GERMANY AGAIN. REINER'S CASE IS DIFFERENT. DOCTORS CHARGED FOR THEIR DOCTORING. MEDIA OUTLET BANNED FOR ITS REPORTING. SYRIAN ALLEGED STABBERS NOT CHARGED WITH THE STABBING. AND REINER?
GERMANY AGAIN. REINER'S CASE IS DIFFERENT. DOCTORS CHARGED FOR THEIR DOCTORING. MEDIA OUTLET BANNED FOR ITS REPORTING. SYRIAN ALLEGED STABBERS NOT CHARGED WITH THE STABBING. AND REINER?
Wasn't Reiner charged with theft of Corona Committee monies, but now the court instead wants to convict him of a criminal "breach of fiduciary duty"?
As a trustee/director of the Corona Committee Reiner would have duties towards the Corona Committee to safeguard its interests. Given dishonest intentions, someone in his position could be guilty of a (criminal) breach of fiduciary duty if, for example, the Committee's funds were misused, particularly if the funds were then lost to the Committee.
Yet what seems to have happened is the court is construing Reiner's attempts to safeguard the Committee funds from the state as a criminal breach of fiduciary duty, as if Reiner's fiduciary duty were to the state. And the court doesn't want to hear evidence (or argument?) on the matter from the defence, but instead just wishes to deem the facts and law to be so.
The court has shifted from hearing a case alleging theft to announcing its intention to convict on the basis of its own unargued invented facts and law.
It is a court from the dark side of Alice in Wonderland.
By acting as it is the court also prevents Reiner bringing evidence about the theft accusation that was originally made and revealing in full detail through the court process how the state has fabricated the original case against him.
Yes. It is a court from the dark side of Alice in Wonderland. A very dark side. As you say: revealing in full detail through the court process how the state has fabricated the original case against him.
Kafka could write another book about this "trial":).
Agreed!!!
Much greater criminals are walking free. (Not that I believe Reiner is guilty of anything except shining a light into darkness).
Agreed. "Many hands make light work." The more of us who do things, the more quickly we'll get through this.
Elsa,
Wasn't Reiner charged with theft of Corona Committee monies, but now the court instead wants to convict him of a criminal "breach of fiduciary duty"?
As a trustee/director of the Corona Committee Reiner would have duties towards the Corona Committee to safeguard its interests. Given dishonest intentions, someone in his position could be guilty of a (criminal) breach of fiduciary duty if, for example, the Committee's funds were misused, particularly if the funds were then lost to the Committee.
Yet what seems to have happened is the court is construing Reiner's attempts to safeguard the Committee funds from the state as a criminal breach of fiduciary duty, as if Reiner's fiduciary duty were to the state. And the court doesn't want to hear evidence (or argument?) on the matter from the defence, but instead just wishes to deem the facts and law to be so.
The court has shifted from hearing a case alleging theft to announcing its intention to convict on the basis of its own unargued invented facts and law.
It is a court from the dark side of Alice in Wonderland.
By acting as it is the court also prevents Reiner bringing evidence about the theft accusation that was originally made and revealing in full detail through the court process how the state has fabricated the original case against him.
Yes. It is a court from the dark side of Alice in Wonderland. A very dark side. As you say: revealing in full detail through the court process how the state has fabricated the original case against him.