The first bit of news came from Roger Bittel, who briefly talked with Christof Miseré, one of Reiner’s lawyers, during the first session. Miseré said all was going well, that Katja Woermer was making a detailed presentation.
Here you get 2 posts:
- One, a post from Telegram (channel: FREE Reiner Fuellmich) from Jolanta Jehn, with a bit more detail (deepl translation).
- Two, ERROR!!!!! It was posted on the same Telegram channel, right below Jolanta Jehn’s post, so I assumed it was from the same day. As I have already - ERROR!!!. It is from June 10!!! Not July 10!!! Still, if it interests you, it’s a massively long post from Nicole Wolf, posted by Santosha. It came translated, but extremely rough. I went through it, turning the very rough draft into something smoother. But, about halfway through, I ran out of time and energy. I note where this happens - but you can’t miss it. It’s like going from a paved road to a very bumpy unpaved road. An important thing in that sections is the witnesses Reiner and his team want to question - which the judge, in June, claimed were irrelevant.
So, first, the post from Jolanta Jehn:
Jolanta Jehn, on the Telegram channel, FREE Reiner Fuellmich (1:20 pm):
Katja Wörmer gave a detailed account of the kidnapping of R.F. from Mexico. Among other things, the role of the public prosecutor John was made very clear.
He himself seemed to have felt very uncomfortable (his body language). However, when asked by the judge whether he would like to make a statement, he replied in the negative.
Ms. Antonia Fischer typed diligently into her smartphone during the hearing and probably read the answers...
Hot line to colleagues in Berlin?
The other public prosecutor was rather bored, playing with some rubber band in his fingers.
The new public defender first made eye contact with the prosecutors after his arrival...smiled....
Later read the file pages on his tablet from time to time....
I didn't notice any real interest in the case.
Jolanta was asked:
Is he in there as a defense lawyer? Reiner has his own lawyers and he's turned down the public defender.
Jolanta answered:
That's right. The public defender was rejected before he arrived. He was late because he had to fulfill some other obligation first.
I don't know whether the rejection is effective immediately.
We'll see next time.
He didn't interfere in the hearing himself. He was just there.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
__________________________
Then, second, posted by Santosha also on the Telegram channel, FREE Reiner Fuellmich (1:36 pm), the extremely detailed account by Nicole Wolf.
I edited the first half (about) to make it easier to understand. In general, a core focus is a detailed review of the kidnapping, showing how this violated required laws and procedures, detailing also the ongoing collusion of the prosecutor John, Antonia Fischer, etc. Toward the end is a list of witnesses asked for by Woermer and Miseré.
Nicole Wolf
Good morning to you all. Today I am reporting on trial day 16, 10.6.2024 in the criminal case against Reiner Fuellmich at the District Court in Göttingen. As the spectator area filled up, I realized that there was a police presence in the anteroom.
I registered three police buses in front of the entrance. I thought they might have been involved in another procedure. It turned out differently.
8:50 a.m. A policeman looks into the auditorium.
9:05 a.m. Two policemen look into the courtroom and exchange a few words with a member of the judiciary.
9:08 a.m. Miseré enters the courtroom and sits down at the front.
9:10 a.m. Antonia Fischer enters the room.
9:11 a.m. The public prosecutor's office with Mr. John and Mr. Recher enters the room.
9:41 a.m. Katja Woermer enters the hall.
9:50 Reiner Fuellmich is led in in handcuffs, as usual.
In the meantime there are five police vehicles in the field of vision in front of the court. Thank you for your support, this time even in the form of a voucher from the
Author’s note: I try to summarize my impressions as neutrally as possible. For the sake of better reading I am referring to the academic degrees of the aforementioned persons. My observations described here are based solely on my personal perception. End of the note.
9:51 a.m. The presiding judge opens the trial and gives the defense the opportunity to present motions for evidence. Misere asks whether the court had arranged for his client Fuellmich to be shackled. Woermer added that Fuellmich had been advised to wear a bulletproof vest, as he could be hit by officers. I t had been reported that Fuellmich was accompanied by officers with submachine guns.
The chairman replied that he had registered that there was an increased police presence, but that he knew nothing about it. He is unimpressed and asks the defense to present the motions for evidence.
Misere follows up and wants to know why Fuellmich should wear a bulletproof vest and asks for an explanation from the Chairman.
