REINER FUELLMICH. Day 3 of the trial. The detailed account of a trial observer.

You’ve had a quick impression of Day Three of Reiner’s trial. Wednesday, February 7, 2024. If you haven’t seen it, it’s well worth taking a look, including the video clip with English subtitles.

Now, the detailed account of a trial observer. But first, a big thank you to all the people doing what they can for Reiner - like this trial observer, giving ever so many details about the proceedings:

The trial has once again clearly confirmed what the lawyer Dagmar Schön has already said. Reiner had been lied to and deceived and was surrounded by traitors.

The lawyer Justus Hoffmann described in the morning when and how he got to know Reiner. His movements had somewhat the air of a pompous cock. When he talked about the next person or the next issue, he always rose slightly from his seat and spread his jacket out behind him. His descriptions were rambling and long-winded, making you wonder why he was reporting so many irrelevant details. It was important for him to say that Reiner had been amazed at Viviane F.'s appearance very early on and how right he had been. Justus described Viviane as incompetent in such a shameful way that I felt sorry for Viviane, who was present in the courtroom.

His descriptions of his relationship with Reiner were more subtle than Viviane's, but just as subterranean. Justus H. reported how sympathetic Reiner had initially been to him and how nice and open the conversations had been. Reiner told him that he had met a certain person in a psychiatric institution. That afternoon, during the interrogation, Reiner told him that he had never received psychiatric treatment. In response, Justus said that he had never claimed that. He didn't claim it, but he chose his words in such a way that he wanted to suggest it without having said it. That is actually the next level of lying, you suggest something without having said it and without wanting to take responsibility for what you have said.

Reiner has been under investigation for over a year without his knowledge and bypassing his rights. He has not been granted the right to be heard. The investigation has been limited to the (allegedly) incriminating facts and not to the exonerating facts. This was due to the fact that Justus H. had stated that he was being threatened by Reiner and that he would withdraw the complaint if Reiner was granted the right to be heard. This was certainly also the reason why Reiner was brought back in handcuffs. During the questioning in the afternoon, Reiner asked him when and how he had threatened him. You have to bear in mind that J. Hoffmann is a lawyer. If someone claims to have been threatened, the semantic assumption is that there is a threat to life or limb, i.e. that someone is standing in front of me with a knife or a gun. J. Hoffman then reported a threat made by Reiner, if I remember correctly, to leave the company and form a new company with Viviane if A. Fischer and J. Hoffman did not leave. A threat is the prospect of a serious evil. I think that not even this element of the offense is fulfilled. Once again, the word "threat" was used to subliminally suggest something that was an air act. Afterwards, J. Hoffmann transformed the fear he had experienced into fear of party members who might do something to him. It became clear from J. Hoffmann's statements in the morning that he had sat with the public prosecutor to consider how best to get Reiner out of Mexico. J. Hoffmann apparently convinced Reiner that there was a contract at the German embassy in Mexico that he had to sign.

When the lawsuit was filed, J.H. either submitted an incorrect shareholders' agreement or none at all with regard to C.A., so that the court was left with the impression that individual shareholders were not allowed to make any arrangements without the others. However, this was expressly provided for in the contract. This makes a difference because Viviane and Reiner have not breached any obligations. Reiner asked J.H. about this, who did not find it so important. The same applied to another document that he "forgot" to attach.

What also emerged was that the lawyer Marcel Templin from the Berlin port lawyers probably had a claim against Reiner in the amount of €600,000 from a loan (a loan was probably terminated by DB at very short notice). However, he retained around €1.2 million from the sale of the house. J. Hoffmann informed Viviane Fischer of this fact in a text message with a smiley face, saying that he had probably negotiated well. Later, A. Fischer and J. Hoffmann sent him a kind of settlement agreement that stipulated that Reiner could keep the gold if the port lawyers could keep the money, which Reiner naturally refused, pointing out that he was not allowed to give away donations.

Regarding his "activity" on the Corona Committee, J. Hoffmann stated that he and A. Fischer had not been given any real attention. He was not shown the bank statements showing the amount of donations received and was never told in advance which interview partners were expected. At the time I thought, yes, that's not good, after all you want to prepare for the guests and think about the right questions in advance. No, far from it! This was only important for them to be able to assess the relevance of the interview partners and then see whether they wanted to come at all.

The afternoon was the real highlight of the trial, when Reiner and his lawyer took over the questioning of the witness. Although I had the impression beforehand that Reiner didn't look well, he seemed relaxed and confident during the questioning of the witness. He first asked whether it was right that J. Hoffmann wanted to use his formal position on the C. Committee together with his lawsuit to obtain funds that he would otherwise never have been able to access. Mr. Hoffman vehemently denied this. Reiner then said, fine, let's go into the details. And that showed what an excellent lawyer Reiner is and how structured he is. He then asked J.H. about 20-25 questions and used them to find out all the little pieces of the puzzle, which in the end only allowed the conclusion that that was exactly what he wanted.

What J.H. also described was that he (supposedly) believed that the tax office could take action against him because of the corporation tax (?) for which he is jointly and severally liable. Reiner pointed out that he had already been offered a release from liability (I'm not sure if I'm remembering the right term here, but in principle it was something like that). Mr. Hoffmann stated that this would not guarantee the enforcement of the claim because Reiner had been abroad. What J.H. forgot was that the money was still here and that Viviane was also still here. That made it look like an air number to me.

Mr. Hoffmann then complained that Reiner and Viviane, who had founded a new company as announced, had left the old company "untidy". He had had to spend considerable sums from his "private assets" to clean it up. Reiner gave him a friendly smile and said: "You probably mean from my private assets." If I had been in the same position, I would probably have used the same words. But I would have emphasized the word "my" even more and certainly not smiled. What a strong person.

Although J.H. did his utmost during the trial to subtly disparage Reiner and V. Fischer, Reiner responded to him in a very friendly manner. One of his questions was whether it was true that J.H. terrorized his two office colleagues, with whom he sat in an open-plan office, when he didn't take his pills. I've forgotten what J.H. said in response because I was paying attention to Antonia Fischer, who was one of the people who made the comment. A.F. nodded vigorously. Reiner then moved on to further questions. The fact that this was not reported by other viewers was probably due to the fact that the question was asked without much emphasis and without a conclusion to be drawn from it, downright elegantly.

For me, this made some of the way in which J.H. made his comments easier to understand. As did the fact that he believed he could get away with this complaint at all. He had also made several statements in the afternoon which suggested that he would have liked to have received more attention in the C.A.. After Reiner was through for this day of the trial, there was only one little boy left, J.H., who actually wanted to be loved. Unfortunately, this little boy has no sympathy at all for the fact that he wanted to rob Reiner of his money, put him in prison and thus robbed Reiner and his wife of valuable time. I had the feeling that he is completely without empathy and feels no remorse.

One thing that struck me: “Justus H. had stated that he was being threatened by Reiner …” That is why, he claimed, he “would withdraw the complaint if Reiner was granted the right to be heard.” And then we came to the threat: “J. Hoffman then reported a threat made by Reiner, if I remember correctly, to leave the company and form a new company with Viviane if A. Fischer and J. Hoffman did not leave. “ Aha! That is a “threat” that was, to the best of my knowledge, carried out. Reiner, with VF, did form a new company. This also explains why there were 2 companies.

Again, a big thank you to the observer for this detailed account.

__________________________________

By the way, Reiner is likely single-focussed on the trial. However, should anyone still want to write to him:

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 10, 2024