CITIZEN JOURNALIST DANIELA GOEKEN IS BACK. Now with DAYS 6 & 7.

It’s a considerable time commitment, going to Reiner’s trial even one day - but Daniela Goeken got hooked!! She has gone and reported on her experiences, Days 2 & 3, then Days 4 & 5, and now here are Days 6 & 7:

There is no end to the questions

A report on the 6th and 7th day of the trial in the Dr. Reiner Fuellmich case in Goettingen on March 5 and 8, 2024

by Daniela Goeken

When I arrive at Goettingen District Court, I see many familiar faces, faces I expected to see and faces I didn't expect to see at all. This place seems to be slowly developing into THE meeting place for a certain scene, at least on the days of the trial in the Reiner Füllmich case. On the one hand, that's nice, as this scene usually only meets digitally, but of course there is also a lot of tension when people with opposing views meet in real life. And the views on this case can diverge quite sharply, I think everyone knows that only too well.

The first witness to be heard that day enters the room. He is the notary Dr. Kleinjohann, who notarized the purchase contract that was so fateful for the defendant. The witness does not necessarily give me the impression of a cheerful, self-confident person who is at peace with himself and the whole world with unshakeable certainty. Unfortunately, I can't study his facial expressions as I'm sitting behind him, but his feet, which seem to have a life of their own under the chair, are clearly visible to me, as is his high degree of nervousness. In the course of his presentation, and especially in the course of his questioning, I get a faint idea of why this man seems to be insecurity personified in court. Could it perhaps be because the activity, or rather the inactivity, that he has shown in the sale of the defendant's property does not quite correspond to what is generally expected?

First of all, the notary describes the exact sequence of events. Here I must apologize to my readers that I was unable to follow the long presentation, which was peppered with countless technical terms, and therefore cannot reproduce it here. The witness has documents lying on the table in front of him, which he often leafs through thoughtfully. This does not give the impression that he is particularly well versed in his own correspondence; in fact, one sometimes has to wonder whether he has even read all the documents in full. This is particularly noticeable as the contrast to the defendant is so great. He always finds the documents he needs to back up his statements with a single purposeful touch. The number of folders he brings with him grows from hearing to hearing and there are countless sticky notes attached to the pages. He probably benefits from the fact that he was a successful lawyer for decades and was able to gain a lot of experience in court hearings. The notary, on the other hand, despite his advanced age, doesn't seem to have much experience, at least that's my impression. But perhaps there are other reasons for his extremely strange behavior.

Admittedly, I am not at all familiar with the field of activity of a notary, but I simply cannot imagine with the best will in the world that what the notary Kleinjohann did, or rather did NOT do, was legal. I also wonder what Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer were actually doing at Marcel Templin's notary appointment. The witness didn't even think it was necessary to ask them their names. According to his own statements, he secretly thought to himself: "Oh, Templin must have brought his "buddies" with him." Antonia Fischer, meanwhile, was sitting diagonally to his left in the courtroom. When asked if he had ever seen this woman before, Kleinjohann just looks at her in astonishment and says nothing. He seems to be even more affected by memory loss than the witness Justus Hoffmann. The latter, however, tried to cover it up by telling stories, stories that only he himself found entertaining. Notary Kleinjohann, on the other hand, just sat there as if he had just been beamed into the courtroom from Mars and had absolutely no idea what all the people sitting around him wanted from him and why they were asking him so many questions.

The defendant's questions in particular seem to puzzle the witness. After every single one of them, he slowly leafs through his documents. But they don't seem to contain any revelations either. As I have already mentioned, I always ask myself whether he had ever taken note of these documents and grasped their contents.

The defendant certainly does not seem to have accepted the fact that two fraudsters had set themselves the task of stealing money from him. However, Reiner Füllmich did not seem to have the slightest idea of the large sum of money that Marcel Templin was about to illegally appropriate. The notary repeatedly asserted that the defendant had never objected. Yes, but how can you object to something you know nothing about?

There is a lot of talk in this place and on this day. Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion: You know everything about the sale of the house if you have read the following passage in the defense's press release:

At the time of the sale on 03.10.2022, the property was unencumbered and the €700,000 was to be repaid to the Corona Committee from the purchase price of €1,345,000. However, this has been prevented to this day by the entry of a land charge on 18.11.2022, i.e. one and a half months later, which in our opinion was unlawful, and the payment of an amount of €1,158,250 in favor of the complainant Marcel Templin.

However, if you have a lot of time, you can extend the whole matter ad infinitum. You can talk for hours about something that can be summarized very well in just a few sentences. All the witnesses who have been heard so far have been very talented at talking and talking and talking and... basically saying NOTHING, nothing at all. The witnesses Justus Hoffmann and Dr. Kleinjohann were masters at it.

But I really have to say that the following witness, Viviane Fischer, took the cake. At the beginning she spoke quite fluently. But in the course of her questioning, especially in the course of her questioning by the defendant, she became more and more hurried in the way she spoke. I was afraid she was about to lose it, she spoke so fast. If she thought that this would make her seem more credible, she was mistaken. You rather get the feeling that she wants to avoid a pause in which she could follow up. And it is simply the case that someone who is sure of their case does not speak quickly and hastily, but calmly and thoughtfully.

