Subject: Family court verdict – no masks, no distancing, no testing of students

Dear [Official],

I thought you might be interested to know that even though our Wisconsin Supreme Court focused solely on the legality of Governor Evers’ mask mandate to strike it down, at least one other court has reviewed the body of scientific evidence and rejected the efficacy of masks and distancing. In fact, the court asserted that these experimental interventions are actually harmful, particularly to children.  

On April 8, 2021, the Weimar (Germany) Family Court ruled that, effective immediately, two Weimar schools are prohibited from requiring students to wear mouth-to-nose coverings of any kind (especially qualified masks such as FFP2 masks), impose minimum AHA distances on them, and/or participate in SARS-CoV-2 rapid testing.

Here are two links to English translations of the ruling:

• This version is more readable, but doesn’t include all the details of the evidence presented in court.
• This version appears to be the full transcript of the court proceedings, but the translation is harder to follow.

Some highlights of the judge’s ruling based on the preponderance of evidence presented in court (emphases mine):

• “The compulsion imposed on school children to wear masks and to keep their distance from each other and from third persons harms the children physically, psychologically, educationally, and in their psychosocial development, without being counterbalanced by more than at best marginal benefit to the children themselves or to third persons. Schools do not play a significant role in the ‘pandemic’ event.”
• “After examining the factual and legal situation and evaluating the expert opinions, the Weimar Family Court has come to the conclusion that the measures now prohibited represent a present danger to the mental, physical or psychological well-being of the child to such an extent that, if they continue to develop without intervention, considerable harm can be foreseen with a high degree of certainty.”
• “It must be pointed out that it is not the parties involved who would have to justify the unconstitutionality of the encroachments on their rights, but conversely the Free State of Thuringia, which encroaches on the rights of the parties involved with its state law regulations, would have to prove with the necessary scientific evidence that the measures it prescribes are suitable for achieving the intended purposes and that they are proportionate, if necessary. So far, this has not been done to any degree.”
• “While international health authorities advocate the wearing of masks in public spaces, they also say that there is no evidence for this from scientific studies. On the contrary, all currently available scientific results suggest that masks have no effect on the incidence of infection. Throughout, all publications cited as evidence for the effectiveness of masks in public spaces do not support this conclusion.”
• In summary, the court states, “There is no evidence that facemasks of various types can reduce the risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 at all, or even appreciably. This statement is true for people of all ages, including children and adolescents, as well as asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic individuals….There is no risk of infection to the normal population, either in public or in private, that could be reduced by wearing face masks (or other measures). There is no evidence that compliance with distance requirements can reduce the risk of infection. This is true for people of all ages, including children and adolescents.”

This may be Germany today, but I have no doubt that parents across the United States are speaking with attorneys to bring similar cases to court here. I am hopeful that our community will avoid litigation by simply ending compulsory masking at schools and allowing families to make their own choices about health interventions, especially those that are experimental. Thank you.