This version replaces the earlier one. It is dated 25 April 2025, midday.

Edgar Siemund summing-up

On a date not later than September 2024, Defense Attorney Edgar Siemund submitted his plea to the court. In German this contains 13,000 words, which I have read carefully. Subsequently, via DeepL, I obtained a machine translation into English, having first re-formatted the German and then reworked it to remove obvious errors.

*_______Reference https://content.app-sources.com/s/48289324284372151/uploads/Reiner/Pladoyer_Siemund_watermarked-3045849.pdf

Note that the version located there has been watermarked by an association which cannot have any copyright to the text.

With somewhat repetitive content, and partly in an elaborate style typical of legalistic German, Siemund focuses on obviously phoney arguments, explaining at length simple points of civil and company law.

There are other matters of some significance which he mentions only in passing. He has a different estimate of the character of Viviane to this author.

Edgar Siemund begins by explaining his choice to work on this case. He does not use the US expression “No win, no fee” but this is what it would seem to amount to. He has not yet issued any invoice. His motivation is outrage at what has happened to Reiner and some prominent others.

He sees his remit here as being to clarify matters of civil corporate law, which is his speciality. In particular, his argues that civil law takes precedence over criminal law. If he can show that “the arrangements were permissible under civil law, then any relevance of this conduct under criminal law can also be ruled out. There is no in-between.”

Edgar Siemund proceeds with further background, recounting some of the sorry episode of how Reiner was kidnapped from Mexico. This was preceded by a “Manhunt without a completed investigation”.

Here a quote from the translation:

Therefore, let us briefly outline the timeline again, which ended with the abduction of my client and his arrest in Frankfurt: March 15, 2023 — arrest warrant, vol. 2, p. 141 ? 03/15/2023 — Arrest warrant 700k, vol. 2, p. 143 ? 03/16/2023 — Alert in INPOL, vol. 2, p. 146 ? 05/07/2023 — Red Notice, vol. 3, p. 122 ? 08/18/2023 — Roggatz Red Notice to Prosecutor John, vol. 3, p. 126 ? 09/23/2023 — Prosecutor John to Roggatz, vol. 3, p. 150 ? Arrest then in October 23 I.e. on 03/15/2023 a warrant was issued, which led to the alert in INPOL a day later, then two months later a Red Notice was issued, yet a total of 6 months later the investigation had still not been completed and even after the arrest in October 2023, further investigations were still under way. What this has to do with the rule of law cannot be explained to me.
In contrast, Viviane Fischer was treated with kid gloves.

And later: … legal practice shows that the Interpol system is prone to abuse and is not infrequently used by totalitarian regimes to detain dissidents and unwanted individuals.”

Edgar Siemund proceeds with an overview of the impropriety (i.e. illegality) of the court proceedings, mentioning how the input of fellow defense lawyer Katja Wörmer has been thwarted as too that of Dr. Christof W. Miseré. For example, the Court has repeatedly refused to listen to witnesses. It has ignored case law. It has insisted on evidence being read silently rather than spoken in open court.

Without going into detail, Edgar Siemund next highlights what many of us will consider the worst of all, namely the treatment of his “…client by both the court and Rosdorf prison, which is unspeakable….”

Siemund recounts further background, here summarized by the editor:

Dr. Justus Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer (no relation of Viviane), together with Viviane Fischer and Dr. Reiner Füllmich) formed in 2020 the Corona Investigative Committee ("CIC"or “Corona-Ausschuss”). The first of 118 weekly meetings was held online on July 14, 2020. Experts from various disciplines were interrogated about the so-called “measures”, with the focus on any scientific basis and their certain social impact.

Justus H. and Antonia F. remained largely silent at most meetings and then stopped attending altogether. Nor did they do any background work, with it being Reiner Füllmich and Viviane contacting the attendees, doing research and organising the considerable technicalities.

All four committed to a shareholding of €125,— in the projected company, which was never accepted into the commercial register and which, therefore, never came into existence. It never even had a bank account.