The chairman explains that the matter has been noted.
Woermer asks who drafted the procedural ruling.
The Chairman replies that it was written by himself.
Miseré announces that Woermer would present a motion to recuse himself. He, Miseré, would then present motions for evidence and could respond to them. Another motion for recusal will follow.
The chairman followed up: There should first be a motion to recuse, then a motion to take evidence and then possibly a renewed motion for recusal be read out after a break?
Miseré confirmed.
Author's note: I was unable to write down the entire bias motion read out by Wörmer - there are some gaps. I apologize. End of the note.
Woermer reads out a motion for recusal against Chairman Schindler, as the procedural order contains numerous grounds for recusal. A challenge of a judge by the defendant in the course of the proceedings is permissible if the circumstances underlying the refusal occurred later or became known later. It should be noted that the defendant is in custody, could not formulate an application for bias himself. Calls were not possible. It was necessary to wait until today to wait for the oral hearing to find out who drafted the procedural order.
Woermer continued: The defendant denies (refuses to accept?) the presiding judge, Schindler - in the first place on the basis of the procedural order of 17.05.2024; in the second place on the basis of the rejection of Woermer's motions for evidence of 7.05.24.
The presiding judge had stated that it was not important, not even the statements made by Viviane Fischer during her interrogation, but solely based everything on the chat correspondence between Viviane Fischer and Fuellmich on November 9, 21 and the e-mail correspondence on November 6, 21.
Author's note: Woermer said 6.11.24 and 9.11.24, but the year 21 is obviosly meant. End of the note.
Woermer goes on to explain that this approach would make it impossible to hold a trial from the outset
The Göttingen public prosecutor's office had also considered it sufficient to inform the complainants Antonia Fischer and Justus Hoffmann and to consult the chat history. Consequently, public prosecutor's office had no need to take evidence, as for them Fuellmich had already been convicted.
In the course of a detention review hearing on 19.12.23, between Schindler and Woermer, and by telephone on 12.12.23, there were no new facts.
The procedural order contained a reference that the defense should not make improper use of declaratory rights.
The presiding judge had not specifically explained which statements are irrelevant and defamatory, Wörmer continued.
The defense did not present any irrelevant content, nor did it contain half-truths or untruths.
Furthermore, the chairman stated that people who were not familiar with the files and legally untrained would get the wrong impression. The defense was accused of spreading lies. Such an allegation is hardly acceptable.
Further the chairman asserted that presentations by the defense would be considered lies. Her client Fuellmich could therefore not be given a further hearing.
Aldermen were also legally untrained and would probably be influenced by the three professional judges.
Finally, the chairman insinuated that Reiner Fuellmich is spreading nonsense. The statement "nonsense" by the chairman is to be regarded as insulting and derogatory.
The presiding judge did not keep this devaluation of Fuellmich to himself, but expressed it to both lay judges.
It was obvious that the presiding judge is biased and does not want to be bothered by factual presentations.
The chamber would therefore try to present their side.
Wörmer refers to May 17, 2024 and Schindler's comment, among other things, that: "We all studied law!" End quote. She explains that Judge Hog and the presiding judge exchanged meaningful glances. The public prosecutor's office had also attracted attention.
The chamber and the presiding judge Schindler referred to the deportation order. This could only be in Spanish. However, the language of the court is German. Consequently, the deportation order should have been translated. It can be assumed that neither the presiding judge nor the chamber were aware of this.
The accused and the defense had repeatedly pointed out the unlawful arrest.
Fuellmich had applied for his release. A formal extradition would have taken too long, they wanted to save time.
The Chamber has not yet passed a resolution on this matter.
Woermer explains the translation of the deportation
The order would be attached. Woermer refers to the extensive exchange between the public prosecutor's office and the complainants.
Antonia Fischer and Justus Hoffmann: On the one hand, there are e-mails about travel plans, lectures or the ranch in California. On the other hand there were several telephone calls which were not documented in the file, so that the public prosecutor's office may have breached its duty of documentation.
Prosecutor John has contacted the Mexican authorities. Because Fuellmich had a "red notice", a search warrant, but no basis for arrest. The public prosecutor's office on August 24, in Göttingen, informed the police that an arrest was only possible with a Mexican national arrest warrant.
