MEDIA RELEASE International Attorneys; from lawyer Dr. Dexter Ryneveldt and International lawyer colleagues 2024-02-16
Quote
____________________________________________________
International Attorneys
MEDIA RELEASE
February 16, 2024
____________________________________________________
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has been at the forefront of the COVID-19
investigations since its inception. With his investigations, he sought to
unravel the true nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and its implications on
society.
By being vocal and imploring society to question the official COVID-19
narrative, Reiner placed himself in the spotlight and in direct conflict with
the German government’s narrative of ‘follow the science’; for them and
governments worldwide, no one was permitted to question the science or
debate it in any meaningful way. Reiner has investigated the true nature of
the COVID-19 science for the past three-four years, and even after he was
unlawfully kidnapped and detained in Mexico, he continued to expose world
governments’ crimes against humanity as a direct consequence of the
COVID-19 pandemic measures taken at the time.
On or about October 11, 2023, the Mexican authorities detained Reiner in
Tijuana, Mexico, from where he was flown with chaperones to Frankfurt on
the next available flight against his will. He was not detained at the German
Embassy premises, but rather as he disembarked the plane at Tijuana
International Airport, where he and his wife had a meeting with a German
consulate official for the handover of their newly minted passports. They
were unaware that they were hoodwinked by Mexican and German
government authorities, with the help of someone in Germany who
informed the authorities of their whereabouts. The following excerpt is
2
from an email read by Reiner in court on the first day of his trial (as related
by Jiota, a freelance journalist who was present at the time). It validates
the orchestrated plan to unlawfully kidnap Reiner in Mexico. This email
appear to have been sent to the state prosecutor, who is currently
prosecuting the criminal case on behalf of the German government and the
complainants.
”Hello Mr. John, as of now it is planned to lure Reiner Fuellmich to the
consulate under the pretext that he still has to correct a signature on the
passport (!) and then have him arrested by the Migration Authority. A date
has not been set. Probably week 36 or 37.”
Reiner was detained and arrested, but not his wife; thus, Reiner was not
detained and arrested for his visa; otherwise, why the disparity in
treatment, compared to his wife who received her passport and renewed
her visa.
There was no international warrant for Reiner’s arrest, and Mexico has no
extradition treaty with Germany of which we are aware. There appears to
be many serious questions surrounding the legality and jurisdictional
powers exercised that led to Reiner’s unlawful kidnapping. The primary goal
was to lure Reiner into the German Embassy and or Consulate, deport him
and subsequently arrest him as soon as he enters German territory in
Frankfurt. In fact Reiner was summarily arrested when he arrived in
Frankfurt, from where he was sent to a maximum-security prison in the
Rosdorf municipal area without official charges having been instituted
against him.
It was only on November 17, 2023, a year two months and 15 days later,
that official charges were instituted against Reiner based on a criminal
complaint dated September 2, 2022, filed by the unregistered Corona
Investigative Committee’s two lesser-known shareholders and Berlin
attorney. In Germany during an investigation, an accused must generally
3
be given the opportunity to respond to the accusations leveled against him;
however, Reiner was refused this right, and he was denied unfettered
access to the criminal dossier files. Reiner was thus not given an
opportunity to make an informed statement. Only after receiving the
statement of an accused can the prosecutors determine whether to file
charges or seek a penalty order in court. The way the prosecutors handled
the case is nothing short of a farce of justice in that it violates Reiner’s
rights to unbiased investigations and court hearings. Of further concern,
Reiner was not subjected to any interrogation in terms of Section 163a of
the German Criminal Code, a prerequisite before any charges can be filed
in Germany.
In Germany, ordinarily civil disputes are filed in a civil court, however such
an option results in significant legal expenditures for claimants. As a
consequence, claimants in Germany frequently choose to file criminal
complaints in order to minimise their legal costs, where the state is called
on to do all the necessary investigations with no costs to the claimants. The
dispute currently before the full bench is a contractual dispute that should
have been resolved between the shareholders and if not should have been
escalated to a civil court. However it seems to be an acceptable proclivity
for claimants in Germany to threaten debtors to make payment if not,
claimants then proceed to press embezzlement criminal charges. Section
266 (embezzlement provisions) of the German Criminal Code is barely
Constitutional owing to its elements. As a result, state prosecutors and
investigative agencies in Germany can easily criminalise corporations and
or individuals conduct after the fact.
At the time of Reiner’s bail appeal application, the presiding judicial officials
allowed the statutory response time limits to lapse without giving any
justified explanation for their delay. An application for the presiding judicial
officials disqualification were lodged on the basis of their impartiality in the
manner in how they handled the matter since its inception. Given Reiner’s
4
track record of being a law-abiding citizen it would have been prudent to
release him on bail, with specified conditions for example, an electronic
bracelet, he reporting himself to his nearest police station as well as by
confiscating his passport. Reiner’s broader family resides in Germany and
since he does not have any previous criminal record, there were no justified
grounds for him not to have been released on bail. Furthermore, Reiner
was denied his most fundamental right to add additional legal assistance
for his defense; it appears that the court intend to expedite the trial even
if it violates Reiner’s fundamental right to a fair hearing.
Reiner was charged with 18 charges of alleged wrongdoing. The judicial
Chamber dismissed 16 of the 18 charges during the initial inquiry stage.
