I got disturbing comments yesterday, that Reiner had left himself open to being convicted, as the testimony he gave is against German case law. - it shows that, according to such case law, he did not intend to repay. I passed on the comments to both Inka and Katja Woermer. But that was very late in the day.
This courts findings are abysmal! I know nothing of German legal proceedings, but if this is they way they interpret the evidence given so far in Reiners defence, I for one never wish to need to experience 'justice' a la German fashion, it reeks!
I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with German law. I am summarizing my understanding of this situation, to attempt to make sense of it in my own mind.
Rainer was blacklisted by the German authorities (as was now exposed officially in court). The prosecutor colluded with members of the CC. A conspiracy for which the Prosecutor will hopefully be taken to task, meaning to court!
Rainer got lured into and arrested illegally in the German Embassy in Mexico and deported to a German jail.
Reiner is or was part of the Corona Committee. If he is not anymore, who had the right to kick him out (I know they did, but did they have any legal standing to do so)? I still don’t understand what the legal structure of this committee actually is. Was it ever properly established? Whatever it was, wasn’t it supposed to be changed to something else, but VF dragged her feet in the process? So, what was the legal foundation of the committee? Meaning, to what legal entity did people contribute money to? They obviously contributed for the CC for do do their investigative work. But did anybody who sent money care about the legal structure of the CC? I doubt it. In these crazy times, people saw a savior in Reiner, and hoped to contribute to uncovering the myriad of crimes committed by the authorities through him (no one else in the CC truly did so!) exposing them in the extensive interviews he conducted with specialists and whistleblowers from various areas.
Obviously to all, the heavy lifting was done by Reiner. VF was a rather weird co-host. The other two, AF and JH, weren’t fully there even when they deigned to attend a meeting, which was rare enough.
Who of those four, if any, has any legal right to that money? That the CC would use the funds to pay for operational expenses should be obvious. And that VF’s lover’s company received a sizeable junk thereof was exposed in the court hearings.
Answering the myriad of emails the CC must have gotten should be remunerated, this should be obvious too, especially since there were funds to do so. Therefore, if Reiner’s law firm took over that job from VF, who seemingly didn’t perform very well on that front either, then his law firm ought to have been paid for it.
That money of any organization working for the “opposition” of the political agenda was in jeopardy is also obvious and we have plenty of cases from around the world showing bank accounts being closed or frozen (aka the money being stolen). Removing the funds from the bank accounts was the only reasonable thing to do, especially since several of the CC’s accounts were closed by the respective banks anyway, from what I understand.
What to do with the funds?
Cryptocurrency account: too risky, because of 1) massive fluctuation, 2) the lawmakers doing their best to make cryptos difficult to access, or illegal, or whatever else they can do to disrupt this alternative mode of payment; 3) too easy to lose a lot of money, if not everything
Metals (gold and silver): Seem the best option. Pretty stable, trend going up, can be kept in a safe, can be liquidated when needed.
Using donated money for personal purposes, like a home upgrade:
I don’t know, because I don’t know who this money belonged to, and for what purposes it could legally be used! Has that been established? It does make sense from the point of view of keeping the money safe from governmental overreach. If the legal entity in whose name the money was sent allows for that, or the people representing the legal entity, then there should be no problem.
However, the problem arises that only Reiner was kidnapped and imprisoned, even though VF also took money from the CC for personal use/safe keeping. Therefore it was either illegal to do so, which means she should be in jail too – though probably not under the criminal law, since nobody was hurt by either of them safekeeping some of the money privately – or it was not illegal, hence Reiner should never have been arrested in the first place.
But VF was just exonerated from any wrong doings by the judge, wasn’t she? How is that legally possible? Both Reiner and VF did the same thing – only the amounts differ. I can only see a politically motivated witch hunt going on here, and nothing that is in any way motivated by the law (whatever this means these days…), or by people being hurt by someone’s/Reiner’s actions!
However, there is a real crime that quite obviously has been committed: the theft of the money from the sale of Reiner’s house. How can it possibly be legally transferred to a person whose name is not on the mortgage or the legal title? MT was not part of the CC (or was he?, he does not represent the CC and he has no more right than me or you to Reiner’s money. Even if the was part of the CC and he had the right to take the money back and put it in a bank account of the CC, how could he possibly do so legally without the home owner's/Reiner's consent? Moreover, were he a legal representative of the CC, would only be entitled to the amount from the CC, not the whole amount of the sale! And that amount would have to be put into an account of the CC, not in his personal bank account! Am I getting this wrong? If not, why is MT not sitting in court yet, in handcuffs? After all, he has actually harmed somebody: Reiner Fuellmich!
I have read them all, and if the answers are in fact given, I have missed them, or they weren't stated clearly. (The comment section seems to imply that as well.) Not to mention that this has been drawn out over months now.
The court hearings, the questioning and the reporting are not exactly linear and logical... In fact, considering that we are dealing with a bunch of lawyers on both sides, who one would assume should know what it means to make a clear argument, it seems to me that an attempt at obfuscation is made instead, incl. by the judge (who will not allow certain questions in court because of their "personal" nature!) Reading VF's answers, for instance, leaves one with more questions than actual answers. That's why I tried to summarize the situation for myself and ask your readers whether they have understood what I have obviously failed to grasp.
Thank you for the clarifications, Marie-Claude. The whole thing indeed stinks to high heaven. I was wondering too how a lawyer and his wife both could lose their passports at the same time...
And yes, considering the amount of money we are talking about, it's ludicrous! (And no, I do not mean to say that I think R. committed a crime.) Then again, they will imprison a guy who steals something to survive, and let the Wall Street and all the other criminal banksters go scot-free even after they have committed evident crimes in the billions, if not trillions, defrauding most of the world! Same of course with those in the US government, incl. the Pentagon, who have somehow managed to let billions, and even trillions of dollars slip through the cracks and disappear from the accounts... Some pigs are more equal than others in this up is down and wrong is right clown world of the kali yuga.
I have this horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach that says that Reiner is being used to profit those on both sides of this horrendous artifically created situation. Please God the judge is able to put this together and Reiner is able to defend himself.
Do you think, that this might be the explanation for why the court - pretty suddenly - changed his attitude: From much following Reiners argumentation and therefore being benevolent towards him - to all of a sudden - the opposite?
To me this sudden change of the court does raise questions...
That has been also one of my last hypotheses/presumptions.
Why? As I can't really believe that the court itself did not see come earlier that this piece of missing case law consideration was missing.
Or was it himself so ignorant or even incompetent? Hard to believe. More plausible: Even though having known this before, it changed its attitude towards Reiner so suddenly - for other reasons. These might therefore be based on more unobjective/personal causes.
So far, I do not know how to differently interpret the described sudden change of the court - "from white to black".
So, I wrote a mail to Hoffmann and got a response! Apparently, the court indeed originally intended to read this preliminary ruling last week, and had sent it in writing to all parties, including the defense on April 26th. That means that Reiner's defense attorneys knew about it for a WHOLE week, before it got read yesterday, and didn't tell us about this! Why did they wait for the court to read it in yesterday's hearing, instead of explaining it before? For dramatic effect? Is this what this whole thing is to them, a theatrical play? Or do they want the drama so people would donate more money?
This is madness! Why would they do this? This whole thing starts to stink more by the minute! Are they just trying to monetize Reiner's incarceration for their own benefit???
It seems, from Reiner's arrest, he is unwittingly being used as a pawn in another's game. He was dong good hearted work and seemed to be the only one working at interviews, to uncover the truth e.g., Dr David Martin was a shocker..
Over time, I noticed what I thought to be, an apparent loss of self care and I felt oh no - Reiner is heading for a physical breakdown; I mean it's been years now and he was appearing understandably unwell and extremely exhausted. Wasn't it Prof Bhakti who warned him to protect the money? Much going on, yet WEFers got a stronghold everywhere - in all G20. NO way was Reiner a party to anything underhand - I don't believe for one minute, that he is of that c ut. A good man drawn into a den of fake helpers; a good man ensnared. Can you imagine how he feels being smeared left,right and centre?
Reiner stated many times, although he is not a religious person, he recognises this is a spiritual war. May evil NOT prevail in this situation. Sending love and light and trust in God, for Reiner.
Since 2020, our world isupside-down and inside-out.
We are / have been, witnessing death of the enlightenment, while totalitarianism walks through all our G20 institutions.
Yes, agree, we are on a precipice of honest and frank discussion becoming illegal, with opinions against sanctioned narratives often getting ridiculed and shut down.
Politicians mostly spruik WEFer policies. With journalism dead on msm, the minds of collective masses are easily steered. The "long march through the institutions" has been happening for decades, as we've witnessed many a once robust thinker, full of creative discourse, be molded into marxist thinking by university graduation.
