MORE ON REINER TRIAL DAY 23, Aug 6, 2024. INTERVIEW WITH KATJA WOERMER. With English subtitles.

Katja Woermer has been giving interviews after almost every trial date. Sissi has just sent both Katja’s interview from Day 23, and the transcription of the interview.

_____________

INTERVIEWER: Good evening! We are back here at the district court in Goettingen. It's the sixth of August 2024 and we've had the 23rd day of hearings today, and it's been a very busy day, with lots and lots of breaks and a bit of a penalty procedure in between, hasn't it? We are with Katja Woermer, Reiner Fuellmich's lawyer. And Katja, how have you been today?

KATJA: Yes hello, good evening! Yes, it's actually the case now that we have constant breaks, more or less long, sometimes an hour, sometimes 20 minutes, sometimes half an hour, sometimes 10 minutes, and then new applications are submitted to the court in between. And then the chamber withdraws again and makes a decision, because we have the self-reading procedure and therefore the decisions or applications are no longer read out. At the moment, no more decisions are read out by the court because the presiding judge says that most of the motions for evidence, or almost the majority of them, are only decided in the judgment, only those that he considers relevant beforehand are decided in the hearing, and yes, these are obviously very few because the response to our motions for evidence is largely that we withdraw, then the members of the chamber take note of them in the self-reading procedure. The other parties to the proceedings receive copies and are then also allowed to take note of them, but the decisive factor in the self-reading procedure is always that the members of the chamber have taken note. This is then entered in the minutes, and all the others have received copies, and that's how the proceedings proceed.

But it started with Viviana Fischer's lawyer, who was here again with a new application. Frank Grossenbach has now submitted the third motion for admissibility. Exactly, he changed it again and submitted it again today. The Chamber then withdrew again, deliberated on the application for adhesion and came to the conclusion that it is almost the same as the previous application and that it will therefore not be decided, i.e. will not be considered admissible and will not be admitted to the proceedings. Frank Grossenbach therefore took a seat in the auditorium. And then he gave the other part of his motion, the motion for evidence or the statement of Viviane Fischer, which had changed, to the defense,

INTERVIEWER: I understood, and you and Mr. Misere then submitted it as evidence....

KATJA: No we simply submitted the motion for evidence, I handed the current motion for admissibility to the presiding judge and there was a motion for evidence attached to it, and we then submitted it as an attachment to our motions for evidence. So orally, exactly, Mr. Miserie then emphasized again that we would then submit it, because Frank Grossenbach could not submit it, exactly.

Then I made another motion today to repeal the written procedure, i.e. that the motions for evidence or all other motions and procedural declarations must be submitted in writing, but that the principle of orality be re-established.

INTERVIEWER: And you wanted to do that orally?

KATJA: I wanted to do it orally, I wanted to insist on that at first. But of course the chairman refused and then I always submit all my applications by e-mail. Of course, it takes a while for him to receive them and I then submitted them by e-mail, plus another request for evidence. I submitted it again a little later in order to question Viviane Fischer again about her - now quasi changed - statement, because she now says quite clearly that she always assumed that the donations were held in trust in the escrow accounts for the donors. But that there were no assets of the Vor UG, i.e. the Vor UG was not created at that time, was not registered, and it has not been registered to this day. This means that four years have passed and, in the end, you can say that it is a failed company that can no longer be registered. Yes, we had a brief interruption, but it was our turn.

INTERVIEWER: You said you would invite Viviane Fischer again? Or?

KATJA: Exactly. I have asked Viviane Fischer to testify again on the basis of the application for adhesion that she has now submitted via Frank Großenbach, because she has obviously changed her statement now when she says that the fiduciary custody of the donations in the escrow accounts of Vor UG, which did not have its own account because it was never registered as a company. If this was only held in trust for the donors, and a breach of trust could therefore possibly only have taken place in relation to the donors, this is a completely different legal situation than if you say that an offense has been committed against the Vor UG and the assets of the Vor UG have been damaged. And at the moment, the pre-UG is the plaintiff and is represented by the two complainants Antonia Fischer and Dr. Justus Hoffmann, i.e. the two shareholders. And if she were to sue, would that also be a criminal case or would it be civil? Or how would the whole thing change? We'll have to see. So at the moment we're thinking of possibly trying to file an application for adhesion on behalf of the donors.

