From ... in Political — Feb 2, 2024

The Prejudice of Dr. Reiner Füllmich, An Analysis of The Case Against Him.

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.

The above has been taken from an analysis of the case against Reiner Fuellmich from Wolfgang Jeschke from Laufpass. As many readers who have expressed concern for Dr. Reiners situation and have asked to be updated I thought that they may find the analysis informative, providing a better understanding of the case against him, therefore I have republished the automatically translated article here at the Expose.

The Prejudice of Dr. Füllmich

by Wolfgang Jeschke published 30th January.

The judges of the courts responsible for the various aspects of the Füllmich case are assured of a place in history. Like so many terrible lawyers from Germany’s past, they will also receive appropriate recognition. The suspicion is obvious that the judges have to deliver a verdict to the system and to do so they disregard the rights of the person being persecuted.

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.

The 700,000 euros should be parked in a secure store of value that the state does not have access to. So Füllmich parked the money in his sphere. After selling his house, the loan should be repaid according to the contract. During the “Corona crisis”, the system blocked and/or seized the accounts of many critics. By securing the company’s capital, the long-term viability of the Corona Committee should be ensured. Likewise with the purchase of physical gold, which was stored at Degussa as a crisis-proof investment.

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. Money paid by bank transfer is never the same as a ‘sum of money’ used to pay for something else, unless it is cash. What money Reiner Füllmich wanted to use to repay his loans is also completely irrelevant. What is significant, however, is that 1,158,000 million euros are in the account of the complainant, Marcel Templin, without any legal justification, and Reiner Füllmich has been deprived of control over his assets. Judge Wiesener’s interpretation on this point appears completely irrelevant and unworldly.

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 lawyer Dagmar Schön challenged the verdict. The Chamber Court informed those involved in the proceedings that an appeal would be successful and stated, among other things: “However, the application submitted by the plaintiffs is already inadmissible.” In order to avoid an unnecessary trial, the plaintiffs should consider withdrawing the lawsuit, as it is hopeless be. So there are still proper judges in the country.

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.

Schindler’s List?

Presiding Judge Schindler, who has a particular tendency to violate the rights of the accused, recently received his own application for bias. At the beginning of the year, the defense had already announced that it would appoint two additional lawyers to defend the person being persecuted. So that the two lawyers could familiarize themselves, defense attorney Katja Wörmer had requested that the start of the trial be postponed.

Schindler also rejected this request to postpone the start of the trial. He was obviously of the opinion that he had to determine what the representation of the persecuted person should look like. He did not consider it necessary to involve additional lawyers. In times when the judiciary is controlled by the executive, anything seems possible. Also the court’s decision on the staffing of the defense of a persecuted person.

In rejecting the applications, Schindler refers to a “manageable subject matter of the proceedings” – the court has apparently already completed the investigation and assessment of the facts and only wants to make a judgment in accordance with the indictment. The judges violate the rights of the persecuted in such a clear manner, commit official misconduct and give the impression that they want to deny the persecuted a due process. It seems as if they wanted to be removed from responsibility for the political process by applying for bias. Or (the worse alternative): They were promised benefits in return for a hard and quick guilty verdict – promotions, career-enhancing transfers or other things. We will keep an eye on that too.

The application of Section 266 of the Criminal Code by judges Schindler, Wedekamp and Hoock also seems more than questionable. In its case law on Section 266 of the Criminal Code, the Federal Court of Justice states: “It is necessary that the perpetrator is not only given a wide scope, but also the lack of control, i.e. his actual possibilities, without simultaneous control and monitoring by the trustor “ However, the loans were contractually agreed officially and transparently. They were recorded with the company. There was no secrecy and the company was aware of the loans at all times.

The Berlin judge who muzzled Füllmich’s lawyer Dagmar Schön does not see the application of § 266 StGB as a given: “The mere failure to repay a loan does not constitute a criminal offense and certainly does not constitute breach of trust within the meaning of § 266 StGB. “Why Section 266 of the Criminal Code is applied here seems more than questionable. Unless the judges have fallen for the accusers Justus Hoffmann, Marcel Templin and Antonia Fischer here too. There is also a lack of the mandatory element of financial loss on the part of the lender.

The complaint dated September 2nd, 2022 is an excess of accusations with numerous fabricated accusations and interpretations of criminal law that would probably not have been accepted in any university exam. The ad reads like a hodgepodge of accusations – along the lines of: something works, something sticks. In any case, the case law of the BGH is not taken into account in Hoffman, Templin and Fischer – why should it? It would undermine the main point of the accusation.