The public prosecutor's office was aware of this. This was not available. In a communication from the LKA to public prosecutor John, it said:
Quote "Good day Mr. John" end quote.As things stand now, Fuellmich was planning to sign under the pretext he was given of a required signature and so on.
Wörmer went on to say that it was a pretext, a trick to save time, which could have been used for an extradition request, or a Mexican arrest warrant would have been required.
John had been in contact with the liaison officer who had said he wanted to:
Quote: "The F" end quote, as soon as possible.But Lufthansa would need 24 hours.
Fuellmich got in touch and said he had the passports back. They had been found.
The consulate had informed him that there were certain risks involved.
F then wanted to play it safe. F was on the consulate watchlist. One could become aware of it.
Author's note: "What the authorities are aware of due to his being on the watchlist.” I didn't make a note of the fact that F would have been aware of this, but it probably meant border controls or something similar." End of the note.
To get the replacement papers, the liaison officer suggests arresting and extradition. John made the inquiries in another e-mail exchange.
It emerged that Fuellmich was asked if he would fetch the passports. Fuellmich was asked for something.
Author's note: I did not sufficiently noted what he was specifically asked to do by Mexican authorities. End of note.
John met with Antonia Fischer and told the Mexican authorities that it was worth a try.
Further emails from Fuelmich to Antonia Fischer show that there had been a power of attorney for the utilization of the gold at Degussa.
It was said,
Quote "We should use every opportunity to get him deported." End quote.On October 4, 23, in a communication between John and the Mexican authorities, said event was announced for October 11, 24.
This was followed by the immediate arrest and with the help of the Mexican liaison officer, certain tricks and deceptions to circumvent formal extradition proceedings. These were not lawful extradition proceedings but were tricks.
According to the archives of the Stasi documents, abductions up to the 1970s were an elementary component regarding terrorist crimes.
If one were to take this definition as a basis, Fuelllmich was kidnapped.
Quote: "Reiner Fuellmich has been lured by fraudulent misrepresentation." End quote.Kidnapping is therefore still permitted to continue.
Incidentally, as a defendant in criminal proceedings, he is seen as likely to spread untruths or half-truths in criminal proceedings. He may exaggerate, he may even lie, he would not make himself liable to prosecution and it would have no influence on the sentence. It is not punishable.
Consequently, the reference from the procedural ruling on the dissemination of half-truths and untruths have no effect on the defense strategy.
Wörmer refers to the procedural order according to which the decisions on abductions by other courts are irrelevant and consequently the classification of the abduction as nonsense.
On 17.05.24, the chairman also commented on the defendant's statement by quoting "nonsense". According to the BGH the requirement of influencing the lay judges by the statements of the presiding judge is hereby fulfilled, because the latter would consider Fuellmich's comments to be nonsense. The rejection of a judge is necessary if the judge has an inner attitude due to which he no longer appears to be neutral. The use of non-objective language shows the bias. The scandalization of the chairman's objection to the Pfaendung account (Elsa: I don’t understand so am leaving tiis) and the detention review is misguided, as the hearing of Fuellmich should have taken place. Until the arrest warrant was issued, Fuellmich had remained unheard for more than half a year. This was a deliberate disregard of the rights of the accused. The accused should be heard at the latest before the investigations are concluded.
The unsubstantiated criminal complaint would have had to be verified, which would have required witnesses, but this was not done. The Göttingen public prosecutor's office failed to check documents for more than a year. It was only due to Tobias Weißenborn's own initiative that led to the corrections of the relevant charges in the criminal complaint. The Göttingen public prosecutor's office did not carry out any investigations of its own worth mentioning during the preliminary proceedings and the defendants were not questioned. This should have been reviewed.
The defendant's accusation that he was not granted a fair hearing is justified, even if the court does not want to hear it.
In this context, Woermer refers to the failure to grant a legal hearing on November 1, 23 after F’s arrest, when a judge whose name I did not understand correctly, at the district court
ELSA: THIS CONTINUES FOR A LONG TIME. FROM THIS POINT I HAVE NOT EDITED.