Yes, that's always the case: an application for adhesion is always the filing of civil law claims within criminal proceedings. Otherwise you have to take legal action directly before the civil courts. But the chairman still believes that Viviane Fischer, as a shareholder, cannot represent the interests of the donors here, or if she says that the company has not been harmed at all, she herself is not an aggrieved party, and therefore she cannot file an application for adhesion.

Exactly, so I had requested that she be heard again on her amended plea, and then we summoned Martin Schwab, Professor Dr. Martin Schwab via a bailiff in the so-called self-loading procedure. The defense can summon witnesses on behalf of the accused in criminal proceedings if they are no longer summoned by the court, and the chamber is of the opinion that the taking of evidence ex officio has already been closed since the beginning of May, and now only requests for evidence that are submitted by the defense or the accused themselves, and which the court considers relevant to clarify the facts of the case, will be followed up.

We have now summoned Martin Schwab and ultimately want to question him about the events at that time. I had initially filed a motion for evidence that he was present at these mediation talks, that he could possibly say something about the loan agreements that were concluded by both Viviane Fischer and Reiner Fuellmich. And then afterwards, during the settlement negotiations that dragged on in the year 23, there was also an extensive e-mail exchange between Antonia Fischer, Justus Hoffmann and Reiner Füllmich. And Martin Schwab was also repeatedly involved as an advisor. There was also this settlement agreement that the two of them proposed, i.e. Antonia Fischer and Justus Hoffmann, when they wanted to part ways with the other two at the end of 2021 and leave the company, the pre-UG. They had submitted a settlement agreement and Martin Schwab probably advised them somehow or was at least involved. He was supposed to act as the arbitrator, so to speak, and oversee the whole process.

But in the end it didn't come to that, Reiner Füllmich and Viviane Fischer rejected it. But he was always involved in all these discussions between the shareholders, and tried to mediate, and was more or less active as a mediator, as far as I know, and that's why he would of course be an important witness in the opinion of the defense. This motion for evidence was initially rejected, so the presiding judge said after the chamber had deliberated that if Martin Schwab were to appear as a present witness next week, he would not be heard by them. But then, during the break that followed, due to other deliberations, we formulated something new, so Mr. Christof Miseré then formulated a handwritten counter-motion, a counterstatement, so to speak, and rewrote the motion for evidence, and then also formulated it in this direction in response to Viviane Fischer's amended submission that, in the end, she was only ever concerned with the fiduciary custody of the donations vis-à-vis the donors, that this was always her concern, that it was never actually about the company assets of the unregistered pre-UG, but that it was always only about the donors. And about the safekeeping of the donations in relation to them in the other accounts. And the presiding judge then actually admitted this amended motion for evidence and said, or the entire chamber admitted it, they deliberated on it, they said okay, you will then hear Martin Schwab under this amended aspect when he appears next week. And that's what we're assuming. So he has been summoned. I hope he can, otherwise we may have to wait for the week after or something, but since he has been formally summoned, even if it is by the defense, he has to appear in court. So it's actually the same as if the court summoned him itself.

We expect the witness statement to clarify the facts of the case. We had made other motions, I had said restoration of orality, which was rejected, then Mr. Miseré tried again with a similar motion in which he said that the proceedings would not be accelerated here. Which should actually be the background to the written application. But instead, it is somehow being delayed here more or less again and again, because we constantly have another hour's break. And in the end, the viewers don't even notice what's happening. Instead, they are only ever called in briefly, then a new motion is tabled again, which is then not allowed to be read out, and then you might just get a clue as to what we are tabling a motion for and then it goes out again. And then there's another half hour or an hour of self-reading and then the chamber discusses it. And that's how it went today.

I don't even know how long. And Reiner Fuellmich himself also said that the defendant doesn't hear anything! Exactly! He didn't even notice the last motion when I asked for a legal discussion and suggested it, which was rejected. So everything else was actually rejected. We also complained about the fact that virtually everything was to be decided in the judgment and that the defense itself could no longer assess where we stood. Which motions are still considered reasonable and which are not, and which we might be able to somehow correct or revise so that the chamber will then take them into consideration. Because we don't get any feedback on this either, because we don't get any negative decisions at the moment, we don't know the reasons for rejection. We will only find out all of this in the judgment, so to speak. And everything else must not be read out.

