A very odd play of "Good-Guy-Bad-Girl"

The case of Reiner Fuellmich, and the questions surrounding him as well as a substantial number of prominent members of "the freedom movement" do not go away.

The case of Reiner Fuellmich keeps people busy and agitated. Some see him as a hero who’s “investigative work was too dangerous and he therefore had to be removed.” Others think he might be part of some Neo-Theosophy and military intelligence occult network involved in steering the plandemonium on behalf of some powerful interested party (mirrored article here).

I have found it to be highly relevant to hold leaders or even “icons” to account for their actions, which includes general trustworthiness. The public has a right to know, when (self-proclaimed or elected) leaders apply the “noble lie” (which doesn’t exist, as the term in itself is a propagandised mistranslation). In this respect it was that I dared to question Reiner Fuellmich for his denial of any Scientology connection, which had been explicitly raised in a documentary from the late 1990s in Germany. In it (which in essence had been confirmed by court rule, contrary to Fuellmich’s claim that was a fabrication) it was alleged not that Fuellmich is a Scientologist, but that he did the “dirty work” for that organization). You can read the history of all respective research here. That Reiner Fuellmich lied about not knowing what Scientology even was, became evident when in court rulings Fuellmich was quoted as having reported competitors to the police for “being Scientologists”, i.e. something fishy, possibly criminal that needs reporting to the authorities. It is in this meaning that Fuellmich himself had made use of the term well before that documentary was even aired. Later, he wanted to make the public believe that he “didn’t know”. He wants to have the cake and eat it at the same time, it appears.

Further, to underscore the relevance of establishing certainty about Fuellmich’s possible involvement with Scientology, may I recommend this article by

Mathew Crawford

.

In this respect it is noteworthy to highlight the fact that among the prominent defenders of Reiner Fuellmich today are at least two protagonists who appear to have a Scientology background themselves. What a remarkable coincidence! These two are the wife of Dr. Peter Breggin, Ginger Ross Breggin, and the German psychologist and “forensic expert”, Dr. Andrea Christidis.

Dr. Peter Breggin has been on the record for his wife’s scientology past, however, he may have been holding back some interesting detail, according to several records [1, 2] still available on the internet, as yet undisputed. Apparently Ginger Ross Breggin on February 3rd, 1994, issued an affidavit about her past in the Guardians Office, the intelligence arm of Scientology, which was disbanded following operation Snow White. According to that “affidavit”, Virginia (Ginger) Ross had been married to Fred Ulan, a scientologist so high-ranking that he was among the two officials who in January of 1976 handled a press conference in which they confirmed the acquisition of the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater for Scientology. That operation had until then been a top-secret “Program LRH Security. Codename: Power” ordered by L Ron Hubbard himself, according to a December 19, 1979, report by Pulitzer Prize winner Charles Stafford [“Church entered Clearwater on path of deceit”].

After the marriage to Mr. Ulan was ended, Ginger Ross later married Dr. Peter Breggin MD, who had been a prominent critic of clinical psychology. Scientology also is opposing clinical psychology.

Ginger Breggin later publicly distanced herself from Scientology, according to her husband, who told an interviewer that his wife “is now so strongly anti-Scientology, that if I even took a phone call from a Scientologist, she'd be on my back”.

If that is indeed so, it makes it even harder to believe that Ms. Breggin should not have taken note of the fact that Reiner Fuellmich demonstrably lied about his knowledge of Scientology while instead obfuscated a clearly existing connection with operations involving Scientology. Maybe she wants to reassess the evidence concerning Mr. Fuellmich?

Dr. Andrea Christidis (formerly Andrea Jacob), the second “expert” to testify on behalf of Reiner Fuellmich, seems to have been featured in a German radio program in early 2000 as an ex-Scientologist. There, one “Andrea Jakob” (sic!) is portrayed as a victim, who even “suffered a cardiac arrest” due to the stress, and barely managed to escape alive. After that “traumatic experience” Jakob, according to the broadcast, goes on to study psychology.

Andrea Jacob, too, goes on to study psychology. Failing to complete her degree in Germany, she finishes a PhD at a college in India (which later is at the centre for trading degrees for money), and becomes involved in lobbying against transgression in psychiatric settings such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome”.

Both, (Dr. Peter) Breggin, as well as Andrea Christidis, Ph.D., have been calling attention to the plight of Reiner Fuellmich. And both do so by taking explicitly sides with Reiner Fuellmich, and against Viviane Fischer, Fuellmich’s long-time co-host at the Corona Investigation Committee. Breggin even goes so far as to call Viviane Fischer “a mastermind behind the accusations made against him” [Fuellmich].

At this point it seems necessary to pause for a moment: The question is not wether the German Judiciary is right in their handling of the Fuellmich case. It is probably very wrong, and has been so from the very beginning! Just to make this clear. The handling of the case seems so out of whack that one can get an impression of an intentional scam, which would, of course, play nicely into any script designed to show Reiner Fuellmich the victim of cruelty, even of „psychological torture“.

