NEW! INTERVIEW with REINER FUELLMICH. Recorded Feb 7, 2024. Published Feb 23, 2024. Interviewer: Ruediger Lenz. Publication: apolut.

This interview was recorded on February 7, after the court. Just published. Ruediger Lenz with Reiner Fuellmich. On apolut.

APOLUT
Money for nothing: Interview with Reiner Fuellmich Published on: February 23, 2024 |

An interview by Ruediger Lenz with Reiner Fuellmich.

The Corona Committee has done outstanding educational work, especially in the pandemic period from 2020-2022. It was chaired in particular by Viviane Fischer and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich's face shaped the committee worldwide, as he maintains global contacts as a lawyer and has experience in multidimensional processes.

The Corona Committee is still meeting today, but for some time now without Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. He has been accused of embezzlement since the end of 2023. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has been in custody in Göttingen since the end of last year. Apolut editor Rüdiger Lenz asked Dr. Reiner Fuellmich questions about the trial and his spectacular odyssey from Mexico to Germany.

Inconsistencies emerge. Especially those of the plaintiff himself, Dr. Justus Hoffmann, who even verbally attacked Viviane Fischer on the witness stand in court. The public prosecutor's office and the court seem somewhat piqued by this, but the trial is far from over. Apolut is staying on the ball here.

After the third day of the trial, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich answered questions from our editor Rüdiger Lenz in Göttingen prison. In the following exclusive interview, part 1, his answers are reprinted from an audio recording.

Rüdiger Lenz: Dr. Fuellmich, you were detained by the authorities in Mexico last year and extradited to Germany. Can you tell us why you were transferred to Germany and arrested there? Why are you in custody?

Reiner Fuellmich: Yes, the simple answer is that the three Berlin lawyers, Justus Hoffmann, who wrote the criminal complaint, as he stated in court, Antonia Fischer and Marcel Templin, wrote a criminal complaint on September 2, 2002. And this criminal complaint is the reason and the only basis for investigations by the Göttingen public prosecutor's office, which took this criminal complaint seriously, although at first glance it appears to have been written by a small child. This has been confirmed by a number of people who are helping us in the background. It is now clear that around 90 percent of what it says is a brazen lie.

The entire ... the entire threat scenario, which was then also the background to an arrest warrant against me and the kidnapping from Mexico, is a lie. Justus Hoffmann had to admit that during his interrogation. There is not a single point: a threat with a Winchester, a threat from the party that allegedly radicalized Viviane Fischer and me, a threat to his person because, as I have only now learned, he is Ashkenazi. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that would substantiate this threat scenario. I think the public prosecutor's office and, above all, the court have now realized that.

That is the reason for the kidnapping from Mexico. I say kidnapping because they would actually have needed an international arrest warrant. But they didn't have one. It's clear from the file that they didn't have one. And it's also clear from the file that, literally, it says in there that I was supposed to be lured to Tijuana under the pretext, literally, that we had passport problems. That's not true. Fortunately, my wife and I were there together, so, although it's a bit of a shame because we had to endure a night in jail, my wife's release is confirmation that these passport problems were indeed faked.

-1 -

It all goes back to Justus Hoffmann, Antonia Fischer and Marcel Templin. They knew all along, as we can see from the files.

They had already tried to inform me or the public prosecutor's office that I had an invitation to a lecture in England and actually wanted to have me arrested right then. And the next attempt was in Tijuana, where Antonia Fischer wrote: uijuijui, I hope he doesn't fly to another consulate. So in close coordination with these three, well, how can I put it, criminals?

As far as we know, blackmail, fraud and falsification of documents, indirect falsification of documents is on their account. The Göttingen public prosecutor's office investigated the case in close cooperation with these three criminals, for over a year, without granting me the right to be heard. This was not an oversight, but based on, no, there is no other explanation, on the freely invented threat scenario.

Until my lawyers finally realized that something was wrong and wanted to know whether there was any warrant for my arrest or any accusations against me, they were denied access to the files and also denied the right to be heard.
So, the background to this kidnapping from Mexico, so that I could then be arrested at Frankfurt airport, was solely the criminal complaint filed by these three lawyers. It was written by Justus Hoffmann, as he stated.

Rüdiger Lenz: Do you agree with the charges in the complaint? What do you say against the reasons you are accused of?