Only with open and robust discourse have we ever progressed — yet that is now discouraged.
The implication is out — question the current political sanctioned agendas (Reiner and others) at your own peril. This should be a rally cry, but too many are folding. This is no time for dissent to be silent, or death of the enlightenment, already in motion, will become a reality.
Fascism in the past did not happen overnight, it came in small incremental bites. Past loss of free speech happened in small imperceptible steps; death by a thousand cuts.
Sorry Marie-Claude, never meant to imply that, so edited for more clarity. Am just responding to the plethora of odd revelations that don't seem to make any sense. That don't seem to equal Reiner, iYKWiM
I am in total confusion! This all seems like a drastic turn of events. I was under the impression that Reiner’s defense was proceeding well and that he would be exonerated. What does this ultimately mean for Reiner? Will he be found guilty and remain in prison? And what about the threats made to the presiding judges and Reiner’s Attorney Misere; Isn’t that further proof that German intelligence just wanted to take Reiner down. I’m going to have to read through everything and all the comments to try to gain a better understanding.
A very short answer is that there is bit of German law that Reiner and his lawyers were unaware of - also his colleague who has advised him to take this course of action.
It is criminally negligent to not know the applicable case law if you do criminal defense. It BEGS the question why none of his THREE defenders allegedly didn't know about this. It takes five minutes to read up on this in the commentary to the penal code. Literally. This is the most commonly known case law to Sec. 266 of the German penal code if there ever was any. THREE lawyers, and you're telling me none of them bothered to check? Why did Katja Wörmer let Reiner defend himself!? Why didn't she intervene when she should have realized he's incriminating himself? I think we should be demanding answers! When did she know about this prelims ruling? I'm going to ask Hoffman and Fischer, they will surely know, as they have access to the court files!
Thankyou Samuel for all your very clear & concise comments.
Yes, it is very hard to imagine a world class lawyer could be so remiss as to overlook something as obvious as this, if it is as you say.
Yet the poor man has held strong for so long under incredibly taxing circumstances, it would be understandable if he dropped the ball. He is obviously fighting for his freedom & doing his utmost for truth & justice all round, as per usual.
This is just the time when he ought to be able to lean on those who are not only experienced in the appropriate area, but also fresh & able. He didn't even have internet while in prison & needed support!
As usual I turn inwards in earnest , because we wrestle not with flesh & blood but against the powers against the principalities of this dark world.
There is always a higher plan, however dark things may appear.
May God grant Reiner & his team strength, insight, wisdom & courage in every way possible.
Reiner being "burned out" is still no excuse for his team of defenders to not defend him properly. You won't convince me in a month of Tuesdays that the lot of Dagmar Schön, Christof Miseré and Katja Wörmer all didn't bother to do the most basic thing a criminal defender would do and check the relevant case law, let alone one of the most well-established case laws???
I am by no means an expert in law, but I think I do agree with you. That is a pivotal & critical question to be asking.
So many of us love & deeply respect Reiner & want to expect that he now has the very best support possible at this crucial time.
I mentioned that Reiner is burnt out & literally has his hands tied so that its quite possible he could develop a blind spot. Being weakened & incapacitated like this IS precisely the time to seek expert support. With his high-level contacts around the world I really trusted he had that.
I don't yet know what to make of this development other than to be asking the same questions you are. I find you to be very insightful.
'"Its not over til the fat lady sings" as they say.
Maybe they might win a battle but the war is still lost for them. Spiritually that is a given. I just wish for comfort & reprieve for Reiner, one of the boldest soldiers for truth we have!
Yes, exactly. People around him are behaving very strangely. The thing I can’t reconcile is that he sold his house like he said he would and intended to pay back the loan, but he never received the money. So what if this didn’t exactly follow German case law due to a lack of knowledge or something more sinister. There are people who have committed the greater of the crimes like whoever instructed the house money to end up in Templin’s account and Templin himself. There are many crooked characters involved. Look how many people have defamed Reiner’s character for personal gain or power. And didn’t the presiding Judge say he would find Reiner guilty even if the evidence pointed to the contrary. Does everyone work for the German Intelligence?
Sadly, ineffectiveness of the defense isn't grounds for appeal under German procedural law. Him getting expelled from Mexico will also not be grounds for a new trial.
However, his lawyers should be held accountable! He should sue them for damages due to malpractice!
He was in Mexico illegally, because his visa had expired. Technically, Mexico was within their rights to get him out of the country. That he got lured to meet up with the consul honorary is of no effect, even though it was under false pretense. Let's be realistic about this: It's something police and prosecution do all the time, luring alleged criminals into a trap to arrest them. The term "kidnapping" is needlessly charged emotionally.
As for Tobias Weissenborn being in Reiner's side, I would like to remind everyone that he went to the DA's office on his own accord very close to Reiner's arrest in Mexico. It might have slipped everyone's mind, but here it says this:
"The public prosecutor's office confirmed this sum on Monday: according to the allegation, Fuellmich arranged for 20 transfers of 10,000 euros each to his wife on November 10, 2020 through a confidant, who is also accused, and used the money with her. He allegedly transferred a further 500,000 euros to his private account himself in May 2021 - and used 115,000 euros of this to pay off the property loan"
This "confidant who is also accused" could only have been Weissenborn,, as he was the only person who had access to the bank account and knew wehre the money went. He delivered Reiner on a silver platter to the DA! This was a very important piece of evidence, as it allowed the court to come to the conclusion that Reiner used the money for himself and Inka, against the terms of the trust. Without this, the court would still be in the dark about it, possibly not having any evidence for Reiner breaching the trust.
So, please, stop closing your eyes! TW did NOT testify on Reiner's behalf, he was just very careful in choosing his words so that, for the legally untrained audience, it would appear alleviating!
Under English and I guess US law Reiner has a duty to act according to the terms of the trust, to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, and to avoid conflicts with his own interests.
If he fails to do so he could be liable in damages to compensate the trust for any losses it suffers.
If he acts dishonestly and not in good faith then he can be criminally liable.
From what I can see of the trial reports of the judge's comments and from Mr Clemens, in German law Reiner can be criminally liable for infringements of German trust law even if he believes he is acting in the beneficiaries' best interests; even if he causes no loss to the trust; and even if he acts honestly and in good faith.
Yes! This is true! The 2nd federal court of appeals has ruled on this quite recently that embezzlement can be committed even if the culprit acts within interest of the trust. Reiner received ill legal advice and horrible criminal defense, and will pay the price. This is not unexpected.
The Reiner Fuellmich Telegram channel carries a report of today's proceedings. The first part is very similar to the translated account above. The second part has paragraphs missing from the above account.
Below is the part 2 report as carried on the RF Telegram channel:
PART 2 of the SHORT REPORT from the trial day in the proceedings against civil rights activist Dr. Reiner Füllmich (May 3): THE TRICKY COURT - after it became clear that the loan agreements between Füllmich and the company actually existed and that he was authorized to conclude these agreements, the court changes its prosecution strategy. It says: these were not loan agreements after all.... The goal: a CONDEMNATION AT ANY PRICE.
Everyone present in the courtroom seemed shocked, the remarks almost brutal.
As if everything was now being tried to construct what the witness statements did not provide.
The loan agreements were interpreted as sham loan agreements that primarily constituted fiduciary asset management. The chamber thus considered it proven that Füllmich had acted unlawfully.
The audience was confronted with a completely original interpretation of the law. Antonia Fischer and Justus Hoffmann, as co-partners, should always have been informed. In addition, collusion between Reiner Füllmich and Viviane Fischer was no longer assumed.
In plain language, this means that Viviane Fischer would now be completely exonerated. (Note: this is still a preliminary legal assessment).
She would not be seen by the chamber as someone who had done something wrong.
Attorney Dr. Miseré filed a motion to suspend the main hearing, as the defense has a completely different legal opinion. A transcript of this will follow later with the consent of the defense.
Attorney Miseré also stated that he assumed that the proceedings were politicized, which could be interpreted from the fact that Reiner Füllmich was illegally brought from Mexico to Germany.
Despite the exonerating witnesses, who gave detailed, expert and credible testimony, the chamber made this preliminary legal assessment.
In addition, further dates beyond 15.05.2024 until July were scheduled in the event that the defense wishes to submit further motions for evidence - witnesses.
The chamber made it clear that it was no longer necessary to hear further witnesses - supplement: that no further witnesses would be heard ex officio.
So if Reiner is found guilty then what is the penalty and what about the sale of the house money he was going to use to pay off the loan? And isn’t this violation of German Trust law a different issue than the German intelligence trying to stop Reiner’s Corona work.
It is very likely the case that the money from his house sale is gone, and he won't have access to it.