Justus H (with Antonia F) filed a criminal complaint against Reiner Füllmich on the grounds that they were entitled each to a quarter share of donations subsequently made by about 20,000 members of the public in the total amount over the years of EUR 3.6 million.

Read that sentence again!

Reminder by the editor: Joint bank accounts set up by Viviane and Reiner were repeatedly closed without reason. They therefore feared that their access to the necessary funds would be blocked altogether. This is why they purchased gold for one million euro and took out the loans. The gold and even the loans were less susceptible to government seizure. This in view of the fact that other protestors against the measures had been deprived of access to their money.

Edgar Siemund goes into some detail about the formation of the "CIC", mentioning two further protagonists, Wolfgang Wodarg and Professor Martin Schwab. He also reports on the numbers viewing the sessions, which rose to a peak of 250,000. These sessions lasted three hours or more, with one later peak of nearly seven hours.

Viviane and Reiner formed a GbR-Gesellschaft, which in German law is a civil law partnership. Confusingly, the law here has been recently amended, but it is the old version which is applicable. In such a partnership the members have mutual obligations but they do not have obligations outside of the partnership. Hence how they dispose of the funds is at their discretion, as long as they agree between themselves and as long as any donations are used in accordance with donor instructions. “Joint ownership means that only all shareholders can dispose of parts or all of the assets at the same time and jointly.”

Edgar Siemund proceeds with arcane deliberations which would only sidetrack us here since these address — at great length — imaginative (phantastical) but finally invalid speculations about alternative corporate law interpretations.

Corporate law standing is also affected by recognition or not by the tax authority of non-profit status, which was eventually refused on the grounds of the work of the CIC not being “government compliant” („nicht regierungskonform“).

You read that last phrase correctly.

„….zumal mittlerweile deutlich erkennbar ist, dass sich die Staatsanwaltschaft trotz einer Strafanzeige gegen Rechtsanwalt Marcel Templin, der im Besitz eines ihm nicht zustehenden Betrages ist, mit dem sich das Darlehen der „Corona-Ausschuss“-GbR zurückzahlen ließe, nicht einmal bemüßigt sieht, Ermittlungen gegen ihn aufzunehmen.“ ===== It can be clearly recognised that, although there is a criminal complaint against attorney Marcel Templin, who is in possession of a sum of money which he has no right to, money with which the loan by the “CIC” civil law partnership could be repaid, the Public Prosecutor does not see itself obliged to investigate him.

“The loan agreement with Füllmich would have been potentially illegal if he had not been able to repay the 700,000 euros from the outset. But: he owned a valuable property — so he was able to repay. He was also willing to repay, as he publicly stated at Bittel TV. The repayment was already prepared by the forthcoming sale of the house. But then happened what is now well known: The almost complete sum of the house sale was diverted by the intervention of attorney Marcel Templin into his own account — it was therefore not transferred to the account specified in the notarial purchase agreement. This prevented Dr. Füllmich from repaying the loan. In the case of a loan agreement, it was perfectly legitimate to use the money for private expenses as long as it was repaid as contractually agreed. The court should therefore have examined in detail whether or not the transfer of the purchase price to Templin's account was lawful.”

Chat between Viviane and Justus Hoffmann

In a chat between Viviane Fischer and Dr. Justus Hoffmann on October 26, 2022, it became clear once again what kind of person the latter is. It is not known whether this also applies to Antonia Fischer or whether she is only following in the wake of her colleague Dr. Justus Hoffmann and lurking for rich prey, because it has not been determined. However, this chat communication speaks for itself:

“V. F.: Marcel Templin got €1,158,260 from the house sale?

V. F.: Where should the difference to €650,000 come from? €508,250 in additional costs is impossible.

J. H.: Wieso spielt das eigentlich eine Rolle? Sei doch froh, sonst hätten wir den Reiner mit Kohle im Ausland gehabt. Wenn die Kohle nicht bei M. T. wäre, wäre der Reiner mit ner Million Euro mach Mexiko. Dann hätten wir ihm mal an die Füße fassen können.“====J. H.: Why does it actually matter? Be happy, otherwise we would have had Reiner with cash abroad. If the money wasn't with Marcel Templin, Reiner would have gone to Mexico with a million euros. Then we could have got our hands on him.“

Comment by Edgar Siemund: So here lawyers are taking the law into their own hands when they should actually know better. The chat continues:

”V. F.: Yes, but will it be available to the committee for repayment later?

