CITIZEN JOURNALIST DANIELA GOEKEN IS BACK. Now with DAYS 4 & 5.

It’s a considerable time commitment, going to Reiner’s trial even one day. Daniela Goeken reported on her experiences, Days 2 & 3. Now here are Days 4 & 5:

Caught out

Report on the 4th and 5th day of the trial of Dr. Reiner Füllmich, Goettingen (27.2. and 1.3.2024)

By Daniela Goeken

After attending the 2nd and 3rd day of the hearings as an attentive spectator and listener, I couldn't get this whole story out of my head. In my opinion, what the presiding judge had said so easily before the trial began, namely that it was a "straightforward matter", had not at all proved to be true. On the contrary: I had the feeling that new inconsistencies were added with every day of the trial. With each new person who appeared in court, more questions arose. In my opinion, the whole thing developed into a real, extremely tricky criminal case and I had the uneasy feeling that I wouldn't be able to rest until a few things were cleared up.

Questions and questions swirled around in my head: why is the money in question, which the accused is alleged to have embezzled, in the account of one of the complainants, in the very place where you would least expect it? Why don't the members of the Corona Committee (Viviane Fischer, Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer) contact Marcel Templin directly, who has the money in his account and could easily return it to where it belongs? Is this even about money, or is there something completely different behind it? But what particularly concerns me is: Does nobody, really nobody, notice that the criminal complaint that was signed on September 2, 2022 was filed BEFORE the actual "crime"? Has this ever happened before in the history of justice, a criminal being charged purely as a precaution before he could do anything wrong? The "crime" is supposed to be that money was embezzled, that money taken from the Corona Committee's account for security purposes was not returned. However, the defendant always pointed out that he could only repay the money once his property had been sold. But he never got the chance to do so, because the complainants managed to have the money from the sale of the house transferred to one of their own accounts. Imagine that for a moment: People file a criminal complaint "as a precaution" and then themselves ensure that the accused has no choice but to actually commit the "crime"!

Very curious to see what the hearing of the witness and plaintiff Viviane Fischer would reveal, I travel to Goettingen once again. The fourth day of the trial is coming up. By now I know the route well and I can relax and let my mind wander. I'm starting to feel like I've become a kind of detective, trying to find out what really happened and who of all the people involved is telling the truth and who is not.

This time everything is a little different. I have to wait a long time outside the door with a large group of people, which isn't very pleasant as it's quite cold that morning. And even when I'm already sitting in my seat inside, it still takes some time before the hearing can finally begin, an hour late. I find out that the reason for this is that a new defense lawyer has been brought in, who first had to be informed about the case. So now the defendant is flanked by supporters to his right and left, a picture I quite like.

The questioning of the witness Justus Hoffmann will now continue. I have already reported in detail in my last text that this witness does not necessarily behave as one would expect of an adult who is to testify in court. The witness's behavior on this day also leaves more and more to be desired. He shows more and more clearly that he no longer wants to answer questions. He often becomes abusive, insults the new defense lawyer and clearly shows his dissatisfaction with the situation. He doesn't seem to realize at all that HE is the person who filed the complaint and that he is responsible for the whole thing. Nor does he understand in any way that it is perfectly understandable for the defendant to ask a lot of questions, as he also has a lot at stake. It is about nothing more and nothing less than the question of where he will be in the next few years: In a small barred cell in Goettingen or where his wife, his dogs, his friends, and everything else that is dear to him are.

What shocks me most on this day is the realization of how closely the complainants worked together with the public prosecutor, always behind the back of the accused, who had no idea of anything. How can this kind of "manhunt" happen in a civilized country like Germany? Why are complainants, who are actually quite normal citizens, allowed to actively help arrest and imprison the person they have reported? There are emails that show that the complainants were in close contact with the public prosecutor for over a year and gave him a number of tips on where, how and when the poor man could be arrested! They did not shy away from luring him somewhere, setting traps for him, inviting him to events just to get the opportunity to intercept him. Because apparently it was not possible to arrest the accused legally, as he was in a non-European country and there was no international criminal warrant. Let us remember: the persecuted and accused was not a serious criminal, he was not a violent bank robber and certainly not a serial killer. In fact, no criminal charges were even necessary, as it was a civil matter. Normally. In normal times. Under normal circumstances. But here the matter was somewhat different, the accused seems to have been of particular interest to the authorities. Why that was the case remains to be seen.

But I can also report something positive that I heard that day. I read in an e-mail that law professor Martin Schwab came to a completely different assessment of the situation than the complainants. He writes to them in no uncertain terms that he does not want to participate in the embezzlement of the defendant's money. ¬ Embezzlement? Isn't that exactly what the defendant is accused of? Then one could almost suggest that the sides be changed on the spot and that the complainants move into the defendant's cell after the trial. He must of course be honorably released and then fully rehabilitated. That would certainly happen in a world that corresponds to my idea of a just world. But it seems that the game of "upside-down world" is being played here. Or the game of "all against one". Or perhaps the game of "I see something you don't"? For me, the guilt of the accused is simply not recognizable. No matter how long stories people tell (the confused stories of this witness have now filled almost two complete days of the trial), for me it still remains the very simple story that a man took 700,000 euros from the Corona Committee's donation account, kept it safe from the state, and was unable to repay the money because it was taken from him by the complainants themselves.

