We will now continue with the text.
And I say, for the legal part of our delicate topic of the day, a total of twelve outstanding
experts were nominated, from a whole host of course.
There were six lawyers, three judges and three legal scholars.
However, only two of them had enough speaking time from the outset, as everyone knew.
But all twelve of our nominees would have loved to come, as they have
written, but ten of them have also canceled for various
reasons, but wish us every success for this meeting today.
But there is one reason you need to know, because it shines a bright light on the two speakers
who are here today and who will serve us with their expertise.
That top lawyer has written, he writes, that he would be reluctant to be the first front
man to bring our current issue to the public as a legally binding way forward.
That was his refusal, one of these twelve.
I have to be honest, it seemed to me a bit like
something a top soccer player would say:
I would hate to score the first goal at this World Cup.
Or a professional boxer: I would hate to be the first to knock out this indomitable Goliath.
Everything clear? Yes.
But now a man is stepping into the ring with us who has, shall I say, accepted this obvious
challenge.
A Swiss national, he is a doctor of law and his CV will tell us a little more
about him in a moment.
Heinz Raschein Born in 1956 in the Grisons mountain village of
Malix, Heinz Raschein attended elementary school there.
In order to be able to study later, he then attended the Latin grammar school at the cantonal school in Chur.
During this time, his father was elected as a federal judge in Lausanne and the family moved to French-speaking Switzerland.
His time in French-speaking Switzerland was one of the best years of his life.
In 1976, he graduated from the Gymnase de Montbenon with a university entrance qualification.
After recruit school, he was allowed to call himself a mountain grenadier.
From the end of 1976 to the end of 1981, Heinz Raschein studied law at the University of Bern and achieved the rank of lieutenant in the military.
This was followed by a traineeship as a lawyer in Chur, after which he qualified as a lawyer and later as a notary.
With the second-best grade in the doctoral examination, i.e. Magna Cum Laude, he wrote
his dissertation on the topic of unlawfulness in the system of Swiss liability law.
Heinz Raschein ran an independent law and notary's office in Chur for almost 30 years.
At the age of 50, he was discharged from the army as a major in military justice.
Heinz Raschein is currently enjoying a very lively retirement and
is very grateful for the great encouragement he receives for his work.
He helps people who feel victimized by corona measures.
He has three married daughters, four grandchildren and a partner who has become dear to him over the past 20 years.
Heinz Raschein speaks today on the subject of legal bankruptcy. What now? With practical examples.
Welcome, Heinz Raschein. I wish you every success. Thank you.
Dear friends, I am delighted to be able to appear before the AZK.
I have tried in vain for an estimated five years
to be allowed to join you as a listener.
The fact that I have now made it as an invited speaker for the first time fills me with pride.
My middle daughter is a biologist and doesn't agree with me on all aspects of life.
But it does so in those whether there are two or 58½ genders. I am grateful to her for that.
For my presentation, I take the view that if I use the feminine form alone or the masculine form alone, both are meant.
The topic of my presentation is legal bankruptcy and possible ways out of it.
I break this down into the subtitles shown on this slide. I show the way to legal bankruptcy.
Let me turn to the two total revisions of the Federal Constitution in 1885 and 1999.
I mention - in a certain context, which I then elaborate on - doubting
voices, and then I come to a few major
projects that we have initiated on the part of the movement as possible
ways out of the legal bankruptcy that has been identified.
And at the very end, I will talk about options for action and forbearance for the future.
If we take a closer look at the concepts of democracy and the rule of law,
we will see that democracy and the rule of law are two different things.
We are currently experiencing this, we are seeing that democracy can exist without the rule of law, and previous
power structures have shown that the reverse is also possible - the rule of law without democracy.
Given the choice of whether I prefer democracy or the rule of law, my answer is: the rule of law.
Because democracy without the rule of law is nothing more than an empty shell.
The entity that calls itself the Swiss Confederation has committed itself to the rule of law in the Federal Constitution, which was completely revised in 1999.
I would like to refer you to this slide here. The most reliable text version of this decree can be found on the Fedlex website of admin.ch.