J. H.: Probably not. Why should it?

V. F.: What is the reason for allowing Marcel Templin to keep this money? It has to go back to Reiner later and so it is in the recovery mass.

J. H.: Nö. Das ist Geld aus einem Vergleich mit dem Käufer====J. H.: Nope. This is money from a settlement with the buyer.

V. F.: A settlement? With what content? That seems rather strange

Note from Edgar Siemund: Did the public prosecutor's office investigate this? No, why should they? It doesn't fit into the Corona complex with the goal of “convicting Dr. Reiner Füllmich”.

J. H.: Reiner didn't put the money into the house anyway

V. F.: Sure, but it's money that Reiner had available to pay back to us.

J. H.: Ja. Hat er aber nicht. Hätte er sich halt früher überlegen müssen. Wir bekommen da schon genug zusammen gekratzt. Reiner bekommt Rente ausm Versorgungswerk. Der wird sicher Höchstsatz bekommen. Den Rest holen wir bei … und … . Wird ne Weile dauern. Aber das wird schon. Und von … Ich mache mir da eigentlich keine Sorgen. Das wird jetzt alles angestoßen. === J. H.: Yes. But he didn't. He should have thought of that earlier. We'll get enough together. Reiner gets a pension from the pension fund. He'll certainly get the maximum rate. We'll get the rest from... and... It'll take a while. But it'll be fine. And I'm not really worried about it... Everything is being initiated now.

V. F.: Kannst Du mir bitte alle Unterlagen zu diesem Hausvorgang zukommen lassen? Auch Euer außergerichtliches Verfahren. Wenn das irgendwie angreifbar ist, dass das Geld zu M. T. gelangt ist, wenn auch nur moralisch, fliegt uns das um die Ohren. Ich kann mir grade wirklich keinen Behaltensgrund vorstellen, aber vielleicht gibt es ja einen.=====V. F.: Can you please send me all the documents relating to this internal matter? Your out-of-court proceedings too. If it can be shown that the money went to M. T., even if only morally, it will blow up in our faces. I really can't think of any reason to keep it, but maybe there is one.

J. H.: Da gibt es keine Unterlagen. Also ... So wirklich gar nicht.====J. H.: There are no records. So... Not at all.

V. F.: Du hast doch gesagt, da gibt es einen Vergleich mit dem Käufer. Der Notar kehrt doch nicht einfach fast das doppelte an einen Grundschuldgläubiger aus. Da hätte er doch ein dickes Regressproblem=====V. F.: But you said there was a settlement with the buyer. The notary wouldn't just hand over almost double to a land charge creditor. He would have a big recourse problem [i.e. with recovery of damages].

J. H.: Der Vergleich war: M. T. gibt die Löschungsbewilligung und der Käufer zahlt dafür aus dem Kaufpreis das Geld an ihn. Das ist beurkundet und dann auch durchgeführt worden. Das wars. Reiner kann dagegen M. T. gegenüber genau gar nichts machen. Weil er damit genau gar nichts zu tun hat. Versteh nicht wie das zum Problem werden soll.=====J. H.: The settlement was: Marcel Templin gives the deletion approval and the buyer pays the money for it from the purchase price to him. That was notarized and then carried out. That's it. Reiner can't do anything against Marcel Templin because he has nothing to do with it. I don't understand how this is supposed to be a problem.

V. F.: Aber er hatte doch nur einen Anspruch auf € 650.000 und selbst 15% fiktive Grundschuldzinsen ergeben nicht € 500.000 zusätzlich. Die müssten ja letztlich auch schuldrechtlich belegbar sein. Aber der Käufer muss die Löschungsbewilligung doch gegen einen realistischen Betrag herausgeben.======== V. F.: But he was only entitled to €650,000 and even 15% fictitious land charge interest does not result in an additional €500,000. Ultimately, these would also have to be provable under the law of obligations. But the buyer must release the deletion approval for a realistic amount.

