Reiner Fuellmich | 2024-08-30 - UPDATE - 28th day of trial - Fuellmich's real estate value store confirmed, attorney Viviane Fischer with prior knowledge of the criminal complaint, counterargument

→ Details

00:00:00 Trial observer before the start of the 28th day of the trial 00:04:10 Trial observer after the end of the 28th day of the trial, 2 witness interviews (attorney Viviane Fischer), attorney Viviane Fischer knew about the criminal charges against Reiner Fuellmich 4-5 weeks in advance, attorney Viviane Fischer was informed in advance about the valuables store “Reiner Fuellmich’s property” → “Property should be security for return after sale”, court prevents the facts from being recorded in the court record

The public prosecutor’s office’s allegations that Reiner Fuellmich does not want to repay the loan are essentially obsolete. There are therefore currently no more allegations, but the proceedings are still moving towards a conviction. Attorney Viviane Fischer is now suspected of making false statements in court.

Lawyer Katrin Behn from the Reiner Fuellmich law firm confirms the sale of the property and the use of the funds to pay off the loan. She confirms work to increase the value of the property. Lawyer Viviane Fischer felt “under pressure” from all sides.

JVA Rosdorf Reiner Fuellmich Am Großen Sieke 8 37124 Rosdorf

Rebuttal by RA Viviane Fischer – 2024-09-02

“RA Künnemann stated in court that he had been commissioned by me in autumn 2022. Specifically, this was September 27, 2022. When he testified in court, RA Künnemann was under the impression that I had only started to repay the liquidity reserve as a result of his advice.

However, this is not true. I had already repaid € 70,000 six weeks before the mandate, i.e. in mid-August 2022, which was two weeks before the port lawyers filed a criminal complaint against Reiner Füllmich on September 2, 2022 – as we know today.

RA Künnemann will correct the fact that the payment was made before the mandate to the court today.

The lack of a time indication of the mandate or the lack of orientation by RA Künnemann regarding the Unfortunately, the time of return has led to a large number of incorrect speculations for some trial observers.

What is and remains correct is that I only received the text of the criminal complaint – which looks like a draft and broken down into 10 parts – from Justus Hoffmann via Telegram on October 16, 2022. I forwarded this document to RA Künnemann via Telegram on October 17, 2022. I never filed my own criminal complaint against Reiner Füllmich.

When Justus Hoffmann was unable or unwilling to give me a file number or a responsible public prosecutor by November 21, 2022, despite several inquiries, I asked RA Künnemann to identify the person handling the case. I wanted to correct various incorrect aspects, such as the fact that Reiner Füllmich did not threaten the complainants. I then also investigated myself and on November 30, 2022, I found the file in Göttingen with the person handling the case, StA John.

So I did not pay back the liquidity reserve due to the advice of attorney Künnemann or out of fear of criminal charges. In accordance with the committee’s liquidity needs, I paid €85,000 before I received the port attorneys’ report document and then the remaining €15,000 on October 18 and 21, 2022, almost six weeks before I knew that the draft-looking report had actually been submitted.

The transfer evidence can be found here (https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Rueckfuehrung-Liquiditaetsreserve-Viviane-Fischer-16.8.-21.10.2022.pdf). The intended use was “repayment of so-called loans, liquidity reserve”.

On October 19, 2022, Attorney Künnemann received a “loan agreement” for inspection, which was the one for my liquidity reserve. I was unable to show the two “loan agreements” from Reiner Füllmich to Künnemann because Reiner Füllmich did not give me copies of his “loan agreements” at the time.

After it became clear to me in July 2022 that Reiner Füllmich had not kept a liquidity reserve, it was clear to me from that point on that only the house property in Göttingen offered the prospect of being able to repay the money for the liquidity reserve through Reiner Füllmich.

That is why in September and October 2022 I looked into the extent to which the house property, the “store of value”, was actually still valuable or was already over-indebted due to other land charges or debts.

However, dealing with the property in September and October 2022 does not mean that a return of the liquidity reserve through the sale of the house property was agreed from the outset in the “loan agreement”.

Rather, it was the case that only after the liquidity reserve had been used up through private expenses in violation of the agreement was the default on repayment to be prevented by selling the property.

Unfortunately, my fears that the house property was already over-indebted and was no longer a “store of value” were confirmed.

Berlin, September 2, 2024, Viviane Fischer”