Reiner Fuellmich: The formal reason, or the formal charge that has been brought against me, is breach of trust. The question being negotiated is: did we, did I, that was Viviane Fischer and I, who not only prepared but also carried out practically the entire committee, the entire operational work, one can argue about who was involved and to what percentage, but in any case there is no need to argue that it was the two of us and the other two, Marcel Templin, that the other three had nothing to do with the entire operational work, but were and are exclusively after the Committee's money, are now misusing these criminal proceedings for the purpose of obtaining money that they would never obtain under normal circumstances.

So, the accusation is that the granting of a loan was a breach of trust. This accusation has already vanished into thin air.

Let's see what else comes of it, because we had, and this has been discussed in detail in court, we had a threat scenario for the funds, for the donations of the Corona Committee, because we had received the message, I think it was an e-mail or telephone call from Professor Sucharid Bhakdi to Viviane Fischer, which we then discussed, that we had received information that the donation account there, at MWGFD, had been seized. And if the donation account had been seized, we would not have been able to continue from one second to the next.

What the public doesn't know yet is that I took this extremely seriously, because we communicated this at the end of 2020 in the emails that were also sent to the court, because we were also being targeted by the judiciary. And not just like that, but I, Viviane Fischer, Antonia Fischer, our accountant, Justus Hoffmann, were under investigation for suspected money laundering. That was the trigger. As a result, we were targeted by the main customs office, the Lower Saxony State Office of Criminal Investigation and finally the Göttingen public prosecutor's office. I was aware of this suspicion of money laundering.

I also expressed this in e-mails to everyone, including Antonia Fischer and Justus Hoffmann, who, however, never got involved and never responded to an e-mail. I said, guys, this is also dangerous for us, because the termination of our donation accounts, the company didn't have one, so first I held one in trust for the committee, then Tobias Weisenborn, my colleague, and then I held two accounts again. They were all canceled, starting in July 2020. From the end of July 2020, we knew, at least those who know a bit about law, Tobias Weisenborn and I, we knew, and I also said so in the emails: "Attention, we are also being targeted, the accounts have been terminated.

-2 -

This is solely due to the fact that the banks suspect money laundering. They reported this to the main customs office and then to the state criminal investigation office."

As I have now seen from the files, they were actually investigating us. And at the time, everything was known, including the loans, including the fact that all communication, I would say 95 percent of communication with the committee donors and auditors, went through our law firm. This was all known and the public prosecutor, who was then involved, took note of it all, classified everything correctly and said, yes, it may be that some money was taken, loans were meant, but that doesn't mean that it won't come back. And that was exactly the plan.

So Viviane and I each withdrew money to secure it. We had real estate as a store of value, so I certainly did. And it was never meant to be a liquidity reserve, that's stupid. Because if it had been a liquidity reserve, we would have had to store it in other accounts and it would have been exposed to seizure again. So both she and I let the money disappear, always in the knowledge that it would be repaid anyway. At least I did from my store of value, we both spent it, that's quite clear. It was a personal loan. This personal loan was reported openly, not secretly. And it was also listed correctly in the books.

So the accusation is embezzlement because of this loan. However, a loan is not a gift or withdrawal of money, but always involves an obligation to repay. This repayment obligation affected both of us. The court agrees that we were both willing and able to repay the money. I would have done it long ago ... I've known since the end of 2020 that Germany's economy was being driven to the wall. That didn't escape some people's notice and now you can see how true it is. We were determined to sell our house. The house was sold for 1.345 million. At the time, the land register was clean, it only contained owner's debts. These are land charges that are empty.

And 6 weeks later, Mr. Templin had this land charge registered for himself by way of fraud, blackmail and indirect false certification. If he hadn't done that, and if he hadn't deceived the notary and the buyer and put them under pressure, saying that I would foreclose on the property that you had just bought and that you wanted to move into if you didn't transfer the money to me, then the 700,000 would have gone back to the committee. However, I would have liked to know beforehand who the committee is. It's certainly not these two or the three Berliners. If anything, there is only one committee company that was not only founded but also registered. And that was Viviane Fischer's and mine. There are still a number of corporate law details to be clarified. But to round off the accusation or to make its rejection clear.

