Dr. Michael Brunner is an Austrian lawyer and politician.
He contributes his expert knowledge to the Center for the Investigation, Clarification, Legal Prosecution
and Prevention of Crimes against Humanity due to the Corona Measures (ZAAVV).
Dr. Michael Brunner spoke to Kla.TV the day before the almost 600 criminal charges were filed with the Federal
Public Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe. Interview:
Welcome to today's interview - Dr. Brunner, attorney at law, traveled from Austria.
A warm welcome to you. Thank you very much for the invitation.
I am delighted that we are getting to know each other today. Yes, me too.
Dr. Brunner, your CV shows that you wrote a dissertation on public law
decades ago with the title: Der materielle Polizeibegriff.
Let me explain briefly.
It is about dealing with the concept of danger in public law, the powers of state authority
and the abuse of power by the state - about the danger to the citizen from undefined legal
concepts and state arbitrariness.
What seemed to be more of a marginal issue for the average citizen years ago became very
explosive with the coronavirus measures and the way the judiciary acted
against critical doctors and judges.
From your point of view, how could it have come to the point where legislation, jurisdiction and
police power have become independent, where people are being worked against instead of
for, so that today one can justifiably speak of a judicial bankruptcy in Germany?
We have come this far because all state institutions have failed miserably.
We have to lament the bankruptcy of the judiciary not only in Germany, but also
in Austria and in many other countries.
What was not clear and obvious to individuals from
the population is that we have never actually had a separation of powers.
It's just never come out so much before.
And because you mentioned my dissertation, the concept of the police as being worthy of power, what
is that? It is the prevention of danger.
It is the prevention of threats to public order.
Abuses in terms of public safety, peace and quiet.
Only all these terms - police serve to maintain public safety,
peace and order - All these terms are undefined legal terms.
And they must first acquire content.
And here in the coronavirus era, we have seen it in particular.
The content of these terms, in this case health, came from politics, not from
a legislator, not from legal scholars, but it was a purely political agenda.
And here we have seen quite clearly, which was not the case in the past, that a
government can make its own laws through the parliamentary majority.
And it was governed on the basis of regulations, not on the basis of laws democratically
passed by parliaments, but the Minister of Health basically made his own laws.
And so there was no longer any separation of powers at all.
And we have also noticed this with regard to the judiciary in Austria.
The Constitutional Court is a purely political body with a proportional representation system.
The decisions were also all politically motivated.
The entire system has shown that it is not sustainable in a crisis situation.
Not in the current coronavirus crisis situation, but in the crisis situation
of our human rights, our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Thank you very much for the execution. One more question.
Do you see the Office of the Attorney General as a last glimmer of hope?
That's the wrong question, if I may say so.
There is no last glimmer of hope for me.
It is a step on a long road.
Tomorrow we are sending out an urgently needed signal.
And we do educational work, reappraisal.
And are taking the first steps towards prosecution here, with the Center for the Investigation,
Clarification and Prosecution of Corona Crimes
bringing the first criminal charges in relation to the facility-based vaccination obligation in Germany
on suspicion of a crime against humanity.
This with the support of the International Bar Association, which I also co-founded.
We founded it on July 2 of this year in Cologne.
Because - and this is the basis of the criminal complaint - it is not a question of whether this Covid-19 injection
is dangerous, effective, ineffective or harmless.
No.
According to the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court, ruling from 2005 concerning the Aviation Safety Act, every life is of equal value.
And they are also not allowed to shoot down a plane, for example, because it has been hijacked by terrorists
and maneuvered into a soccer stadium where seventy thousand people are sitting.
The German Federal Constitutional Court said at the time that such an authorization to fire weapons is
not compatible with our constitutional principles.
And it was right from the start, right from the beginning when this vaccination was
introduced - the Paul Ehrlich Institute had 10 reported deaths after just 14 days
- It was clear from the outset, and especially shortly before this facility-based compulsory vaccination was decided
in Germany, that people would suffer health problems as a result of this vaccination and that they would also die.
And since every life is of equal value, such a resolution in the German Bundestag or the propagation
of compulsory vaccination is, in our opinion as lawyers, a crime that we will
report to the police tomorrow.
And it's not the first and it won't be the last. It will continue.
