"Only one sentence is important to me, it's at the front here.
And I want you to keep repeating this sentence to everyone who still doubts:
A state must not kill innocent people.
Most people believe that such a sentence only applies to cases of war or to war, but that is not true.
This sentence also applies when the state obliges people to take a substance into their bodies where even the official
institutes, such as the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the Robert Koch Institute, say it can ultimately have fatal side effects.
A state must not kill people, innocent people."
The Centre for the Investigation, Clarification, Legal Prosecution and Prevention of Crimes against Humanity due to the
Corona Measures (ZAAVV) and allied organizations filed almost 600 criminal charges with the Federal Public
Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe on 10 December 2023.
They are directed against politicians, ministers, judges and other persons who have contributed to the introduction of a
facility-based compulsory vaccination or compulsory vaccination for members of the German Armed Forces and are
thus allegedly guilty of a crime against humanity under Section 7 of the International Criminal Code.
A few months later, investigative journalist Paul Schreyer from the multipolar information platform was able to
sue the Robert Koch Institute protocols in court and thus make them accessible to the public.
And lo and behold, it now came to light that there were no medical requirements for the
coronavirus measures imposed by politicians.
Contrary to what politicians and the leading media have been preaching to the public during the coronavirus pandemic.
All the measures were purely politically motivated, and ultimately politically arbitrary.
It also came to light that the Robert Koch Institute and politicians were aware that coronavirus vaccinations not
only offer no protection against infection, but are also extremely dangerous to the life and limb of those vaccinated.
In the meantime, further conclusive studies have been published in recognized specialist journals.
They prove the connection between corona mRNA injections and severe vaccine damage.
In order to support the legal processing of this vaccination damage, the ZAAVV [(Center for the Processing,
Clarification, Legal Prosecution and Prevention of Crimes against Humanity due to the Corona Measures) became active.
Today we are talking about this with lawyer Ralf Ludwig, who was jointly responsible for filing the
criminal charges in Karlsruhe. Welcome, Mr. Ludwig!
Yes, hello.
Can you please tell our viewers how things have progressed with the criminal charges that have been filed?
Yes, we filed these criminal charges on December 10, 2023, in person and also via the
electronic lawyer's mailbox, so that it was received.
We didn't hear anything from the Attorney General's Office for a long time, then we asked once in the middle
of the year and then in the middle of the year, as we had expected, the case was closed.
This means that the proceedings have been discontinued.
So there will be no prosecution by the Federal Republic of Germany against the perpetrators we have reported, essentially
on the grounds that there is indemnity for politicians.
This means that politicians should not be responsible for the decisions they make as
politicians in parliament, as members of parliament.
It was also said that serious side effects were virtually unknown, or that there was no evidence that
this vaccination actually leads to serious side effects.
Moreover, there was no intention - if that was the case - on the part of the politicians, the authorities
or the judges who took part in this - to harm people.
And last but not least, this vaccination helped more than it harmed.
And that's why it's all so legal and they would refrain from prosecution.
Was there no recording of evidence then?
In other words, the discontinued criminal charges mean that there will be no court proceedings at all?
Exactly, nobody is charged in Germany.
So the public prosecutor's office says that they don't see sufficient suspicion and
therefore nothing will happen in Germany.
As I said, we're not very surprised about it now. It was actually foreseeable for us.
It would have been rather surprising if the investigation had actually continued.
One must not forget that the public prosecutor's office in Germany is an authority bound by instructions.
The Federal Public Prosecutor General is appointed by the Minister of Justice, which means that the Federal Public
Prosecutor General, who was appointed by politicians, is now suddenly supposed to
investigate the politicians who appointed him.
You don't need to be particularly clairvoyant to know that this won't happen.
The special thing is that international criminal law, international international criminal law, demands that we first
of all offer the state that we accuse of having committed human rights violations, of having committed
crimes against humanity, the chance to clarify this itself.
And that means that the path to The Hague to the International Criminal Court is only open in any case if the precondition is
met - which The Hague establishes - that the Member State, in this case the Federal Republic of Germany, is unwilling
or unable to carry out the necessary criminal investigations.
And we have now seen here through this attitude that the state is unwilling to look deeper.
We also see this in many other court proceedings.
And that, as I said, is a prerequisite for being able to go to The Hague at all, to bring the charges to The Hague at all.
Is that your next planned step?
No, not yet, because we... First of all, a crime against humanity is of course essentially a political implication.
In other words, we are dealing with politicians, lawyers and courts who more or less all come from the same
political direction, who are more or less dependent on each other, who have been appointed by each other.