Instead, the question seems to be: is it possible that we, the public are being taken for a ride? Is it possible that the whole affair is a set-up, designed to “steering the plandemonium on behalf of some powerful interested party”, as Mathew Crawford has put it? In such a set-up, if it existed, Fuellmich could be a participant, wittingly, or unwittingly.

Is it a coincidence that “Scientology”, or “methods employed by Scientology” are all over the place in this whole affair, up to the extend that we are meant to think of coincidences that two prominent “defenders” of Reiner Fuellmich have been, or seem to have been closely connected to Scientology?

If

Matthew Ehret

is correct, then it might not at all be a coincidence that (not only) in the case of Fuellmich Scientology keeps popping up. Ehret has been highlighting a concerning parallel between secret societies and organizations devoted to mystery cult practises, UFO disclosure, and people close to or even within the new administration. Scientology is often considered a organization which is after people’s money. However, whatever it may be after, it is built on the idea of Xenu. Interestingly, Dr. Robert Malone, who has virtually taken over the “freedom movement” is not only seeing dangers in viruses, but also in UFOs. One more reason for a one-world-government, top-down-approach, in which human dignity, individual sovereignty and God (He bestowed inalienable rights onto man) seem to not matter very much.

Ah, of course. Malone also came out in favor of Reiner Fuellmich.

The article on Malone’s substack named Fuellmich a “political prisoner”, who had been “ousted without forewarning” by, it is alleged, Viviane Fischer.

Malone is thus repeating the pro-Fuellmich narrative, blaming Viviane Fischer (just as Peter Breggin, who previously got publicly attacked by Malone), effectively deepening the rift within the “movement”.

Malone, and hardly anyone else, did not do their due dilligence and check the facts.

There are well-known dissidents in Germany who were very critical of how particularly Fuellmich had handled the situation regarding funding of the Corona Investigation Committee (which led to the arrest and trial in the first place). One of these critics, who so far has remained silent about it in public, is apparently Professor Ulrike Kaemmerer who, according to email-communication which has now surfaced, in August of 2022 was part of a group of prominent “mediators” trying behind closed doors to get Fuellmich and Fischer back on to the same page. In an email dated August 28, 2022, Kaemmerer is quoted criticising Fuellmich, in translation:

“(…) What do you think, Reiner in particular, how many thousands of people put their trust in the absolute honesty and voluntary nature of the committee, because that was always communicated in such a way that no one makes any money from it and everyone is just fighting for the good cause. I can already see the critics and the fact checkers getting riled up if this should come out... ‘Nothing but a rip-off.’ A nightmare for the movement critical of the governments!!!! (…)

I am a financial non-professional, but (…) I cannot understand how donations and earmarked funds can flow into a private home, for example. In my opinion, this is a no-go and how should that be communicated transparently to the outside world? (…)

Reiner, you have already made several concrete plans to return to the USA. How will that work? Surely all the financial issues must be resolved beforehand? Please make sure to clarify a clear and transparent financial overview in a timely manner, without even the slightest suspicion of favoritism! (…)”

Unfortunately, Kaemmerer chose to remain silent when the CIC blew up in public in 2022, instead of taking a stand that it was not at all as black-and-white as Fuellmich and his camp have continuously tried to frame it.

And from another email, which we have obtained, it becomes evident that Fuellmich can not have been as surprised about not having been invited to the CIC-session three days later. August 30th was a Tuesday. At 14:25 he (and the group of ‘mediators’) received an „URGENT/IMPORTANT“ email from Viviane Fischer

“IMPORTANT/URGENT” is the reference of the message which Reiner Fuellmich received three days before he was not considered to appear in the following CIC session.

The message reads (in translation, emph. added):

Hi Reiner,

In agreement with the above list of recipients, I would like to give you one last chance to settle this matter. The deadline for the following actions is tomorrow, Wednesday, August 31, 2022, at 8:00 p.m.

1. storage of the gold at Degussa in Berlin with the Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr. [a.k.a. CIC], with simultaneous verification of authenticity – your consent/signature on the storage contract is required for this today, as well as appropriate instructions to Jens, following that I will commission tomorrow's transport.

2. Assignment of the second-ranking land charge for €550,000 in favor of Wucherpfennig (now apparently, per your statement, an “owner’s land charge”) to the Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss Vorschalt gUG i.Gr. [CIC], proof of which is to be provided by sending me the assignment deed and the registration authorization from the notary

3. Written declaration of intent to provide information and negotiate with regard to the invoices which the law firm Fuellmich issued to the committee. On this topic, we need proof of payments to Cathrin Behn and, if applicable, to other employees by tomorrow evening.

If these measures, which are necessary to secure the organization's assets, are not taken, we will have to assume that you are not interested in solving the problem and want to permanently deprive the committee of the funds that belong to it.

This is in contradiction to our statutes, to our public appearance and to justice and the law.

The experts came to us on the committee and people supported us because they trusted our volunteer work and our seriousness. Should this trust now turn out to be unjustified, we will have to inform them.

