Latest News
Corrupt Government and Unlawful Justice System (update)
Lord Advocate Role Must Be Separated Says Keir Starmer
During parliamentary proceedings dated 26 March 2025, Keir Starmer—former Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales and current UK Prime Minister—publicly expressed concern that the Lord Advocate’s presence in the Scottish Cabinet, while also serving as head of prosecutions, creates an “obvious conflict of interest” and should be separated.
In Westminster, Scottish MP John Cooper questioned how such a situation could persist, noting that it would have been unacceptable for the Director of Public Prosecutions in England to sit in Cabinet.
Starmer responded that Labour in Scotland supports separating the roles and stated:
“Labour in Scotland is clear they would separate this role. That’s the right thing to do, for the reasons that have just been articulated—it’s the obvious thing to do, and that’s what we do in England and Wales.”
Starmer also highlighted that calls for reform have existed since 2021, but the Scottish Government has failed to act. He urged the SNP to bring forward proposals “to deal with a problem that’s been sitting there for a very long time.”
This high-level political and legal commentary substantiates the claim that the Lord Advocate’s dual role is not only inappropriate, but systemically damaging to public confidence in the justice system and to the appearance of impartiality.
Court Ruling - Healthcare Professionals Who Urged Or Vaccinated People Against Covid Are Civilly And Criminally Liable!
The European Court of Justice considers that doctors will be solely responsible for the consequences of covid injections because they were free to refuse to inject. It confirms the specific liability of vaccinating physicians who have administered the drug inversely, without adequately assessing the appropriateness, risks and safety in the specific case of the patient treated. Doctors could have chosen whether or not to administer them, and even advised against them, to such an extent that the potential civil and criminal liability of healthcare professionals is attributable to the specific case.
The Court’s rulings may influence civil and criminal proceedings aimed at obtaining compensation for damage (biological, moral and property) caused to persons subjected to the said pharmacological treatments, having been administered – on account of the medical malpractice liability of the vaccinating doctors.
The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union are also binding on national judges, who are faced with the same question: what prospects might there be for the cases still pending, particularly those concerning healthcare personnel suspended and/or struck off during the Covid period?
Read the full article here.
The case law document can be read in various languages here.
Unlawful Prosecution, Search, Detention, Damage, Kidnapping and Violation of Diplomatic Immunity
Employment Tribunal Case Number: 8000177/2023
In relation to the above employment tribunal case, the state and statutory authorities have unlawfully targeted a living woman and have now escalated this issue.
The unlawful actions taken by Police Scotland and other statutory authorities on Monday 10 February 2025, involved serious violations of both domestic and international law.
The information listed below are copies of the following documents:
Document sent to Jo Farral, Police Scotland Chief Constable
Dated: 25 February 2025
To view the document click here
No Response from Any of the Above
Document sent to Ian Murray, The Rt Hon Secretary of State for Scotland
Dated: 10 March 2025
Requiring that the Secretary for State for Scotland passes on a copy of the letter below to Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister.
To view the document click here
This letter has been sent by Special Delivery
Letter to Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister
Dated: 10 March 2025
To view the document click here
This letter has been sent by Special Delivery
In addition to the documents referred to above, we also attach the following documents which outline the case history for this dispute:
Document 3 – Copy of Common Law Court Order which confirms that the statutory courts and authorities have no authority or jurisdiction over living men and living women.
To view the document click here.
Document 4 – Copy of Common Law Court Order confirming the guilty verdicts against A. Kemp (employment judge) and Jay Lawson (solicitor) for committing numerous crimes against the people.
To view the document click here.
Document 5 – Copy of the Declaration of the Common Law Court, this establishes the position of the people, living men and living women who stand under the authority and jurisdiction of the Common Law Court.
To view the document click here.
Document 6 – Copy of the Cruinn Community Lawful Charter which establishes a private community for living men and living women. This charter confirms the standing of its members and that they are no longer under statutory jurisdiction.
To view the document click here.
Document 7 – Copy of an email to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, from a former state prosecutor, confirming that since 1998, Scotland does not have a lawful, constitutional, or functioning justice system. This fact confirms that since 1998 all court decisions made in the Scottish Courts are void.
