What the Notary had to say

The following is a proper rendering of the legalistic German at https://2020news.de/die-hafenanwaelte-und-der-notar/ by an experienced professional translator. See http://www.language-for-clarity.com. It is not — not! — a machine translation.

There are about a dozen expressions which caused hiccups. In some cases I have added alternative translations in [square] brackets.

Introductory Commentary, reading between the lines:

The workings of land charges (encumbrances) are insufficiently explained, although it is these which are at the heart of the matter. It would seem that a land charge is collateral posted in the Land Registry for monies lent to the proprietor. (There is a technical difference to a mortgage, but that need not concern us here.) As monies are repaid, it is not the case that the land charge is automatically reduced. So a land charge may be posted in the Registry without there being any repayment due.

The text was not always in perfect German or logical. At the end, after listing some awkward expressions and sentences, the translator (not the “editor”) has added some remarks.

....Meanwhile eight days of proceedings have taken place in the criminal case against Dr Reiner Fuellmich, who is accused at the 5th Chamber for Economic Crimes of embezzlement. At issue is a loan of EUR 700,000 from monies of the Foundation Corona-Committee pre-company [Vorschalt gUG i.Gr.] which Dr Reiner Fuellmich received at the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2021, used privately and has still not repaid. Part of the deliberations of the court on the facts of the matter is whether Dr. Reiner Fuellmich had a right to do this and whether third parties deliberately or practically prevented him from repaying the loan amount.

According to Dr Reiner Füllmich the repayment was prevented by almost the entire sales price for his house being taken by the land charge creditor Marcel Templin, and this without justification. The latter received EUR 1,158,000 instead of the nominally secured amount of Euro 650,000. Dr Reiner Füllmich is of the opinion that, in fact, Marcel Templin had no claim from the land charge, and therefore cashed in the total amount wrongly.

So far the lawyer Dr. Justus Hoffmann and the Göttingen notary Dr. Stefan Kleinjohann have been questioned on this topic. Here is the report of the interrogation of the notary:

The notary said that the sales contracts for the house of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich in Göttingen, in which his law offices and his personal home were accommodated, were signed in October 2020. The parties signing were Dr. Reiner Füllmich and the two purchasers, a Mr R. and a Mr A. In August 2022 there had been an initial contractual agreement with Mr A. on his part of the property, which however was not immediately executed. Mr A. is obviously the neighbour of Dr. Reiner Füllmich; he purchased the office premises in the basement, which extends into the neighbouring plot of land. The other purchaser, Mr R., is an estate agent. He has meanwhile moved his office into the house of Dr. Reiner Füllmich. The offices in the basement were sold for EUR 295,000; the large plot of land with the bungalow for EUR 1,050,000; hence the two together for a total of EUR 1,345,000.

The signing of the contracts at the notary’s office was on a public holiday (!), as was communicated surprisingly by Dr. Reiner Füllmich. It was the 3rd October 2022, which is the Day of German Unity. Dr, Reiner Fuellmich and the notary seem to know each other well. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich tells the court that the notary was a friend/acquaintance from his university days, they had known each other (closely?) for twenty years.

The notary reports that he found a total of five land charges recorded in the Land Register, three for the Hallbaumbank (now Warburgbank) and two for private individuals. The total volume of the registered encumbrances: EUR 1,175,000. In a sale for the agreed sum, only EUR 170,000 would remain for Dr. Reiner Füllmich (minus any incidental costs.)

Dr. Reiner Füllmich had assured him, said the notary, that none of these land charges were still in place since the loans they were based on had been repaid. The notary reports further that Dr. Reiner Füllmich undertook to communicate to him deeds of release from the satisfied land charge creditors. In the contract, Dr Reiner Füllmich gives an assurance: All deeds of release were already given or will be given shortly; I or those authorized by me will convey the documents to the notary. With regard to the land charge of the two private individuals, the deed release will come, as announced, shortly via a different notary. However, no deed release for the three first-ranking land charges came either from the bank or from Dr. Reiner Füllmch personally.

The notary continues, on his next perusal, he then found a land charge in favour of the lawyer Marcel Templin on the first three rankings (totalling EUR 650,000), which surprised him greatly. And this, although in the contract it was documented: “Seller (= Dr. Reiner Füllmich, note by the editor) gives an assurance that further changes were not made and neither were any to be expected.”