And yes, even if we were to assume that this "dossier" was authentic, it would have absolutely no bearing on the breach of trust / embezzlement charge.
The case is held in Germany. There is no jury. The court is the trier of both law and facts. The case law they are referring to hasn't changed in the last 90 years.
The problem is this: Reiner isn't a criminal defense lawyer. He would have needed a specialized defender for economical offenses. His former colleague, Tobias Weissenborn, has given him faulty legal advice in the past, too! Most of what is collapsing over Reiner now is result of this ill-advice. His defense is an absolute disaster. The "dossier" will be seen as an attempt to introduce inadmissible evidence, which will result in even harsher punishment. None of this comes out of the blue!
It's not over, true. But it looks very dire, and there is potential for even further prosecution, also owed to the fact that his defense allowed evidence to be introduced that further incriminated him! Even the witnesses that were introduced to testify on his behalf did nothing to alleviate his situation, only furthering the state's case.
governments take public money and send it foreign lands to provide things that will kill people - no questions, no court cases. Our money is killing people.
This is so obviously to stop Reiner from exposing the evil of genocide the last 4 years by scamming the world. It is now exposed anyway. They have their money back by fraud in the sale of his house, what exactly is the crime??
Exactly .. if Reiner had sold his house .. and with money in hand .. had absconded .. and further ICIC investigations ceased .. it could be declared that he had taken the money and ran .. however, he didn't have the money in his hand .. only his property with the intent to sell and replace the value. This is not over.
But this is immaterial to the law! He took the money illegally according to the current court ruling, which is a viable assessment based on the facts presented. Having "intent to pay back" is a mitigating factor, but does not concern actus reus and mens real. His whole defense was built around this, and it was not an admissible defense against embezzlement. Why didn't his defenders know this? Why did Weissenborn, his former colleague, go to the DA and testify against Reiner before the proceedings started? Why did he counsel him in a way that would ultimately result in Reiner incriminating himself? This is just pure madness!
Did Reiner take the gold? Whoever took the gold .. and whoever has the money from the sale of Reiner's property .. has it illegally according to your own logic.
It may or may be, I do not know. But it isn't "my logic", it's the logic of the applicable law! The gold might also become a problem for him, later, I'm afraid.
Like I've stated, the money from his house sale is immaterial for whether he's guilty or not. That's well-established case law. The question remains: Why build your defense around this if this is so?
When you assert that it's "well established case law" .. this is something I cannot confirm one way or the other .. as I have not seen anything supporting this idea. If it was so "well established" .. I would think it would be common knowledge among all attorneys.
All through this saga I have felt something was missing. In an English or US case the prosecution would have explained both the legal and factual basis of their case to the jury / court and introduced the evidence to support all the salient points. For fraud or theft this would include evidence of dishonesty. It would always be clear what the points of contention were. The reports I saw of this case seemed to be missing virtually all these elements.
The report above suggests Reiner's legal team were not aware of what might be decided and that the issues had not previously surfaced explicitly, which I find extraordinary. Has Reiner been found guilty of an offence of strict liability? What is the evidence of dishonesty, if any? Can the court really have sat for so many days without the real matter at stake becoming apparent?
I don't believe this could possibly have happened in a jury trial, which apart from forcing cases to be tried clearly and openly also necessitates them being held in a timely fashion and not over months and months. A jury is also free to find not guilty if it believes the law is unjust.
Sadly Samuel Clemens's comments yesterday were correct.
Thank you for acknowledging my yesterday's statement!
The problem is that, for him to commit (aggravated!) embezzlement, his mens rea must only include: position of trust (he was ceo and knew this), breach of trust (which he had by his own admission), financial damages (he knew he had no legal right to spending the funds as he pleased, and he knew he had no liquidity for immediate payback). That's it. Him wanting to pay back after selling his house is a motive beyond the criminal act, which the law disregards.
His defenders lead him into this disaster, standing by, doing nothing to prevent this. Instead, they let him incriminate himself further and further.
So, he is being charged with aggravated embezzlement. Which needs to be accompanied by a "bad mind and action." His "bad mind" is confirmed by his position of trust and breach of trust AND his 'bad act" by his financial damages or no right to spending the funds as he pleased and lack of liquidity for immediate payback. Furthermore, his 3 attorneys allowed him to walk into proving the state's case against him AND after practicing law for 30 years? he was still blind to waking into the hangman's noose?? Am I understanding the thrust of your analysis AND for the court's preliminary assessment?
This is, sadly, the situation! Embezzlement requires no actual financial damage, only for the action to create economic disadvantage for the trust. The court ruled that, according to Viviane Fischer's testimony AND their internal communications, that the "loan" to be ficticious transaction that it then classified as a covert trust agreement. Since this in itself is an economic disadvantage, and Reiner knew this was so, he was in breach of trust with mens rea. Him having a potentially different interpretation of the law is of no consequence, as he knew the facts, and ignorance or misinterpretation of the law is not an admissible defense.
Him claiming to having been willing to pay back after the sale of his house, the court originally considered a mitigating factor to his guilt. However, what he gave in his statements, the court interpreted as him admitting he was, in reality, not willing to pay back. So, him building his defense around the sale of his house was not only completely futile, as this does not speak against the act of embezzlement, but his defenders also allowed him to essentially submit a further admission of guilt, thus eliminating the only mitigating factor he had.
He could have probably gone free altogether, or gotten of the hook with a relatively minor suspended penalty, had his defenders provided proper counseling.
While Reiner hasn't been found guilty yet, it looks like a suspended sentence will not happen anymore.
The DA has filed a motion of provisonal discontinuation in regards to the charge of subsidiary fraud, on the grounds that the court hinted towards a possible penalty for this being most likely immaterial to the sentencing awaiting the two counts of aggravated embezzlement.
THANKS FOR YOUR VALUABLE COMMENTS. I WOULD APPRECIATE, IF YOU WOULD CONTRIBUTE NOW TO WHAT STILL POSSIBLY MAY BE RESCUED FOR REINER - E.G. by finding arguments that balance /prevail the bad ones + making sure all necessary will be still as good as still possible said in the first instance - to save it from preclusion/foreclusion during the next instance.
SO: PLEASE HELP REINER.
COULD YOU PERHAPS BECOME ONE OF HIS - NEW - LAWYERS?
IT SOUNDS LIKE HE URGENTLY NEEDS A NEW - GOOD - LAWYERS TEAM!!!
COULD YOU PERHAPS AT LEAST RECOMMEND GOOD NEW SUITABLE LAWYERS FOR REINER? PLEASE TRY. WE SHOULD NOT GIVE UP AS LONG AS THERE IS STILL A GLIMPSE OF HOPE and - possible - CHANCES.
Not all hope is lost, but his situation looks grim! I am kinda blaming myself. I followed the whole procedure and saw what happened, but didn't think that with three lawyers by his side, none of them wouldn't do their due diligence. That's why I am saying this is no mere coincidence! One lawyer being incompetent? Okay, that happens. But THREE of them, and nobody bothered to check the case law? That's inconceivable. This doesn't add up, none of it!
Why I think, Katja Wörmer just did not know, but not mean bad:
If you listen to her last video-message that came around via Elsa, it shows that Katja Wörmer did not know what the opponent's side meant when they pointed to her while critcizing that SHE had - in contrast to them - allegedly not read something carefully. She even asked the judge to put that bold remark into the protocol. Thus my conclusion: She did not know that with this her opponents probably referred to the troublesome part of case law she had not yet read. Since: To what else should they instead have referred? Hence: At this point in time she did not know this problem herself yet - and therefore did not mislead anyone consciously. From her body language I also never got this impression. On the contrary, I experienced her as honest, well-meaning and in that authentic.
Yes, that makes sense. There couldn’t possibly be 3 incompetent lawyers working in Reiner’s defense. These lawyers must be puppets of a much bigger operative. Also, even if you are not a criminal defense lawyer specializing in the economic aspect, surely you would have a rudimentary understanding of this German case law albeit not an expert and surely they would know that this would be something you research for the case.
Based on the previous trial reports containing the statements and demeanors of the prosecutions witnesses as well as their inexplicable contradictions caused by the defense's cross examinations, this preliminary assessment is on its face irrational and political. But the process is the punishment even when Reiner will be vindicated on appeal. If he never intended to repay the loan then he would have taken the profits of the sale of his home and simply absconded.
The problem with the "reports" are that they were made by people who have no legal expertise, and thus, no ability to discern important from unimportant information. Reiner may have asked a lot of questions, and witnesses may have answered weirdly. But most of these questions were completely immaterial to the applicable law, and thus, the answers did not matter!
