In ancient times, Justitia was the goddess of justice and even today she is still the symbol of the legal system.
Her three attributes - the blindfold, the scales in her left hand and the judge's sword in her
right hand - reflect our principles of justice.
Accordingly, justice should be administered without regard to the person after careful consideration of the pros
and cons and then enforced with the necessary severity.
So much for the theory.
With some of the judgments of recent months, a casual observer might get the impression that Justice's blindfold has slipped in
some proceedings, that the scales are very one-sided and that the sword has become oversized in
some cases and mutated into a penknife in others.
This may be one of the reasons why large sections of the population have suffered a massive
loss of trust in politics and the rule of law.
This is not a blanket assignment of guilt against all judges, especially since the criminal law principle of in dubio pro reo
- in case of doubt for the accused - should also apply to them.
But the following examples raise questions and give food for thought.
1. two judgments of the Dresden Regional Court
The Moritzburg doctor Dr. Bianca Witzschel had been in custody since February 2023.
The 40-day trial at the Dresden District Court took place in the high-security wing intended for terror trials,
into which the defendant was led in handcuffs and shackles.
Anyone who suspects a female bomber with these security precautions is wrong.
On 17 June 2024, Dr. Witzschel was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison for issuing 1,003 certificates
for exemption from the mask requirement during the coronavirus measures, as well as violations of the Weapons Act.
He was also banned from working for three years and the 47, 000 euros in income for the certificates were confiscated.
So much trouble with solitary confinement and a high-security wing because of a doctor's certificates? Dr. Witzschel's weapon
violation, which was highly stylized in some mainstream media - it was a missing test mark on
a stun gun - also seems more than far-fetched:
As a hunter and sport shooter, she can even legally own firearms and ammunition!
Likewise, the approx. 45 euros including expenses for a medical certificate are not unusual;
quite different prices are sometimes charged.
What makes the conviction of Dr. Witzschel even more suspicious is that the public prosecutor's office and the
judge were unable to find a victim in the entire trial.
In addition, the RKI protocols that have been released clearly prove that masks offered no benefit but harmed the wearers.
In other words, exactly what Dr. Witzschel attested to her patients and what she was entitled - not to say obliged in these
cases - to do according to medical professional regulations!
Professional code of conduct for doctors working in Germany §2
General professional obligations of physicians (1)
Doctors practise their profession according to their conscience, the dictates of medical ethics and humanity.
They may not recognize any principles or observe any regulations or instructions that are incompatible with
their duties or for which they cannot be held responsible.
(2) Doctors shall exercise their profession conscientiously and comply with the trust
placed in them in the exercise of their profession.
In doing so, they must base their medical actions on the well-being of their patients.
In particular, they must not place the interests of third parties above the well-being of patients.
Many people are asking themselves whether such a verdict is an excess of punishment or an example against doctors who followed
their conscience and did not act in accordance with the government during the coronavirus measures - or
whether Dr. Witzschel just had a particularly strict judge.
At least the latter can be ruled out, because the presiding judge Jürgen Scheuring can also be quite different.
He sentences a lawyer to two years probation for triple rape of his former employee!
Is someone who has helped many people so much more dangerous than a rapist?
2. when does age and illness protect against prosecution?
Two trials were concluded in June 2024, in each of which an elderly person was charged.
One was about the so-called cum-ex scandal, in which shareholders had tens of billions in taxes refunded to them
between 2006 and 2011 that they had not previously paid.
The current Federal Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, is also involved in this scandal and has already had to testify before
a committee of inquiry - but could not remember anything.
The most important investigator of the cum-ex fraud, senior public prosecutor Anne Brorhilker, resigned in April 2024
- because everything was progressing very slowly and there was massive resistance from high-ranking politicians.
This trial, which has only been running since September last year, was therefore very important as
it was intended to shed light on the cum-ex affair.
Christian Olearius, former head of a private bank and confidant of Chancellor Scholz, was charged with
particularly serious tax evasion amounting to 280 million euros.
Surprisingly for many, however, the criminal proceedings have now been dropped due to the
82-year-old defendant's "poor health" - high blood pressure.