It was only because the presiding judge or the chamber was unable to read Mr. Miseré's motion that this handwritten revised motion for evidence by Martin Schwab was read out, or he asked for feedback on what it meant. I also copied out one of his motions during the break, which he then dictated to me. And Reiner Füllmich handed in his applications, which he had written on the mechanical typewriter in the prison.  With the faded ribbon and again with handwritten notes inside. 

But if that's the way they want it, they'll have to make do with it now.  He still has applications for next week. That's what he said.  He still has motions for evidence, he just got a new typewriter, but it didn't work either. 

And then I had to print out another instruction manual for him.  We hope that he will be able to do this by next week, because of the lack of verbalization and the obstruction of the defendant, so to speak of Reiner Fuellmich, in writing down the motions for evidence, he then also filed another motion for recusal.  The last one, where there were discrepancies with the time limit, was unfortunately rejected as inadmissible.  Now we have another deadline. He has until August 12 at 11 a.m. to state his reasons.

There was another episode, so to speak, when Mr. Miseré said something about a suggestion.  He made a suggestion about a motion.  And he wanted to discuss it orally. 

And then Mr. Schindler said, no, that is also in the self-reading procedure. 

Then Mr. Miseré made a suggestion .... about the conduct of the proceedings. 

INTERVIEWER: Yes, that worked again.  I didn't really understand what that was? 

KATJA: In the end, it was again the oral reading of the motions or all the motions in the judgment, that he asked us to decide the motions as quickly as possible and to give us feedback in the next week if possible, so that we can still react to them somehow, but he also wanted to present that orally.  Then he went back and forth with the chairman, who said no to the requirement for written submissions.   Then he said, then I would like to have a chamber decision on this, and then the chamber briefly went back to discuss it.  Then there was a decision that the requirement of written form should be upheld. So it was decided again and again today, in a simple form, so to speak, and then he submitted the suggestion in writing.   There were very, very many pauses.  What I found important was what Mr. Miseré said at one point to Judge Schindler, that during the 16th session Mr. Reiner Fuellmich was totally chained or something, and there were many police cars and military, and that was very armed, and the opinion was always that the chairman had known that.  We filed motions for recusal at the time, because the judge had dismissed it. That was the first day, June 10, when Reiner Fuellmich was shackled by his feet for the first time, and he was also accompanied by armed police officers.  That's still the case today. So today there was a police van again. We assumed this because the client had been informed by the prison that this had been ordered by the court.  But then the judge said at the hearing that he knew nothing about it.  We didn't believe him and then tried to investigate further and also asked the police, but couldn't get a clear result.  That's why we filed motions for recusal because we assumed that he hadn't told us the truth on this point, and he has now, Mr. Misere said he had now learned from his sources that the judge, i.e. the presiding judge, actually had no knowledge of the background to the increased security measures at the time and didn't order them himself. Well, ok. Have we forgotten anything else? Something important? Well, we'll continue next week.  The taking of evidence is not closed, the presiding judge has already urged that we please submit the motions for evidence that we still have in writing by the next hearing, if possible, insofar as we are able to do so, including the defendant.  As I said, we will resume here next week on August 14 at 9:15 am. And we hope that Professor Martin Schwab will appear as a present witness and that we can question him. 

INTERVIEWER: Yes, okay, thank you very much.  Have a nice evening, too.

_________________________________

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:
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
17th day Wednesday, June 12, 2024 - cancelled due to KW’s illness
supposed to be the 18th day: Thursday, June 20, 2024 - not as scheduled due to non-appearance of both of Reiner’s lawyers
18th day - Wednesday, July 10, 2024
19th day, Friday, July 12, 2024 (half day)
20th day, Friday, July 19, 2024 (half day)
21st day, Thursday, July 25, 2024
22nd day, Wednesday July 31, 2024
23rd day, Tuesday August 6, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
8 trial days so far on a Friday = half a trial day (until noon)

Posted August 6, 2024