In other words, there is currently no chance that this will actually be dealt with under
criminal law. You simply have to say that clearly.
First of all, we need a political change.
In other words, if the judiciary is a political judiciary, we need a different wind internationally.
That's happening right now. If you look at the White House website, for example, you'll see that all of a sudden there's
information coming directly from a center of power, namely the White House in the USA - it's not without reason that Robert
Kennedy became Secretary of Health and Human Services - that the White House is now suddenly publishing
things that were previously considered conspiracy theories.
For example, the possible origin of the virus.
It used to be completely impossible to say that it might have been created in a laboratory, that it might have
resulted from gain of function , i.e. bioweapons research.
It is stated there that distances were invented by chance.
Fauci also said this before a Senate hearing in the USA.
He said: "Someone once said six feet , and then we said, okay, six feet fits." And suddenly there was this distance regulation.
The same applies to the fact that masks are useless, i.e. that masks do not provide individual protection.
All of these things are on the White House side.
And that is the prerequisite for international judges to be interested in it at all and to look at it and say:
Maybe there is something to it after all and maybe something really did happen here in the years between 2020 and
2023 that can be described as a crime against humanity.
And we first have to create this openness. There are other steps involved.
I think we will talk about this in the course of the interview.
At the moment - by the way, there is already a current complaint in The Hague, which has not been filed by us, but in which we are
involved and which we strongly support - but it does not make sense to file a criminal complaint in The Hague
now with regard to the facility-based vaccination obligation. We will have to wait a little longer.
And other international organizations like the WHO or the UN, do they play any role there?
Well, the WHO is. So if everything goes right or just at some point, then the WHO will be in the dock, because the WHO is of
course more or less just a marketing organization of the global pharmaceutical industry and has of course helped to create
the shocks in the first place, so that people were then willing to wear masks, for example, or to be vaccinated later.
In other words, I place the WHO more on the side of the perpetrators than on the side of those who investigate.
Possibly similar to what we have now - as you mentioned - with the RKI leaks , that whistleblowers or WHO scientists who may
have been internally opposed to these measures or proposals, which also came from the WHO, will possibly serve as witnesses in
court later, just as we will certainly have at some point that the scientists of the RKI, who have done a very good job, which
we see in the leaks, and who have also criticized the policy and the political measures very harshly
internally, that we will then see them as witnesses in court.
Internationally, we need to keep the UN informed.
There are various options, which is what we are doing right now.
We are currently participating in the state reporting process as a non-governmental organization.
So we are adopting some of the criticism of the state reporting procedure for the International Social Covenant.
In other words, our first task is to further sensitize the international bodies so that they take a closer look and that we
then have this political turn at some point, so that the judges more or less can no
longer avoid actually investigating these acts.
Yes, you asked about the role of the UN.
And I would like to start by saying that we should not necessarily regard international organizations as hostile.
I sometimes read that many people have problems with international organizations.
And of course you also have to take a critical view of this, such as the role of the WHO.
But the international organizations are very heterogeneous.
And in principle, attempts are already being made to enforce human rights and implement
human rights through international organizations.
And if I always say that this was a crime against humanity or against humanity, depending on how you
translate it, you also have the opportunity to present these things to international organizations.
For example, we have the international social pact.
The International Covenant on Social Rights and the International Covenant on Civil Rights are effectively two additional
protocols to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The international social pact ensures that there are fair labor rights, that there is no enslavement, no labor
slaves and so on, that there are fair educational opportunities, that students are treated fairly at school.
He pays attention to equality and is very important for art and culture.
So art and culture also have a very high status there.
And every member state has to submit a so-called national report on the situation of art, culture, social
affairs, equal rights, labor rights, education rights and so on - every five years, I believe.
In other words, it reports on the situation in our country with regard to these rights, what people's basic social rights are.
And the Federal Government's last report now had to be submitted in December 2023,
exactly for the period of the coronavirus measures.
And surprisingly, nothing about this appears in this report.
So it is true that we are seeing an increase in depression in schools.
But where this comes from and so on is hidden in a footnote, which then refers to another study.
And if you look at this study, you will find that somewhere along the line it was established that it was due to
the measures, the coronavirus measures relating to schools.
Apart from that, the federal government is not responding at all to the measures, to the restrictions, to the way people are
treated, to the fact that they have virtually completely shut down culture, that people have had to work from home,
that pupils have not been allowed to go to school for months, that they have had to wear masks at school and so on.
They don't respond to that at all. And now the point is that we have the opportunity as a non-governmental
organization, the ZAAVV - is registered with the UN - to submit a so-called parallel report.