If you land in the right place, you will see the assurance highlighted in green on the left:
This text is in force;
If he had mistakenly landed on an earlier version of the text, he would find the note highlighted
in red in the same place: This text is not in force. As we shall see, this is not proof, but a mere assurance.
For the following explanations, however, we can now make the theoretical
assumption that we can trust the red or green assurances from Fedlex.
At this point, I'm going to have to use a bit of technical jargon.
I know how exhausting legal jargon can be.
But Ivo has only invited lawyers, judges and other legal experts for you today, so he wants to pay special attention
to the legal perspective. For this reason, I will now explain the concept of the hierarchy of norms.
I think you need to become more knowledgeable about the
law than Alain Berset and the other six political actors.
The Federal Constitution is the highest form of enactment known to the Swiss Confederation.
As the only exception to the hierarchy of norms, it states that international law must be observed in its application (Art. 5).
In contrast to the constitution, international law is only partially comprehensible because its legal sources are fragmented.
Depending on the political stance, this passage can be understood as taking into account or following unconditionally.
The Constitution is only valid if it is approved by both the people and the cantons.
The next level of the hierarchy of norms are the federal laws.
A federal law can enter into force if our Parliament, i.e. both Councils,
have each given their approval, subject to a referendum.
It must be signed by the chairmen of both councils and their actuaries.
If the people do not hold a referendum or if a referendum is unsuccessful, it will come into force. The Federal Council ordinances occupy the lowest level in the hierarchy of standards.
Unlike the constitution, which requires a majority of the people and the cantons,
or laws, which simply need a parliamentary majority, Federal Council ordinances
are created by the mere approval of seven toecaps elected by parliament.
As a lawyer for victims of measures, I want to know from the Federal Court whether
the Federal Council has complied with or exceeded its authority to issue regulations.
For every ordinance that it issues, it must be able to rely on a legal basis. In the same way, laws must have constitutional backing.
On this issue, we like-minded people - against the government, parliament, the judiciary
and the media - are quite sure that the Epidemics Act is not nearly enough.
If we now want to know when this totally revised Federal Constitution came into force and is therefore
bindingly applicable, we can look it up in the so-called Official Collection of Federal Legislation.
You need to know that the Federal Government maintains an Official Compilation and a Systematic Compilation
of Laws in parallel. Both are considered equal, they are just organized according to different criteria.
I call up the AS by year and page - given here - and the SR by decree number;
the SR classifies the decrees according to legal subject matter.
As the Federal Constitution is the highest of all enactments, it bears the number SR 101.
We therefore find in the AS under AS 1999
2556 a Federal Decree of both Councils dated December 18, 1998 and the note: This text is in force.
The federal decree contains the entire revision text for the new Federal Constitution,
which was adopted by Parliament for the attention of the people with this resolution.
This was followed by a referendum in 1999, which resulted in a clear majority in favor of the revised text.
The matter then came back before the Councils, which enacted the constitutional text
adopted by the people with effect from January 1, 2000 by means of
a further federal decree dated September 28, 1999, more precisely under AS 1999 2555.
And you can see here the beginning of this resolution and the last page with the signatures, which must be handwritten in the original.
For our theoretical consideration, we can therefore stick to this constitutional text.
The rule of law is mentioned in Articles 5, 8 and 9. I have highlighted this on the slide.
The first of these provisions (Article 5) establishes
the law as the basis and limit of state action.
It is stipulated that government action must be in the public interest and proportionate.
Both sides of the exchange, namely the state bodies on the one hand and us private individuals on the other, are required to act in good faith.
Finally, Article 5 of the Federal Constitution refers to the primacy of international law.
Article 8 states that all persons are equal before the law;
It contains a ban on discrimination on the grounds of origin, race, gender, age, language,
social status, lifestyle, religious, ideological and political convictions or disability.
As legislators, the Federal Assembly is instructed to
ensure the legal and actual equality of men and women.
Article 9 reiterates the prohibition of arbitrariness and the requirement for the state to act in good faith.
This is ultimately a repetition of the statement in Article 5, because the violation of the principle
of proportionality on the part of state authorities amounts to arbitrary action on their part.
According to the legal doctrine recognized throughout the German-speaking world, the principle of proportionality has three parts.
