Science, Medicine and Human Rights, Germany
Wissenschaft, Medizin und Menschenrechte e.V.
Officially registered humanitarian organisation
 
President: Karl Krafeld, Albrechtstr. 17, D-44137 Dortmund
Vice-President: Dr. Stefan Lanka, Ludwig-Pfaustr.1b, D-70176 Stuttgart
T 0711 2220601
F 0711 2220600
M 0171 3281070
e Lanka@free.de 
 
To the OHCHR-UNOG
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson
The United Nations Centre for Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
 
To all Heads of Government and all Heads of State
To all NGOs
 
Legal proceedings against the "Deutscher Bundestag", the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany: Because of the intentional continuation of acts of killing and manslaughter (§ 220a StGB Germany) by the German Parliament.
 
During the last six years proofs have been collected for the following actions that have taken place inside Germany: The State intentionally is using non-valid tests to persuade healthy persons to take a deadly long-term medication. The persons, being healthy before being tested die during the long-term-medication. The German Parliament, since years intentionally is securing that this crime continues.
 
Course of Events on January 15th 2001 at the District Court (Landgericht) of Dortmund:
Judge Hackmann announced the statement of the "Bundesgesundheitsbehörde", the Federal German Health Authorities, which says that in connection with AIDS there has never been isolated a virus (Dr. Marcus, Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) Berlin). The judge figured out that the German Bundestag had been backing the lie of the Federal Health Authorities (RKI, Dr. Marcus, 9.3.95) about a successful isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS in the course of a petition (Art. 17, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pet. 5-13-15-2002 010526).

The trial was based on actions of the defendant which were caused by the misleading statement made by the RKI (Dr. Marcus) on the 9th March 1995, that there were photographs of the isolated HI-virus inside the publications of Montagnier (1983) and Gallo (1984). The judge proved the untruthfulness of this statement using Dr. Marcus' statement itself. The court imposed a suspended sentence of 8 months of jail because of attempted coercion of the authorities to adhere and act according to law and order.

The document of the German Bundestag DS 12/8591 holds proof that the Bundestag had already known in 1994 that neither Montagnier (1983) nor Gallo (1984) had isolated any virus in connection with AIDS. Based on this the Bundestag safeguarded the persistent lie of the AIDS information campaign (RKI) from 9th March 1995 about the successful isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS. As a consequence of non-tolerating this lie and because of non-tolerating the deadly consequences of this lie, the trial took place on 15th January 2001.

It is impossible – as far as laboratory conditions are concerned – to develop a valid Virus-antibody-test, if the virus has not been isolated before. Every layman understands that an individual proof for an infection with a virus is impossible, if the existence of the virus has never been generally proven. This knowledge of the German health authorities, that the tests are not validated, can be proven via the authorities' documents themselves. The error concerning the test's validity is spread and supported by the authorities – against better knowledge.

With two more petitions the Bundestag safeguarded the default of the responsible authorities, not to carry out the law (§63 AMG, Stufenplan II), to do studies and observations to protect persons taking the AIDS-Medicine, the chemotherapy AZT (Pet. 5-13-15-2002-058744 and Pet. 5-13-15-212-023567a).

The health authorities and the Bundestag know that there will be no test method to prove an HIV-Infection, as long as HIV has not been isolated. And there is no doubt that AZT – as well as the HIV-medications in general – are deadly themselves when used as long-term-medication.
In the course of the proceedings of the petitions the Bundestag created an apparent peace of law – by means of deliberately untruthful statements. President of the German Parliament Wolfgang Thierse regards untruthful behaviour of this kind (as shown by the Bundestag) as being justified by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court). A videotape documenting an interview (28th June 1995) shows that his predecessor in office, Prof. Rita Süssmuth did know, that there had never been any proofs for a virus in connection with AIDS and that there are no proofs for the claims of infectivitiy.
 
Still pending in the Bundestag is the petition Pet. 2-14-15-212-02608. It is lodging a complaint against the legal authorities, which stayed passive after getting the attention of the proofs for these act of killings. Enclosed with the complaint were so many proofs, which had made it necessary for the Bundestag to take actions right after perusal, to stop the continuation of these acts of killings by the state. Within the last six months every single member of the German Bundestag was informed six times via mail about these acts of killing by the state.

The intention of the German Bundestag to safeguard killings by the state after gaining insight into the facts must be regarded as proven, especially because of the fact that several petitions were rejected by means of untruthful statements. The German Bundestag and every individual member of the Bundestag intentionally safeguards acts of killings by the state by deliberately misleading the public. Healthy people are intentionally lead into a deadly medication via tests with invalid results - and then die.

The criminal law of the BRD and especially § 220a StGB (Genocide) protects citizens from act of killings organised by a state which is deliberately misleading the public. It also protects the citizens binding the legal authorities to take actions after perusal. The prosecuting attorneys attended the trial on 15th January 2001 at the Landgericht Dortmund and learned about the facts – in front of the public. Their passivity afterwards serves as a further proof for their further intention in this matter. (LG Dortmund, Ns 70 Js 878/99 14(XVII) K 11/00)
Karl Krafeld und Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dortmund und Stuttgart, den 14.3.2001