So we can now put our finger right in the wound and say: "Well, wait a minute, the following
happened in Germany in the years you are reporting on:
Culture was dead, schools no longer existed, education was virtually non-existent, the education gap has widened
and we have an incredible number of mentally ill children."
So if we can talk about triage , we can talk about triage at psychiatric or psychological
facilities in relation to students and so on.
That equality has been reduced, that people have died alone.
Yes, social rights, it's about social rights and so on.
The federal government has not communicated any of this.
And that is what we can share in this parallel report.
This parallel report will then actually be discussed with the Federal Government in Geneva - and we can also be present there.
And the federal government is then also reprimanded for this.
And that is another very small component, or perhaps not such a small component at all, that once again
makes it clear internationally what has actually happened.
And that there have been measures here that simply violate all human dignity, that are crimes against humanity.
And where we can then fall back on it again, on the basis of the parallel report and on the basis of the reprimands that the UN
will then issue against the Federal Republic - and it will do so - to then submit it again to the International
Criminal Court and say, so, these facts are now also manifested internationally and are also reprimanded.
And we can also assume that there will be a reprimand, regardless of what role Ms. Baerbock may soon play in any committees.
Because the third world countries in particular are very interested in taking a closer look and
not simply voting the way they are told to vote.
In these human rights issues in particular, it is essentially the third-world states, which are otherwise always pilloried for not
complying with human rights rules, which then also tell the democratic states, the so-called
democratic states of the values West, quite clearly:
What you did there is not okay either.
And that is another building block that we have. We're working on that right now.
This report must be completed and submitted by June 30.
We are almost finished with it and will then present it in Geneva.
Yes. And let's come back to Germany.
The protocols of the Robert Koch Institute and the study results on mRNA injections speak a clear
language with regard to the misguided policy and medicine.
What paths do you see for a legal coronavirus response that takes due account of the suffering inflicted?
So I don't think it's possible to come to terms with the suffering that has been
inflicted, because the suffering has been inflicted.
And we can ensure a little bit of justice, so to speak.
What we need to do first, of course, is provide information so that those who have become
victims understand why they have become victims.
Also, of course, with the underlying mechanisms.
It's not just this prick, it's the method of getting people to accept this prick.
That's the exciting thing. And I think that's what people want to know.
And perhaps they also want to understand what happened, how they allowed themselves to be manipulated into giving
this injection, which was never safe and could never be described as safe by any scientists or authorities.
We know that, in principle, virtually nothing was known about the side effects, that some studies were not
carried out and that strong warnings were issued, including by the scientific community of the RKI.
And yet, of course, this marketing campaign for this vaccination was carried out in a way that is unparalleled and which, in
principle, can only be described as a test, a human test - yes, we have always had animal experiments - or a human experiment.
And I believe that people want this to be dealt with.
I don't think that will work well politically; we people will have to take matters into our own hands.
Partly, of course, it happens via committees of inquiry, but even there you can see that it is
of course very, very difficult to make progress.
Yes, you have now launched a new criminal complaint.
Can you tell us something about this? What is the objective?
What is the difference to the 600 previous criminal charges?
Yes, this criminal complaint that is now being published is a criminal complaint that is aimed more
at the individual responsibility of the doctors.
Not only the individual responsibility of the doctors, but also the perpetrators, who we have already
reported in 2023, are also reported in this criminal complaint - but because of individual acts.
In other words, we have designed a criminal complaint with many scientists and other lawyers, where
vaccination victims - people who have been harmed by this injection - can file a criminal complaint.
First of all, against the vaccinators, i.e. those who vaccinated them, because with the knowledge we have
today, there could never have been proper information.
And we now have a recent decision by the European Court of Justice that doctors are still liable for what they have done.
A doctor must provide proper information, a doctor must allow sufficient time for the patient to consider whether
or not they want this, so that they can weigh up the risks.
And that has largely not happened.
And this new criminal complaint naturally includes the new scientific findings that we have.
The point is not that we are now saying that we have new scientific findings on the dangerous side effects of the
vaccination, but that we now have new findings on the fact that we already knew at the time when the vaccination was sold and
scheduled that there were not enough studies, that we did not know enough about the side effects, that we even had information
about some of the serious side effects and that we knew from the outset that this vaccination was not
designed to prevent the transmission of a respiratory disease.
And that is why we say that we are now offering a way for those who have been harmed by this vaccination to report the
perpetrators - namely those who administered this vaccination.