To view the document click here.
Document 8 – A copy of a letter to the Court of Session requiring leave to appeal the employment tribunal decision.
To view the document click here.
Lawful Notice & Required Clarification – Outlining the position of the accused and requiring clarification for the case, from the solicitor that was raising the action.
To view the document click here.
Counterclaim – Copy of the Counterclaim lodged for the payment required to comply with the Common Law Court Order.
To view the document click here.
They Warned Us
John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Woodrow Wilson and Henry Kissinger, they all warned us of the dangers to come.
Strawman Creation
In a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (US – President 1913 – 1921) Colonel Edward Mandell House predicted the banksters’ plans to enslave the American people.
Corrupt Government and Unlawful Justice System
Roger M Livermore
Former HM Inspector, regulator of healthcare, and Crown Prosecutor with 35 years’ experience.
Roger has put together the evidence and proof to confirm that the Government is corrupt and that we have no legal justice system.
Scottish Government confesses to having no scientific evidence of any bird flu virus.
In December of 2024, James Hendersen filed a freedom of information order for records held by the “Chief Veterinary Officer (Scotland)”. He sought all studies/reports, authored by anyone, anywhere:
- describing isolation /purification of the alleged H5N1 or any other alleged bird flu virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased bird, and/or
- wherein experiments were carried out to test for natural transmission of purified “virions” to healthy humans or animals.
James asked that if any records match the above description and are available to the public elsewhere, he be provided enough information about each one in order to identify and access it (title, author, etc.).
On January 27, 2025, Chris Bain acting as “AHW : Disease Control” responded on official letterheaded paper. He explained that:
“…the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested… …the Scottish Government is not required to provide information which it does not have. The Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested… …we cannot provide information which we do not hold.”
Being Forced To Wear A Mask?
Should your employer bring in new policy and force you to wear a mask the following information will not only help you to understand potential dangers in wearing a mask but also provide you with a document that you could use for yourself to give to your employer to exercise your human rights.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, determined the optimal range of oxygen in the air for humans runs between 19.5% and 23.5%. The normal air in our environment consists of a few different gases. Approximately 78% of the air is nitrogen gas and 20.9% is oxygen. The remaining fraction is made up of argon gas, trace amounts of carbon dioxide, neon and helium.
Normal atmospheric oxygen concentration is approximately 20.9%. This is the level we are all accustomed to breathing in.
- Oxygen levels below 19.5% (which is considered oxygen-deficient) can impair human performance and cognitive function.
- Oxygen levels below 16% can lead to dizziness, shortness of breath, and confusion.
- Oxygen levels below 10% are life-threatening, and people can lose consciousness and potentially die without immediate intervention.
Face coverings that impede airflow will reduce the amount of oxygen you can inhale, especially if they become moist from exhalation or if they are worn for prolonged periods. This will push oxygen content to dangerous levels.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
An extensive report with all the evidence to give to your employer can be viewed in full HERE
Notice to Employers
Downlaod, edit and serve them the Notice below. Download the document format that suits you and don’t forget to change all red text details to your details and change the red text back to black.
Face covering document Word format DOWNLOD HERE
Face covering document PDF format DOWNLOAD HERE
Welcome to the newly rebuilt and improved Common Law Court website.
Whilst we continue to work in developing a host of new and exciting features, we would like to draw your immediate attention to the recent addition of an active translation function.
International visitors to the site will now have instant access to all of the necessary information to be able to sign up and to establish their standing in their own native language.
By simply clicking on the orange “translate” tab at the bottom centre of each page and then selecting the relevant flag for the corresponding country, you can now see our entire website in the language of your choice.
There are currently seven languages available to choose from and we will continue to add more over time in accordance with demand.
By joining with us, you are making a conscious decision to take back control of your own life and to help us in re-establishing the supreme authority of the people.
There are no charges for creating an account with us or for completing any of the forms on our website and you will always still be assigned with a unique reference number for each of the submissions that you make.
However, due to the ongoing running costs in maintaining the site, in order to help us to continue with our work, we now ask you to consider subscribing to our new, £12.00 per year, voluntary membership service. Those of you in a more privileged position will also have the option of making a further donation in accordance with what you can afford should you choose to do so.
