Here, for those you you who want all the details you can get, is the English translation of a phone conversation between Roger Bittel and Katja Woermer, about Day 6 of Reiner’s trial. Sissi did an enormous amount of work, transcribing the conversation, then translating it.
Like so many of us doing things here, Sissi is doing things because she cares. It’s not her profession. Much learning. For instance, here she did not note who says what. That isn’t needed if, as she has done at other times, she turns the text into subtitles. She may, for a clip, do this for a short portion of the text.
My decision is to post what is here. Lots of good info.
By the way, courtesy of Sissi, toward the start are 2 photos of Notary Kleinjohann, who deposited the money into an account other than Reiner’s. His assertion: he did everything right. Jiota has provided some of the details. More here.
If you scroll to the end, a photo of Roger outside the courtyard.
Now, the conversation.
Katja Woermer and Roger Bittel live phone conversation
Discussion: 5th of March 2024, Day 6 Reiner Fuellmich Trial
Hello Katja! Hello Roger! We are live on air!
It's great that you can take the time to discuss this with us. Gladly. Yes, it was my turn to read out Jiota's texts, because she always summarizes them very well and we were just at the part where Viviane Fischer also came on. But maybe I think it would be interesting for the viewers if we could review it together, me with my notes and you of course with everything you've put together. Maybe a bit of the highlights from today, from the morning. Yes, well, first up was the Notary Kleinjohann. I'm not sure if it was Dr. Kleinjohann, I always forget, but I think it was. And at the time he arranged the sale of Reiner's house.
Fuellmich accompanied him, so to speak. So he also drew up the purchase contract, and as he said, on request for all three parties, i.e. for the two buyers and also for Reiner Fuellmich.
So he didn't have a specific client, he was neutral. So it was on August 12th that he received an order for a smaller amount of 295,000, I noted. Exactly, there was one, and on September 28th it was 1.1 million. Exactly for the buyer who bought the largest part, who also...
The second step was to buy the rest from the other buyer. That's exactly when the assignment was already in August, so to speak, and you can clearly see that the house sale was already underway in August, and that was also the subject of the questioning of Fischer afterwards. Where she criticized or reproached Reiner Fuellmich for not having ordered a land charge back then, when all these mediation or crisis talks had taken place in summer 22. And then he said that the decision had been made to sell the house instead and not to create a land charge, and of course the house was to be sold unencumbered.
It was unencumbered at the time, there were only empty land charges on the house. And yes, since the decision to sell the whole house was made in August, and he made that known, and also emphasized it again and again in all these mediation talks, he naturally no longer registered a land charge at that time. Which is somehow logical, because you could have done either or. Either he would have said, I'm keeping the house, and then of course he could have filled the owner's land charges, which were empty at the time, at any time, e.g. to repay the loan to the committee directly in full or in several smaller steps.
Or the alternative is to sell the house directly, and then of course the buyers often have an interest in it being unencumbered. And that's why he wanted to go for this second alternative once he had decided on it, naturally no more land charges.
Yes well, he also said on 21.09 with me, then he said quite clearly, I could take out a loan at any time, that was there, where then though, there was still no sign of the Templin, of 700,000.
If I had to, I could do that. That's what he said at the time. So he could... Yes, he could have done that, but in this particular case, the buyers wanted to buy free of charge. Logically, as I said, there are always these two alternatives. Either you could of course have taken out another loan from the bank, but then he would probably have had to secure the house again. So those are actually the two alternative paths. So, the purchase, the transaction was already in full swing on August 22nd, and then you could have just done it like that. If a few strange things hadn't happened, which we'll go into in more detail now. You then asked the notary whether it was normal, or how would it be better to put it, whether it wasn't his job to perhaps check if suddenly out of nowhere there was a land charge of 600,000 from Templin in the land register.
How did you perceive that? Yes, well, I mean, I just asked them whether at the time of signing the purchase contract on October 3rd was the date, they just did it on a public holiday, I think it was this day of German unity or October 3rd, and of course he had taken a current extract from the land register beforehand and on the day of signing by the parties he probably also checked again digitally that everything was really free of encumbrances, that was it at that time. Then the purchase contract was signed and everything went according to plan.