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich then conveyed to him that Marcel Templin is entered in the land registry quite wrongly. This person [i.e. Templin] had accepted transfer [assignment] of the land charge [under a notarised deed] too late. Moreover, Marcel Templin did not have, or no longer had, a claim to be secured. An earlier claim for repayment of a loan out of the funds of the class action had been forfeited by the class action participants having all gone over to him, Dr. Reiner Füllmich. Therewith, their funds too had passed to him.

Note by the editor: Lawyer Marcel Templin is or was the contractual partner of the entrepreneurs who wanted to participate in the class action project of Dr. Reiner Füllmich. Those would-be plaintiffs had each remitted to Marcel Templin EUR 800 plus value added tax, thereforein total EUR 952,-- per head, so that a class action might be initiated in the USA on account of the defective PCR tests, which class action they could join as German entrepreneurs. The article “and daily the class action issues a greeting” [ „Und täglich grüßt die Sammelklage“] on 2020News shows the status of the class action on 15th September 2022. At that point in time, no lawsuits had been initiated which would correspond to these criteria. High amounts had been received from the entrepreneurs who wanted to sue, certainly at least EUR 900,000. The status of the class action will be reported on separately at 2020News.

The following details are disclosed in court: At the end of 2020 Dr. Reiner Füllmich had received from the class action funds a loan in the amount of EUR 500,000 to replace an exposure on his Göttingen property. Dr. Reiner Füllmich had instructed the bank, in order to cover [protect, hedge] the repayment claim of Marcel Templin, to assign [cede] land charges filed in its favour totalling EUR 650,000. During the hearing, it remained unclear whether Reiner Füllmich had received further funds from Marcel Templin over and above the EUR 500,000 such that the EUR 650,000 secured by land charges was reached.

The notary said that Marcel Templin had turned to him with the request for copies of the sales contracts. He wanted to know for how much money the sale had taken place. But of course the notary did not inform him of this. Then Dr. Justus Hoffmann telephoned the notary and asked for an explanation of "how that works with the land charge." The notary pointed out to him that a land charge creditor should only assert claims [receivables] which actually existed. Formally, there was also land registry interest, which at 15 or 18 percent was very high, as well as incidental claims of 5 percent, with which one could theoretically book further money as income. But it was clear that one could only keep the money if one had a different legal reason for this than just the formal position as a land charge creditor. The reason for which a land charge might be drawn [instigated] was normally a furnishing of collateral. With this, the owner of the property determines very exactly the claims for which, on non-fulfullment, his property should be liable.

During his interrogation in Göttingen on 1st March 2024, Dr. Justus Hoffmann had said that there was no such declaration of the collateral purpose on the assigned land charge. Did Dr. Reiner Fuellmich therefore want a liability of the property also for further claims [receivables] of Marcel Templin? If so, then which claims?

The notary reported further that, later, Marcel Templin had come to his office with a man and a woman and had given him a fiduciary instruction [assignment] for the settlement [rectification] of land registry. The notary did not spontaneously recognise Antonia Fischer, who was present in the courtroom. However, she confirmed that it was she who, together with Dr. Justus Hoffmann had been at the meeting with the notary. The fidiciary instruction of Marcel Templin said that the latter may only have the land charge discharged if he, Marcel Templin, received from the purchasers a total of EUR 1,158,000. The notary conveyed this information to the purchasers, and these had then accordingly paid to Marcel Temmplin. The remainder of the money had been remitted, as Reiner Füllmich had specified in the purchase contract, to his wife, Inka Füllmich.

After deduction of the costs, the sum which Dr. Reiner Fuellmich received from the house sale would have been about EUR 140,000. Of this, nothing has been paid back to the Corona Ausschuss.

The notary said that he was not obliged to examine whether the claim of a land charge creditor was in fact still valid, he could also not examine every bank statement for correctness. The senior judge asked how high the difference between a recognisable claim and the transfer fee demanded would have to be for the notary to accept a special obligation of examination. What would he do, if a bank for instance had a receivable of only EUR 500 but demanded EUR 100,000 in order to agree to the discharge? The notary said that in such a case he would indeed query it and inform the seller. However, according to both Dr Reiner Füllmich and the notary, the notary never communicated to Dr. Reiner Füllmich the high sum stated in the fiduciary instruction.

