Hamburg Regional Court confirmed legality of statements made on ZDF about Reiner Fuellmich

Reiner Fuellmich did mislead when he claimed a 1999 TV report was “a lie from beginning to end" - There is no "noble lie" - not even for Reiner Fuellmich.

Further details shed light on the fact that Reiner Fuellmich was not telling the truth when he stated that he in 1999 “did not even know what it [Scientology] was”.

Following the publication of the research on Dr. Reiner Fuellmich's role in connection with a ZDF report from 1999, which massively shook Dr. Fuellmich's credibility because his statement that he only found out what Scientology was through the “report that was a lie from beginning to end” was exposed as an untrue protective claim, Dr. Fuellmich now re-posted an (old) post from November 2021 on his Telegram channel containing the statement made from Warsaw in November 2021.

The post was signed with the words:

Slanderous film report by ZDF (1999)

"During our stay in Poland, about which we will soon report more, we were surprised by a defamatory film report that was broadcast on ZDF in 1999 and was immediately banned from distribution by the Hamburg Regional Court. The report has now been disseminated uncritically by well-known dividers within the movement as part of a smear campaign."

This is astonishing insofar as the facts revealed here clearly show that the ZDF report was by no means "a complete fabrication" but, on the contrary, was absolutely correct in a central point:

“In view of these facts, an assessment of the plaintiff's [Ursula Caberta's] conduct to the effect that the plaintiff [Ursula Caberta] had allowed herself to be instrumentalized presents itself as a permissible critical evaluation, so that the defendants [ZDF, among others] cannot be prohibited from making the ("implicit") statement that the plaintiff could be instrumentalized.”

Judgement by Hamburg Regional Court from June 23rd, 2000, exposes Reiner Fuellmich not being honest when he said he “did not even know what Scientology was”

In the detailed grounds for the decision of June 23, 2000, the court then stated that it was Dr. Reiner Fuellmich - if not the Scientology organization itself - who had used Ms. Caberta in “his efforts, solely in his private interest, to discredit a well-known Scientology critic”.

It is obvious, the court continued, “that discrediting her [Renate Hartwig’s] reputation serves the interests and strategy of the Scientology organization, especially since Ms. H[artwig] has been exposed to several attacks on her reputation in recent years, which in any case were also carried out against her by the Scientology organization”. Fuellmich had acted “in the interests of the Scientology organization”, whose objectives were served by “third parties discrediting Ms H[artwig]”.

A claim, such as the one Fuellmich made in September 2022, that he did “not even know what [Scientology] was” in 1999, also appears to be untrue in view of the fact documented by the court in the judgment that Fuellmich had already contacted Scientology representative Caberta “in 1998” in order to obtain material from her against the real estate agents Schaul, whom he had accused of Scientology membership and infiltration in a way that was damaging to their reputation.

The Hamburg District Court stated in no uncertain terms (and neither Caberta nor Fuellmich challenged this legally):

“In addition, Dr. F[uellmich's] actual objective was to be allowed to describe opponents, namely the S[chauls], as belonging to the Scientology organization; for this - based on the premise that the S[chauls] neither belong to nor are close to the Scientology organization - is also, again, in the interest of Scientology, because the reputation-damaging effect of the accusation of [Schaul’s] Scientology membership or closeness to Scientology makes it more difficult for S[chaul] merchants to do business and, thus, competitors who belong to the Scientology organization gain a more advantageous competitive position.”

It is difficult to understand how Dr. Reiner Fuellmich could continue to try to evade the resulting questions about the reasons for his unethical and defamatory actions at the time.

Rüdiger Lenz, who is active as an author on various channels, asked me in a comment what use this research is today:

Dear people at Alschner-Klartext, why are you coming up with things that happened a quarter of a century ago? It may well be that Fuellmich did not tell the truth back then and you are now nailing him on it. But it's something completely different to accuse him of the same thing in today's trial without coming up with hard facts. There are oddities - on both sides (!) in the trial against Fuellmich, yes. You can't believe that Fuellmich, the professional, let himself be double-crossed by beginners, just because you believe that a professional must have the answer to all the tricks and cunning? Honestly? That's all and this Scientology stuff and that's probably why Fuellmich embezzled the funds? "Invested" them in his house as a store of value and wanted to stiff the others on the committee? Both of them "secured" the money. Board members in Germany always act in such a way that they use the money for other things and then return it a little later. Hitler's law on this, for which Fuellmich was indicted, had the effect of ordering those at the top to safeguard the funds from damage as best they could, a Nazi law. Basically, both V. Fischer and Fuellmich did this out of the suspicion that the corona funds could be frozen by means of account termination. The money is there, it's all there, nothing is gone. It is possible that both of them initially obtained some of it and then returned it. The Fuellmich case is about something else. And from what it looks like to me, you're looking in the wrong direction. By the way, I'm not a fanboy of Fuellmich.