The formalities were completed and then in mid-November there were suddenly problems because the bank, which of course was also asked whether it was still in the name of Hallbaumbank, so to speak. I think that was the first rank registered, whether it could be deleted, and the bank said, yes, as far as we're concerned, but we have nothing more to do with it. Because back then we assigned our land charge to a Mr. Marcel Templin and we never heard from him again. But we no longer had to insure ourselves, at least that was the opinion of Hallbaumbank's legal department. We didn't have to insure ourselves any more, we assigned it to him at the beginning of 2021 and that's the end of the matter for us. We have to turn to them. And then he turned to him and suddenly, on 18.11.22, Marcel Templin apparently had the land charge registered in his name. In other words, 1.5 years after it had been assigned to him, so to speak, and above all what is important is that in the end there was no longer any agreement at all between the parties about the security, i.e. about the secured loan between Reiner Fuellmich and Marcel Templin. This was because the loan had been drawn from this class action. From the advance payments, so to speak, from this plaintiffs' association, for the class action and the cooperation between Marcel Templin and Reiner Fuellmich had long since been terminated. They had parted company. I think some clients withdrew, but there weren't that many of them. The majority of the clients actually went to Reiner Fuellmich. They instructed him, i.e. they signed a power of attorney with which they terminated the mandate with Marcel Templin and instructed Reiner Fuellmich directly. We can also present the powers of attorney, which number almost 900, and I have the originals at all times. And yes, in this respect there was actually no longer a contractual relationship, and then you can argue whether there was still a claim for repayment of the loan amount. But even if you were to assume that the loan still existed or existed at the time, it would only have been €600,000 plus interest, so a maximum of around 650,000, but not an amount of 1.1. M. Exactly.
Now I have to ask to make sure I've understood correctly. That was all money from the class action, that was administered at the time or was given an order by Reiner to administer it, to Templin's account.
Is that correct? Exactly, the lawyer Templin had the task of administering the mandates, i.e. to regulate organizational matters, and that's why in the end they also received the money for the assignment of this, this advance, which wasn't really an advance. It wasn't a proper settlement either, it was just a kind of advance payment for participation in this class action, but ultimately it wasn't a settlement for the mandate. It was only supposed to be properly billed to the client if the case was successful. But that means that since almost 100% of the powers of attorney have probably gone to Reiner Fuellmich, Templin has nothing more to report. No, not really. So how did he get the idea to enter another 600,000? Yes, the assignment, with lawyers you always have the transaction under the law of obligations, the claim under the law of obligations, and the claim in rem, and here the assignment was declared in rem, via the land charge. Of course, you can actually only assign or register a land charge in the amount of the security agreement, but a notary does not usually check that, at least that is how Mr. Kleinjohann presented it today. That it would not have been his task to check the underlying debt relationship or the amount of the security agreement at all, because he cannot do that. He probably realized, of course, that it was highly controversial between the parties, but he said that they should have taken it to a civil court, that a judge should have somehow decided which of them was right. He couldn't deal with it, he's not a court, he just looked to see what was entered in the land register. The good faith of the land register, just like you're always told in law school. So, he didn't check, although of course he had a lot of indications that something wasn't right. I would like to ask about that! On November 18, it was discovered that this 600,000 suddenly appeared in the land registry. But there's a letter, I think you can explain that in more detail now, that Marcel Templin, I think, returned or confirmed that he no longer had a right to the money? Or how? Did I get that wrong? Well, Marcel Templin himself had already terminated the collaboration with Reiner Fuellmich because they no longer got on. And Reiner Fuellmich then apparently terminated the cooperation of his own accord in summer 22 or offered the clients that they could instruct him directly if they wished. There were also always apparently the offer that if they want to withdraw from this class action they will get their money back. Some clients are also said to have made use of this, at least according to Antonia Fischer and Justus Hoffmann, Justus Hoffmann also said that last week. But I actually know that there are very many, I can't say the exact number at the moment, but there are the majority of clients who are then with
Reiner Fuellmich directly in the end. So they went over to him. But does that mean this termination happened before the entry? I think the termination of this cooperation and therefore also the loan claim expired in summer 22.