We only ask that you to help in some way if you can.
Those of you who have a paid membership will be granted free access in future to certain additional videos, documents and training materials which would otherwise only be available to buy at an additional cost through our shop.
Any contributions received will be used to further our development and to assist us in our continued efforts to help living men and women throughout the world.
‘We the People’ now need to stand together in order to protect ourselves, our families and future generations of our children.
We thank you in advance for taking the time to consider our request.
What does the Common Law Court mean to you?
How To Halt Any Court Action Against You
As a living man or living woman you have the right to challenge the authority and jurisdiction of any court that seeks to prosecute you. According to the rules that the state is bound by, if the court cannot establish authority and jurisdiction to hear the case they may not proceed. This is a Fact.
The issues of authority and jurisdiction must be established at the beginning of any case. Once you lodge your challenge, the court can’t proceed against you until the issue of authority and jurisdiction has been dealt with.
In attempting to establish authority and jurisdiction a judge may not simply claim to have it, that’s like you claiming that you are Donald Duck. Once challenged, the issue of authority and jurisdiction has to be dealt with by a higher court.
The aim of presenting this challenge is to confirm that the state does not have authority or jurisdiction over living men or living women. All points raised in this challenge are not controversial and cannot be reasonably disputed, as long as one point is established, you have removed their authority and jurisdiction which confirms that they cannot proceed.
The Requirements
When using this challenge, only Facts in Law are used to achieve a result. Many people have tried to use this argument in the past and have been ignored. Only if we stand together and use the following steps can we address this issue.
To confirm your position, the following steps must be complied with. This will confirm your standing and the fact the state can no longer prosecute you. Links to the relevant pages are provided and there is no charge for this. Just complete the five steps below to allow you to issue your Lawful Challenge.
- You have to create your own account on commonlawcourt.com
- You have to complete your Birth Certificate declaration to obtain a BC number. This confirms when your mother delivered you and that you are living.
- Complete an application for ownership of the Fictitious Name to obtain a FN number. This is the legal entity ‘PERSON’ that the state created and use to bind you into slavery.
- Complete an entry for your Lawful Birth Date to obtain a LBD reference number. This is the date when you were created in your mother’s womb.
- Complete your application to join the Cruinn Community to obtain a CCN number. This confirms you stand together with other members all across this realm.
The Challenge
Now that you have completed the required forms, we proceed with the Challenge document. This document is prepared for you and must not be changed, the only changes required are explained in the notes section. These changes are only required to personalise your challenge and are coloured in red.
As we need to confirm that the state does not have authority or jurisdiction over us, we need to establish FACTS which confirm our position. The following information outlines the points that we use in the Lawful Challenge:
- The Declaration of the Common Law Court
This is a founding document that establishes the position of living men and living women and confirms they are not bound by statute law.
This is a fact and cannot be disputed.
- The Lawful Charter of the Cruinn Community
This is a founding document that establishes the creation of the Cruinn Community for living men and living women. The Cruinn Community operates under the authority and jurisdiction of the Common Law Court.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- The PERSON
This is a legal entity and also a corporation which the state unlawfully attache to living men and living women.
The creation of the PERSON allows the state to conduct business through unlawful contractual agreements. All statutory legislation relates to a PERSON.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- Living men and living women
The position of living men and living women is confirmed with a declaration of birth on the Common Law Court.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- Conflict of laws
This exists when you deal with two separate judicial systems.
The statutory system exists and deals with PERSONS, corporations, contracts and statutory legislation.
The common law system exists and only deals with living men, living women and the law of the land.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- The Hague Conference on Private International Law 1951
An international agreement that establishes the need to address a conflict of laws.
Until an appropriate court is established to deal with a dispute, no hearing may proceed until this conflict of laws is dealt with.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- Authority
Until authority is established to deal with a dispute, no statutory hearing may proceed.
If authority is challenged, the judge may not just claim they have it.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- Jurisdiction
Until jurisdiction is established to deal with a dispute, no statutory hearing may proceed.