And as we have learned from the media, a public prosecutor's investigation is already underway
in Italy against the then Minister of Health on suspicion of murder, also
in relation to the facility-based vaccination requirement. Very interesting.
So a very important point where you start is to look at this, i.e. no sacrifices
should be made in order to protect others.
In other words, the media actually used figures to create fear.
That is what we have seen:
Many people will die, so we have to vaccinate now, even if there may be side
effects, but we have to vaccinate now!
And you say that even if you could have protected a single person or a million
people, you shouldn't have done it.
Human dignity is inviolable.
I must not weigh one life against another.
I'm not even allowed to save hundreds of thousands if I kill one person
in the process. The state must not kill.
And the critical public prosecutors and judges in Germany have put it in a nutshell here.
As you said, a state-imposed vaccination requirement is nothing
other than deliberate killing.
There is a red line that must not be crossed by anyone, not by any
politician and not by any state.
And that's why we're bringing this matter to court tomorrow as a sign to all those who took part
here that no one will get away with it.
That sounds very, very positive. And gives hope.
And that's why I say this is not the last glimmer of hope.
It is a step on a long road. And we take many steps.
We have already taken many steps.
I'm just thinking of the compulsory vaccination law that was introduced
in Austria, for example.
Oh yes, we've heard about that. The legal measures we have taken.
We said at the time that we would make all sample complaints available to the public.
And if hundreds of thousands, or even tens of thousands, had made use of it, then
the bureaucracy would have gone into lockdown.
The compulsory vaccination law has been brought down by the legal measures, by the political
measures of the MFG Menschenfreiheit und Grundrechte party, which I founded,
and above all by the population.
Because back then 300,000, 400,000 people marched across the Ring.
The population did not put up with this. And the population is the sovereign.
And it can bring down any law if it wants to. Very good.
That was demonstrated to us really excellently in Austria.
Thank you for giving us another share.
In other words, if we file the 599 complaints tomorrow, which has already been
prepared, that will happen tomorrow ... How
do things look from your perspective?
After all, crimes against humanity must be adequately punished and
made good so that such crimes do not continue in the future.
How do you rate it?
Will this be successful tomorrow or is this a step where you say, even if not, it will continue?
In my legal judgment, the federal prosecutor can decide.
If they handle and assess the matter here in Germany and take it further, then it will remain in Germany.
If they do not do so, but do not want to deal with the proceedings here, we will immediately
appeal to the Criminal Court in The Hague.
And there are already efforts with other countries, which I will not name here,
to join this criminal complaint.
Then The Hague must investigate.
And this is now the first step in a large-scale criminal complaint.
It will continue in other countries.
We will not stop there.
And it is not just a question of taking special or general preventive
measures for the future.
The point is that injustice must not go unpunished.
We create legal certainty by punishing injustice.
And this is how we guarantee legal peace in the future.
Very good. Yes, that sounds very good.
Dr. Brunner, I would like to come back to your example of the plane.
You said that the state or the government, whoever, does not have the right to
decide whether the plane should be shot down to save the people in the stadium.
Are you dealing with an abuse of power or the risk of an abuse of power in the current situation that
we are experiencing here with coronavirus?
It would be an abuse of power if the state were to intervene here by shooting down the plane.
But at the end of the day, and there must be a very strict line, where do you want to draw the lines?
Am I allowed to shoot down the plane if there are only five people inside?
Or can I also shoot it down if there are 100 people inside?
There must be a clear line.
This means that every life is of equal value and human dignity is inviolable.
And that is a red line that must not be crossed.
Otherwise, the floodgates are ultimately open to abuse of power.
Yes, and the arc of this example was the coronavirus pandemic.
In other words, the parallel would then in principle have been compulsory vaccination.
That the state has said, I know there are deaths as a side effect.
I accept that because I want to save people.
This means that there was no referendum or popular consultation.
The state has simply decided that vaccination is compulsory here, the facility-based one.
In other words, this was basically a practical case of abuse of power, wasn't
it? After all, there must not be a referendum or referendum on this.
Even that is not possible.
That is not possible either.
A people cannot vote on the lives of other people.
To use a school example, two wolves and a sheep cannot vote
on what to eat for dinner.
Yes, okay, that was good.
Yes, so that means we have to prevent it.
Do you still see any legal means?
