Scientology smear by David A. Hughes

See, further below, refutations of other slanders made by Hughes in https://davidahughes.net/why-reiner-fuellmich-was-guilty-part-4/

— here in his attempt to discredit Dr. Reiner Füllmich, Hughes (relying seemingly on Uwe Alschner) digs up events of more than a quarter of a century ago and then misreports them. He links to a television “documentary” of 1999 which a Hamburg court prohibited from being rebroadcast on the grounds that it was defamatory. Whereas in https://davidahughes.net/why-reiner-fuellmich-was-guilty-part-1/ Hughes relied only on the Göttingen court verdict and assumed this must be the whole truth, ignoring the suppressed defence and background and failing to mention the illegal kidnapping, here he chooses to ignore a Hamburg court verdict. That is, he chooses to believe court verdicts when it suits him, and ignore them when they run counter to his will to smear. (A similar case occurs concerned Richard Fleming; see further below.)

Read the 950-word transcript & translation of Füllmich’s video statement of November 17, 2021, which has been published as a press release by ICIC.Law (March 2026)

Defamatory ZDF Film Report (1999) November 17, 2021

>> Viviane Fischer and I from the Corona Investigative Committee are currently in Warsaw. We have been meeting with members of the Polish parliament (Sejm), lawyers, doctors, and human rights activists—all of whom oppose the Corona measures.

>> We were surprised by a defamatory film report that originally aired on ZDF in 1999. It was immediately banned from distribution by the Hamburg Regional Court shortly after its broadcast. Now, this old report has been uncritically recirculated by well-known divisive figures within the movement as part of a smear campaign against us.

>> According to our research, the original report was produced by a public relations organization in the financial industry. At the time, this group — with around 1,000 or even 2,000 salespeople — was likely the largest distributor of what are known as "junk properties" (Schrottimmobilien). These were real estate deals where properties were regularly financed by German banks, especially the Bayerische Hypotheken und Wechselbank AG (HypoBank) back then, but also Deutsche Bank, at double or triple their actual value. The sales firm arranged both the apartments and the financing packages from these banks.

>> The report consisted almost entirely of blatant lies and deliberate distortions of facts. With the help of a respected Hamburg law firm, the Hamburg Regional Court prohibited its author and ZDF from further distributing it.

>> At that time, my own law firm was at the forefront of lawsuits against these banks. We won numerous cases, and the consistently positive media coverage put increasing pressure on the HypoBank in particular. We received documents from whistleblowers inside the bank, and later from Deutsche Bank as well, proving that the banks knew they were financing at two or three times the real value, and that they knowingly allowed salespeople to advertise the properties to our clients as being fully worth the financed amount.

>> Ultimately, the pressure on HypoBank became so intense that the bank had to settle with several thousand of our clients through mediation proceedings.

>> The broadcast of this report was part of a broader defamatory campaign targeting me and several other lawyers. The Heilbronn-based sales organization (working for the banks) even published its own newspaper called the "Heilbronner Gegenstimme," designed to look deceptively similar to the real local paper, the Heilbronner Stimme. Through one of their intermediaries, they obtained my tax records from Göttingen, an incident for which the Finance Minister later apologized to me personally. They then published those records alongside false accusations that I was somehow involved with Scientology (which was never true). Copies of this fake newspaper were anonymously distributed in the neighborhood where I lived, at the Göttingen Regional Court, and at the university where I was lecturing at the time.

>> The university president, whom I knew well, spoke with me about it. As a former criminal judge, he immediately recognized it as a clear smear and character assassination campaign, no explanation from me was even needed. Having known me for a long time, he was certain the allegations were completely fabricated.

>> During a hearing before the German Bundestag aimed at improving consumer protection in these kinds of cases, copies of the fake newspaper were distributed to all members of parliament. In a preliminary discussion with CDU parliamentarian Wolfgang Bosbach about the matter, he assured me that no explanation was necessary, he too could see it was a deliberate character assassination effort.

