Rhoda Wilson

Even before the main proceedings against Dr. Reiner Füllmich, the courts indicate what they intend to do – a short trial and a quick verdict against the critical lawyer and human rights activist: They imposed a muzzle with a penalty clause on a Füllmich lawyer, ignored requests from the defense, disregarded legal deadlines and constructed a case that it doesn’t even exist. Did the verdict come down before the first day of the trial even began? Wolfgang Jeschke.

[…]

Illegal Kidnapping and Deprivation of Liberty

After the illegal kidnapping of Füllmich from Mexico (due to the lack of an international arrest warrant, the lawyer was only arrested at Frankfurt Airport. The kidnapping was coordinated with the Mexican authorities, who accompanied Füllmich to the Federal Republic of Germany and then handed him over to the Federal Republic of Germany police), the second act now follows the unlawful persecution of the indomitable critic.

Reiner Füllmich should be silenced. He was locked up because of allegations made by his alleged colleagues on the Corona Committee: Justus Hoffmann, Marcel Templin and Antonia Fischer. They drafted an opulent criminal complaint, which ultimately enabled Füllmich to be arrested and deprived of his freedom, which continues to this day.

Of the many accusations that Hoffmann and his accomplices had woven into their suspicions, some of which were clearly false, only one accusation remained for the criminal proceedings in the current partial opening: Dr. Füllmich is said to have embezzled 700,000 euros and used it for his own purposes. A bizarre accusation, because there are contracts and receipts for the 700,000 euros.

[…]

There are contracts with the Corona Committee for the loans to Füllmich, concluded with his then co-partner Viviane Fischer, who also took on a loan of 100,000 euros. She signed the loan agreements and is also authorized to sign for the Corona Committee’s gold reserve. Füllmich and Fischer can only access the gold reserves together.

The court apparently understood that Füllmich and Fischer documented the events together transparently. But instead of acknowledging that these are normal civil law agreements between managing partners, they constructed a collusive – illegal – collaboration between the two heads of the Corona Committee at the time and a “disloyalty” on the part of Dr. Füllmich.

But if Viviane Fischer was involved, why were the investigations against her stopped? The reason for discontinuing the investigation against Viviane Fischer in June 2023 was that she could have repaid the loan. Which she did, albeit belatedly. The same should have applied to Reiner Füllmich – if over one million euros of the purchase price of his house had not been diverted to another account.

In a letter dated August 10, 2023, the public prosecutor’s office announced that the application to reopen the investigation against Viviane Fischer for infidelity and/or aiding and abetting infidelity had been approved and that the investigation had also been resumed against Viviane Fischer.

Muzzle for Defense

Deconstructing the allegations is quite simple: the loans were based on contracts, were listed in the company’s financial documentation and they were supposed to be repaid. In the case of Füllmich after selling his property. However, this was thwarted by those people who filed the complaint against Dr. Füllmich refunded. They managed to divert 1,158,000 euros of the purchase price into their own account, namely the lawyer Marcel Templin. As a result, Füllmich lacked the funds to repay the loan.

Dagmar Schön, one of Reiner Füllmich’s lawyers, pointed out in a Bittel TV program that a large part of the sum that Füllmich allegedly appropriated was already in an account belonging to one of the complainants. This clarified two things: 1. why Dr. Füllmich was unable to repay the loan and 2. that more than the loan amount was already under the control of the Corona Committee co-partners.

Hoffmann and his accomplices were not pleased by this clarification from the lawyer Schön – they obtained in court, at the Berlin Regional Court, that Dagmar Schön was not allowed to express the true fact that significant funds (1,158,000 euros) from the house sale were in Marcel Templin’s account lay. The Berlin judge Wiesener thus ordered the prohibition of asserting a proven fact – the judge Wiesener therefore prohibited the statement of a truth that would exonerate the defendant and incriminate the complainant. The court has the documents that prove that this large amount of money was diverted to Marcel Templin’s account.

The justification for the ban on statements is downright absurd: the money that the buyer of the property transferred to Marcel Templin is not identical to that which Füllmich received through the loan agreements . Does Judge Wiesener live in old crime novels where money was moved in suitcases? In times of digital transactions, there is no money that can have a physical identity.