Infidelity is an offense that dates back to the Third Reich and is extremely controversial. The specific accusation against me is that I have breached a duty to look after assets and thereby caused damage to those whose assets I am responsible for looking after. The judiciary says that this is all unconstitutional, but the Constitutional Court says that it is unconstitutional because nobody knows what a duty to look after assets actually is, what is the breach of duty here and what is the damage? It is so unclear that none of the addressees, i.e. those to whom the law is directed, know what is punishable and what is not. It is particularly bad for directors of public limited companies, for managing directors of companies, limited liability companies, such as ours, a small limited liability company, which was supposed to be a UG, but never became one because Justus Hoffmann prevented the company from being registered with the help of a very dubious tax advisor, so it never became a UG. But at least it was supposed to become one.

And it is particularly difficult for company directors to do anything at all when this unclear threat of embezzlement from Section 266 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) is constantly looming over everything. That is precisely the problem here. My actions as managing director, including those of Viviane Fischer as managing director - we were the only ones who did anything in the business - must be examined here. Is there a duty to look after the assets? If so, to whom and for what reason? There can only have been one towards the donors and the spectators, because the articles of association state that none of us get the money, even if we leave. But that's exactly what the two former substitute members of the committee Viviane, sorry, Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer are now trying to do.

-3 -

They are trying to get money that they are not entitled to, contrary to the statutes. They already have money in their account. This is the purchase price from my property, which should actually have gone to me, or to my wife's account, and it includes my money, my clients' money and also the committee's money. Mind you, who the committee is still needs to be clarified.

So, the obligation to look after the assets, if it existed at all, was towards the donors. However, the Göttingen public prosecutor's office has already established that there is nothing there as part of the fraud investigation that took place earlier. We delivered exactly what we wanted, namely clarification. There is tons of material on this, you can still look it up today. You can also see that the other two substitutes never played a role for us. So the obligation to look after assets, if at all, was to the donors and the spectators. The question was, that is the crucial question, was there a breach of duty? I have only now seen from the files that this loan was a breach of duty in a situation, in a dangerous situation, as we perceived it and as it actually was. That they were really after the five of us.

The Berliners probably still don't know that, and even if they get the file, that doesn't mean they're capable of reading it. But the danger was real. Can you do that in a situation like that? And there is the famous business judgment rule. This is a rule according to which managing directors of companies have a wide margin of discretion in their actions, because they can't constantly be afraid that everything I do here will blow up in my face and land me in jail. And this margin of discretion is extended again in dangerous situations, as we perceived them. Since both of us, me and Viviane, at least that's what the court clearly conceded to me, were always able and willing to repay, if 700,000 out of 1.345 million is not quite so big, not a big problem, there can't have been a breach of duty here.

Apart from that, this was covered by the presumed consent of the donors and viewers. Because in the situation in which we found ourselves, it was certainly not in the interests of the donors and viewers to do nothing and wait until we too were seized, so that the very people whose actions we were supposed to investigate would then snatch the donation money on the basis of the order placed on us and supported by the donors and viewers. In other words, the state, which has failed here in a far more brutal way.

On the contrary. There is also embezzlement by omission. If we hadn't done anything, we'd have been prosecuted for omission. There is also case law on this. So, that's the accusation that must disappear into thin air, as we have now filed a criminal complaint against the three Berliners for fraud, extortion, breach of trust and by omission, apology, breach of trust and indirect false certification. Will the public prosecutor's office investigate as diligently as they did against me?

Rüdiger Lenz: Is it true that Dr. Justus P. Hoffmann made negative comments about Viviane Fischer in court on the third day of the trial? If so, in what way did he do that?

Reiner Fuellmich: Yes, at the end of the session I tried to take a first step by asking why he behaved like that. Why is he trying to grab money that he is not entitled to from any conceivable point of view, contrary to the statutes that he is aware of? I wanted to bring about a clarification. This is not yet finished, it will be. But it is absolutely right that this back and forth by Justus Hoffmann only makes sense with this explanation, which is still to come. Yes, he did indeed make very negative comments about her, waffling back and forth. She was a ticking time bomb, that's probably what he said. She had no idea about law, he was the great guru (Reiner Fuellmich laughs). It's downright ridiculous, he didn't even exist as a lawyer before 2019, at least not as a lawyer. Without Professor Dr. Martin Schwab, these three lawyers would not exist as port lawyers and none of them would ever have managed to get a brief together, at least in my estimation.