The remaining two charges are based on Section 266 of the German
Criminal Code’s embezzlement provisions. The two embezzlement charges
of €500,000 and €200,000 stem from two credit loan arrangements. The
two documented loan agreements were executed with the approval of the
unregistered and registered Corona Investigative Committees co-host and
co-shareholder (Viviane Fischer). These agreements were made to prevent
the donations from being arbitrarily taken by German authorities, as they
had done with other activists who did not ‘follow the science’. On or about
November 6, 2020, and May 14, 2021, Reiner took out the €200,000 and
€500,000, respectively.
Around November 2021, it became clear the non-profit status of the
unregistered Corona Investigative Committee’s operations was being
challenged by the two lesser-known shareholders, who voluntary resigned
before the Committee was officially registered. To counter any stagnation
or cessation of the Committee’s operations, Reiner and Viviane Fischer
established a new Corona Investigative Committee, the SCA Investigative
Committee UG, on December 17, 2021, which was later registered on
February 25, 2022, with Reiner and Viviane Fischer each owning 50%
shares. This was done to fully implement the Committee’s non-profit
5
objectives. In terms of Section 2(3) of the SCA Investigative Committee
UG, Articles of Association, no shareholder is entitled to any financial
benefit. This was apparently the same set of conditions agreed upon
implicitly, tacitly, or explicitly when the unregistered Corona Investigative
Committee was formed.
The two lesser-known shareholders of the unregistered Corona
Investigative Committee are now seeking financial recompense from the
SCA Investigative Committee UG. It is Reiner and Viviane Fisher’s
respective views that the two lesser-known shareholders of the
unregistered Corona Investigative Committee’s value contribution do not
exceed 5%. In Reiner’s submission made in court on February 2, 2024, he
stated that the two lesser-known shareholders seek to line their pockets
with the donations.
Inexplicably the two lesser-known shareholders are
now claiming ownership of the donations even though they have not been
actively involved in the unregistered and registered Committees since
about the beginning of 2021 and have not even attended any Committee
meetings since about mid 2021. How they can claim ownership of the
donations is beyond odd, as it violates the registered Committee’s Articles
of Association; in that money donated should be utilised to achieve the
registered Committee’s objectives, not benefit shareholders financially.
It is absurd for state prosecutors to ignore and dismiss this all-important fact and for them to not direct the two lesser-known shareholders of the unregistered Committee to seek remedy in a civil court further amplify the prosecutors bias in this case. The impasse between the unregistered and registered Committees can only be resolved in a civil court, not a criminal court. The only conclusion reached is the criminal case against Reiner is nothing more than a malicious prosecution.
With reference to the German Criminal Code, one of the basic elements of
the crime of embezzlement is the intention to replace the owner of the
property at the time the alleged act was committed. The alleged offense of
6
embezzlement can only be genuine if the property (in this case, money) is
appropriated without the owner’s consent with the intend to permanently
deprive the owner of the property. How can it be argued that Reiner
appropriated the money without the shareholders’ knowledge based on the
indisputable written loan agreements that were signed-off, and the loan
amounts reflection in the yearly financial statements?
Viviane Fischer was aware of the two loan agreements in a matter of fact
she signed it off. Financial statements were accessible to all four of the
unregistered Corona Investigative Committee shareholders and the public
on request. The question that comes to mind: why is the Göttingen state
prosecutors not pursuing Vivian Fischer for her €100,000 loan agreement?
The only reason they are not pursuing Vivian Fischer is that they are biased
and lack the necessary fortitude to objectively analyze the merits of this
case in its totality. Thus, what the prosecutors intend to present to court is
a half-backed cake by not disclosing the whole truth and nothing but the
truth to court. Logic dictates, in all fairness, that this should have been
done by now if it were all about justice and fairness.
This clearly demonstrates how ludicrous the case against Reiner is, and the court’s decision to hear such a meritless case raises more questions than answers.
Since early October 2021, Reiner has always stated that the money he
borrowed was invested in his property in Germany and that he intends to
repay the loans, even if it means that he needs to sell his property, which
at the time had sufficient equity in it. It’s unclear how German state
prosecutors intends to prove the core elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.
The evidence is clear and unequivocal that the amounts
in question were taken out as loans, of legal importance was his intention
and ability (creditworthiness) to pay back the loans. Reiner would have paid
off the loan amounts in full by November 2022 from the proceeds of the
sale of his house, however due to one of the complainants unlawful tortious
conduct, he was unlawfully deprived of the entire purchase price. The
7
prosecutors are playing for the public gallery by sensationalizing how Reiner
invested the money in his property by obscuring the true nature of their
weak case against Reiner. All 18 charges brought against Reiner should
have been dropped summarily when the judicial Chambers initially
evaluated the case.
By all indications, the criminal charges Reiner is currently faced with, and
the need for these charges to be adjudicated by a full bench of three judges
and two assessors, come as no surprise. Given the judicial climate in which
COVID-19 cases are adjudicated in German courts, such as the Weimar
judge who dared to adjudicate one of the first COVID-19 cases in Germany
by not ‘following the science’ but rather the objective scientific facts
presented to him, it is no surprise that prosecutorial and judicial
interference is plausible.
The German courts ability to be impartial and render fair and equitable judgements in any matters that deal with COVID-19-related cases is yet to be seen. This case is one of a personal and or
political vendetta that does not involve any crime, but rather, an attempt
to silence a warrior for the truth.
Ana Garner Virginie De Araújo-Recchia
United States of America Attorney at Law France Attorney at Law
Tony Nikolic Dr. Dexter Ryneveldt
Australia Attorney at Law South Africa Attorney at Law (advocate)
End quote
You can also read the above quoted in this PDF file
International Attorneys Public Satement February 16, 2024