“We’ll Take Your Kids Away”: The Unlawful Actions of the Coronavirus Regime in Germany

The RT interview below is with Markus Haintz, a German lawyer for a non-profit legal foundation that helps ordinary citizens fight the increasingly tyrannical actions of the German government under the COVID-19 “protection” law.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

00:00   You have to think about what is stated there: “If you don’t comply, we’ll take your kids away”.
00:05   This may be the shock of a lifetime for the child. It is so unlawful that it has nothing to do
00:12   with the practice of an official constitutional state. This is, at best, coercion.
00:17   For me, it’s a completely different kind of crime that’s being committed.
00:21   Actually, something like this is in fact child abuse. This is child abuse.
00:25   I hope these people working for the authorities will have to answer for what they are doing.
00:29   That it has come to this in Germany, so quickly, even shocks me.
00:37   Mr. Haintz, you are a lawyer. I would like to discuss with you the legal side of a matter
00:41   which is now occupying many parents in Germany. Based on the Infection Protection Act,
00:46   health authorities can require families to isolate children suspected of having Corona
00:51   within the family, and if this is not done, children can even be placed in closed facility.
00:56   What do you say as a lawyer? —Yes, that’s what the authorities are demanding in some cases.
01:01   Whether they can demand that, now that’s perhaps a completely different question,
01:05   because I think it is legally untenable. My most prominent case was in Bruchsal near Karlsruhe,
01:11   where a teacher tested positive who taught in two classes.
01:15   Following that, 46 students or their parents
01:19   received letters with the corresponding forced isolation under the threat of severe punishment,
01:25   including removing the children and forced isolation in a government facility.
01:29   Of course I don’t think it is legally acceptable in any way and it is completely excessive.
01:34   It leaves one speechless and I’m not sure if the authorities are aware of what they have done.
01:41   This probably will not stand in court, but the problem we have is for the parents.
01:47   Of course, legally, they are the first who have to pay, in advance. Sometimes they don’t even know
01:52   what their rights are. That’s where I see the main problem, because if the authorities do something
01:57   grossly illegal, you can still defend yourself legally. Which probably would have been possible
02:02   in this case. Now however, with the Infection Protection Act, and the way it is formulated,
02:07   it is simply being abused by many. There is no other way to formulate it.
02:11   It is actually written within the German constitution, I mean, in the Infection Protection Act.
02:16   At the moment, it seem to be almost as valid as the constitution. So, it actually states this and
02:20   these threats are justified in this way.
02:24   I also have a letter which was handed out to parents of children who were in contact with
02:32   a person who had Corona. It was in the county of Ludwigslust-Parchim in Mecklenburg Vorpommern.
02:40   I can just briefly quote to you what is written. It’s actually severe, what is written here.
02:45   It seems more like a summons for serious criminals. I will quote a few sentences.
02:50   “Your child is being summonsed by the public health department. You can also be summonsed
02:56   together with your child. Furthermore, you are obligated to allow the health department’s
03:00   representative to enter your residence for the purpose of questioning or examinations and
03:04   to provide information upon request for any circumstances concerning their state of health.”
03:11   Furthermore it says: “If you do not comply with the orders concerning your isolation, the isolation
03:18   will be done by force with suitable accommodation in a locked facility. The basic right to freedom
03:24   of a person can be restricted in this respect.” So it says it right there.
03:28   How would you comment on this as a lawyer? —It is an unbelievable scandal.
03:33   It’s so illegal, that it leaves one speechless. Just recently I spoke with a doctor from Italy,
03:41   and he suggested a comparison, which I didn’t really
03:46   want to repeat, but the way those who test positively
03:51   are being dealt with there, well, yes, it brings to mind a time from the past.
03:57   People are being deliberately excluded because they have some kind of characteristic.
04:02   This characteristic is currently the positive Corona test or rather a positive result from
04:06   Dr. Drosten’s non-validated test. The authorities’ writing such a letters is blackmail.
04:11   It is coercion, and not only from a legal point of view. This is so illegal and it has nothing to do
04:18   with how a functioning constitutional government works. I can’t imagine that this will stand up
04:22   in court. However, nowadays there remains concern. Once a legal basis has been established,
04:30   and some time passes, let’s say five, six, seven, months later, this is the result.
04:36   That it has come to this in Germany, so quickly, even shocks me.
04:42   There is no legal basis to enforce it in this way. It’s necessary to examine everything.
04:46   So if a teacher enters the room, after having a test that hardly works anyway, for which
04:51   even Dr. Drosten himself says that results are coincidental, and then to threaten parents
04:55   with such severity. The parent and the children will be traumatized. This is, at best, coercion.
05:00   For me, it’s a completely different kind of crime that’s being committed.
05:04   Well, it has nothing to do with a constitutional state. —Can you imagine why
05:08   the authorities would write such letters? These authorities are still people, though.
05:12   The Infection Protection Act actually provides the wording for these kinds of threats.
05:16   There could also be fines, which would at least be a lesser punishment. Why would they
05:20   choose to go the severe way? What do you think? —Because they want to create fear.
05:25   They said from the very beginning that they want to create fear and panic.
05:30   That was clearly exposed in the leaked letters from the Ministry of the Interior.
05:34   The government, its ministries and departments cause massive fear.
