MARVIN HABERLAND SHARES RESULTS OF HIS COURT CASE AGAINST VIROLOGY IN GERMANY
[/url]
[url=https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal]A Small Victory for NEXT LEVEL – A Big One for the People
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, 400-page justifications or briefs. The only thing that needs to be attacked is the basis.
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.
Source: https://truthcomestolight.com/marvin-hab...n-germany/
[/url]
[url=https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal]A Small Victory for NEXT LEVEL – A Big One for the People
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, 400-page justifications or briefs. The only thing that needs to be attacked is the basis.
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.
Source: https://truthcomestolight.com/marvin-hab...n-germany/