The trial of the 95-year-old and frail Ursula Haverbeck, who came into the courtroom in a wheelchair
accompanied by a doctor, was completely different.
She had to wait almost nine years for this appeal hearing for a trial from November 2015.
She is accused because of her statement that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp, but a labor camp.
The Hamburg district court has now sentenced her to a total prison sentence of one year and four months for incitement to hatred.
This included a previous conviction for a similar statement.
Ursula Haverbeck has already stood trial several times for Holocaust denial and has already
served two and a half years in prison in Bielefeld.
There are differing views on whether laws should always be pursued and enforced with the utmost severity or
whether a certain degree of leniency should apply in certain cases, such as in the case of elderly and sick people.
But for many people it is no longer comprehensible that on the one hand several proceedings with convictions are carried out
because of an unlawful statement by a sick, 95-year-old woman, while on the other hand the investigation of a fraud amounting
to billions because of high blood pressure is dispensed with.
But perhaps there were other influences, unknown to the general public, that led to this?
3. violence or opinion - which is worse?
The reports of a gang rape in Hamburg's Stadtpark caused horror in September 2020.
A year and a half later, the ruling by the Hamburg district court caused outrage throughout Germany.
The judge only handed down a single prison sentence for the sexual abuse and multiple rapes of the
15-year-old girl by nine perpetrators aged between 16 and 20; the other eight were given suspended sentences.
The leniency of the sentence is all the more surprising as the perpetrators did not even regret the crime.
When a 20-year-old found out about the gang rape in Hamburg's Stadtpark, she was so enraged that she called
one of the rapists a "dishonorable rapist pig" and a "disgusting freak" in WhatsApp messages.
That is why she has now been brought before the Hamburg District Court and sentenced to a weekend of youth detention.
The 20-year-old is thus deprived of her liberty for insulting a rapist for longer than eight of the girl's nine rapists.
What kind of standard of punishment is it when a court considers the multiple rape of an underage girl with corresponding
lifelong psychological consequences to be less severe than the "defamation" of the rapist through mere words?
Normally, the public prosecutor's office only investigates insults if there is a public interest.
This cannot be assumed, as the messages were direct WhatsApp messages.
Since the public prosecutor's office is nevertheless investigating 140 other cases in addition to the 20-year-old, the question
arises as to what interest the state has in such verdicts.
Or does the public prosecutor's office have nothing better to do?
Quo vadis jurisdiction
These are just three comparisons.
In many other cases, especially in connection with the corona measures, some
procedures and judgments are also incomprehensible.
As a result, government influence is sometimes suspected.
Such fears are further fueled by cases such as that of family court judge Christian Dettmar.
On April 8, 2021, the district court in Weimar overturned the mask requirement at two schools in the city due
to the risk to children's welfare associated with masks.
This resulted in a raid on his office, private home and car, and his cell phone was seized
because of the politically undesirable verdict.
How free are judges in their rulings if they have to fear a house search and suspension?
Someone must have initiated the measures against Judge Dettmar.
After all, public prosecutors in Germany are bound by instructions - which is why they are not
authorized to issue a European arrest warrant according to the ruling of the European Court of Justice.
Some people may still have sympathy for the raid on Judge Dettmar given the heated media atmosphere during corona -
the scandal has been obvious since the publication of the RKI protocols that have been released.
These show that the politicians responsible for the corona measures were aware that the masks neither protect nor
help, but that the wearers are exposed to health risks.
In other words, exactly what Judge Dettmar decided.
There are many psychological explanations for the dubious behavior of these judges, but we do not want to engage in speculation.
Especially as this is of as little use to the people who have been sentenced far too harshly as it is to those who fall
victim to these alleged political henchmen in black robes.
Dear viewers, judgments are made in the name of the people.
Then the people should also be informed about what is happening in their name.
So please forward this program to your friends and acquaintances and spread the word via your social networks.
The link is shown below.
Furthermore, there is an urgent need for appropriate publicity in such processes.
If you are able, please attend such court hearings. Thank you very much!