm caused by the mRNA injections.
Court adjourned for a break.
An improper confrontation
Court reconvened and Prosecutor Füssinger repeated her charges against Prof. Bhakdi. She argued that the defendant and the interviewer, Kai Stuht, intended the interview to be shared on various channels.
In an unusual move by the prosecutor, she directly addressed the defendant, Prof. Bhakdi, despite the defense team making it clear to her and the judge that Prof. Bhakdi would not be making a statement to the court.
The prosecutor asked him if he knew through what channels and websites the video had been distributed. Prof. Bhakdi began to respond and was quickly stopped by his legal team. Defense lawyer Sven Lausen reminded the prosecutor that before addressing the defendant directly, she must first address the defense counsel.
According to the lead defense lawyer Martin Schwab, since the defense lawyers have told the judge and the prosecutor before the court proceeding that the defendant will not provide a statement, it was improper for Prosecutor Füssinger to address Prof. Bhakdi directly.
No more witnesses
The prosecutor called for further evidence to be taken regarding the distribution channels of the video arguing that the dissemination of the material should substantiate the suspicion of a crime.
The defense objected to the prosecutor’s request and reiterated that the prosecution had a duty to identify exculpatory evidence and failed to do so. Judge Grundmann agreed with the defense and considered the taking of evidence to be concluded. However, to satisfy a request from the Prosecutor, Judge Grundmann read out the investigating officer’s report.
The judge repeated that Prof. Bhakdi spoke about the importance of engaging in dialogue as well as upholding democratic principles. For the second time, Judge Grundmann stated that he does not see any criminal liability on behalf of the defendant.
He rejected the prosecutor’s request to hear additional witnesses.
Court adjourned for 60 minutes to allow for the prosecution and defense to prepare their final arguments.
Є16,200 penalty
The court reconvened. The defense reminded Prosecutor Füssinger not to address the defendant directly as the court was notified that the defendant would not be making a statement.
Füssinger began her final argument repeating the points outlined in the indictment against Prof. Bhakdi. She continued to suggest that comparisons between the coerced experimental vaccination program to 1940s Germany are antisemitic.
Despite Judge Grundmann not allowing for further evidence to be addressed regarding the distribution channel of the video interview with Kai Stuht, Prosecutor Füssinger stated that the defendant and Kai Stuht recorded the interview with the intent to share it on many platforms.
The prosecution pleaded for the judge to issue a penalty of Є90 paid daily for 180 days for the first charge and Є90 paid daily for 70 days for the second charge. She argues, in sum, for a total of Є90 to be paid daily for 180 days.
Prosecutor Füssinger rested her case.
Are we in the same courtroom?
The defense opened with lead lawyer Martin Schwab addressing the court. Schwab argued that the prosecution had misrepresented the statements of his client, Prof. Bhakdi. Prof. Bhakdi did not insult the Israeli people but rather expressed his concern for their well-being. He was not stirring hated, division or agitation but calling for peace, unity and for further dialogue – a point previously acknowledged by Judge Grundmann.
Furthermore, the defense argued that the entirety of Prof. Bhakdi’s statements were not considered by the prosecution. Instead, just a few selected sentences were examined and taken out of context. Defense lawyer Tobias Weissenborn stated that the prosecutor did not thoroughly investigate the case.
Regarding Prof. Bhakdi’s campaign speech in Kiel, Germany, which was the subject of the second charge, defense lawyer Sven Lausen argued that because it was a political speech, the speaker must be allowed to use illustrative and metaphoric language.
Lausen continued that Füssinger failed in her duties as a prosecutor. She had an obligation to collect and evaluate not only evidence that is incriminatory but also that which may be exculpatory, and she did not do so.
The defense then addressed the six-page indictment, which Lausen argued is poorly crafted, based on ignorance and consists of assumptions rather than evidence. He remarked that the indictment lacks critical information. Furthermore, the indictment failed to mention that the letter cited by Prof. Bhakdi in the Kai Stuht interview, is a letter written by Holocaust survivors to the EMA.
Regarding Prosecutor Füssinger’s assessment of the 90 minute long interview in which Prof. Bhakdi discussed immunology and the dangers of the mRNA vaccines, Lausen said he wondered if he and the prosecutor were sitting in the same courtroom when the interview was played.
The defense rested its case. Court was adjourned as Judge Grundmann considered the evidence.
The verdict
The court reconvened after a 40 minute break. The press, members of the public and the friends and family of the defendant stood up as the judge entered the courtroom.
Judge Grundmann found Prof. Bhakdi not guilty on both counts. Within seconds, the crowd of supporters outside the courthouse was heard cheering and applauding the decision.