Accordingly, government action must firstly be necessary, secondly expedient,
and thirdly the relationship between harm and benefit must be balanced.
Of course, opinions can differ on all three of these proportionality criteria.
However, the practical experience of the last three and a half years shows that our four
so-called powers of the state - legislature, government, judiciary and media - have only made sweeping
claims about the proportionality of the corona measures issued by the Federal Council
by way of ordinance and have not explained and proven these three aspects.
My wealth of experience in this area coincides with that of my two esteemed colleagues,
who I consider to be authoritative in this field. One of them is Philipp Kruse.
In contrast to the three state powers mentioned, we have always and repeatedly endeavored
to cast doubt on their proportionality in all three aspects mentioned.
My position is that the burden of proof lies entirely
with the government agencies that dictated the measures.
My colleagues have invested more legal diligence in this regard and in their two major submissions have made
motions for evidence against the measures taken, which I personally do not consider necessary.
A final principle of the rule of law to be mentioned here is that whoever
makes an allegation bears the burden of proof for this allegation.
Otherwise it is irrelevant. This is stated in Article 8 of the Civil Code, a federal law.
It is not only enshrined in law, but also in the constitution, in Article 9 of the Federal
Constitution to be precise. In the hope of more success, my two colleagues have provided
a burden of proof that I do not consider to be required, but rather voluntary.
We therefore note that our side has tried again and again to explain the disproportionality,
but has come up against a silent wall of rejection.
To this day, the public sector refuses to meet its obligation to provide evidence.
Overall, we are facing the collapse of four supporting pillars of a minimal constitutional state.
These are the principles of the prohibition of arbitrariness, the principle of proportionality,
the separation of powers and the distribution of the burden of proof.
In this finding, I see a legal bankruptcy that stands in irreconcilable contradiction to our August 1st speeches.
Later I will come back to the fact that there is a fifth damaged pillar, the signature requirement.
This brings me to the history of the two total revisions of our Federal Constitution.
The one from 1999 was the second.
The first dates from 1875, 27 years after the creation of the federal state.
This first total revision involved the introduction of globally unique popular rights - initiative and referendum.
The initiative allows the Swiss people to propose amendments to the Federal Constitution and put them to the vote.
It can use the referendum to ensure that laws already passed by
Parliament are also submitted for approval or rejection.
Which of you - please hold up your hand - knows the party-political
composition of the very first Federal Council of 1848?
It is little known today that we had seven liberal federal councillors back then, or rather our ancestors. There was no talk of a magic formula back then.
This constitution did not yet recognize the aforementioned rights of the people because
the Catholic-oriented citizens of Central Switzerland had no representation in the Federal Council at the time.
In 1875, Gotthard engineer Alfred Escher realized that he could only obtain approval for his construction
project of the century by granting concessions to the cantons of Central Switzerland.
And so he came up with the idea of making the following concept palatable to the then very powerful Zurich Free Party:
We are amending the constitution and accommodating the people of Central
Switzerland by giving them the right of initiative and referendum.
As this was one of the main concerns of the Catholic inhabitants of Central Switzerland,
they were won over to the new transport axis, which ran through their territory.
This gave the Swiss people an epoch-making right to have a say in federal affairs.
In my opinion, this first total revision was a real step forward.
The situation is different with the second total revision of 1999, more than a century later. At that time, the Swiss lawyer Kaspar Villiger was Federal Minister of Justice.
Before joining the Federal Council, Leon Schlumpf was a member of the advisory committee of experts.
I knew him personally because his daughter Eveline
was a close classmate at the cantonal school.
He and my father, now a federal judge, jointly assured me, as did Kaspar Villiger in public,
that this second total revision was a new, pure reorganization of the systematic order,
and expressly without any material interference with the previously existing rights.
The assurance was clear to everyone: "We don't want to change your rights, we just want to organize them more clearly.
I'll prove you wrong with the example below.
Although I was very busy at the time with the birth of three daughters, becoming a partner in a joint practice
and obtaining a license to practice as a lawyer and notary, I intuitively did not trust these assurances
and voted against the total revision of 1999. Today it is clear how justified this "no" was.
Contrary to these assurances, the totally revised Federal Constitution
contains at least one very drastic material change. Previously, Art.