Göttingen explained to him that he was not interested in Fuellmich's attitude, that he would consider judges to be will-less
Holding puppets. From the investigation file it emerged that on 19.10.22 a further investigation was carried out and on 15.03.23 a German
arrest warrant. Over a period of more than half a year, the defendant had remained without a legal hearing. Further
Witnesses had not been heard. The investigation was limited solely to account freezes and evaluations of account movements,
The company relied unilaterally on Antonia Fischer, Justus Hoffmann and Viviane Fischer and had a considerable exchange by e-mail.
and telephone with the parties who filed the reports. According to Antonia Fischer, she alone had more than 30 telephone calls with the
prosecutor's office, all of which were not documented, which would be a violation of the prosecutor's documentation obligations.
is likely. The public prosecutor's office must also document exculpatory material, which has not been done one and a half years after the start of the investigation.
happened. Only after the indictment was filed was the erroneous basic assumption corrected that, contrary to expectations, a
sole power of representation existed. The loan agreements in the amount of € 200 and € 500,000 were not sham contracts. The contracts contained
the loan amount, duration, repayment conditions and explicitly no interest. They were signed by Viviane Fischer. Both
Borrowers and lenders are fully qualified lawyers. It is downright absurd that Viviane Fischer's statement is irrelevant. The
The setting of a time limit for motions for evidence is not objectionable, but the Federal Court of Justice provides for cautious and restrained handling. It
it is the duty of the court to conduct truthful research. Reiner Fuellmich obviously could not take part in this. In the
The witnesses Schwab and Templin had already been scheduled to testify in the opening order. The allegation in the procedural order that the
behavior of the defense would lead to the court being inundated with calls and letters, is in fact not
possible, as it is not possible for outsiders to contact the chamber directly. Furthermore, the defendant had not
called. On the other hand, however, a close confidante of Viviane Fischer would turn to the Chamber. Viviane Fischer herself
had contacted the presiding judge directly, as had a friend of hers J.K. to the presiding judge and the public prosecutor's office. About this
However, the chamber and the presiding judge are apparently not bothered by this. The public prosecutor's office would also welcome this. A recent letter from
or to public prosecutor John. Misere would have put the chat between 12 to 13 people on the Internet, would have talked about himself there and
then deleted the chat. Woermer continued: "We would still find out whether the people who filed the complaint were behind it themselves. The chairman states
that this motion be included in the minutes as Annex 1.
Woermer explained that she still had handwritten comments that she had to take over.
The chairman replies that she may hand it over after she has made the change. The Chairman asked whether the Public Prosecutor's Office
would like to comment on the motion. Public prosecutor Recher requests that it be rejected as inadmissible because it was not submitted immediately.
became. Misere intervenes: This was inadmissible. He had received the procedural order later and it had been unclear until today from
who drafted this procedural order. Only on this basis can the motion for recusal be formulated, the
Immediacy is therefore given. Woermer reads out the rough translation of the deportation order. This was dated October 11, 23 and
included the deportation of Reiner Fuellmich, as his behavior violated Section 144 of the Migration Act, which probably refers to the Mexican
Migration Act. He is prohibited from re-entering the country for a period of 10 years unless he obtains a
Apply for a readmission agreement. Confidentiality has been agreed. In order to implement the decision, the national authority
responsible. Author's note: The California border port was mentioned. End of note. Woermer explains it is therefore a different form of
Extradition was planned. It cites section 144 of the Mexican Migration Act, which states that foreigners can be deported if they
if they enter the country without documents, if they re-enter the country after being deported, if they pretend to be Mexican, if they
endanger public safety if they provide false information or if they do not comply with orders to leave the country.
With regard to a reference to Article 244, it states that the immigration authority would see special circumstances if foreigners
enter the country without authorization, for repeat offenders, for the third point that I have not written down, and for foreigners for whom
national security is at risk because of their origin. Author's note: I seem to remember that Ms. Wörmer mentioned
The last point was used as the legal basis for her client, but I can't remember exactly what it was. End of the
Note. Woermer makes it clear that she has finished her reading. The Chairman asks whether she has now finalized her changes to the
would have made an application for bias. Wörmer is astonished and makes it clear that this was not possible for her, as she would have had to wait until
just presented something. Misere explained that he would now make a statement in support of the client's motion to dismiss. He speaks
Wörmer briefly stated that she could incorporate her amendment in the meantime. Misere continued that he would comment on the process leader
order and formulate motions for evidence within this framework. Misere explains that he would have been dismayed by the procedural order
which would be a pamphlet of untruths and half-truths. This is not a task for a chairman.
presumption to which he was entitled. He had never encountered anything like this in his proceedings, which spanned from Strahlsund to Koblenz.
was encountered. The procedural order underpins the impression that the proceedings, including the
politically motivated kidnapping, a political procedure. No one from Mexico would have been prosecuted on this basis and certainly not
to bring back the corona committee funds.