If jurisdiction is challenged, the judge may not just claim they have it.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- Slavery
Slavery is banned throughout the world in all forms. This includes the use of attaching a slave name to a living man or living woman, to create the PERSON.
This position has been re-enforced with numerous supreme court rulings.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights 1948
Created after the second world war to establish and protect all Human Rights.
All signatories to this agreement are bound by their articles.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- The Clearfield Doctrine
A supreme court ruling states:
‘Since these government bodies are not Sovereign, they cannot promulgate or enforce criminal laws; they can only create and enforce civil laws, which are duty bound to comply with the law of contracts.’
The law of contracts requires a wet ink signature from both parties with a written agreement and complete transparency! Enforcement of any corporate statutes on a living man or living woman without their consent is unlawful and the enforcer can be held personally liable for their actions.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- Common Law Court Order 2019 – Guildford
This order was obtained from a lawfully convened court and a jury of twelve reasonably minded peers.
The order addressed the issue of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg and her coronation in 1953.
The ruling obtained confirmed that the coronation was not conducted correctly, and that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was never crowned the Queen, this therefore confirms that all statutory courts, judges and police have no authority as they would have obtained this from the Queen.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
- Common Law Court Order 2024 – Dundee
This order was obtained from a lawfully convened court and a jury of twelve reasonably minded peers.
The order addressed the crimes committed against the people by the state and confirmed the state is guilty of committing various crimes against the people.
These crimes are applicable to this case.
This is a fact in law and cannot be disputed.
In Conclusion
When you issue your lawful challenge to the court, you are informing the clerk that you require a suitable date for this lawful challenge to be dealt with, in a venue of their choice.
Your lawful challenge informs the court of the utmost importance to have the head of their court system summoned and present in court. Your lawful challenge has to be heard before a jury so you can face, examine and question your false accuser regarding the case referred to.
Finally, they are notified that until such time as this lawful challenge has been dealt with, all further action in relation to this issue must be ceased.
Footnote:
Once this challenge has been issued, their own system confirms that it must be addressed. To assist with this process and to make sure that the system is held accountable, you send off the additional copies and inform the people by recording it on the Common Law Court website so that they are aware of the courts behaviour.
It is no longer acceptable to use the system for personal gain and to attack the people.
To obtain your copy of the Lawful Challenge, click on this button below.
Judicial Scandal in Germany: The Fuellmich Cases
LAUFPASS Redaktion
The political trial against civil rights activist Dr Reiner Füllmich reveals the motives and behaviour of a compromised constitutional state. Open violation of the law and legal trickery are intended to secure the conviction of Dr Füllmich. The misconduct of the public prosecutor’s office and judges is documented. So is the involvement of malicious third parties. They are part of the conspiracy against the investigator, who has already been illegally deprived of his freedom for over six months.
by Wolfgang Jeschke
The history of the proceedings against civil rights activist Dr Reiner Füllmich is impressive evidence of the erosion of the rule of law in the Federal Republic of Germany. From the preparations for Füllmich’s arrest to the final statement by the Göttingen district court presided over by judge Carsten Schindler at the end of April, a common thread runs through the trial. At every turn, the proceedings ooze the intention to bring about a conviction of the persecuted man at all costs. Right from the start.
While the conspiracy against the civil rights activist initially appeared to be the work of the public prosecutor’s office, the Federal Criminal Police Office and Füllmich’s former co-partners, it is now clear that the court also wants – or needs – to ensure the persecuted man’s unconditional conviction.
During the trial, some observers still hoped that the court was actually interested in establishing the facts and would soon realise that it had been deliberately misled by the prosecution and the complainants. However, the court’s statement of 26 April 2024 destroyed the last hope of a constitutional trial, even for the greatest optimists. Once again, Schindler and his accomplices fabricated new accusations against the civil rights activist. The contrived trial is now turning into a legal farce.
The Füllmich thriller: In the beginning was the lie.