Although his old acquaintance Dr. Reiner Füllmich had made it clear with drastic words in emails to the notary that he was unable to see any claims on the part of Marcel Templin from the land charge, the notary admitted he had not informed him that almost the entire purchase price was to be disbursed to the land charge creditor. An email from Dr. Reiner Füllmich to the notary is read out in which he wrote “it is worth trying.” The notary said he had understood this as Dr. Reiner Füllmich having given his okay to the disbursement of the EUR 1,158,000. He expressed the view to the court that Dr. Reiner Füllmich would have had to protest unambiguously when he communicated that he planned to proceed in accordance with the fiduciary instruction. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich had apparently not asked about the exact sum of money the fiduciary instruction was for, neither had the notary communicated to him this instruction.

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich asked the court several times how, then, the notary imagined he would have been able to protest even more clearly for the message to come across. The notary failed to answer this.

Dr. Reiner Füllmich had sued Marcel Templin in an accelerated [summary] proceeding to issue the discharge. In court he seems to have been unsuccessful with the lawsuit. No further information was given on the reason for the failure. The notary was informed about the summary proceeding, stating that he also had documents in his files, however he had not examined them, indeed he would seem not to have even read them. The judge asked the notary whether, if appropriate, he would have observed [complied with] a ruling in favour of Dr. Reiner Füllmich. The notary replied that he would certainly have read through such a ruling and examined it. He did not want to specify that in every case he would have observed [complied with] such a ruling.

During the interrogation of the witness the shareholder of the Foundation Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr., Viviane Fischer, was present as co-plaintiff for the rejection of civil-law claims against herself. She had been petitioned by Dr. Justus Hoffmann and Marcel Templin for payment of the EUR 700,000 plus EUR 70,000 interest which have not yet been repaid by Dr. Reiner Füllmich and about EUR 8,400 attorney’s fee – at present only out of court. Note by the editor: 2020News reported on this in the article „Der Corona-Ausschuss wird angegriffen“).

Viviane Fischer pointed out that, in a further lawsuit against Marcel Templin, Dr. Reiner Füllmich had failed to obtain the rendering of all monies from the class action. Viviane Fischer said that she has the first page of the court’s ruling on this. She reported that the lawsuit had been rejected as impermissible [ruled out of court] because Dr. Reiner Füllmich had not issued a correct petition. He had demanded “all moneys” from the class action. This had been too indeterminate for the court; such a general receivable could finally not be executed because a bailiff would not know exactly what he was supposed to seize. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich would have had to demand that a specific amount, e.g. EUR 200,000 was to be disbursed to him from the monies for the class action. The issue of such an indeterminate petition was unusual for an experienced procedural lawyer. What is remarkable is that the error of Dr. Reiner Füllmich had obviously also not been corrected later.

In his own interrogation, Dr. Justus Hoffmann had declared, more or less, that he had not been involved in the matter of the land charge discharge and that Marcel Templin had only informed him about the event, in a rudimentary manner, on the journey to the notary for the placing of the fiduciary instruction shortly before Christmas 2022. In the email of December 13, 2022, with which Marcel Templin requested communication of the purchase contract, Dr Justus Hoffmann was entered in cc, which did not initially have to mean anything. However, Dr. Justus Hoffmann, it was said, had telephoned the notary about the matter and had had more detail explained to him about the winding up of the land charge. Hence Dr. Justus Hoffmann seemed to be more involved in the matter than first impressions indicated.

Note by the editor: Dr. Justus Hoffmann has had the publication of Chat-exchanges with Viviane Fischer on the topic, in which Dr. Justus Hoffmann described Marcel Templin as „smart“ with regard to the house deal, prohibited. There is also a court prohibition on the publication of the email from Marcel Templin to the notary of December 13, 2022, in which Marcel Templin speaks of there being receivables of a company against Dr. Reiner Füllmich. 2020News will defend itself against these rulings.

In the course of her own interrogation on March 12, 2024, Viviane Fischer read out a chat message in which Dr. Justus Hoffmann said: “The purchaser is safe with Reiner under one sheet...He made Marcel a ridiculously high offer.” Viviane Fischer also read out her reply: “Be careful, that could be relevant in criminal law. In Marcel’s place I would take only the loan sum plus agreed interest."

