An article by Attorney at Law Viviane Fischer
In my capacity as a member of the Corona Investigative Committee, I am repeatedly asked about the status of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich’s class action lawsuit in the USA. Not only me, but all those who have closer or more distant dealings with the Committee. The Corona Investigative Committee has nothing to do with the class action lawsuit. The Committee is not a law firm and therefore cannot provide legal advice, and certainly not paid legal services, i.e. “any activity in specific third-party matters insofar as it requires a legal examination of the individual case”. Legal services are also not covered by the purpose of the Corona Investigative Committee.
The Corona Investigative Committee started its work in July 2020. As early as August 2020, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich spoke about the possibilities of a U.S. class action lawsuit in initial interviews.
According to Wayback Machine, the website www.corona-schadensersatzklage.de was first registered on September 8, 2020. At that time, the lawyers Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Dr. Justus Hoffmann, Antonia Fischer, Marcel Templin, Tobias Weissenborn and Cathrin Behn were presented as team members. The latter two have been working for Dr. Reiner Fuellmich for many years. To what extent who is still involved today cannot be seen on the current version of the website. It says there “The strategy behind the planned US class action is accompanied by the lawyers already known from the Berlin “Corona Investigative Committee”. Above all, attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, LL.M. (UCLA) from Göttingen.” The information of the participation of “the lawyers from the Corona Investigative Committee” is misleading: I am a lawyer in the Corona Investigative Committee, but was never part of the team around the class action. I was absolutely opposed in the fall of 2020 to Dr. Reiner Fuellmich coming out with the announcement of a class action possibility especially when this came with obligatory advance payment.
Although I considered the idea of a class action to be worth looking into in principle, I would have found it much better to write such lawsuit, if it represented a realistic option, within the shortest possible period of time instead of just announcing the plan. The case could have then been filed rather quickly. A filing with great fanfare would have also made for a strong political statement. The final step would have been to offer German entrepreneurs the option to join the class action.
To what extent advance payments from the entrepreneurs would have been necessary at all is a question. The approach that a lawyer, similar to a doctor, is already paid for his “efforts,” as is the case in Germany, is rather unusual in the U.S. in the class action area. There, the contingency fee principle is normally applied to class actions, i.e., the plaintiffs do not pay the attorneys a fee. The lawyers therefore work at their own risk, because if the case is lost, the lawyers go home empty-handed. If the case is won, however, a large portion of the claimed damages falls to the litigating attorneys as a contingency fee. This can be as much as 40% of the sum, and then the lawyers’ work is more than worthwhile.
Attorney at Law Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has now explained on September 9, 2022 in the context of a video statement, among other things, that two lawsuits – one by attorney Dexter Reynefeldt in South Africa and one by attorney Michael Swinwood in Canada – were (“not exactly cheap”) attempts to initiate the U.S. class action lawsuit against the PCR evidence of SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting disadvantages of the plaintiffs, which he advertised. The lawsuits in question were self-initiated by the two attorneys, for which only support was provided by explaining the context and arranging for expert witnesses.
In his video statement, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has now also stated that funds from the German class action clients were paid out to participating attorneys or experts.
This statement is inaccurate. Because almost all of these lawyers and experts were guests on the Corona Committee, it is important to me to correct this misstatement.
For the lawsuit in South Africa, the expert opinions by the microbiologist Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, the physician Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, the biologist Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer and the psychologist Prof. Dr. Harald Walach were provided without fee (“pro bono” in the sense of a good cause).
In the case of the South African lawsuit initiated by attorney Dexter Reynefeldt, it was already a precondition that all participants would work without remuneration. Attorney Dexter Reynefeldt has stated, “We (myself or one of the South African attorneys) who worked on the South African case did not receive any monies from Attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. I hereby confirm that all experts who prepared expert reports for the South African case have not submitted invoices for the work done and have not received any monies/fees from the South African lawyers and me.”
Prof. Dr. Harald Walach stated: “At a first Zoom meeting about the activities in the context of the lawsuit in South Africa, it was made clear by Attorney Dexter Reynefeldt that all parties involved, including himself, would work pro bono and therefore also the cooperation of the reviewers and experts would be expected pro bono, i.e. without monetary payment. At least that was the case with me and, to my knowledge, with others as well.”
With regard to the lawsuit in Canada, which Dr. Reiner Fuellmich described as a “first attempt,” the Canadian lawyer Michael Swinwood clarified that he had also worked pro bono. He was not aware of any payments that had been made from client funds in the Class Action. None of the above-mentioned experts were involved in these proceedings as expert witnesses. However, the commissioned American expert Byram Bridle was provided – also pro bono – with the test assessment report from the proceedings before the family court in Weimar translated into English. Attorney Michael Swinwood has declared not to know of any payment to Byram Bridle nor to Dr. Christiane Grieb, a lawyer living in Canada and former student of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, who was actually supposed to cooperate in the lawsuit.
Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer clarified: “Due to my secondary employment permit, I am only allowed to provide expert opinions free of charge. Against this background, it is particularly important to me that it is not suggested that I could have been active for remuneration. “