Even the beginning of Füllmich’s persecution could be the subject of a cheap Hollywood-thriller. The story went like this: the young public prosecutor Simon Philipp John sets up a persecution scenario with former co-partners of the victim. Their holey story: Reiner Füllmich had illegally appropriated money and gold from the Corona Committee and wanted to make off with it. The fact that neither money nor gold were in his possession was irrelevant. For the story to be relevant at all, the complainants (the renegade lawyers Justus Hoffmann, Antonia Fischer and Marcel Templin) and the public prosecutor had to deceive the prosecuting authorities (BKA) and the courts – or co-operate with them.
The grotesque play was initialised by Viviane Fischer, Füllmich’s assessor on the Corona Committee, who in turn is primarily responsible for the prosecution of Füllmich. She had insidiously thrown the head of the Corona Committee out of the committee on 2 September 2022. While she led Füllmich to believe that no committee meeting was taking place, she used the actual meeting to publicly execute Füllmich. Since that day, Fischer has been waging a private war against her mentor and doing everything she can to put him behind bars. As a partner of the people who filed the charges, she plays the most inglorious role in this conspiracy.
Conditions for prosecution
In order for Dr Füllmich to be prosecuted at all, the public prosecutor’s office had to make up a number of lies. In the end, they had to apply for an arrest warrant. This is where prosecutor John and the renegade lawyers showed their creativity. In order to demonstrate the illegality of Füllmich’s behaviour, they simply claimed, by omitting important information, that Füllmich should never have had access to the committee’s funds. In doing so, they maliciously concealed the fact that all managing directors were exempted from the restrictions of § 181 BGB by a shareholders‘ resolution. Füllmich therefore acted lawfully at all times within the scope of the powers conferred on him when securing the committee’s funds.
The illegal deal: public prosecutor and co-prosecutors working together
Public prosecutor Simon Philipp John and the renegade lawyers constructed the Füllmich case in close coordination with each other. The very nature of the cooperation between the prosecution and those involved in a civil dispute is remarkable. Antonia Fischer forwarded all negotiation correspondence between the shareholders of the Corona Committee to public prosecutor John and maintained a personal relationship with him in this exchange.
Not only that: they discussed the possibilities of prosecuting and imprisoning Füllmich. This happened while the negotiations between Füllmich and the other committee members about the loan repayment were still ongoing. During the trial, Antonia Fischer admitted that she had never been interested in a negotiated outcome. She only ever wanted to get Füllmich into prison. The other main accomplice in the Füllmich conspiracy, Justus P. Hoffman, made a similar statement. The renegade lawyers, in coordination with the public prosecutor’s office, prevented an agreement in order to maintain the claim that Füllmich had committed misconduct.
Füllmich had already taken the first steps to return secured funds in accordance with the agreement. However, it would have been a disaster for the desired imprisonment and elimination of the civil rights activist if an agreement had been implemented. The lawyer and doctoral supervisor of Justus P. Hoffmann, Professor Martin Schwab, was to receive a power of attorney to make the secured gold – with the joint signature of Viviane Fischer – available to the committee. However, Schwab refused. One can only speculate about the reasons.
Acts planned jointly by the public prosecutor’s office and the committee traitors
Not all details of these agreements between public prosecutor John and his accomplices are documented. The construction of the prosecution of Dr Füllmich was largely secret and therefore also formally illegal. John failed to keep a record of the agreements and telephone calls or to make recordings. This is further unlawful behaviour on the part of the public prosecutor. However, the available evidence is sufficient to prove that a case was constructed here and that the illegal abduction of Dr Füllmich from Mexico was jointly prepared.
The Federal Criminal Police Office abducts Dr Reiner Füllmich
In the course of the abduction of the civil rights activist, the complicity of the Federal Criminal Police Office in the illegal action was also revealed. The public prosecutor’s office and the renegade lawyers set a trap for Reiner Füllmich. He was to be lured to the German consulate in Tijuana under the pretence that a signature was still missing from a document. The subsequent arrest by the Mexican authorities was coordinated by the BKA field office. This is evident from the communication of the service.
Under the pretext of a visa offence, Füllmich was arrested by his Mexican „colleagues“, put on a plane to Germany and arrested there as planned. As agreed, Reiner Füllmich was denied the opportunity to appeal against his deportation. The fact that the „visa offence“ was also part of the plan and an illegal favour is shown by the fact that Dr Füllmich’s wife was not expelled from the country in the same situation as her husband. It was only ever about illegally deporting Füllmich to the FRG in order to bring him to trial there.