But as a lay-person, I have to ask: Isn't that, dare I say it, a bit criminal? Yes, of course you can say that, or you can definitely see it that way. Of course, you can also say that there was a dispute between the parties, they argued about whether the claim under the law of obligations still existed or no longer existed. Neither of them is somehow went to court and sued the other one. They only ever wrote to each other, and the other one didn't accept what the other one said. But what is absolutely clear, what you can say without further ado, is that there was no claim higher than this loan of €600,000. So there are letters from both sides, from Marcel Templin and Reiner Fuellmich, saying that it was only ever about the €600,000 plus interest since the beginning of 21, I think at 5% or something like that, which was another €30,000. But that's actually clear to see, we have to say now, why did he enter that? That is one thing. That also needs to be clarified. But back to the notary. He got enough indications that something was wrong and, above all, Reiner never knew for a second that 1.1 million was somehow to be transferred? That is correct. The notary also said that he hadn't actually informed Reiner Fuellmich about this amount. He said that in his notarial language, in his notarial language, he spoke of a faithful speech or a faithful agreement.
Reiner Fuellmich should have recognized that this meant that something might be entered in a completely different sum, which simply covered the land charges that existed before, i.e. in the amount of the entire owner's land charges, completely independently of the actual claim under the law of obligations. And he thinks that the notary thinks that, despite the fact that he realized that it was all highly contentious, he didn't have to check it under substantive law, nor could he. So I remember that there was an email, and then Reiner wrote that it was worth a try. He then interpreted it to mean that he agreed, even though Reiner hadn't seen any figures from the notary. That's right, and the wording was probably referring to something completely different, it was supposedly said in a completely different context. The notary thought Reiner should have done something different, he should have registered an objection, so to speak.
So yes, I think that overall there was no agreement with the whole procedure and that all the letters that went to the notary should have been seen as an objection, that was actually relatively clear. I think there were an incredible number of notations. He had three thick files on this process alone and had to search and leaf through them again and again. It's clear from that that there was an incredible amount of writing back and forth. So I made a note of something that was an objection, yes, I think there was even an example from the judge or who was that? Where he said that if there had been an urgent application, the court would have decided, then of course he would have reacted and then said, that's not how it works. Later. Yes, he wanted us to contact the notary's supervisory authority and make an application to the Götting district court at that time and an objection would have been entered in the land register. That would have been a very special form of urgent application. The notary would have considered that to be the correct legal remedy and then he would have reacted. But now comes the part where he says, right, that was in the middle of the witness statement, but at the end it came up again and then he reacted completely differently. Did you feel the same way? How did he react differently? Well, he then said that, along the lines of, yes, that would be a court decision. Reiner then said, yes, a court decision, it's clear what has to be done. Wouldn't they have reacted accordingly and not allowed it? Yes, that was in reference to the urgent application that was actually made. There was an urgent application, I think before the Berlin Regional Court, but I'm not looking at my files right now, I can't say for sure. But it went ahead, it had other applications, there was no application to enter an objection in the land register but to establish certain things.
And if the urgent application had gone through, but it was filed later, the whole thing with the transfer of the purchase price had already been running in parallel. So the notary didn't wait any longer, he just settled it in the end. He also said a few times that his job was simply to go through with the purchase contract, to fulfill it, so to speak, and to ensure payment of the purchase price. And the one buyer had put a lot of pressure on him, which is actually clear. Of course he wanted to get into the house. In this respect, it's not reproachable, and ultimately he didn't care who he paid the money to, as long as he could get into the house. Yes, this pressure was then somehow given in to. At least the notary then probably interpreted the whole thing for himself as, yes, the seller is somehow not making an explicit objection to me, not a formal one as I imagine it, and the one buyer is putting pressure on me, and how do I get this sorted out somehow quickly? How do I get the purchase contract settled? And then he just kind of went through with it as he saw fit or as he thought was compatible with his regulations for notaries. And yes, in the end, the notary didn't even inform Reiner Fuellmich of the amount of money that would have been going to Templin. So Reiner Fuellmich would obviously have agreed that the 600,000 should be repaid, and that could have been clarified somehow afterwards through the civil courts. But at no time was he aware, and he was not informed of this, he only found out later, that almost the entire purchase price had been paid to Marcel Templin, the creditor of the land charge.
Okay, so I see people's heads are spinning a bit because it's quite complex, of course, and you've actually explained it very well. I'll try to summarize it a bit from my point of view.
There's a relatively - how do you say? - the land register was very clean, what was that? He made that up on 3.10, 29.9 had that. Yes, the land register is clean. The land register was clean, you can say that nothing stands in the way of a sale.