Also, we all do not know about what is in the court files. E-mails, messages, letters, chats, we don't know what else the court has in evidence. I'm afraid that, once this is over, it will come to light that Reiner wasn't as "innocent" as he claimed to be, but also that this whole thing could have been avoided if he had not listened to Tobias Weissenborn, and if he had had a proper criminal defense!
Much of what you write is conjecture. What we know is Reiner adored the integrity of his policeman father. He won legal cases against some of the largest German corporations. He started up and ran the corona investigative committee because nothing made sense in relation to the institutional rationales. His inquisitive and ethical mind appealed to subject matter experts from all over the globe for nearly 4 years. And we know that every individual from around the globe who questioned the public-private partnership has been punished by an abused “legal process”.
But they picked the wrong guy to screw with that much I know…
The question is whether he carelessly opened himself up to prosecution. And I stand by my assessment that this is so! Why? Because he had very bad legal counsel!
But if he had the money from the sale of his house he could pay the loan off which was always his intent. Then maybe he could just incur a fine. Why is Templin keeping the money. He himself is guilty of stealing Reiner’s money.
Being an older person and jaded as I am, I now understand it is completely naÏve to believe in "justice" via the court system — particularly without any jury. Seems to me, only those parties with the deepest of pockets get a win. Could it be that Reiner was out of lawyer-level money with it being ferretd away by others? Was he financially caught between a rock and hard place from the time charges were laid? I have no idea of course, but that could be a reason for the mess - if (incompetent) others stepped forward as pro bono defence?
I agree. The older you get, the more many of us get a healthy dose of cynicism. Sadly in the US so many judges and prosecutors are corrupt. And the best defense takes money. It’s obvious that Reiner is very much a people person. Perhaps he was a little too trusting with people that were actually bad actors. And I still want to know why Reiner doesn’t have the funds from the sale of his house. He could use it to pay off the loan like he intended thus making the situation right.
I appreciate your "mentally collected" responses. I don't know you .. except through your words .. and while I am at a loss regarding German Legal Proceedings .. I appreciate the challenge you present as it displays some good criticism. I have always appreciated Reiner .. so my hope is that his suffering will end .. that he will be declared innocent.
I'm afraid that chances for this are slim. By my estimation, he's facing probably 4 to 5 years. He might appeal the sentence, but his chances are slim, because his defense would have needed to prepare the appeal by arguing against court rulings more. They shot themselves in the foot on so many occasions.
I'm no lawyer and can't pretend to argue any nuances here, but I believe Reiner is a good person, full of doing only what is right for humankind. We are in the fight of our lives Good Vs. Evil. Praying like mad that the judge understands there was no ill intent — manoeuvres were merely undertaken to protect donors money, as the world is aware bank accounts were frozen in various countries.
In our country, there is the letter of the law and the intent. Does Germany not recognise this as a point of law?
According to the relevant statutes of civil law, companies law and criminal law, his defense oh claiming he wanted to secure the money from possible government seizure is not admissible. The court also made it clear that Reiner wouldn't have succeeded, even if it were, because he used the money to pay for personal debt.
BUT: It the court knew this all the time and probably also the "missing part of caselaw-consideration: Why would it come along this only now - so suddenly?
Don't you also think, this is illogical?
That the court - that should be knowing and competent - has these insights only now and suddenly?...
I doubt it - see my explanation above, where I wonder about the courts sudden changing from "white to black" towards Reiner.
To me THIS is raising important questions!... See my and other peoples elaborations to that above.
Not yet. But the court has made a preliminary judgment of the current facts and applicable law, and they ruled against Reiner on almost every single aspect. This is solely to blame on his abhorrent defense, which did nothing to prevent this!
I don't buy that the legal basis of Reiner's supposed guilt only crystallised today. How can the judge have allowed proceedings even to start without it being clear to all parties what the precise accusations were?
Precisely! The DA would have had to quote the applicable case law in the indictment! It's inconceivable that this came out of nothingness! Matter of fact: The court had initially intended to read this preliminary judgment last week! Surely, the court must have sent this to defense in writing before today's hearing!
- I assume you are very frustrated and feel desperate for Reiner.
- But please do without such strong words like "idiots". They bring in a destructive style.
- Now we need the opposite: Constructive approaches.
- Please do not get me wrong. Analysing in a diagnostic manner what went or might have gone wrong is necessary. But please, more gentle in style. Nobody wants to be condemned. Especially not after trying their best. And I assume, at least Katja Wörmer did that.
- If she might not be specialized and experienced enough in the relevant legal are, that is something else. I hope, that she herself then will say so and opt for a suitable colleague to replace her. It will be interesting to hear what she will say about this whole situation.
I would also like to add it's pretty interesting that Roger Bittel publishes this "Dossier", which is an obvious fake, while Miseré magically produces it out of thin air. If the court finds this to be an attempt to fool it, it is very well within its authority to find this an aggravating factor in sentencing. As in: Since they have produced no evidence whatsoever that this is authentic, the court can increase Reiner's jail time for it.
He is! But he's not a criminal defense lawyer, and even if he was, it's never a good idea to defend yourself. Katja Wörmer was, apparently, hand-picked by Dagmar Schön. Katja Wörmer is primarily practicing family's law. Why did she become Reiner's public defender of all people? It was very clear that she had almost no knowledge about the contents of the court files! She was too busy to give interviews to Roger Bittel, who just seems to cash in on clickbaiting Reiner content, and has his own stake in keeping Reiner locked up as long as possible! As long as he can make a scandal out of this, people will watch his show. When he's not covering Reiner, almost nobody watches him anymore. Go figure!
And then, out of nowhere, this Miseré guy shows up on the scene, and turns the whole process into a shit show, while Katja Wörmer sits and watches.
Remember when Dagmar Schön said something like "Reiner is too gullible"? Whatever happened to her afterwards? First, she was her prime defender, and suddenly, she was nowhere to be found. Then, we learned that she practically "hired" Katja Wörmer to be Reiner's defender. Did she set Reiner up? Is she operating behind the scenes, feeding the defense set-pieces to frame Reiner? Where did this Miseré character come from, all of a sudden? If you dig into his past, he seems to have a troubling history of working against his clients, while claiming the proceedings are "political".
Here, it says the court motioned to substitute / withdraw, because the defendant claimed he had a problem with alcohol abuse, talked to the media without his consent, and a female witness stepped forward claiming he harassed her via Email.
Here, his client, a German rapper, threw him out as his defender, due to not trusting him anymore
Starting to notice a pattern? He always seems to come up with the same story about a "politically motivated process", and then proceeds to resort to very shady tactics that, ultimately, are to his clients' disadvantage.
This courts findings are abysmal! I know nothing of German legal proceedings, but if this is they way they interpret the evidence given so far in Reiners defence, I for one never wish to need to experience 'justice' a la German fashion, it reeks!
I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with German law. I am summarizing my understanding of this situation, to attempt to make sense of it in my own mind.
Rainer was blacklisted by the German authorities (as was now exposed officially in court). The prosecutor colluded with members of the CC. A conspiracy for which the Prosecutor will hopefully be taken to task, meaning to court!
Rainer got lured into and arrested illegally in the German Embassy in Mexico and deported to a German jail.
Reiner is or was part of the Corona Committee. If he is not anymore, who had the right to kick him out (I know they did, but did they have any legal standing to do so)? I still don’t understand what the legal structure of this committee actually is. Was it ever properly established? Whatever it was, wasn’t it supposed to be changed to something else, but VF dragged her feet in the process? So, what was the legal foundation of the committee? Meaning, to what legal entity did people contribute money to? They obviously contributed for the CC for do do their investigative work. But did anybody who sent money care about the legal structure of the CC? I doubt it. In these crazy times, people saw a savior in Reiner, and hoped to contribute to uncovering the myriad of crimes committed by the authorities through him (no one else in the CC truly did so!) exposing them in the extensive interviews he conducted with specialists and whistleblowers from various areas.
Obviously to all, the heavy lifting was done by Reiner. VF was a rather weird co-host. The other two, AF and JH, weren’t fully there even when they deigned to attend a meeting, which was rare enough.
Who of those four, if any, has any legal right to that money? That the CC would use the funds to pay for operational expenses should be obvious. And that VF’s lover’s company received a sizeable junk thereof was exposed in the court hearings.
Answering the myriad of emails the CC must have gotten should be remunerated, this should be obvious too, especially since there were funds to do so. Therefore, if Reiner’s law firm took over that job from VF, who seemingly didn’t perform very well on that front either, then his law firm ought to have been paid for it.
That money of any organization working for the “opposition” of the political agenda was in jeopardy is also obvious and we have plenty of cases from around the world showing bank accounts being closed or frozen (aka the money being stolen). Removing the funds from the bank accounts was the only reasonable thing to do, especially since several of the CC’s accounts were closed by the respective banks anyway, from what I understand.