The Federal Criminal Police Office and a ridiculous “denial”
The involvement of the BKA in the abduction of the civil rights activist has been proven. It is clear from the communication between the BKA and the public prosecutor’s office. However, the BKA also appears elsewhere in this bizarre piece: Dr Füllmich’s co-counsel, the Cologne criminal defence lawyer Christof Miseré, was leaked information (see here: The Füllmich Conspiracy) which could describe the activities of the services (BKA, BND and/or Verfassungsschutz). It describes Füllmich’s work and defines the aim of preventing him from continuing to be publicly effective or even holding public office.
In order to verify the „truthfulness“ of the dossier, the public prosecutor’s office questioned the Federal Criminal Police Office. Of course, no one seriously expects an authority to confirm that it is involved in the illegal persecution of political dissidents and is being instrumentalised against the investigation. On the contrary, one would expect a clear denial. In the sense of: This paper and its contents do not originate from our authority, either in whole or in part. That would be a denial. However, the office’s answer is different: „It is therefore very unlikely that this is a document written by the BKA.“
Dr Christof Miseré: “As a public prosecutor, I ask an authority whether they keep a body in the cellar and receive the answer that this is rather unlikely because bodies are usually buried in the attic of history.”
Regardless of the degree of involvement of the Federal Criminal Police Office in the persecution of the civil rights activist, its involvement in the abduction of Füllmich is proven by the available communication. In doing so, the Federal Criminal Police Office has foregone a constitutional way of detaining Dr Füllmich within the framework of internationally valid extradition procedures. This would have involved applying for an international arrest warrant and cooperating with Interpol. The procedure is well known to the BKA. However, the fabricated allegations would never have been sufficient for an international prosecution. So the only remaining option was the illegal route of abduction coordinated with the Mexican authorities.
The metamorphosis of the accusations – conviction at any price
Once it was clear that Reiner Füllmich was exempt from the restrictions of Section 181 of the German Civil Code (BGB), it could have been established that the original accusation was unfounded and that there were no unlawful dispositions. The proceedings could have been discontinued and the shareholders could have continued their negotiations, which had been interrupted by the kidnapping, to determine when and how the loan amounts protected from state access should be transferred back to one of the Corona Committee companies. Due to this deliberate deception by the public prosecutor’s office and its accomplices, the court wrongly assumed from September 2022 to November 2023 that Füllmich could already be accused of criminal behaviour solely because of the lack of exemption from Section 181 BGB.
In court, Füllmich’s lawyer Katja Wörmer submitted the following as part of a motion: “At the time, the first shareholder resolution confirming the exemption from Section 181 BGB and the sole management of all shareholders was not submitted – most likely intentionally, in order to deliberately incriminate the defendant more severely and ensure that a criminal investigation was opened.”
Der Richter auf dem Holzweg
For the court chaired by Carsten Schindler, the tricks and deceptions that constructed the case play no role. Although the public prosecutor and her accomplices had deceived the court in several ways, although the senior public prosecutor Dr Kutzner was not even able to read the email correspondence between Dr Füllmich and Viviane Fischer correctly and gave the impression in her statement that she had either not read the file or was mentally deranged, the judge seemingly went on his way without any irritation at these fatal errors. He enjoys playing the keyboard of arbitrariness and ignores all motions and evidence, as if he had been instructed to ensure a conviction of the civil rights activist at all costs.
Carsten Schindler is leading the proceedings against civil rights activist Dr Reiner Füllmich. While the lawyer initially gave the impression that he was interested in a constitutional trial, his latest “sleight of hand” (quote from lawyer Dr C. Miseré) shocked trial observers, international human rights activists and lawyers alike. Schindler’s name will be remembered in the future with one of the most curious cases in German legal history: When the FRG illegally abducted a civil rights activist from Mexico in order to put him on a contrived trial.
When it could be proven on the basis of the shareholders‘ resolutions that Füllmich had effective sole power of representation, the court looked for new ways to incriminate the persecuted man. Füllmich’s lawyer Katja Wörmer commented: “When this argument was no longer possible, the district court simply reinterpreted the justification for the criminal offence as an abuse of power of representation.”