Misere continues, quote: "Of course it was a kidnapping." End quote. Kidnappings were
Stasi methods and included threats, violence or deception. This definition would apply to his client. The alleged
The fact that Fuellmich's wife was not deported even though she had committed the same passport offense was not a passport offense.
committed. It was fraudulent misrepresentation.
Contrary to the assertion to the contrary in the procedural order, this was a fraudulent misrepresentation.
was a kidnapping. A criminal complaint is being prepared for this and will be submitted to the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe.
The alleged violations of the Migration Act did not exist, as can be seen from the fact that Fuellmich's wife did not
was deported. If there are still doubts, Misere continues, that this was a politically motivated measure,
he requested that the head of the migration authority be questioned, who had subsequently apologized to Fuelllmich. And further, one
representative of the German embassy, the consul, or one of his representatives. Misere asks the Chairman following his
to explain who is behind this procedural order in order to, if necessary, after consultation with his client
to take further procedural measures.
It was a conglomerate of untruths and half-truths
and half-truths, the repetition of
inaccurate legal opinions that a court is not entitled to, Misere continues, putting his argument into Goethe's words:
"Treaded curd does not become strong" end quote. With three judges, the court would bend the law as it sees fit according to the
Motto: What do we care about yesterday's legal opinion? If a fact is refuted, it would come with a new fact,
which now culminated in the court opening up a completely new side issue and, in addition, the intent of the defendant
without there being any evidence for this. Fuellmich haette,
which is not the case, could have deliberately harmed the Corona Committee
never wanted to agree a fiduciary agreement, but a loan agreement, as was the case. The mere fact that the reference
of the court contained the assumption ,
the Corona Committee should not have been allowed to evade state access through protective measures,
document that the proceedings were being conducted politically against critics of the coronavirus measures. It is ridiculous when the same judiciary pretends
The proceedings would be conducted to protect the company's coronavirus funds, which Mann wanted to prohibit from securing money. Until the
Today, the public prosecutor's office has not ensured that Templin pays the money back to the committee. They had probably
state measures should not be questioned, Miserie continued.
Assuming that the loan agreement was null and void, his client had not
Loan agreement not intended at all, exceeds judicial powers. To impute intent to Fuellmich is a legal error.
A sleight of hand at the lowest level. From the outset, the aim was to protect corona committee funds, not at all about a
Another bank account, where it would have been just as unprotected, but secured by a private loan in a property. It was
was neither a liquidity reserve nor was there a fiduciary agreement. It was issued without an interest agreement as it was
interest of the lender. The sale of the property would have been possible at any time, as would the value-enhancing measures through
the property.
Templin had collected advances from Fuellmich's clients from the class action suit through the enforcement of the land charge, which he had received.
were not entitled to the property. He had no right to access the property.
Martin Schwab had been involved in all matters since he was appointed as mediator.
Inka Fuelllmich, the wife of the defendant, is requested as a further witness on the facts of the case.
Marcel Templin is also requested as a witness. He would have been included in the list of witnesses in the indictment anyway.
It was incomprehensible why he could suddenly no longer be heard, although he played a central role.
He claims to have received sums of money from the class action mandates to which he is not entitled. He should be questioned about the facts of the case.
Martin Schwab who was involved as a mediator in all areas of the loans, is to be questioned about this.
Templin would also confirm that he was involved in
had a political relationship with Marcel Luthe and provided him with information. Martin Schwab would comment on the sanity of
Justus Hoffmann could testify.