The defendant's questions, in particular, seem to have Viviane Fischer in a rage. In any case, she acts as if they are trying her patience excessively. She always presents it as if the questioner is a small child who is unable to follow her explanations. She very often uses the words: "Look..." as an introduction. In her mind's eye, you can see her standing in her kitchen and speaking to her children in the manner of a kindergarten aunt. Here in the courtroom, however, the words seem out of place, or even grotesque, as they are addressed to a man who is much more experienced than she is and who exudes more competence than all the lawyers in the room put together.

I have to say that I'm slowly building up an inner resentment towards this very special witness, who has just turned out to be the main witness for the prosecution. She apparently wants to see the defendant in prison and is doing everything she can to get him there. At the beginning she seemed so rational and reasonable, but now it turns out that she is not even open to the strong arguments, or even hard evidence and proof, that are presented to her. Nothing can shake her, absolutely nothing! Again and again she is confronted with her own written statements, with statements that cast doubt on the story she wants to tell us and which she so stubbornly defends. She doesn't respond to objections at all, like a slippery fish she always slips away from the hands that want to grab her. Meaningful questioning that leads to any results is practically impossible. Even if the witness should actually agree, the simple word "yes" simply won't come out of her mouth. Her tactic seems to be to overwhelm the people in the room with her flow of words and to nip any hint of rational thought in the bud.

I began to suspect that Viviane Fischer was telling a partly fictitious story to prove that the defendant had made serious, unforgivable mistakes and that there was no way around a conviction. Her story seems to be set in stone and she consistently refuses to make any kind of concession or admission. My goodness, I think, if she were the judge here, there would be no need for any hearings at all, because then the devastating verdict would be a foregone conclusion. Fortunately, the presiding judge seems much more humane and seems to have the honest intention of letting both sides have their say in order to reach a fair verdict.

The dispute between the two Corona Committee founders is mainly about the question of whether the money that both have withdrawn for security purposes should be a store of value or serve as a liquidity reserve. Viviane Fischer is of the opinion that the money should always have been available and that it should therefore not have been invested in a property. In the course of her questioning, however, the suspicion arose that she had used the money she had withdrawn herself to live on. To prove that it was always there in the background and could have been accessed at any time, she refers to a securities account held by her apparently very wealthy husband. I mentioned in my last report that it is common knowledge that she was in a relationship with another man at the time. In court, however, she always presents it as if she and her husband were in a long, happy and stable marriage and were also receiving a great deal of financial support from this side. That's why I've often felt the urgent need to simply shout into the room: "And what about the separation? Should it be kept quiet?" Fortunately, the defense lawyer is now asking precisely this question. However, she is much clearer than I would have been and asks bluntly: "Were you having an affair with R.C. at the time?" The witness asks the judge if she has to answer this question and he initially answers in the negative. However, he says that he wants to discuss with the chamber whether questions of this kind should be allowed.

Of course, it is certainly not very pleasant for the witness to have very intimate details of her private life discussed in public, but she is actually responsible for this herself. If she had not claimed that she had always been with her husband, then no details of her extramarital relationship would be revealed to everyone. The defendant even announces videos that can prove that this actually existed.

Yes, now the questioning of the witness Viviane Fischer cannot be completed on this day either. My goodness, I secretly think, is she competing with Justus Hoffmann to see who can talk the most and who can fill the most trial days with their testimony? If things go on like this, the trial won't be able to end in April as planned, but in the worst-case scenario could go on until Christmas.

After a number of reporters have spoken out over the last few weeks, I would like to make one thing clear:

I am a human being. And anyone who is human also has an opinion. Anyone who claims to be neutral, i.e. who basically has no opinion because they have not thought about it or who does not dare to express it, is not a human being, but a robot. I have never claimed to be a recorder or a neutral reporter. I have never even claimed to be a "trial observer". My texts are very personal, and I intend them to be. I describe my very personal impressions and do not hide my opinion. I try to observe people closely with a psychological eye to find out more about their deeper motivations. I also often make judgmental statements, which I think is my right. Above all, my reports go far beyond the events in the courtroom and I try to place the whole thing in a wider context. Because in my opinion, this trial should never have taken place. The defendant should never have been abducted from Mexico and imprisoned in Germany.

But on the other hand, perhaps it is also a good thing that the allegations against Reiner Fuellmich, which have been floating around everywhere for a year and a half now, about which nobody knows anything for sure and which are still being hotly debated, are now being examined conscientiously. The truth must come to light and the truth will come to light. And when we know more precisely what happened to the Corona Committee, then perhaps we will also get an idea of what might have happened to the party "dieBasis", what happened to "Querdenken" and, in general, what happened to the whole movement.

The Reiner Fuellmich case is not about money. Nor is it about law and justice. It's about something completely different. That's why I'm less interested in the details of the trial. It was clear to me from the start that the defendant could not be accused of anything wrong. Even before his arrest, he published a whole series of videos in which he reveals everything in detail and even includes documents as evidence. If anyone has violated any laws here, it is more likely to be the three complainants, above all Marcel Templin. After all, it became very clear, especially during the hearing of the notary Kleinjohann, that he misappropriated a large sum of money and thus put the accused in this awkward position. In my opinion, everything you do to others always comes back to you, so Templin will probably find himself in exactly the same awkward position at some point.

__________________________________

The current court dates.

• 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.

TO DONATE:
To donate, here is the link for donations for legal and other expenses: https://www.givesendgo.com/GBBX2

Posted March 10, 2024