This means nothing other than: First, the court claimed that the persecuted person was not authorised to make his orders. When it then turned out that he was, the court changed its view and said that he was authorised but had abused his power of representation.
The second trick also fails
However, the questioning of the witnesses by lawyer Katja Wörmer and the persecuted man himself quickly showed that there had been no misuse of the power of representation. Even his former partners on the Corona Committee confirmed Dr Füllmich’s statements. Füllmich and Viviane Fischer wanted to protect the committee’s funds from possible access by the state or make this access more difficult. The donations had to disappear from the current accounts. The state had already frozen the funds of critics too often.
Viviane Fischer and Reiner Füllmich took two steps: firstly, they bought gold, which could retain its value even in the event of an economic crisis. Secondly, Fischer and Füllmich shifted the committee’s funds into their private sphere by granting loans. The loans were recognised in the accounting records contractually agreed. The parties involved agreed that the loan amounts should be repaid to the committee.
Things went wrong? No problem.
So the second prosecution trick, supported by Judge Carsten Schindler, was also dashed by reality. It was proven that the funds were transferred by way of loan agreements and were to be repaid. The persons involved were authorised to do so on the basis of the existing agreements and had documented the procedure. They adopted the regulations and their legal content as their own. The loan agreements were therefore validly agreed. Everyone agreed on this – which is why the dispute between the shareholders centred on the question of when and how the loans were to be repaid. In Dr Füllmich’s case, this was to take place after the sale of his private property. He had never stated otherwise.
The fact that Dr Füllmich’s loan amounts were not repaid was due to an equally illegal arrangement. In collaboration with the notary who notarised the sale of the Füllmich family’s property, one of the complainants, Marcel Templin, in coordination with the other accomplices (Justus P. Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer), appropriated further parts of the proceeds from the sale of the property without sufficient legal grounds. Piquantly, the public prosecutor’s office
blocked the Füllmichs‘ accounts – but did not seize the illegally collected share of the sales proceeds from Templin. No investigations were initiated against Marcel Templin either. He is now suspected of being an employee of the authorities and of ensuring the persecution of the civil rights activist Füllmich on their behalf and making it impossible for him to repay the agreed loan.
The arsenal of obstruction of justice is vast.
After the public prosecutor’s office had failed to substantiate the allegations against Dr Füllmich despite all the illegal machinations and objective misrepresentations, the court now came to the prosecutor’s aid. This was a surprise for the defence and the prosecution: the agreed loan agreements, which had been intended, described and assessed as such by all parties involved, were suddenly – after several weeks of trial – simply reinterpreted by the court.
The court is now constructing a „fiduciary relationship“ in order to ensure that Dr Füllmich is convicted. In the court’s instructions read out by presiding judge Carsten Schindler, the court now prefers to assume that a „fiduciary safekeeping of the funds was agreed in such a way that these funds were to be available at all times in bank accounts on behalf of the pre-company“. The court relied solely on the statements made by Viviane Fischer, who also placed
herself at the service of the prosecution.
Schindler achieves two things with this creative volte face. Firstly, Viviane Fischer is released from the previously assumed complicity in the joint offence with Reiner Füllmich. This means that a participant in the persecution of the civil rights activist has been removed from the focus of the prosecution. At the same time, the court will now attempt to construct a claim based on the breach of a duty to look after assets. Remember: up to now, the question was whether the agreed loans could have been repaid by Füllmich and whether he had intended to do so. Since both questions can be answered in the affirmative based on the investigation of the facts and the questioning of witnesses, no damage can be assumed either for the companies of the committee or the coshareholders.