He was able to confirm that Hoffmann was mentally ill in such a way that he was asked about his condition before each interrogation.
about his medical attitude. Misere requested Justus Hoffmann as a further witness to his exchange with
Public prosecutor John. Prosecutor John is also requested as a witness in order to question him about his contacts with Antonia Fischer, Justus Hoffmann and
Marcel Templin and his contacts with other people. For example, the judiciary, the services or other
prosecutors. The court should instruct him that he does not have to incriminate himself, that also applies to public prosecutors, even if he -
Quote "Specially conjured up from Hanover." End quote. On the execution of the presiding judge in the context of the procedural order, which
senior public prosecutor, who discontinued the proceedings against Fuellmich on 14.06.22, had not known the entire facts of the case, was a
Half-truth, because the fabricated accusation of the shareholders filing the complaint was not foreseeable at the time. They had
correctly classified the loan agreements and had not manipulated the facts. The securing of the coronavirus committee funds by
loan agreements, had applied to the donors and the other shareholders. However, no one would have thought that
other shareholders were harmed by the loan agreements. For this, a federal German service with suitable actors -
in this case the port lawyers - with their criminal complaint. Misere continues: Quote "The end does not justify the means" End quote.
The remedy would be a collosive cooperation of the prosecutors with the harbor prosecutors, who have been investigating Fuellmich's kidnapping in the chat, quote
"Abfeierte" end quote. The journalist Wolfgang Jeschke also summarized the chronology of the "Fuellmich case" in an article. Since
the Stasi of the GDR would have acted more cautiously, Misere continued. Contrary to the assertion in the procedural order that the dossier
was not from the BKA, it was of course from the BKA. Despite explicit requests, the BKA had not issued a denial to substantiate this, and
the court knew that. The procedure was even mentioned in a collection of information about the misery of the services.
There, in order to obtain
findings in konkreto mentioned undercover investigators disguised as clients who were to investigate his working methods. Quote "I
have no way of working I only work wisely" end quote. Misere continued. In the meantime he knew that the dossier had been deleted. If
one wonders how he knows this, he is quote "extraordinarily well connected" end quote. The Fuellmich trial is not a normal trial like this
Misere went on to say that this case had caused him some sleepless nights.
Antonia Fischer would be thrilled to hear Misere discrediting
Search for information and think it's great when someone in a chat says they, misery, quote: "Have a problem with alcohol" end quote.
Misere adds that he has no problem with alcohol and vice versa. However, this would prove that the search for the truth is being prevented
becomes. It was not a normal procedure. In the meantime, he has been assured of his safety, but he is, Misere for the first time
had been threatened. A judge at Cologne District Court had told him, Misere said, that his commitment to the defendant was courageous. It would not
more of a collusive cooperation between the witness Viviane Fischer and the defendant Fuellmich, which is to be regarded as a reward.
because Viviane Fischer's criminal liability was therefore no longer apparent. The pinnacle of falsehoods, however, is the legal reference
contained "nothing new". This is a contradiction in terms; after all, there would be no need for a legal reference if the court did not contain any
new factual situation. The reference in the procedural order that the defense was abusing its procedural right would rather be
apply to the public prosecutor's office. It was about the protection of coronavirus committee funds.
The ability to repay was given
had been. There had been a single managing director authorization, which would have actually settled the case. The court's new idea,
the loan agreement was null and void is a new fact. Then to assume intent
of the defendant should mean that Fuellmich
itself was not based on effective loan agreements is absurd. There was no evidence of this. This would be much more
act in violation of the law. A criminal senate once declared a loan agreement null and void, but only because constitutive elements were missing. A
Quote "Unding" Quote end is now that Fuellmich is being accused of intent. This is a deliberate falsification of the facts by the court
to achieve a politically predetermined result.
Nowhere would anyone have been deported from Mexico with such a low
Amount of loss. He Misere has already represented clients with 64 million euros in tax evasion. If someone at the BKA had the dossier
denied that his sources had clarified this, as the services were not in agreement. The matter had now been discussed for the fourth time with
new protective allegations for the conviction of Fuellmich
have been reconstructed. Misere mentions a publication by Wolfgang Jeschke, a
highly respected journalist on www laufpass.com of 12 May 2024, and states that the defense relied on his summary
would refer to. If this is not supposed to be a political process, you couldn't even have sold it to your grandma, Misere continued. Especially then
If Fuellmich had not intended to repay the funds, he would not have agreed a fiduciary agreement, but a
Loan agreement. So if you invent facts then everything should fit, Misere continued. However, the court should not
Inventing facts. This construction would "blow up in the court's face" in the appeal. The defense retains
continues to reserve the right to a public defense of the client. How, Misere continued, could the defense be accused of their
to defend a client? He,
Misere, would receive a lot of encouragement, people would envy him for his courage and wish him the best. However
the chocolate he receives would clash with his weight loss plans. Misere
addresses the chairman directly and explains: You are a defense lawyer,
he, the Chairman, should perform his duties objectively and impartially or find a way to evade these proceedings.
