I.
Reiner Fuellmich and his wife Inka were living in Mexico because they had been refused entry into the USA. (Inka, who apparently is still in Mexico, will know some minor details where my account may be slightly mistaken or need confirmation.)

My information, which contradicts another narrative, is that they had visited Peru so that Inka could obtain spiritual guidance there. They booked a flight to the USA but, on trying to book in at the airport, were told that, without explanation, their visas (or Reiner’s) had been cancelled during the night. So they travelled to Mexico. These details are unimportant. The significant fact is that they were denied entry to the USA although they owned a ranch in California, had lived there for countless years and although Reiner was accredited as, and had worked for decades as an attorney in California.

They settled in or close to Tijuana, which is located south of the border at San Diego, USA. This enabled friends to bring their dogs to them.

II.
Their passports went missing. One account is that the passports had just been misplaced and were found the next day, but that the Consulate recommended nonetheless to go ahead with the replacement procedure.

In order to replace the passports they contacted the German consulate. There is also an account that Reiner had been asked by Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer to provide at the consulate a signature on a legal document connected with the "Corona Investigative Committee." There is a narrative that this was a ploy to deceive Reiner into attending the consulate. Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer have allegedly admitted this.

I have read different accounts of exactly what happened, but what is certain is that they travelled, either voluntarily or strong-armed, to the airport, where Reiner was placed under guard on a flight to Germany. He was accompanied by six uniformed Mexicans, whose flights and return flights must have been paid by the German government.

There may or may not have been an intermediate stop at Mexico City and the aircraft may or may not have landed briefly in the USA, it is speculated in Arizona or New Mexico. This stop, if it took place, may have significance for retrospective legal action.

On arrival at Frankfurt airport Reiner was arrested and a week later transported to the high-security prison at Rosdorf, which is located close to his former home and offices in Göttingen.

III.
Inka Fuellmich was also detained at Tijuana airport. She spent a very unpleasant night in jail in disgusting conditions and without knowing what would happen to her. If there was any reason for objecting to Reiner’s papers, then the same applied to her. In fact, she was released the following day and allowed to remain in Mexico, where apparently she remains to this day.

IV.
This abduction — or kidnapping — was certainly illegal in several respects.

Under § 144 of the Mexican Immigration Law, Article 144, the only basis for expulsion from Mexico are:

• Entering the country with false documents

• Illegally re-entering the country after having previously been deported

• Being convicted of a crime which endangers national security, or

• being under investigation for any such crime.

None of the expulsion conditions listed are applicable.

Had the German Agency for the Protection of the Constitution or the prosecutor's office asked for his extradition in order to legally arrest him in Mexico, Fuellmich and his lawyers would have been heard by the Mexican authorities during extradition proceedings.

The accusations of public prosecutor John and the Federal Criminal Police Office and the Lower Saxony State Criminal Police Office would have emerged during the extradition proceedings in Mexico as fabricated, as too would have the fact that the entire operation was staged.

The extradition would never have taken place. The German Agency for the Protection of the Constitution and the German authorities generally would immediately have been discredited internationally.

It is generally recognized that the kidnapping of an accused, organized by law enforcement authorities of one state [in this case, the Göttingen Public Prosecutor's Office in co-operation with the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution, the Lower Saxony State Criminal Police Office and the Federal Criminal Police Office] on the territory of another state constitutes an offence contrary to international law, which obliges the abducting state [Germany] to return the abductee at the request of the injured state [Mexico].”

(In this case, the "injured" state cannot be expected to make any such request since it was itself active in implementing the abduction.)

The Split

This arrangement came to an abrupt end when, on 1st September 2022, Viviane Fischer lied to Fuellmich saying that the next day's broadcast, 2nd September, had had to be cancelled. It went ahead, suddenly with the reappearance of J.H. and A.F. the regular attendee Wolfgang Wodarg and with Robert Cibis of Oval Media and Viviane’s putative boyfriend. In Reiner’s absence she (and others) accused him of financial irregularities and, in effect, of embezzlement, declaring that he had therefore been ousted from the committee.

However, as Viviane and Reiner were equal (and indeed the sole) partners, she had no right in law or morally to do this. Reiner should surely have taken legal action against her for what was a breach of trust. But he was presumably reluctant to involve the law, which would have incurred legal expenses paid for by the donors.

In response to Viviane’s unjustifiable action, Reiner Füllmich founded ICIC Law, which continued, albeit at a different pace, the work of informing the public about everything related to what had become a global coup d’état.

The question now arises of what was to happen to the funds, including the gold for one million euro and over which Viviane & Reiner had joint custody. Moreover, where should the loan of €700,000 be repaid?