The judge explained that Prof. Bhakdi was not liable for either charge and did not do what he was accused of. The judge referenced the importance of free speech and freedom of expression. He stated that Prof. Bhakdi advocated for peace and unity and expressed himself in a manner that allowed for open discussion. Prof. Bhakdi sought to create an atmosphere in which people can have open dialogue and embrace one another.
The hearing was closed. The press took photos, filmed the defendant and interviewed the legal counsel. Everyone in attendance slowly exited the courtroom.
“The judge was badly put under pressure by the mainstream media reporting before the hearing, and he deserves credit for not being influenced by this,” said lead defense lawyer Schwab.
Prof. Bhakdi and his wife, Dr. Karina Reiss, were cheered and applauded as they exited the court house.
“Prosecutor Füssinger’s mistake was that she looked for antisemitism at a place where it cannot be found at all. Sucharit Bhakdi is a stranger to antisemitism, and if she (the prosecutor) had watched the whole video footage before issuing the indictment, she would have seen herself that she had chosen the wrong target.”
Lead defense Lawyer Martin Schwab
How did we get here?
Note: All of the information provided below may be referenced at the Doctors for Covid Ethics’ website.
It is important to note that a year and a half before the not guilty verdict, the investigation into Prof. Bhakdi was closed by the Kiel authorities on Nov. 1, 2021, due to a lack of sufficient suspicion.
Kiel State Court Prosecutor Lorenz Frahm determined that a conviction was unlikely and therefore chose to close the case. However, after two individuals sent notices to the Prosecutor’s Office urging for a continuation of the investigation, the case was reopened on Nov. 24, 2021.
In summary, Prof. Bhakdi was investigated in 2021, the Prosecutor’s Office in Kiel closed the case due to lack of sufficient suspicion, only to reopen the case a few weeks later after the two individuals complained.
To best understand this, one must revisit key details surrounding the initial opening of the case against him.
Who is behind the prosecution of Prof. Bhakdi?
On July 14, 2021, three individuals filed complaints against Prof. Bhakdi for statements he made in an interview with Kai Stuht titled, “Vaccination! Hell on Earth! Prof. Bhakdi.” The interview, which focused on the dangers of the mRNA vaccinations and their inefficacy, was filmed in April 2021 and published in its entirety in July 2021.
Mr. Sigmount Königsberg, Commissioner Against Antisemitism of the Jewish Community Berlin, a well-known public figure and prominent member of Berliner Ratschlag für Demokratie (Berlin Council for Democracy), filed a criminal complaint against Prof. Bhakdi on July 14, 2021, at 10:46 am. Less than one hour later, at 11:17 am, the Chief State Prosecutor of Berlin notified the State Prosecutor of the complaint via email.
Dr. Elio Adler, a dentist and chairman of the civil society association Die Wertinitiative e.V, (The Value Initiative), filed a criminal complaint for incitement to hatred against Prof. Bhakdi to the Berlin police at 11:13 am on July 14, 2021.
A third complainant, Mr. Klaus Baumann, filed a criminal complaint against Prof. Bhakdi with the Police of Lower Saxony at 4:45 pm on July 14, 2021.
Following a several months long investigation, on Nov. 1, 2021, the Kiel State Court Prosecutor, Lorenz Frahm, issued a notice of the decision to close the proceedings against Prof. Bhakdi for lack of merit. All three complainants were notified. Both Mr. Königsberg and Dr. Adler objected the decision.
On Nov. 19, Dr. Adler notified the Prosecutor’s Office that he would file an appeal. On Nov. 24, Mr. Königsberg filed an official complaint against the dismissal of the proceedings. That same day, on Nov. 24, both men were notified by the Prosecutor’s Office of Schleswig-Holstein that the case against Prof. Bhakdi had been reopened.
Dentist turned counter-terrorism expert?
Dr. Elio Adler, who was the second individual to file a complaint against Prof. Bhakdi on July 14, 2021, is not only a dentist and public figure as the chairman of Die Wertinitiative e.V, but he also has a certificate in Terrorism Studies from the University of St Andrews. According to the university’s website, a study “in Terrorism and Political Violence examines selected approaches to knowledge generation around terrorism and counterterrorism.”
Careers pursued by those with this degree and/or certification involve the areas of law, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, policy research and consultancy, civil service, etc.
According to his Facebook page, Dr. Adler had attended the Munich Security Conference and the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s (ICT) World Summit on Counter-Terrorism in Israel in 2017. ICT works in collaboration with several partner organizations including the European Union, the United Nations, NATO, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung and several others.