And then it could have been completed. On 18.11, Templin comes out of nowhere with his 600,000, even though the cooperation with Reiner Fuellmich had been terminated. Correct. But the notary did not check that in terms of material law. So I'm just trying to explain without judging. But what do you think, is that a duty of the notary or not? Yes, that would have to be checked. I have certainly spoken to other notaries. Every notary probably has a different pain threshold, I'll just say that. The chairman also asked this question today, why? The seller actually has to ensure payment of the purchase price or arrange for it to be paid, why did he, as a notary public, somehow suddenly take this on with such vehemence? And above all, why did he not make any enquiries at all? Or didn't say no, I'm not going to go ahead with the transaction, it's somehow too delicate for me. Or I say - that was probably also offered somehow in between - to transfer the money to the trust account first. Or there was also an appointment to amend the purchase contract, but Reiner Fuellmich allegedly wrote again, it's worth a try.
And the notary then interpreted this again as consent. So the question is whether it's all true and comprehensible. The problem was also that they probably didn't speak to each other because Reiner Fuellmich was in the USA at the time. There was just e-mail correspondence, i.e. written correspondence. So yes, he (the notary) certainly wanted to talk his way out of it.
Perhaps it's also easy for people to understand. The notary was, the customers were the buyers and Reiner Fuellmich. So he was the notary for both sides, in other words on an equal footing. And you would actually have to assume that if something like what you have just described happened, that I would inform my client, Reiner Fuellmich, by the way, 1.1 million would then go into another account, is that okay? So? Yes, that's right.
So they should have at least informed him and the chairman then also asked from what amount they would have informed him and from what disproportion? So then, as an example, I think he said that if the sum had somehow been €500 and €100,000 should have been transferred to the land charge creditor all at once, would he have somehow checked or done something?
Then he would have reacted, but with double the amount as it was, he obviously saw no reason to. He always smiled a bit, (the notary) I don't know if it was out of insecurity or for other reasons? But whether the notary did the right thing, we still have to clarify that.
But I just have to say: absolutely unprofessional for me, I would say that to his face if I were his client now and he didn't inform me. "Yes, you've had a bit of bad luck, someone has defined a figure that will now be transferred, I'm not sure if it's correct but I'll just do it now." That really sums it up. So yes, he just withdrew to this position, he just went through the formalities in the end.
Quite intense. So of course I made a few notes. It was worth trying, he kept mentioning that Reiner had apparently agreed to it. Reiner clearly denied that, it wasn't true, they didn't give me a single figure, I would never have let that go through and I would have objected immediately. And that yes, fiercely. How did you perceive him (the notary) yourself, of course I didn't see him head-on, you see him better from your point of view, I found him relatively nervous. (the notary) How did you feel about that? I can't say for sure. Well, one of the things he did was smile. He was also an older gentleman. So yes, of course it's unpleasant to be interviewed for two hours, he probably didn't imagine it that way. Yes, possibly, so I also think that he got nervous in between, or that it wasn't pleasant, let's put it that way. Maybe a little intermet in between.
Mrs. Nieman (hostile local news reporter) came a little later, she was at 10 o'clock, look, she came again later at 10:15, maybe. My new girlfriend. (sarcastic). I didn't pay attention. No, no, I made a note of it because I was still talking to her, I called her and she didn't want to talk to me. Then she sighed. I did a "We're calling" live broadcast once, she didn't think that was cool and hung up the phone again. And I had her next to me but I couldn't talk to her because she left after an hour. Mrs. Niemann is also interesting. Someone from the audience told me that she wrote one part and the rest of the pages were already written.
Oh, you could see that on her? Yes. Ok, that's also interesting. Yes, I'll have a look. But that is. Do you still have it? So basically the interest of the mainstream media is somehow relatively low, if you put it that way.
The... I don't know his exact name at the moment, but the man from NDR was also there today, but he left at lunchtime or at some point. Yes, he asked me, I didn't know him, he just asked me: Did you come from Africa on purpose for this appointment? So I said yes. It is also interesting that he knew where you came from.
I'll have a look. Do you have anything else from the notary that you think is worth mentioning to the community? No, the whole thing is just that it needs to be clarified further and I think that's enough for now.
Good. On this point. Then, exactly! At 10 o'clock, I can just see it, at 10:15 she (Ms Nieman) came. I wrote it down, at 11 o'clock she left the room again. Mrs. Nieman. By the way.