113 paragraph 2 aBV (aBV=old Federal Constitution).
According to this provision, lawyers could not refer federal laws passed by Parliament to the Federal Supreme Court for review.
From time immemorial, people have had to accept this power-sharing arrangement.
However, as far as the Federal Council ordinances are concerned, there was a full review
of the constitutionality of such ordinances by the Federal Supreme Court at the time.
The new Federal Constitution now states in Art.
189 of the Federal Constitution stipulates that Federal Council ordinances can no longer be referred to the Federal Supreme Court for a review of their constitutionality.
As we have just seen - since all coronavirus measures are based solely on Federal Council
ordinances - this is an extremely fatal encroachment on the rights of the people.
This amounts to a complete abolition of the so-called abstract review of standards at federal level.
I demand an abstract review of norms from the Federal Supreme Court when I bring a Federal Council
ordinance directly before the Federal Supreme Court and demand a review of its constitutionality.
If the Federal Supreme Court comes to the conclusion that the ordinance
as a whole or individual provisions thereof are unconstitutional, it shall
declare the ordinance or individual provisions thereof null and void.
This is the abstract review of standards, which the total revision of 1999 unfortunately abolished. In the materials on this - this is the genesis of Art.
189 BV - and the parliamentary consultation minutes state:
This abolition of the abstract review of standards does not affect the concrete review of standards.
The concrete review of standards is also called accessory review of standards.
It means that if, for example, Rémy Stettler now receives a fine for refusing
to wear a face covering in the outdoor arbors in Bern, I can submit this to the court
with a request to carry out a concrete review of the standards.
The court must then examine whether the standard applied is constitutional.
If this is not the case, it does not result in the invalidity of the examined standard, but rather in its inapplicability.
As it turns out, the courts have been reluctant to review specific standards to this day.
We have taken Rémy Stettler's case all the way to the Federal Supreme Court.
And in its judgment, the Federal Supreme Court stated:
In this case, the implementation of the concrete review of standards would be tantamount to an abstract review of standards prohibited by the new constitution.
This statement can only lead to the conclusion that today's federal judges, who have
been fast-tracked through university, have never learned the difference between
concrete and abstract norm review and are therefore unable to apply it.
The bottom line is that they say that Art. 189 of the Federal Constitution
has not only cut off abstract but also concrete judicial review.
This was a significant step backwards in the second total revision.
This further experience alone leads me to conclude that I am legally bankrupt.
At the beginning, I stated that the Fedlex admin portal guarantees
whether the legal texts published on this portal are in force or not.
In other words, whether it considers them to be binding or no longer binding.
On the subject of legal bankruptcy, our like-minded comrade Roman has written the book Exhabitus under the pseudonym Don Icon.
On page 102 of this book, he confronts the Federal Administration (FFA), but also the
Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) and several departments with the
statement that, to his knowledge, there is still no signed COVID law.
Like all federal laws, COVID laws must be signed by the presidents and
secretaries of both the National Council and the Council of States.
As you know, we have voted three times on different COVID laws and, contrary to the drumbeat of the media and political parties, we lost by just under 40%.
These laws were little more than statements of
principle on the Federal Council's COVID fairy tale.
They do not contain any binding or enforced measures such as social distancing, compulsory face coverings,
bans on assembly, testing, compulsory certificates, compulsory vaccinations or similar.
In view of the bulwark of supporters, the 40% of negative votes can be seen as a respectable success.
As a result, the proponents have only given the Federal Council approval in principle.
So what does the passage quoted from Don Icon's Exhabitus book mean?
It denies the validity of the three COVID laws due to a lack of required signatures. He would like to see a legally compliant original signed copy.
As far as the texts published on Fedlex are concerned, this is in
line with the green assurance: This text is in force, his distrust out.
If he distrusts one of these assurances, he must consequently do the same for all of them.
I can respect this point of view, but I do not want to follow his explanations here, otherwise I would not
be able to continue speaking to you and would have to limit myself to saying that we are moving in a vacuum.
However, I agree with Don Icon's request to the Confederation and its administration to
publish a legally signed text of the law. I come to the Swiss class action.