In the „opinion“ of the court, the arbitrary assumption of a fiduciary relationship should make it possible to construct a criminal offence. Schindler commented: „The defendant was already in breach of his duty to look after his assets by transferring sums of money from the previous company to his private account in the way he did.“
Under this ludicrous construction, it would therefore no longer matter that Füllmich wanted to repay the loan and had done so – the damage would now already lie in the constructed breach of fiduciary duty that Schindler and his comrades and/or clients had devised here. Despite the dramatic change it brings to the trial, the court’s statement causes bitter amusement among lawyers and human rights activists. The presiding judge Carsten Schindler explained: “The defendant’s argument that he had „parked” the money in his property and that this was in the interests of the previous company because the bank account could be more easily seized by arbitrary state measures than property assets is misguided in several respects. Firstly, legal protection against unlawful measures is always possible in court and, within the scope of the German Basic Law, it is not the defendant or Mrs Viviane Fischer, but the competent courts alone that decide what is unlawful and what is not.“
In recent years, the hijacked legal system of the FRG has stripped itself to the bone. Right up to the politically appointed head of the Federal Constitutional Court with its chairman, CDU grandee and Merkel friend Stefan Harbarth, who enabled all illegal measures and unconstitutional restrictions of fundamental rights as well as the abolition of parliamentarianism in the FRG, judgements have been handed down that are in every respect not of a constitutional nature. To this day, the unjust system punishes people who stand up for human rights, freedom and health.
And now a judge in a political trial based on illegal machinations of the state apparatus (kidnapping from abroad, falsification or misappropriation of evidence, illegal undocumented agreements between the public prosecutor’s office and accomplices, etc.) points out that „only the competent courts should decide what is unlawful“. The committee’s reserves were also to be kept safe from judges like Schindler. And the scope of the Basic Law could also be discussed.
Lawyer Dr Christof Miseré has clear words to say about the court’s instructions in his application to the court:
“This new, almost absurd construction also documents the fact that in the present case, at our discretion, we are dealing with a trial that is not oriented towards the objectively prescribed standards of law, but towards the final objective of convicting the defendant Dr Füllmich as a political opponent at all costs, and thus with a politicised trial influenced by political guidelines and constructs by various actors. Although I was already aware when I took over the mandate that this was more or less a political trial, including the incomparable empowerment of the accused in Mexico, I could not have imagined the legally untenable constructs that are now being used to try to realise this final objective.”
Dr Miseré: „The game is not over yet!“
Defence lawyer Dr Miseré remains optimistic. For him, the court’s behaviour is an arrogant violation of the law. „It is not for the court to make legally binding – retrospective – findings on a contract subject to private autonomy – in this case a validly concluded and intended loan agreement – and, what is more, to replace it with a different construction determined by the court. This could at best be possible if something is declared as a loan, but no repayment of the loan amount was intended. In this case, there is no loan at all, as the gift of the loan amount and the repayment of this loan amount are constitutive elements of a loan.
A fortiori, the court may not interpret the defendant Dr Füllmich’s consistently expressed view that this was a loan that he had to repay and that he would also use it for private purposes to mean that he had in fact wanted to agree a fiduciary agreement. That is precisely not what he wanted!
To then subsequently disregard the defendant’s personal idea and replace his intention to be bound by a contract with a construct that was not agreed – namely a fiduciary agreement – and then to convict him based on the reinterpretation of his clearly expressed idea, is an arbitrary violation of the law par excellence and blatantly contradicts a fair trial.“
Lawyer Katja Wörmer: “The defendant should be sentenced to prison in any case.”
Füllmich’s lawyer Katja Wörmer also finds clear words in her application for a stay of proceedings presented in court: “It is more than clear that chamber intends to sentence the accused for better or worse at any cost. The legal references almost give the impression that the accused has already been convicted in the eyes of the Chamber and that the intended judgement is already as good as written in the desk drawer.”
“This is because the chamber expressly assumes that the hearing of evidence can be concluded and that no further witnesses need to be heard. However, on 24 and 25 April 2014, the undersigned was urgently requested by the presiding judge to report possible conflicts of dates for the months of May and June, as further hearing dates were to be scheduled. Just one day later, on 26.04.24, the chamber suddenly sends the legal information, which was only read out on 03.05.24, via beA outside the main hearing, which is actually an anticipated assessment of the evidence, which is also expected to be included in the grounds for the judgement in the same form. The judgement is therefore apparently already written.”
“The defendant will be sentenced to prison in any case.”
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence (Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International). You may distribute and reproduce
it under the terms of the licence.