Following Viviane’s betrayal and the consequent split in the SIC there is no clear recipient for repayment of the loan. The most neutral resolution conceivable would be (have been) for each of Viviane and Reiner to receive (take) one half of the funds (including the gold) in order to continue their investigative hearings. On this reckoning, which has not been aired by either of them or in the public sphere, Viviane would receive — would have received — from the loan repayment €350,000. But no such accommodation took place.

Alleged Embezzlement

Can there have been any embezzlement?

Reiner Füllmich stands accused of embezzling €700,000 by having taken out a loan and then not having repaid it. But who could he have embezzled it from? Who were the victims?

His accusers are unable to answer these questions.

They pretend to answer by maintaining that the money belongs to the “Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG.”

“Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss” means “Foundation Corona Committee.” “UG” stands for “Unternehmergesellschaft,” literally, “Entrepreneurial company.” This is a relatively recent innovation in German law and is roughly equivalent to the British “Limited Company.”

However, “Vorschalt g” means “preparatory.” As explained by defense counsel Edgar Siemund in his summing up, the “Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG.” never attained legal status because it was never registered as a company. It might at best be described as a “pre-company.” It never even had a bank account, nor did it have any assets. Since the intention and possibility of registration quickly lapsed, the pre-company was liquidated. German law does not allow for extended existence of a pre-company.

Donations by about 20,000 well-wishers totalling about 3.6 million Euro were paid into various private bank accounts, none of which were those of Dr. Justus Hoffmann or Antonia Fischer, who were two of the four putative shareholders of the pre-company (each with a nominal holding of €125). These donations for investigating the happenings arising from the “Corona” crisis were made to Viviane Fischer and Dr. Reiner Füllmich personally without any further specification about how the money was to be allocated.

Meanwhile (December 2021), these two had formed and duly registered a civil-law partnership: “Corona-Ausschuss GbR,” in which they were sole equal partners. This had the name SCA Investigation Committee UG (abbreviated to SIC).

The handling of the funds was entirely at their discretion as long as they were in agreement. Certainly, they had a moral obligation to the donors to use the funds in furtherance of knowledge about everything and anything connected with the “Corona” crisis. They also had a moral obligation to protect the funds from government seizure, which is why they bought gold and took out the loans.

Therefore, there cannot have been any embezzlement, and consequently the accusations against Reiner are baseless. The matter of what should happen to funds either on hand or due is in abeyance.

None the less, there are victims, but they are not victims of any embezzlement by Reiner. They are the donors whose funds have become inoperable due to the breach of trust by Viviane. The investigative work has been hampered. They are also victims of what would seem to be fraud by Marcel Templin, who obtained the amount of the loan, which is the subject of the next section.

---

---

How did Templin obtain € 1,158,000 from the sale of Reiner’s house, leaving Reiner with only a small fraction of its value?

Reiner had authorised Marcel Templin to manage the house sale since he himself would be out of the country, engaged on a talking tour in the USA.

Templin was the third member in the “Hafen”-lawfirm of Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer (they named their partnership “Port” or “Harbour” because its offices are located opposite a tying-up point on a waterway in Berlin).

Reiner had also entrusted Templin with handling monies received from German entrepreneurs for the pursuit of a class-action lawsuit in the USA.

Reiner’s house had been encumbered with five land charges. Land charges are collateral for debt.

This circumstance is confusing because one imagines that the value of the land charges corresponds to the debt due. However, reading between the lines of the Notary’s statements in court, it emerges, although not said in so many words, that land charges may persist even when debts have been repaid. There is a process for cancelling the land charges from the Land Registry, i.e. for their discharge, which may be onerous or just neglected. Moreover, the land charges may be transferred from one beneficiary to another. To add to possible misapprehension, the German word “Grundschuld” implies a debt, for which the word is Schuld.

By law and contractually the notary, as the intermediary between buyer and seller, was obliged to have the purchase price remitted to the seller, minus any incidental costs. But he did not do this, allowing instead almost the entire amount to go to Marcel Templin, who claimed to be the beneficiary of one or more land charges.

Reiner has disputed that Templin had any claim to money from the land charges and sued him over this. But his lawsuit failed. Reiner also took Templin to court over his retention of money for the class action, but again he failed, this time on a technicality.

On receipt of most or all of the money from the house sale, Reiner has promised to repay the loan of €700,000. This analyst cannot see how this would be possible because there is no — or no longer any — recipient to qualify as a creditor.

Reiner is charged with embezzlement because of failure to repay the loan. But those claiming to be creditors, namely Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer, have no standing in the matter. As explained at painful length by defense attorney Edgar Siemund, their claim is premised on a pre-company, which never came into lawful existence. Their arguments contain other absurdities. Not least, it emerges that they had zero interest in the investigations into the happenings connected with “Corona” and are only interested in obtaining a huge proportion of the donors’ money.

---

---

---

---