After Reiner Füllmich announced his plans for a class action in the
USA or Canada, I was vehemently bombarded with the question of
whether a class action could also be filed in Switzerland.
In a first impulse, I decisively rejected these requests because class actions are an Anglo-Saxon procedural
instrument that is not known to the continental European procedural systems. But then the thought woke me up at night.
The actual flash of inspiration came later and was that I could also realize a kind
of class action in Switzerland via the detour of creating a plaintiffs' association.
In Switzerland, there is the restriction that we must agree on
a common legal claim with all plaintiffs from the outset. I.e.
all must demand the same from the court from the outset.
As a result, I came to the conclusion that we could get something like this off the ground.
We then drafted the power of attorney text and ultimately received more than 10,000, but probably not quite 15,000, lawsuit orders.
On this basis, our preferred lawyer, assisted by Markus Lienert in Zurich, filed an almost 90-page lawsuit against
the Swiss Confederation with the Federal Supreme Court after the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings.
With this in mind, we first had to submit the request to the Federal
Department of Finance (FDF) in February 2022.
Only then were we able to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
The main points of argumentation are listed in the next slide.
In this lawsuit, we have demanded a symbolic franc for each of our principals
as compensation for the inconvenience suffered as a result of the measures.
The Federal Department of Finance only responded very selectively to the arguments in the complaint in a short response.
The FDF seemed somewhat impressed by the reply we submitted and then decided not to submit a duplicate.
Explanation: The legal documents in such legal proceedings are designated
in the following order: action, response, reply and rejoinder.
In our case, this concludes the exchange of legal documents.
In September of this year, after a year of legal proceedings, our lawyer sent a letter to the Federal Court pointing out the urgency
of the lawsuit, not least because of the WHO reform plans in May 2024. We are still waiting for a ruling from the Federal Court.
I am on the decision-making committee and so far in the minority with my following view;
I think it makes sense to publish the content of our legal documents on the Internet.
This website can also be viewed at wirmenschen.ch.
Another way to increase the pressure somewhat would be to hold a press conference on the subject of the delay of this lawsuit.
So far, I haven't been able to get my proposals through the committee, but that may still come.
I think we are dealing with a criminal procrastination
that also amounts to legal bankruptcy.
Then I briefly talk about Philipp Kruse's criminal complaint against the FOPH and Swissmedic.
On July 14, 2022, my colleagues Philipp Kruse and Markus Zollinger filed a criminal complaint of over three hundred pages
against Swissmedic and named individuals at Inselspital Bern on behalf of 37 plaintiffs and 6 vaccine victims.
In it, they confronted the Swiss judiciary with the greatest
threat ever posed by pharmaceuticals in Switzerland.
In the explanatory memorandum, they refute in detail the authorization requirements affirmed
by Swissmedic for the injectable administered to a large proportion of the Swiss population.
Behind this serious criminal complaint lies a huge amount of research,
which the accused Swissmedic has not addressed with a single word.
If I recognize a correlation between the administration of an injection substance and deaths, then this does not prove a causal link.
But the correlation makes the injection provider's already existing burden of proof many
times more difficult. He must conclusively prove that his product is effective and safe.
Effectiveness means protection against infection and transmission.
Today we know that no manufacturer has made sure of this.
On this crucial point, the licensing authority cannot refute the arguments of Philipp Kruse and Markus Zollinger.
The approval granted to this corona injection substance must be withdrawn hastily and carelessly.
This lawsuit by Philipp Kruse and Markus Zollinger is also being
willfully delayed, just like our Swiss class action lawsuit.
We cannot allow this and can only take note of it as further proof of legal bankruptcy.
We would like to take this opportunity
to thank Philipp Kruse and Markus Zollinger for taking this important step.
It demonstrates the urgent need for the FOPH and Swissmedic to stop a suspected harmful injection substance immediately.
The first commandment is neminem laedere, to do no harm. In violation of this, they are guilty.
This brings me one step closer to the measures taken by
the Graubünden Committee for Sovereignty and Self-Determination.
Five free-minded people from Graubünden have joined forces to form the Graubünden Committee for Sovereignty and Self-Determination.
They are Helmut Heine, Christian Birchmeier, Renato Stieffenhofer, Gerd Rehm and myself.