05:40   This fear by way of panic propaganda is wanted, and was wanted from the beginning.
05:45   Of course it affects the lower levels of government. There’s always government employee
05:49   here and there who still believe that there’s a deadly killer virus out there that surpasses
05:56   anything that has ever been seen before. That’s just not the case. This has apparently
06:00   not yet been accepted by all authorities and unfortunately not by all the courts.
06:03   Therefore, they believe they can take children away from their parents. All I can do
06:08   is warn these authorities against implementing such an order. It will only create a
06:12   huge level of escalation. Not just legally, but socially as well. It will no longer be containable.
06:18   You have to think about what is stated there: “If you don’t comply, we’ll take your kids away.”
06:22   In this manner, it is just unbelievable. If this is implemented,
06:28   it has nothing to do with a democracy. Period. —When they take this too far, aren’t they
06:34   shooting themselves in the foot? Even as a journalist, I normally always try to behave
06:39   very neutrally. However, I have to say, it’s not possible to react neutrally in this case.
06:47   Isn’t it almost stupid for them to do something like this?
06:51   I actually asked myself with my case in Bruchsal and the letters that were written,
06:55   if it is wasn’t perhaps someone who was from “our side”. I don’t have to be neutral, and I’m not,
06:59   because I defend democracy, and others want to abolish it. So I think,
07:04   if I worked for the authorities and sent something like this came out, then it might be to create
07:08   a certain reaction. That means, by writing such a letter, I knew that someone would
07:12   really overreact. I think the school authorities or the school in Bruchsal were somewhat horrified
07:17   about what was going on, because parents reacted accordingly. As a result, the authorities
07:22   were under pressure and even received threats. I don’t approve of that, but I can understand it
07:28   very well, because parents were being threatened with having their children taken away.
07:32   I believe some government employees simply ignore their common sense and then think
07:41   they can do whatever they want. So what’s happening here right now is
07:44   that those who have tested positive are treated like lepers. They are interned,
07:49   and the choice of words is carefully chosen, but used deliberately.
07:54   Some child protection agencies have reacted with shock and have already spoken out.
07:58   They all say the same thing. They say that it’s not proportionate and that children’s rights must
08:03   always have priority. Do you think that the statements of the child protection agencies
08:08   could have any effect on the government? —I think, with regard to our government,
08:12   or those governing, that they are largely resistant to receiving any advice.
08:19   So you really have to exert massive pressure. We’re doing that with our fund-sharing lawsuits.
08:24   We take action by submitting suits by the hundreds and thousands, so people can defend themselves.
08:30   Right now the government is implementing grossly illegal orders
08:33   and instructions, and whatever else,
08:36   laws and regulations. The first problem people have is how to defend themselves legally.
08:42   We’re now turning the table on the game a bit. We’re trying to ensure a level playing field.
08:46   It’s unacceptable that a single mother is blackmailed by the government or state authorities,
08:50   and is unable to defend herself, so she has to be afraid of going to prison and that
08:54   her children will be taken away. That’s simply a crime. If something like this stands up in court,
09:00   then I’ve really come to the point where i have to say Germany is no longer a democracy.
09:05   I’m not sure if it will stand up in court. I don’t know yet.
09:08   Actually, something like this is in fact child abuse. This is child abuse.
09:12   I hope the people doing this for the authorities will have to answer for what they are doing.
09:16   You spoke briefly about Klage Paten.de (lawsuit fund-sharing). Can you briefly explain what that is?
09:20   Who participates in it, who supports it, and how does it work?
09:25   It is a non-profit association which we’ve restructured in order
09:29   to create a level playing field in the courts. This is how it works.
09:34   We’ve taken advantage of digitization to simplify the process to a great extent.
09:43   The facts of the case can be recorded digitally. This has led to lower costs.
09:48   Following that, the case is then given to individual lawyers.
09:52   This way, for example, just recently we pressed criminal charges against Ms. Esken.
09:56   We have a written draft that could be put into the software, so everyone can
10:01   enter their data and send it directly to their own prosecutor’s office.
10:05   Normally what would cost 400 to 500 Euros in the past by going to a lawyer.
10:09   We accomplish this now by collecting donations, which come from supporting members.
10:14   That’s how we provide sample letters, for example, so people can become active themselves.
10:20   So that they can defend themselves. It’s the same thing when a lawsuit is necessary.
10:24   Very much of the process is digital, which is then forwarded directly to the responsible lawyers.
10:30   It is simply a way to lower the costs. You can also make donations. It is a non-profit organization
10:34   helping anyone who cannot afford legal assistance. This way we can create
10:38   a level playing field, which is urgently necessary. —You just mentioned Saskia Esken.
10:43   You must be referring to her statement in which she called demonstrators “Covid idiots”.
10:48   How many lawsuits have been filed now? Do you know? And do you think it will help?
10:52   I believe we’ve had two to three thousand downloads so far, without really having
10:59   advertised it. I assume that there are umpteen thousand criminal charges being filed.
11:04   In this case, there wasn’t a lawsuit filed. Of course, the authorities have to process all these
11:08   charges. This has an affect and it is meant to have an affect. The government should take notice.
11:13   We’ll drive up the costs for the government. They’ll rise astronomically for these illegal measures.
11:18   If we should win a declaratory judgment, for example, regarding the demonstration in Berlin