And in this context we are also addressing the complaint to all those who were virtually responsible for the manipulation of
opinion or this shock therapy, the fear-mongering, that people were prepared to take this vaccination into
their bodies, to simply accept this massive damage to their bodies and not to say no.
Yes, let's take a look here.
So this is about various things, for example that the RNA of the vaccines has been artificially modified and is read incorrectly.
There are various studies here that have been cited as evidence.
Here, too, a key sentence from the RKI protocols: "Relevant data is only collected post-marketing."
A central faux pas in this entire study design.
And wait, the accusation here is: Without wanting to, I have become part of a large-scale experiment and
mass experiment on humans with this gene-based agent - with effects completely unknown to me.
In other words, as you said, it first affects the vaccinator, who is ultimately in the front line, the lack of information.
And we now have different addressees.
Can you explain that again? Who is being accused there?
So it's not an indictment, it's a criminal complaint and a criminal complaint.
The public prosecutor's office would then have to bring charges.
But as I said, first of all the vaccinator or the vaccinators.
Yes, we don't know how many vaccinations the person in question has had.
So it's a form that you can fill out, where you can choose up to three vaccinators.
So we can say, first, second, third vaccination, because we first assume that those who have had the fourth,
fifth or sixth vaccination already knew what was going on.
So for the time being, we're assuming that it'll be until... - I think it was always two (for) basic immunization
and a booster, and then that's the third vaccination.
So anyone who went as far as the third vaccination was exposed to massive propaganda, massive market publicity from the media,
was put under pressure, as I said, in the medical field or in the field of soldier defense, it was even made compulsory.
And that means, first of all, against these vaccinators who administered these injections, because we can safely assume that
the information was never properly provided, that people were not informed about the knowledge,
about the dangers that these vaccinations entail.
And so, of course, the person who sets them is first and foremost responsible.
So any doctor who performs an intervention on my body is actually causing bodily harm.
So every medical intervention is a bodily injury.
And it is a consenting bodily injury.
I consent to the bodily harm that the doctor is doing to me, regardless of what treatment he is now doing to my body.
And I can only give my consent if I am informed, if I know what I am consenting to.
And then, of course, I have a trusted doctor who I believe, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that what he is telling me
is what he knows about the procedure he is performing on my body.
And that he also informs me properly about the risks that I have, so that I can make an assessment.
This means that the doctor, the vaccinator or the vaccinators who administered the injection are the first addressees.
And we say that they are definitely perpetrators of an assault, possibly even a serious
assault, and are mentioned in this report.
And then it goes on, however, that we also have to take into account all those responsible who, in principle, in particular
with pressure, with public or with publications, with opinion publications, with apparent factual publications, but who also
come from this area, that these people, these are politicians, these are the chairmen of the medical associations, these are
state ministers, federal ministers and so on, i.e. various people involved, who also share responsibility for
the fact that people have not been properly informed.
Let's take the Federal Ministry of Health, for example, which was informed by the RKI that the situation was different,
and yet massively pushed this vaccination propaganda forward.
And that means that we are not reporting a crime against humanity, as we did in December
2023, but as an individual criminal complaint.
That we say that behind every victim of a vaccination is not only the doctor who vaccinated, but in principle also the
entire propaganda machinery of political associations that ensured that this vaccination was allowed to be given.
Of course, the PEI (Paul Ehrlich Institute), which should have been the competent authority - the
supervisory authority - to prevent the vaccination.
And also the President of the RKI, who as President should have been much, much more vocal:
"What is being published here in the media as a statement by the RKI is a political
reworking of what we have actually said internally.
And it is not the scientific opinion of the RKI, but a political opinion that is published politically without
actually drawing on the scientific expertise of the RKI."
Yes, interesting. And where can you download this criminal complaint? Who can even fill it out?
So basically anyone can fill it out, but of course it says underneath that you must not make any false allegations.
So of course it should be those who are vaccine-damaged, those who have been victimized by the vaccination.
And when you see now, I think it was published in the media two or three days ago, that there are
currently 600 recognized vaccine-injured people.
Yes, but first the fact alone. The Federal Minister of Health, who is still in office, has said that he can't
understand why people don't want to be vaccinated when the vaccine has virtually no side effects.
That was his statement. Or I think he even said on Twitter that it's a vaccination with no side effects.
So, a side-effect-free vaccination with 600 now recognized vaccine injuries.
And I just took it from your smile that you think the same or something similar to me, that of
course these 600 are just the tip of the iceberg.
That is what the state recognizes. These are not the actual victims, but the number of victims is considerably higher.