Well, then there was a break, and I think that's when Reiner made his statement. Where he once again had the opportunity to make a clarification in relation to all the statements made by Justus Hoffmann last time. Yes, are there perhaps two or three highlights you would like to mention? Yes, in the end, he wanted to clarify his position or one of his positions in the trial. So once again as a kind of replica to the statement of the previous witnesses, specifically, to Justus Hoffmann's assessment. And that he assumes that Justus Hoffmann did not tell the truth about many things. He commented on a few individual things. He pointed out that the legal proceedings in Berlin, which had been initiated against my colleague Dagmar Schön, were based on the first, I believe it was the first interview after the arrest with you on the program, that the applications were withdrawn on the advice of the chamber. Or maybe there's still a judgment or a decision, but that's somehow still open at the moment, or at least I don't know exactly at the moment. And yes, that was supposed to be a kind of determination of the situation.
Okay, so I noticed that he then also really clearly said a few things that Justus Hoffmann really lied, that money to "Die Basis" and so on is a lie. That Inka and Reiner Fuellmich had met in a psychiatric ward, that was also something like that. And there were some things that I read out beforehand from Jiotta, she summarized it well. I think we can leave it at that. There is one more question that I can also mention briefly: Misere (the new lawyer) wasn't there due to illness. If I've got it right, if everything works out, he'll be in Göttingen next Friday. Can you confirm that? Yes, I know he's ill. I don't know exactly when he'll be back. Okay, we'll have to wait and see.
Well, and then the next witness was Viviane Fischer. Exactly. That was actually the continuation of the questioning. Viviane Fischer was also questioned last week. It actually started last week on Tuesday and continued last Friday. Friday, of course, was only half a day and today it continued from the lunch break. The judge started to summarize something, asked a few more questions. And that was then, well... I have to say, Viviane, if you're watching, don't take it personally, but you have a talent for using a lot of words and saying nothing. I'm sorry, I just have to say that's uh uh, it's incredible how she can embellish that. She even beats Reiner, he's good at it too, but Reiner doesn't stand a chance against Viviane Fischer, so in my personal opinion you don't have to say anything. Well, there were clearly a few questions, which I also asked afterwards in response to e-mails where she was, for example, on a copy of the purchase of the gold and there was already in August 21 where I just wanted to know, did she see that? What does she say about it? Because she testified, or confirmed again and again, that she had allegedly only found out about the gold purchase in summer 22 and was then completely horrified, for whatever reason, because in the end it was basically a gold purchase. It's the classic solution when you want to invest money safely and don't want to keep it in a bank account because you think the money will be devalued, or the bank will go bust, or it will be frozen or pledged. In this particular case, it was feared that this would happen, which is why buying gold was actually the safest and best solution, and it must also be said that it was absolutely advantageous for the committee, because I think Reiner Fuellmich somehow bought the gold back then for 900,000 euros and a few crushes, as they always say, and it has now of course risen significantly in value. Absolutely. Now it's worth at least 1.2 million, so the committee has more or less earned money with it, which is certainly deposited with the Gusser company.
That was also a recurring topic of discussion. I would like to discuss something with you briefly: Reiner said quite clearly: Viviane, why didn't you take this gold? You had this, you could have taken this gold? And then I was totally surprised, I said no, I don't trust you anymore, because - if I understood correctly - Reiner bought it and then it goes back into his account. Simply administratively. But Reiner would never have kept that to himself because it makes zero sense! Then she would have made a video 2 minutes later and then Reiner's reputation would have been ruined. Why should he have kept the money? That makes 0.0 sense! How do you see it? Yes, they just didn't trust each other anymore at that point. Well, there were, that was already in the middle of 22, when there were all these crises and mediation talks where there were always a lot of participants, including you, and at that point they didn't trust each other, so without wanting to take anyone's protection, they generally didn't trust each other anymore. I think there were also discussions that some of the money should go to Viviane Fischer's personal account instead of the committee account, which Reiner Fuellmich, for example, didn't want either. That was in a different context, I can't remember which one. And Viviane Fischer is now claiming - but this would have to be checked again - that the sale of the gold would have led to the money being paid into Reiner Fuellmich's personal account, or should have been paid into another account of Reiner Fuellmich. So I can only say that now because I have to check it first. We have to check.
Let me speak, Roger. Because in my opinion, the gold was deposited in the names of the two of them. That's how I got it. I don't know if that's one hundred percent correct, but there's also e-mail traffic that I still have to check.