So, that's right, he made very negative comments. I don't know what that was about, but he keeps trying to find his way back to Viviane, trying to make nice with her. "Yes, no, I asked you to pay." Him 100,000 (Reiner Fuellmich laughs), you wonder who else he wants to extort money from? But I think we'd better leave that alone, I've put that on the back burner in the meantime.

-4 -

Just like he can't back up almost everything he's actually claimed with anything. It's true, he came down hard on her too. Let's see what he does next.

Rüdiger Lenz: What is the connection between the port lawyers in Berlin and the Corona Committee? And which people are legally authorized to represent them? Can you say something about what form of company you and Viviane Fischer and possibly others have taken in terms of the Corona Committee?

Reiner Fuellmich: Well, the three port lawyers, only two of them are associated with the Corona Committee. Marcel Templin has never had anything to do with it. He always wanted to be part of it, especially during one of the phases when Justus Hoffmann was, well, how shall we put it, completely unavailable due to health issues, he tried to force himself onto the committee instead of Justus Hoffmann, but neither Viviane nor I wanted to see him there. We believe that he had neither the professional nor the personal qualifications to do so. The other two were originally formally members of the company behind the Corona Committee. But this company never came into being. It was founded, but it was never registered. And precisely because Antonia Fischer and Justus Hoffmann prevented it from being registered. In my opinion, they deliberately prevented it so that they could create this chaos in order to get the committee's money.

The company, that was this ... Corona-, Vorsteuer, Corona-Auschuss (Vorschald) ... (Reiner Fuellmich speaks indistinctly here) UG in Gründung or something like that was probably its name. It is still in formation today. Because contrary to the claims that Justus Hoffmann made in between, it was never founded. But these are many of his claims that cannot be reconciled with reality in any way, including that I once said in a public chat that I had appropriated 85 percent of the committee funds. That's absolutely stupid stuff from someone who has obviously lost control of his life.

Rüdiger Lenz: In a personal statement on the third day of the trial, which was published on Bittel.TV, you said that you are charged with an offense under Section 266 of the German Criminal Code, which is a Nazi law and was introduced by the Nazis in 1933. Incidentally, the denazification of Germany was a condition imposed on Germany after 1945 by the victorious Allied powers. In this sense, they are accused of disloyalty. You reject disloyalty. Why?

- Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has already answered this question sufficiently above. -

Rüdiger Lenz: In the same personal statement, you say that you suspect that the complainants want the donors' money for the Corona Committee, your money, Viviane Fischer's money and that of your clients. Can you explain what you mean by that?

Reiner Fuellmich: Yes, they still have money from my clients from the class action. That must be around half a million, 500,000. I don't know what they've done with it. Those are my clients. They should have handed over the documents to me. They want Viviane's money. There's a letter dated December 4, I think, from Justus Hoffmann to ..., just a second (a prison officer reminds Fuellmich to get to the end), there's a letter from Justus Hoffmann to Viviane Fischer, they want 700,000 from her. Yes, and they announce that they want another 500,000 or more from her. That's already 1.2 - 1.3 million that they want from her.

In the meantime, he (note from Rüdiger Lenz: this refers to Justus Hoffmann at the court hearing in early February 2024) has done a backwards roll in court. They still have 1.158 million from me in their account, to which they have no claim under any conceivable circumstances, zero. I think that has slowly become clear in court.

-5 -

And they also want to get their hands on the gold. That's another million or more. So, depending on how you add it up and what you can imagine Justus Hoffmann coming up with (Reiner Fuellmich laughs), how much he will then claim, it comes to around 5 million. Wait a minute, I think I have to ...

Rüdiger Lenz: The conversation was ended here by the prison officers.

Dr. Fuellmich, thank you for answering this first part of my questions to you and I wish you and your wife strength and God's blessing on the path of justice.
+++
We would like to thank the author for the right to publish this article.
+++
Apolut is also available as a free app for Android and iOS devices. Here is the link: https://apolut.net/app/

_________________________________

Here is the address to write to Reiner: My hope - the wish and intent from all of us, that soon we will not be writing to this address!!!

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 February 24, 2024