Der Käufer würde sich doch nicht drauf einlassen, viel mehr Geld an M. T. zu zahlen, es sei denn, er sitzt der Fehlvorstellung auf, er müsste das. Da muss es noch andere Gründe geben für die hohe Summe.======The buyer would not agree to pay a lot more money to M. T. unless he was under the misapprehension that he had to. There must be other reasons for the large sum.

Ich vertrete hier nach außen, dass M. T. das legitime Geld aus dem Hausverkauf bekommen hat, also im Wesentlichen die € 650.000. Wenn es nun das doppelte ist, dann muss es dafür nachvollziehbare Gründe geben. Hat M. T. dann das ganze Geld bekommen? Also die € 1.350.000?=====I am representing to the outside world that Marcel Templin received the legitimate money from the sale of the house, essentially the €650,000. If it is now double that, then there must be understandable reasons for it. Did Marcel Templin then get all the money? So the €1,350,000?

J. H.: Nein. Bissel ging ja noch für Notar und Grundbuch drauf ·· Reiner hat irgendwie um die 140.000 letztendlich raus bekommen. Der Grund ist einfach: Der Käufer hatte Zeitdruck. Marcel Templin hat gut verhandelt. Reiner hatte einen beschissenen Vertrag gemacht. Und der Notar war ... Sagen wir von Reiner sehr wenig begeistert.=====J.H.: No. We still needed a bit for the notary and the land registry ·· Reiner somehow only got about 140,000 in the end. The reason is simple: the buyer was under time pressure. Marcel Templin negotiated well. Reiner had made a shitty contract. And the notary was... Let's just say he wasn't very enthusiastic about Reiner.

V. F.: € 140.000 von € 1.350.000? Und Marcel Templin hat die € 1.150.000? Was für einen materialrechtlichen Anspruch hat Marcel Templin auf die überschießenden € 500.000? Was Du beschreibst, ist ja nur formelles.====V. F.: €140,000 out of €1,350,000? And Marcel Templin got the €1,150,000? What kind of claim does Marcel Templin have to the surplus €500,000 under property law? What you describe is only formal.

J. H.: Im Falle der Zwangsversteigerung hätte er zunächst einen Anspruch auf die Zinsen gehabt. Die sind da, um sämtliche Kosten zu decken. Kosten der ZV, Anwaltskosten, Zinsen.==== J.H.: In the event of a foreclosure auction, he would have initially been entitled to the interest. These are there to cover all costs: the costs of the foreclosure auction, the attorney's fees, and the interest.

Das wäre ohnehin ein gewaltiger Batzen geworden. Den Rest hätte der Reiner dann natürlich ausgekehrt bekommen.==== That would have been a huge chunk in any case. Of course, Reiner would have gotten the rest.

Der Käufer hatte aber signalisiert, dass er die Zwangsversteigerung keinesfalls wolle, schon weil er aus seinem Haus raus musste.==== However, the buyer had indicated that he did not want the foreclosure auction under any circumstances, if only because he had to leave his house.

Die hätte er aber nicht mehr verhindern können. Den Antrag hatten wir bereits fertig. ==== But he couldn't have prevented that anymore. We already had the application ready.

Die Grundschuld hatte eine Vollstreckungsklausel.=== The land charge had an enforcement clause.

Das wäre sofort zum AG Göttingen und das hätte dann das Zwangsversteigerungsverfahren begonnen.====This would have gone immediately to the municipal court of Göttingen and the forced auction process would have begun.

Im Februar wäre die 6 Monatsfrist um gewesen.=====In February, the six-month period would have been up.

M. T. war einfach nur sehr geschäftstüchtig · · Die Grundschuld war dem Käufer mehr wert weil er Zeitdruck hatte. Jetzt klarer?======Marcel Templin was just very business-minded. The land charge was more valuable to the buyer because he was under time pressure. Clearer now?