>> Three of the cases we handled reached the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where I argued alongside a colleague from Bremen. We won those cases, and the ECJ instructed the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) Banking Senate that the Doorstep Withdrawal Act applied, allowing the victims to revoke the junk property financing contracts they had been misled into signing.

>> The BGH's Banking Senate (XI Senate) grudgingly accepted the ruling and decided that the victims could indeed revoke the contracts, but with the condition that they immediately repay the full loan amount. [BGH = Bundesgerichtshof – The German Federal Court of Justice] The Senate must have known this was practically impossible: if someone had borrowed 130,000 DM to finance an apartment actually worth only 50,000 DM, repaying the loan right away was effectively unfeasible. Tragically, a number of the victims took their own lives as a result.

>> Shortly afterward, I learned that the then-chairman of the Banking Senate, as well as his deputy, had received payments from banks for supposedly "academic" lectures, during which bank representatives and the judges openly discussed pending cases, including ones we had already won at higher regional courts (such as OLG Bamberg) that were soon to come before the Senate. I filed criminal complaints against the judges for perversion of justice and bribery, but no investigation was ever opened.

>> Even today, I remain close friends with a respected independent journalist who, back then, introduced me to Ursula Caberta—the head of the Scientology task force at the Hamburg Interior Ministry. She was the one who first explained to me what Scientology actually is and how dangerous the organization is (operating like a massive sales network). That connection later led to my law firm taking on years of pro bono (unpaid) work representing children who had suffered severe sexual abuse.

>> The same structures that, acting on behalf of the financial industry, tried (unsuccessfully) to stop me and several colleagues back then through a smear campaign are apparently active again now.

>> This time, too, they will fail. <<

_________________________

Hughes does not only defame Füllmich; he also defames Patrick Wood, the author of “The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism”.

For this Hughes cites Richard Fleming. As can be seen from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2476421/fleming-v-united-states/ Richard M Fleming is a twice-convicted felon (wire fraud, mail fraud, Medicare fraud) who lost his license to practice medicine and was disbarred, was indicted by a grand jury and faced a maximum of 30 years in prison. Until that is, he made a guilty plea. Subsequent appeals by Fleming show him to be a pathological liar who changes tack continually. Fleming claims he is an attorney, but he’s not: got his law degree from an online, non-accredited law school, never took the bar exam anywhere, and, of course, never practiced law. He claims he has a PhD in psychology, which is a lie.

In ignorance of his past, Patrick Wood, Dr Judy Mikovits and Dr Reiner Füllmich joined Fleming in the “The Crimes Against Humanity Tour”. The tour organizers, Nash and Nisha, knew of Fleming’s past, but kept it secret from the others. Nash and Nisha also failed to pay travel expenses to the three aforementioned. On finding out about Fleming, Wood, Mikovits & Füllmich realised that if they had stayed with the tour they would have been deemed guilty by association.

Against this background the 670 words Hughes devotes to testimony by Fleming is inadmissible, or rather, may be assumed to be a pack of lies.

Following the publication by Hughes of Part 3 of his defamation of Füllmich, Hughes received an email from Patrick Wood announcing his resignation from the “Study Group on Technology and Power” and his non-participation in any future Omniwar symposia. The reason:

Reiner is a friend of mine. I travelled with him all over the country on the Crimes Against Humanity tour and talked frequently with him since. He is a bright and gentle soul, even if naive to the people he associated with in Germany [...] Because of my close association and friendship with him, you have discredited my work as well.

In support of his defamations, Hughes also cites the semi-literate Eric Coppolino (he spells names wrongly). The core argument made here is that Füllmich did not protest immediately or enough against the PCR fraud or virology. At the time some observers were also discontent with his handling of those in the no-virus lobby. These most minor of momentary missteps, if they happened, do not disqualify him or deserve months of silent torture and years of imprisonment….

___________ _________ __________