The Chairman explained that this declaration would be included as Annex 2 and asked Woermer whether she had since made her changes to the
motion for recusal? Wörmer answers in the affirmative and submits the motion. The chairman asks whether the public prosecutor's office has taken a position on the
wanted to take Miseres' explanation? She replies in the negative. The chairman asks if there are any further motions for evidence? Woermer answers in the affirmative, but asks for a
Break for health reasons, she is actually ill, but is still here because it is important. 11:20 a.m. The Chairman
explains the lunch break until 12:30 p.m. 12:40 p.m. Woermer explains with regard to the motions for evidence that they will extend the deadline until Friday
because she had not yet fully formulated her motions for evidence. She had been ill for a week and a half. The chairman asked
whether she will then also request an interruption of the hearing until Friday? Woermer explains, when asked by the chairman who makes it clear
that motions for evidence are to be read out at the hearing and that there would be no hearing on Friday. In view of the next
The members of the Supervisory Board may request an extension of the deadline until 20.06.24 for the meeting on 20.06. The Chairman explained that they could of course submit their
Submitting motions. The chairman asks whether the public prosecutor's office would like to comment.
The latter briefly consults and explains
request that this motion be denied because there had been enough time since the last day of the hearing on 17.05.24. Misere explained that he had not been in
listed enough witnesses in his statement. Author's note: I did not understand this objection by Miseres, if necessary
The point is that with his statement, which according to him included the submission of motions for evidence, he exceeded the deadline of 10.06.24
was complied with, otherwise the proceedings would possibly continue without further witnesses due to a lack of motions for evidence until that day.
come to the end. End of the comment. The Chairman asked whether an extension of the deadline would be requested? Wörmer confirms and submits her
current draft that has not yet been finalized. Templin wanted to ask her about the sale of the house, to what extent he was involved in the financial
Matters of the Corona Committee
was involved, to what extent he was involved in the criminal complaint and to what extent in its formulation.
Although he was not a member of the Corona Committee, to what extent did he discuss this with Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer? Why were they on the
Passenger car involved? Note from the author:
This probably refers to the drive to the notary Kleinjohann in Templin's car. End of the
Remark. To what extent was he involved in the registration efforts of Vorschaltung G? On what legal basis did he claim 1.158 million
euros, even though the mandates were no longer with him? Why did he keep the money to this day? To what extent he wrote emails in the
copy and what content did they have? To what extent was he involved in alleged fiduciary agreements?
Why he demanded repayment of the
Fuellmich's loan to the company?
Why has he still not repaid the loan to the company?
To what extent does he stand by the accusation that the signatures on the class action for termination of mandate were forged? It was a matter of proving
that he had no substantive claim. Why was he the complainant? Author's note: The criminal complaint refers to
on Fuellmich's alleged disloyalty to the Corona Committee Society, of which Templin himself was not a member. Consequently
It is unclear why he filed a criminal complaint. End of comment. The criminal complaint was filed one week before a certain event
had been made. It therefore appeared as if they wanted to avoid repayment. Why did the defendant flee? As
Woermer names Professor Martin Schwab as the second witness. On the subject of the settlement attempts, the receipt of a power of attorney from Fuellmich for the
Liquidation of gold to the big Zoom meeting with 13 to 14 people when Viviane Fischer first used the term
liquidity reserve. Fuellmich intervenes and explains that this is very important!