What to do with the funds?
Cryptocurrency account: too risky, because of 1) massive fluctuation, 2) the lawmakers doing their best to make cryptos difficult to access, or illegal, or whatever else they can do to disrupt this alternative mode of payment; 3) too easy to lose a lot of money, if not everything
Metals (gold and silver): Seem the best option. Pretty stable, trend going up, can be kept in a safe, can be liquidated when needed.
Using donated money for personal purposes, like a home upgrade:
I don’t know, because I don’t know who this money belonged to, and for what purposes it could legally be used! Has that been established? It does make sense from the point of view of keeping the money safe from governmental overreach. If the legal entity in whose name the money was sent allows for that, or the people representing the legal entity, then there should be no problem.
However, the problem arises that only Reiner was kidnapped and imprisoned, even though VF also took money from the CC for personal use/safe keeping. Therefore it was either illegal to do so, which means she should be in jail too – though probably not under the criminal law, since nobody was hurt by either of them safekeeping some of the money privately – or it was not illegal, hence Reiner should never have been arrested in the first place.
But VF was just exonerated from any wrong doings by the judge, wasn’t she? How is that legally possible? Both Reiner and VF did the same thing – only the amounts differ. I can only see a politically motivated witch hunt going on here, and nothing that is in any way motivated by the law (whatever this means these days…), or by people being hurt by someone’s/Reiner’s actions!
However, there is a real crime that quite obviously has been committed: the theft of the money from the sale of Reiner’s house. How can it possibly be legally transferred to a person whose name is not on the mortgage or the legal title? MT was not part of the CC (or was he?, he does not represent the CC and he has no more right than me or you to Reiner’s money. Even if the was part of the CC and he had the right to take the money back and put it in a bank account of the CC, how could he possibly do so legally without the home owner's/Reiner's consent? Moreover, were he a legal representative of the CC, would only be entitled to the amount from the CC, not the whole amount of the sale! And that amount would have to be put into an account of the CC, not in his personal bank account! Am I getting this wrong? If not, why is MT not sitting in court yet, in handcuffs? After all, he has actually harmed somebody: Reiner Fuellmich!
All the pieces, thw answers to your questions, are in the daily accounts from Jiota (Days 1-13).
I have read them all, and if the answers are in fact given, I have missed them, or they weren't stated clearly. (The comment section seems to imply that as well.) Not to mention that this has been drawn out over months now.
The court hearings, the questioning and the reporting are not exactly linear and logical... In fact, considering that we are dealing with a bunch of lawyers on both sides, who one would assume should know what it means to make a clear argument, it seems to me that an attempt at obfuscation is made instead, incl. by the judge (who will not allow certain questions in court because of their "personal" nature!) Reading VF's answers, for instance, leaves one with more questions than actual answers. That's why I tried to summarize the situation for myself and ask your readers whether they have understood what I have obviously failed to grasp.
Bouquets to you Athena!
I think that what we're all left thinking.
I'll take a bouquet of roses :)
How could we go about it, Marie-Claude? (Quebec, correct?)
Thank you for the clarifications, Marie-Claude. The whole thing indeed stinks to high heaven. I was wondering too how a lawyer and his wife both could lose their passports at the same time...
And yes, considering the amount of money we are talking about, it's ludicrous! (And no, I do not mean to say that I think R. committed a crime.) Then again, they will imprison a guy who steals something to survive, and let the Wall Street and all the other criminal banksters go scot-free even after they have committed evident crimes in the billions, if not trillions, defrauding most of the world! Same of course with those in the US government, incl. the Pentagon, who have somehow managed to let billions, and even trillions of dollars slip through the cracks and disappear from the accounts... Some pigs are more equal than others in this up is down and wrong is right clown world of the kali yuga.
I have this horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach that says that Reiner is being used to profit those on both sides of this horrendous artifically created situation. Please God the judge is able to put this together and Reiner is able to defend himself.
The judge, from everything he has said, is part of it.
You mean the judge is corrupt?
According to the evidence, I see no other possibility.
Do you think, that this might be the explanation for why the court - pretty suddenly - changed his attitude: From much following Reiners argumentation and therefore being benevolent towards him - to all of a sudden - the opposite?
To me this sudden change of the court does raise questions...
To me it more than indicates that everything before the change was a sham, intended to lull Reiner and his team.
That has been also one of my last hypotheses/presumptions.
Why? As I can't really believe that the court itself did not see come earlier that this piece of missing case law consideration was missing.
Or was it himself so ignorant or even incompetent? Hard to believe. More plausible: Even though having known this before, it changed its attitude towards Reiner so suddenly - for other reasons. These might therefore be based on more unobjective/personal causes.
So far, I do not know how to differently interpret the described sudden change of the court - "from white to black".
😢
I can't figure out what is going on!
Com to the discussion tomorrow. You will be getting a sendout soon.
So, I wrote a mail to Hoffmann and got a response! Apparently, the court indeed originally intended to read this preliminary ruling last week, and had sent it in writing to all parties, including the defense on April 26th. That means that Reiner's defense attorneys knew about it for a WHOLE week, before it got read yesterday, and didn't tell us about this! Why did they wait for the court to read it in yesterday's hearing, instead of explaining it before? For dramatic effect? Is this what this whole thing is to them, a theatrical play? Or do they want the drama so people would donate more money?
This is madness! Why would they do this? This whole thing starts to stink more by the minute! Are they just trying to monetize Reiner's incarceration for their own benefit???
It seems, from Reiner's arrest, he is unwittingly being used as a pawn in another's game. He was dong good hearted work and seemed to be the only one working at interviews, to uncover the truth e.g., Dr David Martin was a shocker..
Over time, I noticed what I thought to be, an apparent loss of self care and I felt oh no - Reiner is heading for a physical breakdown; I mean it's been years now and he was appearing understandably unwell and extremely exhausted. Wasn't it Prof Bhakti who warned him to protect the money? Much going on, yet WEFers got a stronghold everywhere - in all G20. NO way was Reiner a party to anything underhand - I don't believe for one minute, that he is of that c ut. A good man drawn into a den of fake helpers; a good man ensnared. Can you imagine how he feels being smeared left,right and centre?
Reiner stated many times, although he is not a religious person, he recognises this is a spiritual war. May evil NOT prevail in this situation. Sending love and light and trust in God, for Reiner.
Since 2020, our world isupside-down and inside-out.
We are / have been, witnessing death of the enlightenment, while totalitarianism walks through all our G20 institutions.
WW3. Good Vs. Evil
You write: We are / have been, witnessing death of the enlightenment. Not death. Grave danger, great damage. Important difference.
Yes, agree, we are on a precipice of honest and frank discussion becoming illegal, with opinions against sanctioned narratives often getting ridiculed and shut down.
Politicians mostly spruik WEFer policies. With journalism dead on msm, the minds of collective masses are easily steered. The "long march through the institutions" has been happening for decades, as we've witnessed many a once robust thinker, full of creative discourse, be molded into marxist thinking by university graduation.
Only with open and robust discourse have we ever progressed — yet that is now discouraged.
The implication is out — question the current political sanctioned agendas (Reiner and others) at your own peril. This should be a rally cry, but too many are folding. This is no time for dissent to be silent, or death of the enlightenment, already in motion, will become a reality.
Fascism in the past did not happen overnight, it came in small incremental bites. Past loss of free speech happened in small imperceptible steps; death by a thousand cuts.
Sorry Marie-Claude, never meant to imply that, so edited for more clarity. Am just responding to the plethora of odd revelations that don't seem to make any sense. That don't seem to equal Reiner, iYKWiM
I am in total confusion! This all seems like a drastic turn of events. I was under the impression that Reiner’s defense was proceeding well and that he would be exonerated. What does this ultimately mean for Reiner? Will he be found guilty and remain in prison? And what about the threats made to the presiding judges and Reiner’s Attorney Misere; Isn’t that further proof that German intelligence just wanted to take Reiner down. I’m going to have to read through everything and all the comments to try to gain a better understanding.
No proof for these alleged threats has been presented.
Thank you.
A very short answer is that there is bit of German law that Reiner and his lawyers were unaware of - also his colleague who has advised him to take this course of action.
It is criminally negligent to not know the applicable case law if you do criminal defense. It BEGS the question why none of his THREE defenders allegedly didn't know about this. It takes five minutes to read up on this in the commentary to the penal code. Literally. This is the most commonly known case law to Sec. 266 of the German penal code if there ever was any. THREE lawyers, and you're telling me none of them bothered to check? Why did Katja Wörmer let Reiner defend himself!? Why didn't she intervene when she should have realized he's incriminating himself? I think we should be demanding answers! When did she know about this prelims ruling? I'm going to ask Hoffman and Fischer, they will surely know, as they have access to the court files!