And of course the 600 recognized vaccine injuries do not include those who have died as a result.
That doesn't include all the miscarriages and so on.
This means, of course, that we have a completely different situation.
But it is recognized and therefore clear: this vaccination causes damage.
And that is recognized. In principle, this makes it clear that we have actually brought a drug or an apparent
drug onto the market that is massively harmful to people.
And this has simply been allowed to happen by politicians.
This has been approved by the RKI. And that's just what we have to attack.
You have it on your homepage, so to speak, on your ZAAVV website, or where exactly is it now?
Exactly. Your question was where this is published. Exactly. So anyone can download it.
Anyone who is vaccine-injured can file this criminal complaint.
And this criminal complaint is on the pages of klagepaten.eu.
We launched the lamentation mentors relatively early in 2020 to offer people forms that help them in certain situations.
You could register demonstrations back then, for example, and you still can.
For example, if masks were compulsory at school, you could download documents in which you
could object to them. So there were various forms.
So the idea of klagepaten has always been to offer people forms with which they can defend themselves against
certain government measures, lodge objections and so on.
And on the page of klagepaten.eu that is.
This form will be available on this page: https://www.klagepaten.de/impfung-strafanzeige.
You will certainly find this on the homepage.
And that is very simple. You click on it. There is a form.
You enter your data - we do this very sparingly - enter the data of the vaccinators, depending on how many
doctors there were, and then enter the damage you have.
You can also upload the relevant documents relating to your damage there.
You will then be told which public prosecutor's office is responsible.
You then enter them in the form yourself.
And then you receive a PDF by e-mail with a fully completed criminal complaint, which you can then either send by e-mail to
the public prosecutor's office, by post to the public prosecutor's office or by fax, as you wish,
and have then submitted this criminal complaint.
Yes. Do these criminal charges have any chance at all?
So first of all, these criminal charges go to different public prosecutors' offices.
Of course, we don't yet know where the public prosecutor's offices stand after all the publications.
And the point, as I said earlier, the point is that we will go to the International Criminal Court in the long term.
And here again the big headline: The member state must not be willing or able to come to terms with the deeds.
And in the meantime, you have read the criminal complaint, which was compiled by scientists, and we lawyers
have more or less adopted it, all the studies it contains.
We now know a great deal about this vaccination.
We know about the damage caused by this vaccination and we also know that these facts were already known beforehand.
Or at least that it was known beforehand that it was not known how harmful it might be. And
then you can't vaccinate something like that!
We knew, but we also knew from the outset that it would not achieve the effect that was attributed to it.
So now we're back to the bigger picture.
The individual guilt of the individual doctor is one thing that the public prosecutor can determine.
If the public prosecutor's offices now say: We're not investigating this at all,
we're not even looking at it, we'll just say:
Yes, a doctor has injected an experimental or an experimental vaccine, an experimental gene therapy into a person's body,
knowing that it will not do what it is supposed to do, and knowing that he does not know what damage is there or
what damage has already been detected, and he does it anyway.
Yes, and if the public prosecutor's office then says: But we're not going to prosecute that, we'll just leave it there,
that's just the way it was back then and it's not assault.
Yes, if that... With any other medical intervention, that would be an assault and the
public prosecutor's office would investigate.
And if she doesn't do that here, we are back in the political dimension and in this case we may be able to prove thousands,
tens of thousands of times over that the German state is unwilling to come to terms with these acts and expose them.
And that again opens the door to The Hague, because we can then pass on all these reactions from the public prosecutor's office,
which we naturally collect, to them in The Hague, possibly even submit them with the
existing criminal complaint that we have and say:
Look, here in Germany we have victims.
We definitely have victims, because we have the evidence that there is damage.
And we now know that a substance has been inoculated into the body that is highly harmful, and that we knew
from the outset that it could at least be highly harmful.
And they did it anyway. And the German public prosecutor's office refuses to carry out a proper investigation.
That's the point. So the public prosecutor's office... - that's why I always say it's ultimately a win-win situation.
So either the German public prosecutor's office finally starts to investigate properly and finally starts to prosecute the real
perpetrators and not the doctors who refused to do so, or we again have systematic proof that this is not wanted in Germany.
And that is why it is so important to have it in large numbers.
Especially since, if these criminal charges are used a lot, we will have a much better overview of how
many people have become victims of this injection.
Yes, a promising approach.
Mr. Ludwig, thank you very much for your commitment and for giving people the opportunity to defend themselves and obtain
their rights if they have suffered damage. Thank you very much!
Yes, thank you very much for having me here!