V. F.: Ja, mehr wert, aber auf Kosten von Reiner. Ich denke, das kann man der Crowd nicht verkaufen. Das fliegt Euch um die Ohren.==== V. F.: Yes, more valuable, but at the expense of Reiner. I don't think you can sell that to the crowd. It'll blow up in your face.

V. F.: Kein Mensch weiss wie lange die ZV gegangen wäre, ich vermute mal nicht lang, weil das Haus ja sofort Interessenten gefunden hätte.==== V. F.: Nobody knows how long the foreclosure would have lasted, I suspect not long because the house would have found interested parties immediately.

Problematisch ja auch, dass die Basis die € 650.000 ja auch schon kommunikationsmässig schwierig ist, weil die Leute für Reiner's Sammelklage zahlen wollten und nicht an einen ihnen unbekannten Marcel Templin.===== It's also problematic that the base of €650,000 is difficult from a communications point of view, because people wanted to pay for Reiner's class action suit and not to an unknown Marcel Templin.

Ganz egal wie sicher das vertraglich geregelt ist. Auch der Vertrag ist ja schwierig, weil er keine Verpflichtungen enthält. Das kommt alles fishy.====No matter how secure the contract is. The contract is also difficult because it contains no obligations. It all seems fishy.

Das sind große lmagebomben, die da wabern. Und das mit der fiktiven Zwangsversteigerung bei einem Objekt, das schon verkauft war, das nehmen die Leute nicht als Begründung an.====Those are big image bombs at play. And all that with an imaginary auction of a property which has already been sold, people are not going to accept that as an explanation.

Der Schuldner hat ja auch die Möglichkeit zum freihändigen Verkauf, wenn das Geld rein käme. Das ist der Crowd absolut nicht zu vermitteln.===== The debtor also has the option of selling the property on the open market if the money comes in. That is absolutely not to be conveyed to the crowd.

Das kommt ja im Prozess jetzt alles raus. Das fliegt Euch und auch mir, weil ich ja angeblich mit Euch "zusammenwirke ", um die Ohren.=== It's all coming out in the process now. It's blowing up in your and my faces because I'm supposedly “working together” with you.

V. F.: Das ist nur gut unter dem Aspekt, dass das Geld von ihm nicht verbraucht werden konnte statt wie Reiner sagte, in den Ausschuss zurückgegeben wird.==== V. F.: The only good thing about this is that the money couldn't be used by him and will be returned to the committee, as Reiner said.

Was er ja sicher vorhatte. Dann muss es aber auch für die Ausschussarbeit zur Verfügung stehen, also diesem angeblichen Willen von Reiner entsprechend verwendet werden und kann nicht igendwas fiktives absichern. Und das kann es ja auch gar nicht====== Which is certainly what he intended. But then it has to be available for the committee's work, i.e. it has to be used in accordance with Reiner's alleged will, and it can't be used to secure something fictitious. And it can't be used for that at all.

J. H.: Ich verstehe nicht wirklich, warum diese Sache mit dem Haus so ein Mysterium für sich darzustellen scheint. Die Sachlage ist überschaubar. Die Rechtslage einigermaßen direkt. Das hat mit den rechtlichen Problemen, welche wir mit Reiner haben, doch wirklich überhaupt nur am äußersten Rand etwas zu tun. Und an den Sachen sind wir hier fieberhaft dran.====J. H.: I don't really understand why this thing with the house seems to be such a mystery. The facts of the case are clear. The legal situation is reasonably straightforward. It only has something to do with the legal problems we have with Reiner at the very fringes. And we are feverishly working on that here.

V. F.: Das sehe ich anders. Das ist auch ein sehr großes Imageproblem. Was macht ihr grade fieberhaft?====V. F.: I see it differently. This is also a very big image problem. What are you feverishly working on right now?

J. H.: Klagen schreiben. Meh. Da bin ich recht entspannt. Der Widerstand und was der von mir hält, das ist mir sowas von egal.====J. H.: Writing complaints. Meh. I'm pretty relaxed about that. I don't really care about the resistance and what it thinks of me.