Thankyou Samuel for all your very clear & concise comments.
Yes, it is very hard to imagine a world class lawyer could be so remiss as to overlook something as obvious as this, if it is as you say.
Yet the poor man has held strong for so long under incredibly taxing circumstances, it would be understandable if he dropped the ball. He is obviously fighting for his freedom & doing his utmost for truth & justice all round, as per usual.
This is just the time when he ought to be able to lean on those who are not only experienced in the appropriate area, but also fresh & able. He didn't even have internet while in prison & needed support!
As usual I turn inwards in earnest , because we wrestle not with flesh & blood but against the powers against the principalities of this dark world.
There is always a higher plan, however dark things may appear.
May God grant Reiner & his team strength, insight, wisdom & courage in every way possible.
Reiner being "burned out" is still no excuse for his team of defenders to not defend him properly. You won't convince me in a month of Tuesdays that the lot of Dagmar Schön, Christof Miseré and Katja Wörmer all didn't bother to do the most basic thing a criminal defender would do and check the relevant case law, let alone one of the most well-established case laws???
I am by no means an expert in law, but I think I do agree with you. That is a pivotal & critical question to be asking.
So many of us love & deeply respect Reiner & want to expect that he now has the very best support possible at this crucial time.
I mentioned that Reiner is burnt out & literally has his hands tied so that its quite possible he could develop a blind spot. Being weakened & incapacitated like this IS precisely the time to seek expert support. With his high-level contacts around the world I really trusted he had that.
I don't yet know what to make of this development other than to be asking the same questions you are. I find you to be very insightful.
'"Its not over til the fat lady sings" as they say.
Maybe they might win a battle but the war is still lost for them. Spiritually that is a given. I just wish for comfort & reprieve for Reiner, one of the boldest soldiers for truth we have!
Yes, exactly. People around him are behaving very strangely. The thing I can’t reconcile is that he sold his house like he said he would and intended to pay back the loan, but he never received the money. So what if this didn’t exactly follow German case law due to a lack of knowledge or something more sinister. There are people who have committed the greater of the crimes like whoever instructed the house money to end up in Templin’s account and Templin himself. There are many crooked characters involved. Look how many people have defamed Reiner’s character for personal gain or power. And didn’t the presiding Judge say he would find Reiner guilty even if the evidence pointed to the contrary. Does everyone work for the German Intelligence?
Sadly, ineffectiveness of the defense isn't grounds for appeal under German procedural law. Him getting expelled from Mexico will also not be grounds for a new trial.
However, his lawyers should be held accountable! He should sue them for damages due to malpractice!
He was in Mexico illegally, because his visa had expired. Technically, Mexico was within their rights to get him out of the country. That he got lured to meet up with the consul honorary is of no effect, even though it was under false pretense. Let's be realistic about this: It's something police and prosecution do all the time, luring alleged criminals into a trap to arrest them. The term "kidnapping" is needlessly charged emotionally.
I can't stress this enough: This is either an inexcusable rookie mistake, amateurish in preposterous magnitude, or malicious intent.
As for Tobias Weissenborn being in Reiner's side, I would like to remind everyone that he went to the DA's office on his own accord very close to Reiner's arrest in Mexico. It might have slipped everyone's mind, but here it says this:
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/id_100260038/untreue-vorwurf-corona-ausschuss-gruender-reiner-fuellmich-verhaftet.html
"The public prosecutor's office confirmed this sum on Monday: according to the allegation, Fuellmich arranged for 20 transfers of 10,000 euros each to his wife on November 10, 2020 through a confidant, who is also accused, and used the money with her. He allegedly transferred a further 500,000 euros to his private account himself in May 2021 - and used 115,000 euros of this to pay off the property loan"
This "confidant who is also accused" could only have been Weissenborn,, as he was the only person who had access to the bank account and knew wehre the money went. He delivered Reiner on a silver platter to the DA! This was a very important piece of evidence, as it allowed the court to come to the conclusion that Reiner used the money for himself and Inka, against the terms of the trust. Without this, the court would still be in the dark about it, possibly not having any evidence for Reiner breaching the trust.
So, please, stop closing your eyes! TW did NOT testify on Reiner's behalf, he was just very careful in choosing his words so that, for the legally untrained audience, it would appear alleviating!
Why would Weissenborn go to the DA when he himself is likely the other accused party as you say?
Under English and I guess US law Reiner has a duty to act according to the terms of the trust, to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, and to avoid conflicts with his own interests.
If he fails to do so he could be liable in damages to compensate the trust for any losses it suffers.
If he acts dishonestly and not in good faith then he can be criminally liable.
From what I can see of the trial reports of the judge's comments and from Mr Clemens, in German law Reiner can be criminally liable for infringements of German trust law even if he believes he is acting in the beneficiaries' best interests; even if he causes no loss to the trust; and even if he acts honestly and in good faith.
That said I know nothing of the German law.
Yes! This is true! The 2nd federal court of appeals has ruled on this quite recently that embezzlement can be committed even if the culprit acts within interest of the trust. Reiner received ill legal advice and horrible criminal defense, and will pay the price. This is not unexpected.
What I'm saying is that he was needlessly careless, also due to being, apparently, ill-advised, and that he incriminated himself without realizing it!
The Reiner Fuellmich Telegram channel carries a report of today's proceedings. The first part is very similar to the translated account above. The second part has paragraphs missing from the above account.
Below is the part 2 report as carried on the RF Telegram channel:
PART 2 of the SHORT REPORT from the trial day in the proceedings against civil rights activist Dr. Reiner Füllmich (May 3): THE TRICKY COURT - after it became clear that the loan agreements between Füllmich and the company actually existed and that he was authorized to conclude these agreements, the court changes its prosecution strategy. It says: these were not loan agreements after all.... The goal: a CONDEMNATION AT ANY PRICE.
Everyone present in the courtroom seemed shocked, the remarks almost brutal.
As if everything was now being tried to construct what the witness statements did not provide.
The loan agreements were interpreted as sham loan agreements that primarily constituted fiduciary asset management. The chamber thus considered it proven that Füllmich had acted unlawfully.
The audience was confronted with a completely original interpretation of the law. Antonia Fischer and Justus Hoffmann, as co-partners, should always have been informed. In addition, collusion between Reiner Füllmich and Viviane Fischer was no longer assumed.
In plain language, this means that Viviane Fischer would now be completely exonerated. (Note: this is still a preliminary legal assessment).
She would not be seen by the chamber as someone who had done something wrong.
Attorney Dr. Miseré filed a motion to suspend the main hearing, as the defense has a completely different legal opinion. A transcript of this will follow later with the consent of the defense.
Attorney Miseré also stated that he assumed that the proceedings were politicized, which could be interpreted from the fact that Reiner Füllmich was illegally brought from Mexico to Germany.
Despite the exonerating witnesses, who gave detailed, expert and credible testimony, the chamber made this preliminary legal assessment.
In addition, further dates beyond 15.05.2024 until July were scheduled in the event that the defense wishes to submit further motions for evidence - witnesses.
The chamber made it clear that it was no longer necessary to hear further witnesses - supplement: that no further witnesses would be heard ex officio.
@wearegreeekja
https://t.me/ReinerFuellmichEnglish/1318
It's not surprising at all! The defense has practically BEGGED the court to come to this conclusion.
His defense legt the court no choice. They constructed everything for Reiner to be guilty!
So if Reiner is found guilty then what is the penalty and what about the sale of the house money he was going to use to pay off the loan? And isn’t this violation of German Trust law a different issue than the German intelligence trying to stop Reiner’s Corona work.
It is very likely the case that the money from his house sale is gone, and he won't have access to it.
And yes, even if we were to assume that this "dossier" was authentic, it would have absolutely no bearing on the breach of trust / embezzlement charge.
Hi!
Case law is NOT law as it is ONLY the judges' opinions on the appellate side.
Juries, of the people, decide cases at the lower level.
Judges do NOT make laws and do NOT control the purse strings so, therefore, the judicial department is the weakest of the 3 departments.
An opinion is just that, an opinion, and NO one is required to abide by them.
Here in these United States, justices MUST (mandated) to follow the various constitutions.
If it is NOT mentioned in the various constitutions, then they have NO jurisdiction to hear any case relating to that issue.
Thank you!
Lise from Maine (former licensed clinician)
I will pass this on as well.
The case is held in Germany. There is no jury. The court is the trier of both law and facts. The case law they are referring to hasn't changed in the last 90 years.
Called it!
You may have something to crow about .. but it doesn't mean that Reiner is guilty of the charges. It's not over ..
How am I crowing about it? I'm the one arguing on his behalf, questioning why his defense did nothing to prevent this!