There follow personal comments by Viviane Fischer:

Did Marcel Templin here obtain for himself, without the knowledge or assent of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, money to which he had no right? Dr. Justus Hoffmann, who was obviously in close communication on the topic with his lawfirm partner Marcel Templin, knew the advice of the notary to only demand what there was a claim under the law of obligations and torts for. But, as a lawyer, Marcel Templin must have been clear about this in any case. If Marcel Templin did not have any claim to the money under the law of obligations and torts, why did he issue to the notary such an instruction, quasi under the eyes of public prosecutor and the public? Was he not fearful that this would be critically queried? If Marcel Templin possibly does have a legitimate claim, why did he not disclose this long ago? As reported, Marcel Templin has sued 2020News to remove from the internet his correspondence with the notary. Why did he not immediately attack the report of 2020News of early December 2023 on the mysterious house deal with appropriate evidence if, indeed, the matter was possibly entirely misdescribed?

Or, and this is pure speculation, could it be that there is a deeper level? Could it possibly be, that, in coordination with further participants, money of the creditors of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich could be removed from the avenues of access? One cannot here remove Dr. Reiner Fuellmich himself from the circle of the possible participants, in my opinion.

The Foundation Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr. has a repayment claim against Dr. Reiner Fuellmich in the amount of € 700,000. It is still waiting for the money. The Foundation Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr. has joined the criminal complaint against Dr. Reiner Fuellmich (so-called „adhesion“ proceeding) with a complaint for repayment. If it wins, it could execute against Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. If Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has no money, the execution claim would initially go empty-handed. The Foundation Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr. could in a next step, seize a possible repayment claim of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich against Marcel Templin. Then it would have to answer possible objections by Marcel Templin against the receivable from Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. It is clear that triangular lawsuits would take much time, use much money and be burdened with uncertainties. If Marcel Templin should meanwhile become insolvent, the Corona-Ausschuss would „look at the moon“.

So far, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has made no moves to repay anything to the Corona-Ausschuss. If anyone, Marcel Templin or, in the worst case, a Dr. Reiner Fuellmich collaborating with him, wanted to prevent long-term and possibly indeed permanently, the Corona Ausschuss receiving its money back, in order to be able to work with this, then the present situation of the “shifting" of the money to Marcel Templin would, in end effect, suit them very well.

The circumstance that the notary notarized on a public holiday reminded me of an unpublished article of Spiegel magazine from 1999, which a friend of Dr. Reiner Füllmich wrote and which was published by 2020News on February 1, 2021. This talks of so-called “midnight notaries,” who at the behest of banks documented the purchase contracts of guileless buyers of delapidated real estate. In the article it says: among notaries who take their duties to inform and instruct seriously many a property purchase would never have materialised. The notaries on the Hermes List were not so fussy. They remained on call whenever the middlemen dragged their victims along. The “midnight notaries” – as Füllmich calls them – certified often late in the evening, even towards midnight, and they were also helpful at weekends. One Berlin-based notary took his official seal with him after the working day and settled down comfortably at home until the pressgang appeared with its clients.”

The situation in 1999 related of course to a completely different constellation, and I have nothing to indicate that the notary Dr. Kleinjohann could have been implicated in the matter of the delapidated properties. What I wonder about is that a notary speaks in a totally relaxed way of his client being able to complain about him to the notarial supervisory board, this where the client is supposedly still a friend, with the client having to take legal action to chase after a purchase price total of EUR 1,158,000, where the notary was possibly partly at fault. Can there not also be a liability problem for him himself there?

One more comment: Marcel Templin is currently campaiging as a candidate in the European election on a list with the doctor and journalist Paul Brandenburg, the child protection campaigner Carsten Stahl and the singer Jule Neigel. This group of candidates complains: „Whoever is muzzled by officialdom — the actions of an executive which has increasingly set itself loose from democratic control — and wishes to turn to a legally appointed judge must wait months or years and suffer the injustice imposed during this time.“

Possibly a lessening of harm re Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, who is in jail on remand, and hence possibly mitigation of any penalty or indeed his release from prison, is being prevented by possibly illegal payments to Marcel Templin. Marcel Templin must be able to contribute unbureaucratically to casting light on the problems and, possibly, also to their resolution. It may be asked why he does not do this without delay. Does Marcel Templin really want to wait for weeks until he is interrogated in Göttingen in April 2024?

Only transparency can help against arbitrariness and backroom deals. This applies first and foremost to politicians. The events around the house deal continue to be anything but transparent. If already this easily explained matter, that possibly has massive consequences for Dr. Reiner Fuellmich — and for the Corona-Ausschuss — is kept obscure by Marcel Templin even months later, I wonder what we might expect from an EU-Parliamentarian Marcel Templin.