For the sake of simplicity, I will now summarize the testimony of Viviane Fischer, which took place on the fourth and fifth day of the trial, in a report:

At first glance, the witness's testimony seems quite different from the testimony of the witness Justus Hoffmann. The plaintiff makes a calm and level-headed impression, her statements are well thought out and she is able to place her experiences in chronological order. Her statement also seems much friendlier towards the defendant. At the beginning she even praises him for his good work. But since she makes no subsequent attempt to exonerate the defendant in any way and perhaps free him from his predicament, I secretly think to myself: What use are these kind words? Is the defendant supposed to sweeten his lonely evenings in his barred cell by remembering them?

The witness largely reproduces what she describes in the extensive appendix to her book "Homo Amicus". She only makes her statements a little more friendly, so that one does not immediately get the impression that this is an indictment that she wants to submit to the court. Nevertheless, she continues to make strong accusations against the defendant. He had personally enriched himself with the Corona Committee's donations and spent the money for his own purposes. As a result, the committee had become practically unable to work and the donors had been defrauded. She goes on to explain at length that the statutes stipulate that none of the employees should be paid for their work. As I will learn, this statement stands in stark contrast to her own actions. After the witness has told the story as it happened in her own experience, the presiding judge begins the questioning.

Soon you get the impression that a facade that has been painstakingly maintained is beginning to crumble. Although the witness has always seemed much more confident than her predecessor and has not behaved like a petulant little child, you slowly realize that the situation is not entirely dissimilar. When you probe deeper, you realize that there are also contradictions in the claims she makes so fluently and elegantly. Sometimes she falters, breaks off and then tries to start all over again to give her story more credibility. But sometimes she doesn't really want to succeed. In the end, it even seems as if someone has been caught out.

The judge constructs his questioning very well. First, he lets the witness explain what exactly she means by the term "liquidity reserve", which she often uses. And whether she had agreed with the defendant exactly how the money that had been withdrawn and was to be kept safe was to be used? The witness affirms several times that it was always clear that this money should have been available at all times in case the Corona Committee's account was seized. She states that she would never have agreed to the defendant putting the money he took into a property.

(Hhmm, I wonder, but surely that's almost the only way to really keep the money safe? If you just move it to another account, is there a big risk that it will be seized there too?)

The judge now projects a chat history onto the wall. There we read that the defendant once asked the witness: "And what about your 100,000 euros? Are they gone already?" (He meant the money taken for security purposes) To which the witness replied in the chat: "Yes, they're already gone." "Hhm," says the judge thoughtfully, "it almost looks like you've used up this money?" The room is very quiet. Everyone is eager to hear what the witness has to say. The defendant in particular looks at her intensely. You can clearly tell that the witness has been thrown off balance. After a brief moment in which she apparently has to regroup, she begins to make verbose statements. But I think everyone in the room realizes that these are just excuses. Everyone watching the Corona Committee has heard that she has separated from her husband and cannot have been as financially blessed at the time in question as she now claims. She states that the money she took from the Corona Committee was always available, as her husband (note from me: her ex-husband at the time) had set up a securities deposit account. Personally, I would be very surprised if her husband had still been supporting her financially at that time, as she had already left him a long time ago for someone else. And if she was living in such good financial circumstances after the separation, why had she written to the defendant in a chat that she needed money to pay her health insurance premium?

After the confrontation with the mysterious chat history, the presiding judge ends the hearing for the day. Personally, I have the feeling that the story the accusers are telling, which seems to be largely a pack of lies, is slowly starting to fall apart. I have to admit that this is a very good feeling. I drive home exhilarated and with renewed hope.

However, there is one thing that keeps bothering me:
The biggest question that the unbiased observer should ask is: WHY? WHY all this? WHY these efforts to get hold of money that the plaintiffs have apparently already brought under their control? They were apparently never interested in returning the money taken to the Corona Committee. If they wanted to use it for investigative work, they could have paid the money back to the committee long ago, as it is in one of their own accounts.

We are faced with a puzzle. But what we can see is that it is a conspiracy. It is a concerted action by many people that has ultimately led to the most active member of a small community of truth-seekers, namely the one who has made contacts worldwide and initiated actions, now being condemned to absolute inactivity and completely powerless in a high-security prison and being treated like a serious criminal. We would have expected such an action from the "other side", not from former friends and colleagues, don't you think?

Now, of course, everyone will ask me what I think the "other side" is. Well, I have an answer to that, and I'm not going to hide it: It is one hundred percent certain that they are people, probably even entire organizations, for whom the work for the truth movement, which the accused has done in an exemplary manner, is a thorn in their side, a huge thorn.

__________________________________

The current court dates.

• Dienstag, den 5. März 2024, 9:15 Uhr (Tues, Mar 5, 9:15 am)

• Freitag, den 8. März 2024, 9:15 Uhr (Fri, Mar 8, 9:15 am)
  ADDED:

• Tuesday, 12.03.2024 Start: 09.15 a.m.

• Tuesday, 02.04.2024 Start: 09.15 a.m.

• Wednesday, 03.04.2024 Start: 09.15 a.m.

• Friday, 19.04.2024 Start: 09.15 a.m.

• Wednesday, 24.04.2024 Start: 09.15 a.m.

_________________________________

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

Posted March 2, 2024