11:22   on August 1, we could possibly have everybody who attended sue against the illegal
11:26   interruption of the demonstration. This way, we manage to create immense costs for the
11:31   Government that conducted this illegal enforcement of injustice. That is exactly our objective.
11:35   So if the city of Berlin has to pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of euros,
11:40   perhaps at some point they will have to talk to us. It’s simply a method to finally give citizens
11:46   the opportunity to defend themselves, because that’s what is missing at the moment.
11:50   Are there other lawsuits related to Corona measures?
11:54   At the moment the most frequent cases concern the right to demonstrate. Currently, the way
12:00   it works now, if you don’t have a good lawyer with you, the authorities have a relatively easy job.
12:07   That doesn’t mean it’s like that in every city, but I was in a negotiation meeting, and we were
12:11   told: “We will enforce the mandatory mask ordinance.” To which I said, that’s not negotiation.
12:15   They just replied that they would do it their way. In the end, we were able to change that,
12:19   but only with lawyers. That’s why we also made this digital now. So every initiative knows,
12:24   first of all, how they can do things themselves, where they are. We only have to intervene later,
12:28   If necessary. Now people have the opportunity to defend themselves in this area too.
12:32   Another big issue is the mandatory masks. At schools for example.
12:36   Another big issue is discrimination due to mandatory masks. Stores that thrown people out.
12:41   Discrimination against people and criminal procedures in connection with that topic.
12:47   In other words, everything that in any way has to do with masks, because it leads to many disputes.
12:53   And then of course possibly in the future, the forced PCR-test. What do I have to do,
12:58   and what not? What can I refuse to do ? There are very many cases concerning the labor laws.
13:02   I was fired because I attended a demonstration. In all these areas in which Corona plays into it,
13:10   this is where we are carried into. —So lawsuits are one aspect, but what about acute situations?
13:16   Just to get back to the situation with the children, let’s say the health department is
13:22   standing in front of my door with the police, who want to take my child with them?
13:26   What does one do in such a situation? —In that case I would immediately call a lawyer and I would
13:31   even call the police, because someone is trying to illegally rob the child of freedom.
13:38   In this case, I would react drastically. Even when the government acts illegally, I can ask
13:42   the government for help. Whether I receive that help, is another question.
13:46   In this case, call a law firm. Once someone is on the phone, ask them to come immediately.
13:51   When in doubt, I would also call the police. Ask them to come right away, because your child
13:57   is being illegally deprived of liberty.
14:00   That’s where I would play hardball. Inform the neighborhood.
14:03   Set the emotional hurdle as high as possible for this gross injustice. If a lawyer is involved,
14:10   you just have to get a temporary injunction in court. You must act immediately.
14:18   It might be such a shock for your child that it will be difficult to recover from.
14:22   When you speak about the law, it seems like the Infection Protection Act is above the normal law.
14:28   Does the normal law still exist? Is the Infection Protection Act now the law above the law?
14:35   What’s the current situation? —In legal terms, constitutional law is still above normal law,
14:42   and above constitutional law stands European law as well.
14:46   That’s where we still have much to do and will. The Infection Protection Act is there to restrict
14:53   basic rights that can be restricted. The right to assembly, to be able to leave your residence,
14:57   Article 2, the general freedom of movement and so on. These basic rights can be restricted
15:02   by law, and that’s what is happening at the moment. As a layperson, one has the impression that
15:08   the law of the land is the Infection Protection Act. That’s understandable.
15:12   When I watch how the authorities react, they don’t appear interested in the basic law any longer.
15:18   They also admit it quite often. They’ll say: “We’re interrupting this demonstration illegally and
15:22   you can go to court against it.” The policeman or citizens in uniform, as I call them, say
15:26   they’ll do what they want and also say they don’t care. They’ll say: “You can take it to court.”
15:32   They say themselves that they are acting illegally. They don’t recognize basic right any longer.
15:39   It is clearly a reduction of fundamental rights protection. —Do you think that this is
15:45   a permanent restructuring of the legal system? —That’s a good question. That’s where we are now.
15:51   Of course, the best legal system is of no use if no one follows it. So yes, we should have had courts
15:57   that should be checking the parameters of the Robert Koch Institute.
16:02   We have legislation that could be looked at more critically, especially by the opposition,
16:08   but also by the government. So theoretically, we have a separation of powers, but it doesn’t
16:12   work as it should at the moment. If you want to get around this or secure it for the future,
16:18   you have to create mechanisms for when the government declares a lockdown,
16:22   that it isn’t also responsible for deciding the measure to be taken later.
16:25   That would create a very, very high hurdle in the constitution. By calling a state of emergency,
16:31   the government would disempower itself and someone else decides about it.
16:35   Concerning the justice system, for example, in criminal law, in no other European country
16:39   is a judge who set the charges also the judge that decides the verdict. Of course, there’s bias.
16:47   Such mechanisms can be changed. They need to be changed urgently to avoid the situation of
16:53   not always having to justify one’s own decisions, be it as a judge or as a government.
16:57   There are plenty of ideas that have to be implemented urgently.
17:00   Mr. Haintz, thank you very much for these insights. It was very interesting and
17:03   I really thank you for this interview. —I thank you. Any time.