If the deadline passes without result, we will first inform our most important contacts and cooperation partners about the events. This will also be CHD, where Renate [Holzeisen] has been on the board with Cathrine Austin Fitts for a few months.

Regardless of the registration of our company, it is clear from our statutes that the funds are not individually available to any of the shareholders and that even in the event of failure, the assets are bound.

None of us gets any of the company's funds for personal or private activities.

Best regards, Viviane

Fuellmich, it appears, was not “ousted without forewarning” as Malone and other claim. Instead he seems to have been aware of a deadline, this shows. He can not have been surprised, as these items seem to describe what Viviane Fischer mentioned in her explanation on September 2nd, for why Fuellmich “pending some questions for which we [the CIC and mediators] seek answers” would not be part of the CIC.

If anything, then it could be argued that if Ulrike Kaemmerer, as well as Wolfgang Wodarg, or Renate Holzeisen, who seem to have all been copied in on these communications, had spoken up and signalled that what Fuellmich said in public about being “ousted” was not equivalent to the state of discussion within a larger group, it would have been nearly impossible for Fuellmich to assume the position of an ‘innocent victim’. Wodarg was more or less the only one to publicly comment on this, which made him a target of the pro-Fuellmich camp as well.

If more prominent activists had spoken up, in all likelihood it would have resulted in more pressure on Fuellmich to assume responsibility.

However, here is another twist to the story:

What if Reiner Fuellmich was not allowed to do settle peacefully? Is it possible that Reiner Fuellmich has been acting on an order?

In any case, another set of messages show that Fuellmich had apparently wanted to cooperate. On Sunday, September 4th, the group of ‘mediators’ had “agreed on milestones”, as Viviane Fischer phrased it in her email sent to the group at eight minutes to noon on September 5th, 2022. These milestones included

1. Gold – I will draw up the contracts with the depository right away, Reiner will sign them so that the deposit can take place on Wednesday.

2. Reiner is submitting a notarized acknowledgement of debt with a submission clause today because of the €700,000 liquidity reserve (so that foreclosure is possible immediately). I am happy to personally cover the costs if requested, and the deletion authorization for the second-ranking land charge will be sent to Martin.

3. I list the receipts and expenses for 2020News (renovation, rent for the new

rooms, etc.)

4. I return the alleged license payment to Ovis Callidus (€1,190), the money is still untouched in the account

5. I return the rent for the committee room that was paid twice by the standing order

Reiner Fuellmich did not contradict the general thrust of Fischer’s memo, nor did he seem to have had major objections, which his reply some 140 minutes later that same day indicates. He was, however, insisting that access to the Gold should only be limited to himself and Viviane Fischer.

“(…) it must be ensured that the gold can only be realized by both of us together upon storage, and it must be ensured that after realization, everything ends up in an account that only both of us can access.” — Reiner Fuellmich, Sep 5, 2022

This has to bee seen as a rejection of Ulrike Kaemmerer’s suggestion from a week or so earlier, where she preferred a solution including all 4 original founding members of the CIC:

“… and the proceeds can and may only be mobilized with several signatures with equal rights (i.e. at least Viviane and Reiner, but preferably all 4 lawyers of the committee).” — Ulrike Kaemmerer, Aug, 28, 2022

What this means is that Reiner Fuellmich and his camp of followers have been accusing Viviane Fischer incorrectly of scheming against Fuellmich, “ousting him without notice”, and being “a mastermind of the accusations made against him” (Breggin).

In fact, Fuellmich even was prepared to play along, and drafted a text for an “explanation” in which he was suggesting to downplay the controversy as follows:

“Right at the beginning [of the CIC session on Sep. 9, 2022] , we should make a joint declaration, which, for example, might read as follows: It only became clear after further discussion that this was the-orange-and-the-peel-problem: everyone wanted the orange, but it turned out that one person only needed the flesh and the other only the peel.” — Reiner Fuellmich, Sept. 5, 2022

What then happened remains unclear. For some reason, Fuellmich chose to go public about the CIC in a very peculiar way, on his own, and using a language which, on the background of the existing communication, can only be characterised as manipulative, designed to make him look good, and others (Fischer, Wodarg) look bad.

In this recording, Fuellmich posited that the dispute had been about “professionalism” vs. nepotism, with him being the professional. He also introduced a completly new issue, which had never played a role during the mediation effort, which is an allegation of censorship against Viviane Fischer. Why would he make his colleagues look bad, when both sides had demonstrably agreed to be in agreement. Orange and peel. Why, Mr. Fuellmich?

Another question remains: Why did everyone else keep quiet and let the whole thing escalate into a “good-guy-bad-girl” play, when in effect it seems to have been an issue over a number of irregularities and inconsistencies, committed for the most part by Reiner Fuellmich as the record shows, which were shared between a substantial number of leaders?

Which brings us back to the initial setting above: Any “powerful interested party” could hardly have wished for a greater number of “coincidences”, and a better way of self-destruction of “the freedom movement” during the “plandemonium”.

Disclaimer, borrowed from Mathew Crawford: Being named in this article or mentioned in any document or graph linked to from this article is not a judgement. Make your own judgement!