0:22 immediately set me free and two, immediately stop the fake criminal proceeding against me without even looking at the facts of the case.

0:31 Unconstitutional and criminal political persecution and abduction under the guise of fake criminal charges. All this

0:40 took her because she didn’t even look at the facts a half a page of writing. We expected this and now that they’ve shown

0:47 their hand, we know that they do not have the cards as a famous US president frequently says when he means to say that he’s dealing with incompetence.

0:57 Just to give you a taste of what a more detailed account will look like when we publish our appeal against this ruling, she made her ruling without a hearing.

1:06 And this cannot be overemphasized without even mentioning one of the facts of the case. Stating that we had not

1:15 made our case with respect to the urgency of the motion. That’s what it takes. If you want a preliminary injunction, you need to plead urgency.

1:25 Why not? Because I had, this is her saying this, because I had already stayed in prison for now more than two

1:32 years and eight months. So, which means I just, you know, they could keep me in here for another couple of years. We

1:40 have completed the appeal and will publish it immediately.

1:44 Two, here’s good news. Well, the other is also good news. um with respect to the almost complete shutdown of my

1:51 communication rights with uh which uh the Ging and DA’s office and Schindler had ordered uh had ordered this prison

2:00 to impose on me the higher district court in Brownwike, Brunswick ruled on June 2nd that this is illegal and that

2:09 those who have a problem with my statements must pursue a different route. for example, if they believe that they have a case against before defamation to charge me with a crime.

2:19 That however they will not do. As in a defamation case, truth is an absolute defense. And since they want to keep a

2:27 lid on the truth, as it would expose their lies, they will not do anything at this point. Pretty much anything they would do will only make matters worse,

2:36 as whatever they want to do must now happen before the eyes and ears of a worldwide attentive public that

2:43 understands full well that we are indeed all of us in this together. Anyone could be next after all. This means, of

2:51 course, that I can now do interviews again, including live interviews. The only thing I need to stay away from is language that might amount to a crime.

3:00 That’s easy enough. After all, I’m a lawyer. I know how to get a message across. Three. A couple of months ago,

3:08 one or two of the controlled opposition people who have infilt in infiltrated our side of the fence published a couple of hit pieces against me consisting as

3:17 usual exclusively of lies. One of the lies said that I had never really practiced law either in Germany or in

3:24 the US. Well, I don’t think I need to prove that I did practice law in Germany. All we need to do is listen to some of the witnesses who were heard in

3:32 the fake criminal case against me, including Tobias Visenborn and Katrin Bane, who were just two of the 17 attorneys working for me in my firm and

3:41 testified to that. But there are dozens of TV interviews I did um concerning uh cases against Deutsche Bank, but also on

3:50 a couple of proono cases I did representing survivors of ritual abuse, including ritual child abuse. Uh with

3:58 respect to my US legal work, we are now publishing a so-called Amikos Kurier brief which I wrote and filed in a class

4:07 action case against Deutsche Bank in 2017. I did this as a friend of the court.

4:15 That’s what Amikus Kurier means. um to alert the court of the fact that DB or

4:22 to the fact that Deutsche Bank regularly act intentionally when they commit a tort. Now, if that case against Deutsche

4:32 Bank suddenly becomes a case of intentional infliction of harm instead of just negligence, then as I point out

4:41 in that brief, the court or jury has the right to think about punitive damages on top of actual damages. In that

4:48 particular case, which was then pending before a Southern California court, the so-called amount in controversy, which

4:55 means the amount of actual money damages the parties were fighting over, was $85

5:02 billion US. Add punitives to this and you will immediately understand that

5:09 this could have easily wiped out Deutsche Bank altogether.

5:14 Well, a couple of weeks after filing this brief, I attended Deutsche Bank’s annual shareholder meeting in Frankfurt

5:21 and gave a short speech in front of some four or 5,000 shareholders plus the entire board of directors of Deutsche Bank explaining what kind of problem

5:29 Deutsche Bank had to solve, or rather what kind of damocly sword was hovering over DB. Everyone went silent and the

5:38 board of directors pretended not to even have heard what I’d said. But another couple of weeks later, it’s a small world, I ran into an aid to one of the

5:47 directors who told me that all the DB employees chins dropped when I gave them the good news. And just a little later,

5:54 DB settled the case for an undisclosed amount of money. However, considering that the amount in controversy was $85

6:02 billion US, it cannot really have been cheap. And by the way, I worked on that case proono, too. Stay tuned. There’s more to come shortly.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.