The fourth complaint
A fourth individual, Mr. Sebastian Willing, filed a criminal complaint against Prof. Bhakdi. However, Willing’s complaint did not reference, “Vaccination! Hell on Earth! Prof. Bhakdi,” which is the subject of the complaints filed by the three other men. Instead, Willing points to a campaign speech in Kiel, Germany, from Sept. 2021.
On Jan. 3, 2022, Willing filed a complaint via email to the Kiel Public Prosecutor’s Office at 8:14 p.m. He alleged that Prof. Bhakdi committed the crime of belittling the Holocaust by comparing the COVID-19 vaccination program to the Holocaust during a speech at a campaign event for the Die Basis [political] party on September 24, 2021. Willing urged the authorities to investigate further but requested that his name not be associated with the matter.
In Willing’s complaint he cited a Twitter post that contained a recording of a portion of the speech which includes the statements in question. The Twitter post is dated 6:51 pm on Jan. 3, 2022.
How did Mr. Willing see the Twitter post, watch the video clip in the post, contemplate Prof. Bhakdi’s statements and become convinced that they had been in violation of § 130 Ill of the Criminal Code, then draft a several paragraph complaint and submit that complaint within one hour and 20 minutes of seeing the source of the alleged antisemitic remarks in the Twitter post?
A collaborative effort
On Feb. 9, 2022, the head of LIDA-SH, Joshua Vogel, corresponded with the new Commissioner for Combating Antisemitism, Silke Füssinger, via email. The subject line in the email between Vogel and Prosecutor Füssinger read “first network meeting with LIDA-SH.”
According to its website, LIDA-SH is the independent reporting center for the state of Schleswig-Holstein. However, an article published in the German publication Kieler Nachrichten (KN) on Nov. 23, 2021, one day before Prof. Bhakdi’s case was reopened, says that LIDA-SH projects are “funded and initiated by the state.” Vogel is heavily featured in the article and describes a new initiative to tackle antisemitism in the area.
Back to the email. Vogel thanked Prosecutor Füssinger for the very productive exchange the previous day and wrote:
As promised, the link to the video recording of the contribution of Mr. Bhakdi on 24.09.2022 [2021] on
https://twitter.com/Tzerberus1/status/1441790013268660230?s=20&t=3– dnOqZwTjAuhOQOMJrtA and
https://twitter.com/Tzerberus1/status/1441790180277428230? s=20&t=3—dnOqZwTjAuhOQOMJrtA
Direct quote from the email exchange between Vogel and Prosecutor Füssinger. (Translated from German to English)
The images above are screen shots of the tweets included in the email exchange. Both of the links are from the same Twitter account, Tzerberus1. The links shared in the email date back to Sept. 2021.
But what is the account, Tzerberus1, posting now?
On May 25, 2023, Tzerberus1, posted to Twitter two videos of Prof. Bhakdi speaking at an event after his hearing on May 23, 2023. One of the videos posted catches the audio of an unknown man in the audience stating “it’s like a Holocaust.” Nevertheless, Tzerberus1 tagged the Federal Association of Departments for Research and Information on Antisemitism (RAIS) and reprimanded Prof. Bhakdi, who himself never mentioned such words.
Neither Prof. Bhakdi nor the audience reacted to the provocation, and the event continued without disturbance.
Apparently, the person or persons affiliated with the account, Tzerberus1, which posts were previously provided to the prosecutor by the head of the antisemitism reporting center for Schleswig-Holstein, LIDA-SH, attended and filmed an event in which a man can be heard mentioning the Holocaust during Prof. Bhakdi’s speech about mRNA vaccinations following Prof. Bhakdi’s not guilty verdict.
The legal case continues
Following a verdict, a dissatisfied party may file an appeal. There are two kinds of appeals. The first one results in an entirely new court hearing, in which the discovery of evidence is repeated. This is called “Berufung” in German. The second option is to file for what is called “Revision.” In this case, the facts on which the judgment is based are not called into question; instead, it is only reexamined whether or not in the initial decision the law was properly applied.
Two days after the hearing, on May 25, 2023, the same day the account Tzerberus1 posted video clips of Prof. Bhakdi and tagged the federal antisemitism reporting center, Prosecutor Füssinger filed an appeal with the Plön Local Court.
At this time, there is no written judgment in the case, and as long as there is no written judgment, the party who files an appeal may only decide which type of appeal to pursue once the written judgment is available to both the prosecution and the defense.
In Prosecutor Füssinger’s letter of appeal, she acknowledges that the type of appeal she decides to pursue will be determined once the written judgement is issued.
“They [the prosecution] hope for some kind of weak and spineless Pontius Pilate who will render an unjust judgement for fear of otherwise being defamed himself,” said lead defense lawyer Martin Schwab.
The fight in “official reality” is almost always different than the fight in reality.