You seem to be satisfied with having "called it" .. and for that I applaud you.
Not at all! But since I was doubted yesterday, I feel like it's right to point in out.
I have always felt that we were missing the "other side" in the Reiner trial.
We need to hear more .. as it is difficult to believe that Reiner, a German lawyer would be unaware of German Case Law/Lore.
It's not over .. !!!
The problem is this: Reiner isn't a criminal defense lawyer. He would have needed a specialized defender for economical offenses. His former colleague, Tobias Weissenborn, has given him faulty legal advice in the past, too! Most of what is collapsing over Reiner now is result of this ill-advice. His defense is an absolute disaster. The "dossier" will be seen as an attempt to introduce inadmissible evidence, which will result in even harsher punishment. None of this comes out of the blue!
Okay .. thanks for your explanations. I still say .. it's not over.
It's not over, true. But it looks very dire, and there is potential for even further prosecution, also owed to the fact that his defense allowed evidence to be introduced that further incriminated him! Even the witnesses that were introduced to testify on his behalf did nothing to alleviate his situation, only furthering the state's case.
I realize that the angle of defense is important. We will wait to hear what his defense team have to say about their perspective and defense.
Yes, naturally!
governments take public money and send it foreign lands to provide things that will kill people - no questions, no court cases. Our money is killing people.
This is so obviously to stop Reiner from exposing the evil of genocide the last 4 years by scamming the world. It is now exposed anyway. They have their money back by fraud in the sale of his house, what exactly is the crime??
Exactly .. if Reiner had sold his house .. and with money in hand .. had absconded .. and further ICIC investigations ceased .. it could be declared that he had taken the money and ran .. however, he didn't have the money in his hand .. only his property with the intent to sell and replace the value. This is not over.
But this is immaterial to the law! He took the money illegally according to the current court ruling, which is a viable assessment based on the facts presented. Having "intent to pay back" is a mitigating factor, but does not concern actus reus and mens real. His whole defense was built around this, and it was not an admissible defense against embezzlement. Why didn't his defenders know this? Why did Weissenborn, his former colleague, go to the DA and testify against Reiner before the proceedings started? Why did he counsel him in a way that would ultimately result in Reiner incriminating himself? This is just pure madness!
if vivienne fischer took a loan in exactly the same way as reiner fullmich, why is he against the law and she isn't?
She will very likely get charged, too!
I agree that it is pure madness .. but I'm not convinced about who is insane.
Did Reiner take the gold? Whoever took the gold .. and whoever has the money from the sale of Reiner's property .. has it illegally according to your own logic.
There is a lot about this case against Reiner that doesn't ring true.
It may or may be, I do not know. But it isn't "my logic", it's the logic of the applicable law! The gold might also become a problem for him, later, I'm afraid.
Like I've stated, the money from his house sale is immaterial for whether he's guilty or not. That's well-established case law. The question remains: Why build your defense around this if this is so?
When you assert that it's "well established case law" .. this is something I cannot confirm one way or the other .. as I have not seen anything supporting this idea. If it was so "well established" .. I would think it would be common knowledge among all attorneys.
It is if you are a criminal defense lawyer that specializes in economic offenses.
But yes, it's more than concerning that his defenders either did not know this... OR they did...
All through this saga I have felt something was missing. In an English or US case the prosecution would have explained both the legal and factual basis of their case to the jury / court and introduced the evidence to support all the salient points. For fraud or theft this would include evidence of dishonesty. It would always be clear what the points of contention were. The reports I saw of this case seemed to be missing virtually all these elements.
The report above suggests Reiner's legal team were not aware of what might be decided and that the issues had not previously surfaced explicitly, which I find extraordinary. Has Reiner been found guilty of an offence of strict liability? What is the evidence of dishonesty, if any? Can the court really have sat for so many days without the real matter at stake becoming apparent?
I don't believe this could possibly have happened in a jury trial, which apart from forcing cases to be tried clearly and openly also necessitates them being held in a timely fashion and not over months and months. A jury is also free to find not guilty if it believes the law is unjust.
Sadly Samuel Clemens's comments yesterday were correct.
Thank you for acknowledging my yesterday's statement!
The problem is that, for him to commit (aggravated!) embezzlement, his mens rea must only include: position of trust (he was ceo and knew this), breach of trust (which he had by his own admission), financial damages (he knew he had no legal right to spending the funds as he pleased, and he knew he had no liquidity for immediate payback). That's it. Him wanting to pay back after selling his house is a motive beyond the criminal act, which the law disregards.
His defenders lead him into this disaster, standing by, doing nothing to prevent this. Instead, they let him incriminate himself further and further.
If you practice trial law in Germany you should say so and then I for one have many questions for you.
So, he is being charged with aggravated embezzlement. Which needs to be accompanied by a "bad mind and action." His "bad mind" is confirmed by his position of trust and breach of trust AND his 'bad act" by his financial damages or no right to spending the funds as he pleased and lack of liquidity for immediate payback. Furthermore, his 3 attorneys allowed him to walk into proving the state's case against him AND after practicing law for 30 years? he was still blind to waking into the hangman's noose?? Am I understanding the thrust of your analysis AND for the court's preliminary assessment?
This is, sadly, the situation! Embezzlement requires no actual financial damage, only for the action to create economic disadvantage for the trust. The court ruled that, according to Viviane Fischer's testimony AND their internal communications, that the "loan" to be ficticious transaction that it then classified as a covert trust agreement. Since this in itself is an economic disadvantage, and Reiner knew this was so, he was in breach of trust with mens rea. Him having a potentially different interpretation of the law is of no consequence, as he knew the facts, and ignorance or misinterpretation of the law is not an admissible defense.
Him claiming to having been willing to pay back after the sale of his house, the court originally considered a mitigating factor to his guilt. However, what he gave in his statements, the court interpreted as him admitting he was, in reality, not willing to pay back. So, him building his defense around the sale of his house was not only completely futile, as this does not speak against the act of embezzlement, but his defenders also allowed him to essentially submit a further admission of guilt, thus eliminating the only mitigating factor he had.
He could have probably gone free altogether, or gotten of the hook with a relatively minor suspended penalty, had his defenders provided proper counseling.
While Reiner hasn't been found guilty yet, it looks like a suspended sentence will not happen anymore.
The DA has filed a motion of provisonal discontinuation in regards to the charge of subsidiary fraud, on the grounds that the court hinted towards a possible penalty for this being most likely immaterial to the sentencing awaiting the two counts of aggravated embezzlement.
This is bad. Really, Really bad.
This is very distressing. It seems an unbelievable debacle - seriously UN believable!
Yes, indeed! I am a trial lawyer practicing in Germany.
Who are you really?
Under your pseudonym Samuel Clemens (-> Mark Twain) I could not find you in the internet - as the lawyer you seem to be.
Therefore: What is your clear name as a lawyer?
THANKS FOR YOUR VALUABLE COMMENTS. I WOULD APPRECIATE, IF YOU WOULD CONTRIBUTE NOW TO WHAT STILL POSSIBLY MAY BE RESCUED FOR REINER - E.G. by finding arguments that balance /prevail the bad ones + making sure all necessary will be still as good as still possible said in the first instance - to save it from preclusion/foreclusion during the next instance.
SO: PLEASE HELP REINER.
COULD YOU PERHAPS BECOME ONE OF HIS - NEW - LAWYERS?
IT SOUNDS LIKE HE URGENTLY NEEDS A NEW - GOOD - LAWYERS TEAM!!!
COULD YOU PERHAPS AT LEAST RECOMMEND GOOD NEW SUITABLE LAWYERS FOR REINER? PLEASE TRY. WE SHOULD NOT GIVE UP AS LONG AS THERE IS STILL A GLIMPSE OF HOPE and - possible - CHANCES.
Not all hope is lost, but his situation looks grim! I am kinda blaming myself. I followed the whole procedure and saw what happened, but didn't think that with three lawyers by his side, none of them wouldn't do their due diligence. That's why I am saying this is no mere coincidence! One lawyer being incompetent? Okay, that happens. But THREE of them, and nobody bothered to check the case law? That's inconceivable. This doesn't add up, none of it!
Why I think, Katja Wörmer just did not know, but not mean bad:
If you listen to her last video-message that came around via Elsa, it shows that Katja Wörmer did not know what the opponent's side meant when they pointed to her while critcizing that SHE had - in contrast to them - allegedly not read something carefully. She even asked the judge to put that bold remark into the protocol. Thus my conclusion: She did not know that with this her opponents probably referred to the troublesome part of case law she had not yet read. Since: To what else should they instead have referred? Hence: At this point in time she did not know this problem herself yet - and therefore did not mislead anyone consciously. From her body language I also never got this impression. On the contrary, I experienced her as honest, well-meaning and in that authentic.