Everyone has recognized that parliamentarians and other decision-makers in Switzerland
are affected by processes of which they have insufficient knowledge.
The WHO, based in Geneva, is not only planning a pandemic pact, but also
an even more dangerous revision of the International Health Regulations.
According to the guidelines, the deadline is May 24 of next year and a lack of rejection automatically
means approval of both the International Health Regulations and the pandemic pact.
In this way, the WHO is planning to become the sole authority on health issues, to which it also subordinates climate developments.
The WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is to be given the sole authority
to declare health and climate emergencies worldwide without further justification
and without verification and to set binding measures against them.
He also wants to single-handedly silence critical voices against it.
The committee opposes this claim to power and will continue to fight it in the future.
As a first step towards achieving this goal, we sent a registered letter to 200 members of the National Council,
46 members of the Council of States, all major councillors in Graubünden, the Federal Council and cantonal government,
as well as the media and other decision-makers, informing them in a flyer about the health powers that the WHO is planning
to usurp in a dictatorial manner. The committee wants to prevent these dictatorial powers.
The decision about their state of health and the necessary measures should remain
with each individual and not be left to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
We deliberately went to great lengths to send the flyer by registered
mail so that no recipient could excuse themselves for not knowing.
And we will evaluate the reactions to this letter and take further steps if necessary.
The committee received a response from Federal Councillor Alain Berset dated October 12 of this year. The signature looks genuine.
The most important sentence of this answer states that, as a minimum, careful consideration is given to whether
each international treaty is submitted to Parliament or the people for approval or rejection.
What he does not say is whether this also applies to the International Health Regulations.
And we will then explicitly ask about this in our response.
There are two other political issues that are currently pending: Namely, the somewhat lengthy reappraisal
initiative - but this unwieldy text is simply necessary to ensure that the committee that is to take
charge of the reappraisal of the last three and a half years is truly independent.
The collection of signatures for this is underway and is recommended.
Just like the sovereignty initiative by Nicolas Rimoldi and his team, which is worded in such a way that it could
even allow Switzerland to leave the WHO under certain circumstances. And that is what we should strive for.
I come back to an issue I mentioned earlier, which requires signatures.
Government agencies in Switzerland are increasingly shying away from signatures and from disclosing
the authorization levels from the commercial register entry to the issuer of a notification.
I'll show you an example here on the slide.
This is a Serafe decision and as you can see here, there is no signature.
The decision is for the removal of an objection raised in debt collection proceedings.
Experience has now shown that the debt enforcement offices are satisfied with such decisions
and proceed to seizure, which is a further sign of legal bankruptcy. The RTVA is mentioned here.
This is the Radio and Television Act of March 24 2006. This text is also referred to as being in force.
In Article 69, a household levy is allegedly set for the reception of broadcasting programs.
The word levy is a renaming, a new German framing for a poll tax.
Although the people approved this poll tax, they clearly did so in ignorance of the fact that it was a poll tax.
Certain voices take the perhaps minority view, which I am happy to endorse,
that the government is also subject to the general provisions of the law
of obligations when submitting voting issues to the people.
After all, a referendum ultimately boils down to a contractual relationship between the state and the people.
Moreover, this application of contract law provisions can also be derived from the
requirement of state action in good faith under Art. 9 BV can be derived. Art.
28 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, it follows from intentional deception by a contracting
party that the content of the contract is not binding for the intentionally deceived party.
According to the RTVA, households are to be subject to the aforementioned head tax for
SRF offerings that are used or ignored. The collection of the tax is delegated to Serafe.
The fact that Serafe is also authorized in the RTVA to remove legal proposals is an intolerable innovation.
It used to be the case that an alleged creditor had to appeal to the judge for
the opening of proceedings after a legal proposal had been made.
He received a hand-signed judgment from the latter on the granting or refusal of the requested legal opening.
From 1990 onwards, the Federal Parliament, as legislator, began to grant certain creditors
the right to remove legal proposals in their capacity as a party to the proceedings.
This is a blatantly unconstitutional approach.
The corresponding prerogative was granted not only to Serafe in the RTVA, but also to the health insurance
funds in the Federal Health Insurance Act (KVG).