Okay, so that means we still have to check that. But even if it were true that the money would have gone into an account of Reiner Fuellmich, it makes 0.0 sense that he (would not have paid it back) and this million in gold is always completely ignored. Yes. That's a joke, of course. He wouldn't have passed it on? Yes, of course. (a joke, preposterous)
But of course that's one of those things if they were at odds at the time and you could certainly have found a solution somehow, let's put it that way. Yes, well, I believe that there would have been a solution and there were already concrete dates for liquidating the gold, for selling it, so there was already e-mail correspondence with Degussa with the responsible employees that there were already dates, etc. So you could have liquidated the million at any time. So you could have liquidated at any time, you didn't have to liquidate the entire million, but you could have liquidated some of the gold within a few days. This is clear from the e-mail correspondence. So that the committee would have been liquid again immediately. Because Viviane Fischer always says that there were times when there were allegedly only 1000 euros left in the committee account.
The bottom line is that if I still have a million in gold, then I can't somehow say the committee is broke. Of course, that's kind of nonsense. Definitely. So gold, perhaps as a keyword, she claimed that she first heard about it in summer 22? Then you were able to clearly deny that with an email where I think she was CC?
Exactly, it was a copy. And that was in August 21, if I've noted that correctly? Correct! And it even says "Gold" in the title and I think there was a confirmation that 400,000 gold had now been bought, right? Another 400,000. And she suddenly didn't want to know anything more about that? No, she says she doesn't remember, she doesn't know, she denies that she ever received the e-mails.
She never checked. And exactly, she can't remember it. Or she says yes, then we should have talked about it again, but she would have if there really hadn't been any conversations beforehand, which I can't judge because I wasn't there, of course. I assume that when I see an email like this where someone is copied in, I assume that there were of course conversations beforehand, or that there was further communication outside of that. I don't have all the emails and chat traffic from that time and yes, there was supposedly no further communication. And I don't know whether she didn't read the e-mails or whether she would have at least then, so - if there had been no further communication - this e-mail would have been at the latest for me at least if I had had a copy of such an e-mail, I would have asked at the latest what it is now? Yes, above all, she is, how do you say, a company director, and then you get an e-mail, "Gold 400,000", and if you still didn't know anything about it, at the latest then you would ask: "Wait a minute, what's going on?" Yes, that's what I mean, that's when you ask at the latest. But she just, I also looked at the balance sheet, which was good, it's headed with provisional balance sheet for 2020, where she had co-signed. And there she also says, for example, that she signed, initialed or did things, allegedly according to her admission, always on the spur of the moment without checking anything and without questioning it. And always quickly between door and door where there was allegedly no opportunity to think about it or ask questions. Which of course there always is the possibility. Nobody is forced and I don't think there was any reason to do so. You didn't have to sign immediately, you always had time. You can always say, no, I'll have to think about it first, I'll take it with me, I'd like to talk about it. And especially as a lawyer and economist, which I know she is, yes, in my opinion you can evaluate such things, or you can demand that someone somehow checks it again or thinks about it or can somehow assess it correctly. But well, I wasn't there at the time, I don't know how it actually went. So to summarize: She no longer trusted Reiner and she didn't want the money to go into Reiner's account. I have to say that I find this explanation a bit inconsistent, because what was Reiner supposed to do? Take the money and put it somewhere, I don't know what? So no, that... Never mind.
Then we have this story with value storage and liquidity reserves, where she keeps saying that she wouldn't have allowed it and blah blah blah.
And then you have to ask yourself: What is a liquidity reserve? Apart from gold? Or, then what else? Well, she even confirmed in an e-mail that it's a store of value, and she also said it's real estate. And I don't think she wanted to know anything about that until then? Yes, that wasn't an email - that was my recollection after the shareholders' meeting in fall '22, when everyone was at odds. But it's still basically the case that this is a recurring theme. Reiner Fuellmich said right from the start that they had invested the money in each other, in stores of value so to speak.
So, it should have been invested in something of value, and the safest way to do that is with gold or real estate. In other words, it shouldn't be sitting in any accounts. And Viviane Fischer always gets involved and says it should have been a liquidity reserve. And in her opinion, that would have been something that could have been called up again within a very short time. But of course, that would have been in the form of a securities account, she said. Or some kind of fixed-term deposit account and fixed-term deposit accounts are of course not necessarily available at any time. As you know, it depends on the terms of the contract.
And a securities account, yes, in the end it depends a bit, but the question is whether that wouldn't have been just as insecure as a bank account or another account. Yes, I see it similarly. She already mentioned that, but it's a bit of a "Haette Vorradkette" Then she also admitted that a part of the book sale was returned. That's what she said. But she didn't mention how it was divided up. And then Reiner intervened again and said: "I was about to sell the house, I told you that, it was all okay, I would have transferred the money to you, I always said that I would return the money.
