ANALYSIS OF CHRISTOF MISERÉ, LAWYER FOR REINER: UNGROUNDED UNFOUNDED GUILT-MAKING THOUGH THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR: NO GUILT

A message from Christof Miseré, lawyer for Reiner. Forwarded by Roger Bittel of bittel.tv on Telegram.

The statements from the court sound like the preplanned explanation of a Stasi-like entity without any judicially grounded justification.

This is the most deplorable judicial occurrence of the last 30 years.

The process occurring with Dr Fuellmich exposes that powers outside our legal system have taken control.

I have already reported this.

Here is a deeper analysis of what happened from Christof Miseré. This comes from feedback to an article in Laufpass: „Die Schuldig-Macher“ (English - The Guilt-Makers). (https://laufpass.com/gesellschaft/die-schuldig-macher/). It is also on his FB, plus Roger Bittel’s Telegram channel.

It would have been said before:

The court deals with the accused "scoundrel" who was "abducted" from Mexico with the help of this BKA (according to the analysis of the GDR practices, it is called kidnapping in this regard).

_________________

PART I.

Unfortunately this is largely true.

In particular, the unbelievably stubborn intention with which an attempt is being made here to bend a legally not only actually, but also dogmatically unjustifiable breach of trust offense (§ 266 StGB) to right or actually to wrong is almost unique - at least from my more than 25 years of experience in extensive criminal proceedings throughout Germany.

Every professor of criminal law who has dealt with the offense of breach of trust in detail in the relevant commentaries, such as the LK (Leipzig Commentary, the leading major commentary on criminal law for decades), would shake their head in despair as to what facts of life should be subsumed under this offense without blushing.

After all the constructions used up to that point had failed, loan agreements are now simply interpreted as non-existent (null and void), contrary to the clear wording and unambiguous handling, even though the agreements contain all the constitutive elements of a loan agreement (and this exceeds the limits of the court's competence and justification) and simply claim the existence of a fiduciary agreement, although such an agreement cannot be found even once in the actual facts of the case and furthermore claims without any justification that the defendant himself wanted to conclude a fiduciary agreement. (Italics mine.)

This is extremely audacious and simply contra legem, because assuming (which is not the case) that the defendant had chosen the figure of a loan agreement in order to benefit himself, he would not have wanted to enter into a fiduciary agreement. However, to then simply impute this to him and declare it as a finding of fact by the court is simply unbelievable and demonstrates a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the law. (Italics mine.)

The fact that the trial court is not ashamed to go further and prescribe to the defendant and the Corona Committee that it had no right to ensure that the Committee's funds were protected from state access by the best existing means and thus interfered with the private autonomy of contract law documents that this is not a normal criminal case, but a trial staged for political reasons and a conviction of the defendant “at any price”. (Italics mine.)

The committee is told which private law constructs it may realize (although here the actions of the committee and the defendant to protect the funds from state access were not unlawful, which no one claims) and the defendant is subsequently attributed what he may have thought and then even declares this as what he had/has deliberately thought.

That is, if I may say so, an unjust mastermind. (Italics mine.)

On the contrary, the defendant might have acted in breach of trust if he had not chosen this way of securing the money.

Apart from the fact that the defendant Dr. Füllmich communicated at all times from the beginning that it was a loan for private use, which could be repaid by selling his property.

This has nothing to do with the law and blatantly exceeds the powers of a criminal court. It is not incumbent on the court per se to invent or construct a fact of life and then one that diametrically contradicts the will and intent of the accused, which has always been openly declared.

First of all, an accusation was constructed by means of a construction (sale of the property via unauthorized persons) in order to establish ex post (i.e. after the factual act) the prerequisites (further in the commentary).

___________________________

PART 2

To first create the conditions for the existence of conduct relevant under criminal law, whereby this is not possible because this violates the applicable coincidence principle in criminal law (factuality, unlawfulness and guilt must exist quasi simultaneously at the same moment) and thus a dolus subsequenz (subsequent intent) is not recognized de lege lata).

Now one directly constructs the entire relevant facts by means of a non-existent fiduciary agreement and now also subsequently determines what the defendant thought, contrary to his repeatedly clear diametrically opposed statements, and thus invents a non-existent intent.

Please explain to me what this has to do with justice. Even the Holy Spirit could not convey this to me today on Pentecost.

In the past, people would have said that the court was “playing tricks” with the accused who had been captured and involuntarily “kidnapped” from Mexico.

In other words, this was all, over and over, what is called a show trial. Nothing to do with justice or truth. In fact, supposed guilt was constructed, when there was massive evidence of no guilt.

There was an attempt, including through a minor predatory figure posting comments on this Substack, to have Reiner and his legal team accept the judge’s guilt-making judgement.

As Miseré shows over and over, guilt had to be constructed. That was part of the sting.

As the saying goes in baseball, it ain’t over til the fat lady sings.

And that’s a long way off.

_________________________________

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,

• put your name of each page of the letter - letters are 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

--------------------------------------------------------------

Previous hearing days from 31.01.2024 to 17.05.2024
15 trial days from 31.01.2024 to 17.05.2024:

Day 01 Wednesday 31.01.2024
02nd day 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 Friday 17.05.2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
6 trial days on a Friday = half a trial day until noon
4 trial days on a Wednesday
5 trial days on a Tuesday
--------------------------------------------------------------

Posted May 20, 2024