---

---

____________

Here are some of the expressions whose rendering in context was awkward or uncertain:

Löschungsbewilligungen
= deeds of release [i.e. deeds of discharge, removal from the Registry, deletion, cancellation]

Abtretung
= transfer / assignment under a notarised deed

Treuhandauftrag
= rendered here as “Fiduciary instruction”

Abtretung der Grundschuld
= accepted transfer [assignment] of the land charge [under a notarised deed]

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich habe die Bank angewiesen, zur Absicherung des Rückzahlungsanspruchs von Marcel Templin die auf sie eingetragenen Grundschulden über insgesamt € 650.000 abzutreten.
= Dr. Reiner Füllmich had instructed the bank, in order to cover [protect, hedge] the repayment claim of Marcel Templin, to assign [cede] land charges filed in their favour totalling EUR 650,000.

Den Grund, für den eine Grundschuld gezogen werden dürfe, lege normalerweise eine sogenannte Sicherungszweckbestimmung fest.
= The reason for which a land charge might be drawn [instigated?] was normally a furnishing of collateral.

Der Notar berichtet weiter, dass Marcel Templin im weiteren Verlauf zusammen mit einem Mann und einer Frau zu ihm in die Kanzlei gekommen sei und ihm einen Treuhandauftrag für die Bereinigung des Grundbuchs erteilt habe.
= The notary reported further that, later, Marcel Templin had come to his office with a man and a woman and had given him a fiduciary instruction [assignment] for the settlement [rectification] of land registry.

Der Treuhandauftrag von Marcel Templin an den Notar lautete, dieser dürfe die Grundschuld über € 650.000 nur löschen lassen, wenn er, Marcel Templin von den Käufern insgesamt € 1.158.000 erhalte.
= The fidiciary instruction of Marcel Templin said that the latter may only have the land charge discharged if he, Marcel Templin, received from the purchasers a total of EUR 1,158,000.

________________

“Dead Parrot”

{refers to the famous “Monty Python” comedy sketch}
There is repeated reference to Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr., which may be rendered “Corona Committee pre-company.” It is claimed that money is owed this pre-company. This has never been a company; it was never registered; it never had a bank account. It was projected to have a shareholder capital of EUR 500, which is next to nothing, and four shareholders. But nothing transpired. From the start, this pre-company was dead in the water. All talk of it being owed money is demented nonsense.

Defense attorney Edgar Siemund has explained, in arguably excessive detail, how, in civil law, this is a “dead parrot.” [my expression] See: http://www.klasseverantwortung.com/endtimes/9.html

The considerable donations were made to a genuine company, a civil-law partnership (GbR, Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts), which was duly registered (and had a variety of bank accounts due to the banks, presumably on governmental instructions, continually closing the accounts without reason). This company had two equal partners, Reiner Füllmich and Viviane Fischer.

These two had joint sole discretionary power of how to manage the funds, which came from supporters of the project. All this has been explained exhaustively by defense counsel Edgar Siemund.

How this company ceased to function as a partnership is told at

http://www.klasseverantwortung.com/endtimes/8.html

The above translation of https://2020news.de/die-hafenanwaelte-und-der-notar/ leads the translator to the following tentative conclusions:

Contrary to some allegations in the internet, Reiner Füllmich did protest rigorously against the de-facto seizure of his money by Marcel Templin and did take legal action. The tale with the land charges obfuscates the matter, which is further complicated by Templin’s retention of monies for the class action. The failure of notary Kleinjohann and of Templin to come clean in points of detail indicates that they are the guilty parties. I do not rule out the possibility that they had records at the Land Registry falsified.

Following the rift between Reiner Füllmich and Viviane Fischer, which was entirely the fault of Viviane, the obvious heirs to the money would, at most, be a fifty-fifty division such that Viviane would receive €350,000 to continue her version of Corona Investigations and Füllmich retain €350,000 for his version, ICIC. Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer have zero claims, any allegation that they do being malicious and demented. Viviane would seem to be mentally very disturbed, with a split personality; she has been unreliable and inconsistent from the outset. Although obviously intelligent, she cannot even speak clearly.

None of these “lawyers” (VF, JH, AF, MT) would seem ever to have earned honest, regular money as lawyers with a functioning lawfirm and clientele. Their qualifications are purely on paper.

Any respectable supervisory body would, on its own initiative, have investigated Kleinjohann and cancelled his license to practise.

My 2015 book, Klasse Verantwortung, which is portrayed in the English section of this website, argues for each profession to be policed by members of outside professions. This necessity has become all the more imperative since we have observed, following the 2020 global coup d’état, that all professional oversight bodies are compromised.