The unconstitutional appointment of a party to the proceedings as a judge for the opening of legal proceedings
in the two laws mentioned is not in accordance with the rule of law and must, in my opinion, be actively prevented.
Together with my highly esteemed client Roland Jufer, I have therefore sent a submission
to the Federal Office of Communications and published it on my Telegram channel.
In this submission, I objected to the lack of any signature.
I think it is important that you take care when you receive a harassing
letter to check carefully whether it has a legally valid signature.
If this is not the case, it is a non-binding invitation to voluntarily
submit to a system that has been exposed as corrupt.
In addition, two criminal charges are still pending against sitting federal councillors.
The best known is by Pascal Najadi.
Health Minister Berset had claimed in the SRF program Arena against his better judgment:
On the certificate documents stored by cell phones, the presenter can prove that an injection has been received and thus
its effectiveness, in particular with regard to the transmission of alleged viruses.
The facts of the case are already so unfavorable for Mr. Berset at the accusation stage that
I have the greatest difficulty in emphasizing the presumption of innocence that still applies to him.
These criminal proceedings were blocked.
Less well known is Albert Knobel's criminal complaint against Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis for abuse of office.
In another Arena program, he had stated that road accident fatalities
with a positive PCR test were counted as corona deaths by the FOPH;
This is necessary to standardize the international counting method.
But it is total nonsense and should be prosecuted as abuse of office.
This procedure also suffers from a serious delay of justice.
10. options for action and forbearance Love
Friends, we have taken all the legal and political
paths that we could think of during this time and that we recognized as feasible.
Based on experience to date, it is questionable whether
these steps will lead to the desired result.
We take note of the results of the parliamentary elections on October 22, 2023. They are just as sobering for our movement as I predicted.
I would have liked to see Urs Hans as the new parliamentarian in Zurich and Josef Ender in Schwyz.
In order to achieve our goals, however, we not only
need to replace the entire parliamentary staff,
but also those in the judiciary and Josef Ender.
In order to achieve our goals, however, we not only need to replace the entire parliamentary staff, but also those
in the judiciary and in the state-funded media. We are continuing to drill away at this thick plank.
However, it is a lengthy and complex process and additional options for action and forbearance
are required during its duration.
These require a commitment to personal responsibility and civil courage.
I ask you not to think about short-term sanction risks, but about the longer-term benefits
for future generations.
I call on you to join forces and create examples for a better
life, for togetherness, for helping our neighbor.
Missionary attempts have proven ineffective over the past three and a half years.
What outsiders need to see is that we are happier and have more fun together.
We offer each other help in return for help.
And withdraw from a failed fiat money system wherever possible.
We take our children's education into our own hands, away from genderism and historical falsification.
We want young
people who think independently and critically.
We want peaceful dispute resolution without system-imposed judges;
All that is needed for sensible mediation is for both sides to be heard and for someone to come up with a solution that is acceptable to both sides.
Yes, now you can perhaps see that we lawyers have done a lot,
but that we are also slowly reaching the end of our tether.
There is still hope as to whether we will be surprised by a reversal of the official wall of silence.
But we have to reckon with everything.
Following on from my predecessors here at the lectern, I would now like to say in my own words: then we are thrown back on ourselves, on each individual.
Then we have to take responsibility for ourselves.
If such impossible regulations come up again, then we simply no longer follow them. That requires a little willingness to take risks.
It takes a willingness to accept
short-term disadvantages, but to set a promising course for future generations.
Yes, and for this time I wish you the help of God that Ivo Sasek invoked. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Heinz Raschein.
I think the most important thing we could learn now, here we find once again from a legal expert, we find the evidence.
That was Swiss law, yes. We are in legal bankruptcy.
I think the solution now at the end
- this is perhaps the most crucial thing, we simply have to understand that - if we as a people
don't learn to say no, then we're finished, they'll do what they want with us.
You could also call it civil disobedience. And I think that takes a lot of courage - a man like that speaking out!
That is the main reason why many people are not standing here.
They don't want to be responsible for any popular "no". You then quickly think about how it could all end.
I would like to thank you once again for your courage in standing up and saying what
we simply need to hear. We need to understand that. Thank you very much.