Abuse of the criminal justice system

One can still speculate about the motives of the complainants. It smells and tastes like a collaboration between the system and the persecutors. It seems obvious that they also abuse the criminal justice system in order to promote their own financial interests and to organize civil disputes with the help of the criminal chamber. The inflated civil dispute between shareholders is now being dragged to the criminal court.

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.

It seems obvious that the complainants are abusing the criminal chamber to clarify civil law questions. Perhaps also in order to have your civil dispute resolved quickly with the help of the criminal chamber, because it can be assumed that the criminal courts in the Federal Republic of Germany make short work of critical people. This is made possible by Section 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in paragraph 1: “If the criminal liability of an act depends on the assessment of a civil legal relationship, the criminal court also decides on this in accordance with the regulations applicable to the procedure and evidence in criminal matters.”

In view of the facts, However, given the available evidence and the behavior of the complainants, the court could also apply Section 262, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “The court is, however, authorized to suspend the investigation and to set a deadline for one of the parties involved to bring the civil action or to wait for the judgment of the civil court .”

Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer have since been reported for false suspicion. Many of their allegations are demonstrably untrue. Marcel Templin already has 1,158,000 euros from the Füllmich family’s house sale. Another example: The complaint states: “The Füllmich has also committed a criminal offense for embezzlement by purchasing the gold bars without the consent of the shareholders, obscuring their existence and possessing them for himself.” The gold bars are at Degussa stored. Removal is only possible with the joint signatures of Reiner Füllmich and Viviane Fischer.

How long does the court want to be fooled here? Just reading the criminal complaint suggests the intentions of the complainant. They not only point out possible misconduct that the public prosecutor’s office would have to prosecute – they also provide an assessment of the facts in their “brief” and thus prepare a verdict straight away, so to speak.

Misleading the Public Prosecutor’s Office?

The public prosecutor’s office would also have to gradually realize that they are being deceived and exploited. Clearly false accusations, but also blatant deception by those who made the complaint, should enrage the public prosecutor’s office. An example: The complainants had misled the public prosecutor’s office by presenting them with incomplete minutes of the company’s founding meeting. This was the only reason why the public prosecutor’s office assumed that the shareholders had no exclusive power of representation.

On the other hand, the behavior of the public prosecutor’s office is also remarkable: while Reiner Füllmich’s accounts were frozen and his assets arrested in the course of the arrest, the public prosecutor’s office apparently did not confiscate or freeze the 1,158,000 euros from the lawyer Templin’s account. What happened to the money? Why isn’t the public prosecutor taking action here?

But the core question is: Why is the public prosecutor’s office investigating breach of trust in accordance with Section 266 of the Criminal Code? Even after a superficial examination, it is easy to see that the conditions for infidelity are not met here. The actions of Reiner Füllmich and Viviane Fischer were documented (loan agreements and accounting lists) and therefore known to the company. There is even a reference in the email correspondence to the fact that Füllmich had informed the complainants Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer about a loan.

Ultimately, another key element for the existence of breach of trust is missing: There is no financial disadvantage with the Corona Committee. The loans should and could be repaid. The funds for this should be generated from the sale of the house. The loans were not paid out to a poor borrower: the Füllmich family’s property (large house in Göttingen) always offered enough substance to enable the loans to be repaid. The external image creates the impression that Füllmich secretly pocketed money and used it privately. But how he used the loan doesn’t matter. The money was supposed to be placed in a safe place and paid back later – this was also ensured until the purchase price of the Füllmich House was illegally appropriated. Without financial disadvantage on the part of the Corona Committee, there is no offense of breach of trust.

The obvious inconsistencies give many friends of the Enlightenment hope that Dr. Reiner Füllmich will soon be released. The many judgments against critics of the measures, lawyers, doctors and journalists in the Federal Republic of Germany and the Western world show that this hope can be unfounded: The “legal system” is once again proving to be the servant of a repressive system that does not want to accept criticism or resistance. The clearest voices should be silenced. Whatever the cost – even if it means giving up the rule of law.

Source – Wolfgang Jeschke laufpass.

Search Results

Bookmarks

The Prejudice of Dr. Reiner Füllmich, An Analysis of The Case Against Him.

The Prejudice of Dr. Füllmich

Illegal Kidnapping and Deprivation of Liberty

Muzzle for Defense

The Notary and the 1,158,000 Euros

Biased Judges – Political Process?

Schindler’s List?

Abuse of the criminal justice system

Misleading the Public Prosecutor’s Office?

Search Results

Bookmarks

The Prejudice of Dr. Füllmich

Illegal Kidnapping and Deprivation of Liberty

Muzzle for Defense

The Notary and the 1,158,000 Euros

Biased Judges – Political Process?

Schindler’s List?

Abuse of the criminal justice system

Misleading the Public Prosecutor’s Office?

Subscribe to The Article Feed