5 thoughts on ““We’ll Take Your Kids Away”: The Unlawful Actions of the Coronavirus Regime in Germany

  1. Thanks for showing this video! Like the lawyer, I don’t expect that they will go through with these threats, and I suppose, those officials who wrote them, simply overreacted, but nevertheless, receiving such a letter must be a great shock for the parents.

    Another question: Recently, I’ve read that in Australia, citizens have to apply for approval and give their reasons, if they want to leave the country, f.e. to go on vacation. Is that true? Are there any readers from Australia who are able to confirm this information?

    • Australia Dept of Home Affairs: Yes
      Search domain immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visa-conditions-subsite/Pages/seeking-permission-to-travel.aspxhttps://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visa-conditions-subsite/P

  2. The real chinese virus is Communism. Communists have taken OUR Liberty & Freedom, closed OUR churches & schools, bars & restaurants saying they are non-essential? but not surprisingly, ALL NON-ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENT workers? ARE DEEMED ESSENTIAL & CONTINUE TO RECEIVE OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS!! Communists have taken control without firing a shot! PATRIOTS: TIME FOR A NEW REVOLUTION…before the mandatory shots…or you get shot!

    • As well as it’s moral compass and other critical survival equipment. Not alone by any means. France will be partitioned if it doesn’t pull its pantaloons up.

Comments are closed.