And then came this story with Templin? Yes, correct! Which made it all impossible. There are different statements about this, but as far as I know, or at least he has emphasized this again today, that he said this again and again in these crises or mediation talks at the time. And that it was undisputed. She then of course said again in between: "Yes, then you would have sold the house and then you would have been gone."
Then she said: "No, I didn't want to accuse him of running away". Then I asked: "Yes, but even if he had left, it wouldn't have mattered, the house would have been sold and the money from the loan repatriated. And whether Reiner Fuellmich lives in Mexico, Japan or on the moon doesn't really matter. Yes.
Definitely. Yes, it was an intense day, so I have to admit, it was my first time in the courtroom like that. I can't say that about you. It's routine for you, of course.
But I have to say, it's very exhausting to then try to listen, maybe take notes,
also try a bit to....connect the dots. How exactly this is meant. So I have to say, chapau for everyone involved. Just like you now. It needs a lot of attention, but I think the day has nevertheless shown a lot. How would you summarize it? It was
I'm sure there were a few points that showed the court what really happened. I definitely think so. Finally hearing the notary was very enlightening, because that's the second set of facts, so to speak, which had previously been very much in the dark, it still hasn't been fully clarified, but it was definitely helpful to hear the notary at all. How he gets involved, yes, because that was very questionable.
And Viviane Fischer, yes, we haven't finished questioning her yet, that will continue on Friday. Yes, the witness who was supposed to be there on Friday has been cancelled, and will not be there until next week. And there are certainly a few more points. So it's actually difficult, at least that's what I had the feeling when I asked her questions, to somehow get to the point. I can only confirm that it's unbelievable how she goes off on a tangent and then the judge partly agrees with her:
"Now please let the witness finish." That's true somewhere, but bah. Well, that's right, you have to say. Because Reiner Fuellmich also made some very long remonstrations. And of course it's also right to let the witness finish, because many things that are told in passing are also important, so that's important for the overall impression and also to understand the whole story. So basically, I'm also an absolute fan of letting the witnesses finish and prefer to find out a bit more or to hear about things that aren't important, in the margin, rather than just having such short, concise answers.
That gives the whole thing more food for thought. But I just meant specific questions. Yes, I'm right there with you. So she has the talent, I stand by that, she can really use a lot of words and I have it then of course, I'm not so intelligent that I understand it. Or the content wasn't so concise after all. But I've already said that. I'm curious to see what happens on Friday, I think it's only half a day on Friday, isn't that right? Yes, unless the chairman requests an extension. Well, I don't know now, at least he didn't mention that today. Okay. Yes, then we would say we'll continue on Friday. The other dates are known. That will continue, of course. You've already mentioned, so are there any witnesses already known who are still to come?
Or is that still open? So next Tuesday, Tobias Weißenborn will probably be summoned. He was also involved in some of the matters with the Corona Committee. He's a lawyer with whom Reiner Fuellmich has always worked closely. And yes, I can't think of any more witnesses right now. So there will be another hearing next Tuesday.
I think there will be a break then. Okay, but Templin will surely be called in, I suppose? At some point? Yes, definitely! Otherwise we won't get this matter, these two sets of facts about the property, fully clarified.
Yes, Katja, on behalf of the whole community I'd just like to say a big thank you for your commitment to Reiner and of course we'll stay in touch and we'll continue on Friday at the latest and thank you very much for agreeing to do the summary at this relatively late hour. I think it was also interesting for the viewers, so I can tell you there are over 5000 people watching, so the interest is great, and thank you and I would say: "See you and hear from you!" And on Friday at the latest! All right! Have a great evening everyone and thanks to all the supporters on behalf of Reiner! See you then, Ciao!
Roger Bittel outside the courthouse:
_________________________________
The current court dates.
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.
I had to go listen to the German, for I did not understand this, even though English is my second first language, (German was my first second language, and for ten years until about age 29, i thought and dreamt more in German than my native Dutch). A "Grundbuchauszug" is a title search in English. I did not understand the word "landcharge."
I had to go listen to the German, for I did not understand this, even though English is my second first language, (German was my first second language, and for ten years until about age 29, i thought and dreamt more in German than my native Dutch). A "Grundbuchauszug" is a title search in English. I did not understand the word "landcharge."
Thanks... a tangled web of detail.