The court case against virology - Update

No votes yet

A Small Victory for NEXT LEVEL - A Big One For The People !
deepL transslate

In short: Our press spokesman Marvin Haberland won the trial as expected, in which the court dropped the case and paid the costs. 

The subtleties in this are the big win:

(a) We went into this trial without a lawyer.
No lawyer wanted to defend us by supporting our strategy. Thus, we had no legal fees either. So it can be done without.

b) Our strategy is direct and clear
It aims to clarify the lack of science in virology in court, since Paragraph 1 of the Infection Protection Act requires it.

c) We have thus shown that the measures based on an imaginary virus are not justifiable and not tenable.

d) As has been shown, there is no need for complicated strategies, no 400-page indictments. Only the basis must be attacked. 

e) The possible avalanche effect
If many people would follow our argumentation, probably either all fines would be stopped, or someone would go to the next instance, where then the scientificity has to be clarified. 

f) Our strategy and our expertise, as well as the evidence requests that could not be refuted, were known to all involved, both to the court apparatus and to the many employees whom we contacted throughout to make it clear that we were looking forward to the trial. Perhaps this was also one of the reasons why our trial was constantly postponed and unclear statements were made by staff. 

 Especially Important:

If the court, the state and others were aware of something they could have used to make a legal example of us regarding our requests for evidence, they certainly would have done so. Thus, they obviously used the easiest "escape option" and simply discontinued the proceedings."


"Even the dismissal of a fine case is a kind of confirmation that virology is without foundation" !
deepL translate
The motions for evidence had been available for months
In an interview with Torsten Engelbrecht, Marvin Haberland, our press officer at NEXT LEVEL - Knowledge rethought, reports on his court hearing yesterday. 
The proceedings were directly discontinued, the motions for evidence were "cleverly" circumvented by the discontinuation of the proceedings, the judge did not allow the bias motion with the statement that it would no longer have any relevance, as he had already pronounced his judgement (discontinuation of proceedings).
-It's a scoundrel who... You know what I mean 
Successful again - what are we doing differently?
Demanding scientificity and proof of virus existence. This is the most target-oriented and simplest strategy, as Paragraph 1 of the Infection Protection Act demands scientificity, which therefore makes it not only scientifically but also legally attackable.
This judgement has once again confirmed us in our approach.
Virology has no scientific basis
If one demands proof of its existence, not only the virologists go into retreat, but apparently also the courts.
Is the iron too hot for the judiciary?
We look forward to the next trials that will be conducted with our motions for evidence, and we can already guess how they will turn out. Can you?
NEXT LEVEL Process Strategy:
New section on our homepage
Increased enquiries
Due to increased enquiries about our successful NL Litigation Strategy, you will now find it, along with all evidence and appeals, in a separate section on our website.
In short: NL Litigation Strategy
Probably the most effective way to proceed in lawsuits based on an alleged "disease-causing virus" (e.g. OWIs for mask offences, "violation" of vaccination obligations etc.).
We hope that many will take up our strategy and use it for their lawsuit. We are looking forward to your feedback on how your proceedings based on paragraph 1 IfSG went.
Success & attention
We wish you every success, and that the issue of proving the existence of a virus receives even more attention in this way. 
-Strategy - Objection - Requests for evidence ( German article)

“It is only a matter of time before virology comes crashing down! Todays court hearing only further demonstrates that they have NOTHING when it comes to arguing with actual science! “


“Dr. Lanka’s Control Tests


The hallmark for determining that imaginary viruses are the cause of disease involves observing what are called ‘cytopathic effects’. This is essentially observing the cells that are put in a petri dish die-off, and once they die, the determination is made that it was caused by a virus. However, this is caused by the methods that are used in the lab during this process, and not by any virus. To prove this, Lanka performed important control tests to show that the same observable cytopathic effects occur without the addition of alleged ‘virus’ material.”

Freedom of Information Requests

Haberland and several others (myself included) have worked with researcher Christine Massey to amass a growing number of FOI requests that all demonstrate the lack of virus isolation performed in the lab, showing that there is no way scientifically to demonstrate evidence of contagion.

Genomes and the Propensity for Manipulation


Another important aspect of the virology fraud comes in the form of the genome construction. This involves the process of manufacturing an allegedly complete DNA sequence from smaller fragments of DNA particles. 

The virus, and all ‘variants’ only exist as randomly put together base pairs of DNA within a computer. That’s it.

Why the Case Was Dropped


While I cannot speak on their behalf, I am pretty sure all of the participants involved in this case knew that it would never make it to trial. If that were to actually happen, it would create a solid foundation of case law to be used in future litigation and we all know that the court and the powers-that-be simply cannot allow that.