At this meeting, Viviane Fischer spoke for the first time about a
liquidity reserve. Everyone involved could confirm that this is nonsense, Fuellmich continued. Misere explains that the wife
of the accused is prepared to testify. The chairman explained that he now wanted to discuss the motion to extend the deadline. Woermer explains
could list the witnesses. The chairman replied that this would not be enough. An application for evidence must contain an assertion of evidence, the evidence
and the connectivity between the two. 12:55 p.m. The Chairman announced a 15-minute break. 13:13 The Chairman
passed the following resolution: The application for rejection is inadmissible if the rejection is made late. Reasons for refusal are
immediately, taking into account a reflection period to consult with his defense counsel. For short
Interruptions, meaning a few days, can wait until the next hearing date. Until the continuation after a
longer interruption, i.e. the break between the last hearing day of 17.05.24 and the current hearing day of
10.06.24 cannot be waited for. On 17.05.24, the order directing the proceedings had been read out. Consequently, the defendant had
knowledge of the reason for rejection. More than three weeks are no longer immediate. It is also irrelevant whether the author of the
was known to the presiding judge or not. An application for recusal is a separate procedure and the presiding judge could also have been
between the days. Next, the chairman left a decision on the extension of time for motions for evidence. This
Application is rejected. The deadline was set sufficiently long. The setting of a time limit does not mean that no further
requests for evidence could be made as long as it can be shown and credibly demonstrated that earlier requests were not made.
could be made. Consequently, there was no reason to extend the deadline any further. The Chairman asked whether any further motions
should be? Worms hesitates. The chairman asks if she would like to consult? Würmer replies in the affirmative. 13:12 The Chairman calls a
15-minute break. Woermer packs up her things and leaves the room with Miserie. 13:40 The Chairman addresses Miserie and
explained that the Board had heard that Ms. Wörmer had left due to illness. He asked if anyone else wanted to formulate motions? Fuellmich
answer quote "Yes, me!" End quote. He explains that he was fitted with an ankle cuff today in addition to the handcuff. That was also
not without danger if he should stumble,
he would not be able to catch himself. He wants to know the reasons behind this and ends his
Execution with the explanation: "He is not suicidal!" The presiding judge replies that the court has not ordered this and that he should JVA inquire.
The chairman explained that the proceedings would continue on 12.06.09:15. 2 p.m. End of the hearing day, goodbye
SO, AGAIN, THIS LONG POST WAS FROM JUNE.
AND NOW, TIME TO LOOK AHEAD TO FRIDAY THE 12TH, A HALF DAY.
_________________________________
Here is the address to write to Reiner:
LETTERS;
JVA Rosdorf
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
Am Grossen Sieke 8
37124 Rosdorf
Germany
postcards and cards allowed,
no glitter on the envelops,
no stamps or money in the envelops,
no books or other objects - not permitted,
nothing to be mentioned about the case - though now, according to the latest information, his mail is no longer scanned,
put your name of each page of the letter, just in case - though at present letters are no longer taken out of the envelops.
_________________________________
TO DONATE:
To donate, here is the link for donations for legal and other expenses: https://www.givesendgo.com/GBBX2
FURTHER TRIAL DATES for REINER FUELLMICH:
18th Day - Wednesday, July 10, 2024
Friday, July 12, 2024 (half day) (unsure if still as scheduled)
Friday, July 19, 2024 (half day)
Thursday, July 25, 2024
Wednesday July 31, 2024
Tuesday August 6, 2024
Wednesday August 14, 2024
___________________
Previous trial days:
Day 01 Wednesday 31.01.2024
Day 02 Friday 02.02.2024
Day 03 Wednesday 07.02.2024
04th day Tuesday 27.02.2024 instead of Wednesday 14.02.2024
05th day Friday 01.03.2024 instead of Tuesday 20.02.2024
06th day Tuesday 05.03.2024 instead of Friday 23.02.2024
07th day Friday 08.03.2024
08th day Tuesday 12.03.2024
09th day Tuesday 02.04.2024
10th day Wednesday 03.03.2024
11th day Friday 19.03.2024
12th day Wednesday 24.03.2024
13th day Friday 03.05.2024
14th day Tuesday 07.03.2024
15th day Friday 17.05.2024
16th day Monday, June 10, 2024
Wednesday, June 12, 2024 - cancelled due to KW’s illness
17th day Thursday, June 20, 2024 - not as scheduled due to non-appearance of both of Reiner’s lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
6 trial days on a Friday = half a trial day (until noon)
Posted July 9 2024
Is it normal to put handcuffs on a white-collar defendent? Reiner is not exactly Mike Tyson.
I am wondering whether some German officials, especially contractors and persons with gigs have to have bonds. Can German citizens file against bonds, as some US and Canadians have done?