My answer:

If you, Mr. Lenz, are not a fanboy of Fuellmich, then you will appreciate that it does matter whether someone has credibility or not. At least someone who claims to play a leading role. Because: it is very uncertain where someone you don't know how credible he is will lead you.

Unlike you, I think the Scientology number is highly relevant given the knowledge that is now available about Scientology. The founder, L Ron Hubbard was a man with ties to the Office of Naval Intelligence (Incidentally, the Navy was tasked with tracing the missing trillions of US$ when Donald Rumsfeld publicly confirmed the missing funds to the press on 9/10/2001. The following day, a missile flew into the very area of the Pentagon that housed parts of the ONI conducting the investigation). Mr. Fuellmich in particular has often spoken about MK Ultra and other operations and put them in context with today's events. This is another reason why his statements are not insignificant - especially not when they contain substantial parts of untruth.

Incidentally, the reference to Mr. Fuellmich’s inconsistencies in person, word and deed does not contain any partisanship for anyone else. Strictly speaking, it is conceivable that we, the public, are being played for fools with a good guy/bad guy theater.

One thing is certain: We are dealing with several parties in the Corona Committee Finance scandal. Given the importance of the Corona Committee in the past (measured in terms of donations, it was not insignificant), “we” have an interest in clarification. Someone who does not tell the full truth, and nothing but the truth, cannot make a contribution to establishing the truth. And, in my view, should no longer be given a role in the so-called Freedom Movement.

That's how I see it.

Other key elements of the judgment of the Hamburg Regional Court that are relevant to Reiner Fuellmich's credibility:

"Facts of the Matter:

Defendant 1) is a public service broadcaster. It broadcasts - nationwide - the Second German Television. Defendant 2) is a production company. It produced the television report at issue here, "Das Netz - Scientology und der Immobilienmarkt", which was written by Defendant 3) and broadcast by Defendant 1).

This contribution deals, among other things, with the lawyer Dr. F[uellmich], the real estate agents Sch[aul] and their real estate companies. This is essentially based on the following facts: Attorney Dr. F[uellmich] represented and represents the interests of a number of real estate purchasers against the sellers, namely the real estate agents Sch[aul] and their real estate companies. During the dispute over the real estate transactions, the allegation arose that the Sch[aul] company had been infiltrated by the Scientology organization or that the Sch[aul] and their company were attributable to Scientology. Attorney Dr. F[uellmich] made the latter accusation his own. The Sch[aul] real estate agents then sought advice from the author R[enate] H[artwig], who examined the Sch[aul] real estate company at their request and came to the conclusion that Scientology structures or influences or Scientology infiltration were not detectable.

The real estate agents Sch[aul] now referred to this examination carried out by Ms. H[artwig] and its results in a legal dispute. As a result, lawyer Dr. F[uellmich] researched Ms. H[artwig] and came across the book written by the plaintiff entitled "Scientology Attacks". Dr. F[uellmich] attached a chapter of this book, which deals (among other things) with Ms. H[artwig], to one of his pleadings. However, some of the statements contained in this chapter had already been prohibited to the plaintiff by an interim injunction obtained by Ms. H[artwig] from the Düsseldorf Regional Court. Now, in turn, Ms. H[artwig] felt compelled to assert a claim for injunctive relief against Dr. F[uellmich] by way of an interim injunction for reproducing the plaintiff's statements. Dr. F[uellmich] then contacted the plaintiff [Ursula Caberta] in the summer of 1998. He asked the plaintiff whether she would be available as a witness in the proceedings brought against him (Dr. F[uellmich]) by Ms. H[artwig]. The plaintiff agreed to do so. However, no witness has yet been heard.

(...)