Yes, that makes sense. There couldn’t possibly be 3 incompetent lawyers working in Reiner’s defense. These lawyers must be puppets of a much bigger operative. Also, even if you are not a criminal defense lawyer specializing in the economic aspect, surely you would have a rudimentary understanding of this German case law albeit not an expert and surely they would know that this would be something you research for the case.
Based on the previous trial reports containing the statements and demeanors of the prosecutions witnesses as well as their inexplicable contradictions caused by the defense's cross examinations, this preliminary assessment is on its face irrational and political. But the process is the punishment even when Reiner will be vindicated on appeal. If he never intended to repay the loan then he would have taken the profits of the sale of his home and simply absconded.
The problem with the "reports" are that they were made by people who have no legal expertise, and thus, no ability to discern important from unimportant information. Reiner may have asked a lot of questions, and witnesses may have answered weirdly. But most of these questions were completely immaterial to the applicable law, and thus, the answers did not matter!
Also, we all do not know about what is in the court files. E-mails, messages, letters, chats, we don't know what else the court has in evidence. I'm afraid that, once this is over, it will come to light that Reiner wasn't as "innocent" as he claimed to be, but also that this whole thing could have been avoided if he had not listened to Tobias Weissenborn, and if he had had a proper criminal defense!
Much of what you write is conjecture. What we know is Reiner adored the integrity of his policeman father. He won legal cases against some of the largest German corporations. He started up and ran the corona investigative committee because nothing made sense in relation to the institutional rationales. His inquisitive and ethical mind appealed to subject matter experts from all over the globe for nearly 4 years. And we know that every individual from around the globe who questioned the public-private partnership has been punished by an abused “legal process”.
But they picked the wrong guy to screw with that much I know…
The question is whether he carelessly opened himself up to prosecution. And I stand by my assessment that this is so! Why? Because he had very bad legal counsel!
But if he had the money from the sale of his house he could pay the loan off which was always his intent. Then maybe he could just incur a fine. Why is Templin keeping the money. He himself is guilty of stealing Reiner’s money.
Being an older person and jaded as I am, I now understand it is completely naÏve to believe in "justice" via the court system — particularly without any jury. Seems to me, only those parties with the deepest of pockets get a win. Could it be that Reiner was out of lawyer-level money with it being ferretd away by others? Was he financially caught between a rock and hard place from the time charges were laid? I have no idea of course, but that could be a reason for the mess - if (incompetent) others stepped forward as pro bono defence?
I agree. The older you get, the more many of us get a healthy dose of cynicism. Sadly in the US so many judges and prosecutors are corrupt. And the best defense takes money. It’s obvious that Reiner is very much a people person. Perhaps he was a little too trusting with people that were actually bad actors. And I still want to know why Reiner doesn’t have the funds from the sale of his house. He could use it to pay off the loan like he intended thus making the situation right.
I appreciate your "mentally collected" responses. I don't know you .. except through your words .. and while I am at a loss regarding German Legal Proceedings .. I appreciate the challenge you present as it displays some good criticism. I have always appreciated Reiner .. so my hope is that his suffering will end .. that he will be declared innocent.
I'm afraid that chances for this are slim. By my estimation, he's facing probably 4 to 5 years. He might appeal the sentence, but his chances are slim, because his defense would have needed to prepare the appeal by arguing against court rulings more. They shot themselves in the foot on so many occasions.
I'm no lawyer and can't pretend to argue any nuances here, but I believe Reiner is a good person, full of doing only what is right for humankind. We are in the fight of our lives Good Vs. Evil. Praying like mad that the judge understands there was no ill intent — manoeuvres were merely undertaken to protect donors money, as the world is aware bank accounts were frozen in various countries.
In our country, there is the letter of the law and the intent. Does Germany not recognise this as a point of law?
Rose, there is a discussion tomorrow.. Very helpful.
According to the relevant statutes of civil law, companies law and criminal law, his defense oh claiming he wanted to secure the money from possible government seizure is not admissible. The court also made it clear that Reiner wouldn't have succeeded, even if it were, because he used the money to pay for personal debt.
BUT: It the court knew this all the time and probably also the "missing part of caselaw-consideration: Why would it come along this only now - so suddenly?
Don't you also think, this is illogical?
That the court - that should be knowing and competent - has these insights only now and suddenly?...
I doubt it - see my explanation above, where I wonder about the courts sudden changing from "white to black" towards Reiner.
To me THIS is raising important questions!... See my and other peoples elaborations to that above.
I appreciate you sharing your knowledge, thank you..... What a terrible mess.
Not yet. But the court has made a preliminary judgment of the current facts and applicable law, and they ruled against Reiner on almost every single aspect. This is solely to blame on his abhorrent defense, which did nothing to prevent this!
Why didn’t his defense do anything to prevent this? Didn’t they know what they were doing?
It appears that none of them knew about this case law.
I don't buy it. He had three lawyers, and none of them knew it? Please!
I don't buy that the legal basis of Reiner's supposed guilt only crystallised today. How can the judge have allowed proceedings even to start without it being clear to all parties what the precise accusations were?
Precisely! The DA would have had to quote the applicable case law in the indictment! It's inconceivable that this came out of nothingness! Matter of fact: The court had initially intended to read this preliminary judgment last week! Surely, the court must have sent this to defense in writing before today's hearing!
- I assume you are very frustrated and feel desperate for Reiner.
- But please do without such strong words like "idiots". They bring in a destructive style.
- Now we need the opposite: Constructive approaches.
- Please do not get me wrong. Analysing in a diagnostic manner what went or might have gone wrong is necessary. But please, more gentle in style. Nobody wants to be condemned. Especially not after trying their best. And I assume, at least Katja Wörmer did that.
- If she might not be specialized and experienced enough in the relevant legal are, that is something else. I hope, that she herself then will say so and opt for a suitable colleague to replace her. It will be interesting to hear what she will say about this whole situation.
I would also like to add it's pretty interesting that Roger Bittel publishes this "Dossier", which is an obvious fake, while Miseré magically produces it out of thin air. If the court finds this to be an attempt to fool it, it is very well within its authority to find this an aggravating factor in sentencing. As in: Since they have produced no evidence whatsoever that this is authentic, the court can increase Reiner's jail time for it.
- I do appreciate "diagnostic" analyses - but would like to ask you politely for from now on at least as much focussing on possible solutions. Please!
- Also: Please refrain from kind of generally assuming the worst in people.
It does them wrong/injustice. You probably don't want that. Thanks.
He is! But he's not a criminal defense lawyer, and even if he was, it's never a good idea to defend yourself. Katja Wörmer was, apparently, hand-picked by Dagmar Schön. Katja Wörmer is primarily practicing family's law. Why did she become Reiner's public defender of all people? It was very clear that she had almost no knowledge about the contents of the court files! She was too busy to give interviews to Roger Bittel, who just seems to cash in on clickbaiting Reiner content, and has his own stake in keeping Reiner locked up as long as possible! As long as he can make a scandal out of this, people will watch his show. When he's not covering Reiner, almost nobody watches him anymore. Go figure!
And then, out of nowhere, this Miseré guy shows up on the scene, and turns the whole process into a shit show, while Katja Wörmer sits and watches.
Remember when Dagmar Schön said something like "Reiner is too gullible"? Whatever happened to her afterwards? First, she was her prime defender, and suddenly, she was nowhere to be found. Then, we learned that she practically "hired" Katja Wörmer to be Reiner's defender. Did she set Reiner up? Is she operating behind the scenes, feeding the defense set-pieces to frame Reiner? Where did this Miseré character come from, all of a sudden? If you dig into his past, he seems to have a troubling history of working against his clients, while claiming the proceedings are "political".
https://rp-online.de/nrw/gericht-entlaesst-verteidiger-des-henriette-reker-attentaeters-frank-s_aid-18124591
Here, it says the court motioned to substitute / withdraw, because the defendant claimed he had a problem with alcohol abuse, talked to the media without his consent, and a female witness stepped forward claiming he harassed her via Email.
Here, his client, a German rapper, threw him out as his defender, due to not trusting him anymore
https://www.wp.de/staedte/hagen/article216068261/rapper-jigzaw-verliert-die-beherrschung-und-seinen-anwalt.html
Here, his defense was, apparently, also mainly based on claiming some sort of conspiracy by the DA's office.
https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/remscheid/anwalt-greift-an_aid-11406193
Starting to notice a pattern? He always seems to come up with the same story about a "politically motivated process", and then proceeds to resort to very shady tactics that, ultimately, are to his clients' disadvantage.
Why has nobody looked into this, yet?
I completely forgot about this! Maybe it was all a show, to distract from themselves!