V. F.: Wow, diesem Widerstand verdanken wir das Geld. Das Geld ist nicht für irgendwas sondern für die Ausschussarbeit.====V. F.: Wow, we owe the money to that resistance. The money is not for anything but for the committee work.

J. H.: Der Widerstand, der mir sagt: Wegen Geld den Reiner anzeigen ist bubu, das hättet ihr andere machen sollen. (…) Ich habe keine Zeit und keine Energie, mich mit sowas zu befassen. Da ich gibt es derzeit wahrlich dickere Schnitzel auf meinem Teller“.====J. H.: The resistance that tells me: telling Reiner about the money is rubbish, you should have done it differently. (...) I don't have the time or energy to deal with something like that. There are much bigger issues on my plate at the moment.

Meanwhile, Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab had ceased his mediation efforts because he did not consider himself to be sufficiently neutral as a person who was friends with all parties involved and involved in the dispute. However, Prof. Martin Schwab later also stated in an email dated 22.03.2023 to Dr. Füllmich (Volume V, Page 119 ff):

„Da ich mich nicht dem Vorwurf aussetzen möchte, an der Veruntreuung Deines Geldes mitgewirkt oder mich gar an Deinem Geld bereichert zu haben, habe ich die ausstehenden .. .. Rechnungen jetzt erstmal aus eigener Tasche bezahlt.===== === “Since I do not want to expose myself to the accusation of having participated in the embezzlement of your money or even of having enriched myself with your money, I have paid the outstanding... bills now for the time being out of my own pocket.

Templin und Hoffmann wissen Bescheid; ich habe heute Vormittag mit Templin gesprochen und Lösung über ein Darlehen von Templin an ..., von der ich gestern erzählt hatte, abgeblasen“.====== M. T. and J. H. know about it; I spoke with M. T. this morning and the solution about a loan from M. T. to... that I had mentioned yesterday has been canceled.”

Das Herausverlangen des Erlöses aus der Immobilie von Dr. Füllmich durch M. T. hat hier nur so viel Bedeutung, als dass es dazu führte, dass Dr. Füllmich seinen finanziellen Verpflichtungen nicht mehr nachkommen konnte, was J. H. vor allen anderen Beteiligten, sogar vor Dr. Füllmich selbst, wusste. Denn in einem Schreiben vom 02.12.2023 verfasste Dr. J. H. einen Brief mit einer Forderung über € 700.000 gegen V. F., weil sie Dr. Füllmich die beiden Darlehen gewährt habe, die nun nicht mehr zurückgeführt werden würden (Zitat): === The demand by M. T. for the proceeds from Dr. Füllmich’s real estate is only of such importance here as it meant that Dr. Füllmich was no longer able to meet his financial obligations, which J. H. knew before all other parties involved, even before Dr. Füllmich himself. In a letter dated December 2, 2023, Dr. J. H. wrote a letter with a claim for €700,000 against V. F. because she had granted Dr. Füllmich the two loans that would now no longer be repaid (quote):

„Dr. Füllmich befindet sich inzwischen in Untersuchungshaft. Aufgrund der Unterlagen, welche der Geschäftsführung vorliegen, kann als gesichert feststehen, dass der Dr. Füllmich de facto mittellos ist und die rechts- und vertragswidrig in sein Vermögen überführten € 700.000,00 nicht wird zurückzahlen können.“.=== “Dr. Füllmich is now in custody. Based on the documents available to the management, it can be stated with certainty that Dr. Füllmich is de facto destitute and will not be able to repay the €700,000 that were transferred to his assets in violation of the law and contract.

Aufgrund der Sach- und Rechtslage ist zudem von einer Verurteilung des Dr. Füllmich auszugehen.======On the basis of the facts and the legal situation, a conviction of Dr. Füllmich is also to be assumed.