In the context of the present report, as far as the plaintiff [Ursula Caberta] is concerned, from the viewer's point of view she can only refer to the presentation preceding the objectionable text passages, in which it is stated that there are indications that the plaintiff supports Dr. F[uellmich] in his efforts to put the Scientology critic R[enate] H[artwig] in a bad light and to be allowed to continue to do so; namely, Dr. F[uellmich] had named the plaintiff as a witness in the proceedings brought against him by Ms. H[artwig], and furthermore he had made statements about Ms. H[artwig] which in their essence corresponded to statements made by the plaintiff about Ms. H[artwig], but which had already been prohibited to the plaintiff as defamatory slurs. Under these circumstances, the "concealed" statement that the plaintiff could have been instrumentalized constitutes a summary assessment. This assessment is also admissible, since there are sufficient factual connecting factors, and also insofar as the - possible - instrumentalization in the report passage is related to Scientology. For Ms. H[artwig] is - as stated in the article - known to be a long-standing critic and vehement opponent of the Scientology organization; it is therefore obvious that discrediting her reputation corresponds to the interests and strategy of the Scientology organization, especially since Ms. H[artwig] has been exposed to several attacks on her reputation in recent years, which in any case have also been carried out against her by the Scientology organization, as the publication "Facts about R[enate] H[artwig]" (Annex B 7) shows. (Exhibit B 7) shows. Accordingly, it is in the interest of the Scientology organization and meets its objectives if third parties discredit Ms. H[artwig]. In fact, however, the plaintiff supported Dr. F[uellmich] in his attempts to cast Ms. H[artwig] in a bad light and contributed to the discrediting of her (Ms. H[artwig]'s) reputation. The plaintiff did not only - as she herself claims - declare to Dr. F[uellmich] that she was prepared to testify as a witness in the legal proceedings brought by Ms. H[artwig] against him, Dr. F[uellmich]. Rather, she also provided Dr. F[uellmich] with the documents listed in Annex B 6, insofar as they concern Ms. H[artwig], knowing that Dr. F[uellmich] was concerned with putting Ms. H[artwig] in a bad light in order to cast doubt on Ms. H[artwig]'s credibility as a witness and in this way to gain a more favorable position in the disputes with the Schaul real estate agents. In any case, this must be assumed procedurally, as the plaintiff has not substantiatedly countered the defendant's arguments in this regard. With its submission that documents about Ms. H[artwig] are widely distributed in the Federal Republic of Germany, the plaintiff has not disputed the defendant's submission. In addition, the manner in which Dr. F[uellmich] chose to proceed against Ms. H[artwig] corresponds to the strategy of the Scientology organization.

Not only did the conceptual design of his approach coincide with that of the Scientology organization: he [Fuellmich] also partly used the very documents that the Scientology organization had already used, namely the document "Open letter to all K. employees" and the penalty orders issued against Ms. H. for fraud and insult. These documents were among those that the plaintiff had given him, and in view of her many years of experience as head of the Scientology working group at the Ministry of the Interior, it must have been obvious to the plaintiff that Dr. F[uellmich] used the same strategy in his action against Ms. H[artwig] as was used by the Scientology organization. Finally, it cannot be disregarded that the plaintiff is a senior employee of a public authority, namely of an official working group whose task is, among other things, to provide information about the Scientology organization. However, it can hardly be reconciled with the resulting duty of neutrality that the plaintiff supports a third party, namely Dr. F[uellmich], in an effort to discredit a well-known critic of Scientology, which is solely in his private interest. In addition, Dr. F[uellmich's] actual objective was to be allowed to describe opponents, namely the S[chauls], as belonging to the Scientology organization; for this is also in the interest of Scientology on the premise that the S[chauls] neither belong to nor are close to the Scientology organization, because the reputation-damaging effect of the accusation of Scientology membership or proximity to the S[chauls] is in the interest of Scientology. -chaul]. makes it more difficult for S[chaul]. merchants to do business and thus competitors who belong to the Scientology organization gain a more advantageous competitive position.

In view of this situation, an assessment of the plaintiff's conduct to the effect that the plaintiff has allowed herself to be instrumentalized is a permissible critical assessment, so that the defendants cannot be prohibited from making the ("covert") statement that the plaintiff could be instrumentalized.”

[all emphasis added]

The judgment in full length: LG Hamburg 324 O 510/99