The Trial of Reiner Fuellmich English update on the 23rd hearing (6 August 2024)

Independent journalists Kerstin Heusinger and Djamila le Pair discuss the remarkable proceedings during the 23rd hearing of the case against the German lawyer and Corona Investigative Committee Foundation co-founder, Reiner Fuellmich. The hearing took place on Tuesday, the 6th of August 2024 in Göttingen. It was a session full of intermezzo's and newly submitted requests to include evidence and hear witnesses by Reiner Fuellmich and his lawyers Katja Wörmer and dr Christof Miseré. A major turn of events has been that the main witness, Corona Investigative Committee Foundation co-founder Viviane Fischer, has changed her view on Fuellmich's alleged crime. Because the initial Corona Investigative Committee Foundation was never formally registered and had no assets, nor its own bank account, the foundation, therefore, cannot have been financially duped by Fuellmich having taken out a personal loan. This also means that the two other co-founders, Antonia Fischer and dr Justus Hoffmann, cannot claim a share of the donations. If there is a wrongdoing by Fuellmich – and this is still very much up to debate, as most of the money from the sale of his house, in which he had invested the loan, was transferred to a colleague of the plaintiffs, Marcel Templin. A transaction about which the chairing judge, Schindler, has stated to be illigitemate. Censorship in court Due to the judges having decided that requests to submit evidence or call witnesses can no longer be put to the court verbally, the public and press no longer know what the constantly suspended interactions between the judges and the defence are actually about. Although judge, Schindler initially had said he would refer to the written requests verbally when reading out the courts' acceptance or rejection of them, he now conveyed that the courts decision to grant these requests, will be communicated when delivering with the final verdict. Thus, under the guise of 'saving time' the hearings have now, effectively, been censored. The result is clearly felt in this interview, where the reporting mainly concerns 'the spectacle' of the court hearing, but is somewhat lacking in terms of content. Still, we feel that giving an impression of the day may interest some viewers.