[…]

A further problem arises from the decision of the Berlin judge Wiesener: the ban on statements that was imposed on the defense with the verdict violates the rights of the defendant. While the prosecution sends out press releases publicly describing the allegations, the defense has been prohibited from commenting on exculpatory circumstances. However, until a verdict is reached, a defendant is presumed innocent. He and the defense have the right to make exculpatory statements.
[…]

The Notary and the 1,158,000 Euros

The role of the notary who notarized the property sale will need to be examined in more detail. Notaries act as public officials. Notaries are obliged to be  neutral and independent  and have a duty of confidentiality. Their task includes not only the notarization of contracts, but also the official duty of executing the notarized legal transaction.

In the Füllmich case, the contracts state that the purchase price for the Füllmich property must be transferred to a Füllmich account. This is how the notary certified it. After the contract was concluded, the notary instructed the buyers to transfer large parts of the purchase price to Marcel Templin’s account. In doing so, the notary may have violated his fundamental notary duties and his duty of neutrality. His conduct in the course of the real estate transaction will be the subject of separate investigations.

Biased Judges – Political Process?

The lawyers of Dr. Füllmich with several requests for bias. It shows a chain of misconduct to the detriment of the person being persecuted. Everything indicates that a short trial should be made against Reiner Füllmich.

The three judges disregarded legal deadlines (which is an official misconduct), ignored the arrest complaint and did not take it into account in the partial opening decision of the trial. The three judges also rejected a request from the defense for an extension of the deadline, which was based on the illness of both lawyers.

The application for bias further complains that it was not taken into account that the public prosecutor’s office allowed the defense to inspect the files after a long delay. Incomplete transmission of the files, the decision on the detention complaint without an oral hearing, the opening of proceedings before the investigation has been completed and other reasons suggest that the judges of the 5th criminal chamber are biased.

Likewise, the Göttingen judges Schindler, Wedekamp and Hoock did not take into account numerous exculpatory circumstances that speak for the innocence of the person being persecuted. Above all, the fact that Reiner Füllmich wanted and was able to repay the loans was not taken into account. This is the only way the allegations can be sustained – by the court ignoring facts and shaping the “case” in such a way that a conviction can occur.

Serious official misconduct to the detriment of the defendant:

According to the defense and current case law, the judges Schindler, Wedekamp and Hoock were guilty of serious official misconduct. They were obliged to check the electronic file receipt because they knew that the defense’s briefs were received by the court electronically. The three judges also knew that further documents would be submitted by the defense. At the same time, there was an application for an extension of the deadline until January 5th. For these reasons, they were obliged to check whether there was an entry in the court’s electronic mailbox.

If they had dutifully carried out this check, they would have found that on the night of January 3rd. Something had been received – namely a justified complaint about arrest. The judges Schindler, Wedekamp and Hoock should have dealt with this detention complaint as a priority and would not have been able to open the proceedings. They didn’t do that. This behavior is a serious misconduct . As a result, this serious misconduct must also be punished by disciplinary measures. This alone substantiates the application for bias against judges Schindler, Wedekamp and Hoock – because a motion for bias is always justified when there is a serious official misconduct that also requires disciplinary action.

Furthermore, the criminal complaint against Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer for false suspicion remains unconsidered, as does the question of whether Justus Hoffmann and Marcel Templin – possibly together with the notary who carried out the notarization – illegally gained access to the largest part of the proceeds from the sale of the property. Despite these suspicions, Hoffmann and his accomplices are called as witnesses against Reiner Füllmich.

What also seems strange is the summoning of witnesses who cannot provide any material contribution to the charge of breach of trust. Among other things, the notary who notarized the Füllmichs’ real estate sale is supposed to testify as a witness. Calling him and others as witnesses makes no sense since they cannot make any contributions to the question of infidelity. On the contrary: In court, witnesses can always rely on Section 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and refuse to testify if they could incriminate themselves by doing so. The more intensively you look into the case, the greater the bugbear that is being built here becomes apparent. The suspicion that it will be a short political process is becoming more and more confirmed.

With their behavior, the judges violate the principle of the presumption of innocence and deny Reiner Füllmich the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[…]

Abuse of the criminal justice system

[…]

The disputes between the members of the Corona Committee are classic civil law disputes between shareholders. Therefore, they belong in mediation discussions or civil law proceedings. However, civil legal proceedings cost money and sometimes take a long time. Shifting the claim clarification via a creatively designed criminal complaint avoids costs and can shorten the procedure. And since you have done the system a favor here, you can count on a positive verdict. Because the system wants to silence Füllmich. This is only possible with a guilty verdict, which in turn requires the civil law issues to be clarified in the same proceedings. 2 in 1: The Federal Republic of Germany silences a critic and the complainants get their reward.

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2024/02/02/the-prejudice-of-dr-reiner-fullmich-an-analysis-of-the-case-against-him/