Do you see any legal options for putting a stop to this abuse of power?
Very well, because we must subsequently find a political solution
that is then legally cemented.
Firstly, there must no longer be any club or group pressure in Parliament.
A government may not create laws for itself through the parliamentary majority.
This means that every member of parliament is only obliged to his or her conscience and only to the voters.
And he votes according to his conscience and not within the framework of a club or parliamentary group.
Next example. Judges must be elected by the people.
Judges must not be appointed by a political or administrative body.
Important point.
Public prosecutors must also not be bound by instructions,
as is the case in Austria, for example, where the Ministry of Justice may issue instructions to public prosecutors
regarding criminal investigations and activities.
The entire political felt must be removed from the administration and the judiciary.
We need a complete depoliticization of the judiciary and the administration.
And depoliticization is the politics of the people. Very good.
So no more head of the Constitutional Court having dinner with the Chancellor. Not at all.
I think it's a legal one - I'm a lawyer - and a political
one - I'm a politician - Scandal.
Very good. Yes, Dr. Brunner, one last look at Austria, your home country.
Were there crimes against humanity in the course of the corona measures?
How do you personally rate the legal system there?
We will bring everything that happened in Austria
to light and clarify it.
Both on a legal and political level.
And we will hold those responsible to account if they have
acted unlawfully and culpably.
Let me just remind you of one example.
There was the so-called lockdown for unvaccinated people in Austria because it was said that
the Austrian healthcare system would otherwise be overburdened and exceed its capabilities.
In February 2022, the former Minister of Health, Dr. Mückstein, was forced to admit at the
request of the Constitutional Court that the healthcare system in
Austria had never been overburdened.
And one of the government's so-called experts, Dr. Gertliner, said just a few months ago in
an interview on a public broadcaster, a compulsory fee broadcaster,
that the lockdown for the unvaccinated was a purely political measure.
He had no evidence base.
They wanted to satisfy the vaccinated.
And I call that an abuse of power.
And we are already considering filing a criminal complaint on the basis of these
two facts that I have just described to you.
Excellent. That is necessary - and respectful! Thank you.
Yes, that really is an abuse of power at this point.
If I have understood correctly, they simply wanted to please the vaccinated
and therefore took this measure.
And he has now admitted this himself.
You have to imagine that all the people who refused to be treated with a gene substance
that was and is experimental and of which we do not know what effects it has and had because
the essential studies were missing, were indirectly forced to be vaccinated.
Otherwise they were excluded from public life.
They were only allowed to provide the basic foodstuffs, the basic
needs, the basic necessities of daily life.
They were second-class people.
And then you hear that this was a purely political decision for which there was no evidence base.
That is a scandal! Safe. This is a major scandal.
We have also experienced this in a similar form in Germany.
And above all, the mass media there played their part in creating this
climate of fear, this pressure.
There was no longer any doubt about this decision.
And at that moment it was simply an impossible situation, an unbearable
situation for the unvaccinated.
And now, of course, to see what has triggered
the decision in the background can cause a huge split.
But that's why I find the statement so beautiful: no reconciliation without reappraisal.
They are working on coming to terms with the situation, so that the people can grow together
again somewhere. That is also very important.
For sure. You can't just say that we are creating reconciliation.
Reconciliation must come from the one who has been harmed.
I can only recommend that the aggrieved party offer reconciliation if he is not sued and if
it is made public what actually happened.
Therefore, first and foremost reappraisal, clarification and then persecution and finally reconciliation.
Only because you mentioned the media in Austria.
The media play a very important role.
They have followed in orchestrated lockstep with government propaganda.
It would never have come this far without the media.
We must therefore also examine the responsibility of the media.
And I said early on that all media funding for the mainstream should be canceled.
It is unacceptable that the mainstream is fed with the people's tax money and
then they don't get to hear the truth.
Yes, a very important point, exactly.
So the reappraisal must also include the entire public relations work of the media.
Thank you very much for these comments.
We wish you lots of strength and energy, also tomorrow for
the event. It is a historic day.
We are also looking forward to your speech.
I believe that this day, tomorrow, will go down in history.
And I am proud of it and I am grateful that I can be there
on this day, on December 10, 2023.
Yes, us too. Thank you very much, Dr. Brunner.
Thank you for the invitation and the interview. Goodbye.