Da ihn nicht nur eine langjährige Haftstrafe erwartet, sondern auch der Verlust seiner Zulassung als Rechtsanwalt, kann als gesichert gelten, dass die Ansprüche, welche die Gesellschaft und die Gesellschafter gegen Dr. Füllmich haben, faktisch wertlos sind“======Since he not only faces a long prison sentence but also the loss of his license to practice law, it can be assumed that the claims that the company and the shareholders have against Dr. Füllmich are effectively worthless”. Den H-Anwälten hat es offensichtlich nicht gereicht, Dr. Füllmichs Erlös aus seiner Immobilie großenteils wegzunehmen, sie wollten nunmehr für die noch immer nicht eingetragene und deshalb spätestens seit Dezember 2021 gar nicht mehr vorhandene Vorschalt-gUG das Geld von V. F. noch einmal eintreiben.===It was obviously not enough for the “Port”-lawyers to take most of Dr. Füllmich's proceeds from his property; they now wanted to collect V. F.'s money for the still unregistered and therefore no longer existing holding company, which will no longer exist by December 2021 at the latest.

Sie hatten V. F. mit der Mehrheit von A. F. und J. H. zuvor als Geschäftsführerin abgewählt und fühlten sich nun als die geschäftsführenden Gesellschafter einer in ihrer Existenz nur noch vorgetäuschten Vorschalt-gUG, die lediglich noch eine GbR sein konnte, weil sie nie eingetragen wurde und auch nicht eingetragen werden sollte. === They had previously voted V. F. out of office as managing director with the majority of A. F. and J. H. and now felt that they were the managing partners of a dummy gUG whose existence was only feigned and which could only be a GbR because it was never registered and was not intended to be registered.

Und selbst in dieser GbR waren sie nicht mehr Gesellschafter, weil sie durch ihre Untätigkeit keinen Beitrag zu ihr leisteten und aufgrund der Aussage, dass sie ihren eigenen Lebensunterhalt bestreiten müssten, was ihnen aufgrund der unbezahlten Arbeit im Corona-Ausschuss nicht möglich sei, ihren Kanzleibetrieb fortführten, ohne sich an der Aufklärungsarbeit des Corona-Ausschusses zu beteiligen. ===And even in this GbR, they were no longer partners because they made no contribution to it due to their inactivity and continued to run their lawfirm without participating in the work of the Corona Committee, based on the statement that they had to earn their own living, which they were unable to do due to the unpaid work in the Corona Committee.

Dass es keine Vorschalt-gUG mehr gab scheinen sie irgendwann selbst erkannt zu haben, denn die Forderungen der H-Anwälte gegen V. F. wurden offenkundig nicht weiterverfolgt. === They seem to have realized at some point that there were no longer any intermediate non-profit companies, because the claims of the H-lawyers against V. F. were apparently not pursued further.

Sonderbar erscheint nur, dass Staatsanwalt J. und das Landgericht Göttingen die Adhäsionskläger A. F. und Dr. J. H. bis zur Insolvenz des Dr. Reiner Füllmich noch immer als Vertreter der „Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt-gUG“ führten.=== It seems strange, however, that public prosecutor John and the Göttingen District Court still listed the plaintiffs A. F. and Dr. J. H. as representatives of the “Corona Committee Vorschalt-gUG” until Dr. Reiner Füllmich's bankruptcy.

*______Note by the editor: The remarks by both Justus Hoffmann and Martin Schwab suggest to me that these men are demented, quite apart from, in the case of Hoffmann, being phenomenally cynical.

Conclusion by Edgar Siemund
All in all, Dr. Reiner Füllmich has become the victim of political machinations and greedy former co-partners and a lawyer Marcel Templin, who had sensed the big money and quite obviously used both the seller's situation and the land charge given to him, contrary to the contractual agreement, and thus thwarted Dr. Reiner Füllmich's existing intention to repay.

All this is therefore not sufficient to justify a conviction of Dr. Reiner Füllmich. And there is no evidence of a trust agreement between Dr. Reiner Füllmich and V. F. Therefore, I request the acquittal of Dr. Reiner Füllmich, his immediate release from custody and the payment of the costs of the proceedings and his necessary expenses by the state.