Malicious and Mendacious: David A. Hughes
1000 words. 9th May 2026
On 8th May Hughes tried to counter my demolition (https://www.character-and-ethics.com/principles.html) of his accusations at https://davidahughes.net/reiner-fuellmich-vw-and-deutsche-bank/#ghost-comments-69fdc93d0e3ff900b80615c5 .
Let us not lose track of the essential facts, facts which Hughes refuses to report upon.
I. Füllmich came to prominence among millions in Germany and across the world thanks to his hundreds of interviews investigating the “Corona & Covid” measures. Many have credited him with saving their sanity if not their lives. This is why so many contributed money to the Corona Investigative Committee, which was legally registered with himself and Viviane Fischer as sole partners. He proved himself versatile, switching from perfect English to perfect German as only a consecutive interpreter can.
He did not acquire this acclaim on the basis of what he said about his earlier work against Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen and other conglomerates. The contention that he did is invented by Hughes and devoid of evidence or argument.
II. After the German state kidnapped him from Mexico in contravention of international law — an essential fact which Hughes leaves unmentioned — and at a time when he had not been found guilty even by a corrupt court — Füllmich was imprisoned in the most severe conditions, which for many months constituted white torture.
Hughes now claims that I uncritically rehearse Fuellmich's claims about "white torture". That is, Hughes denies the white torture, the details of which were reported on and complained about extensively not least by Füllmich’ lawyers. Füllmich has recently filed charges about this.
Everyone viewing the reports from the Göttingen Court saw him repeatedly in handcuffs and worse. This alone gives credibility to the claim of white torture in the confines of Rosdorf prison, where of course no filming was possible. Again, no mention of this vital fact by Hughes.
These two facts (I and II) alone prove that Hughes is arguing in bad faith.
Instead, Hughes chooses to focus on whether there is documentary evidence for Füllmich’s incidental claims about working earlier on prosecutions of Deutsche Bank et al. His implication is that Füllmich lied about this. (For some of us, it is irrelevant if Füllmich embellished his record. But we have no reason to suppose he did.)
I have provided evidence that Füllmich was indeed involved in such actions. Hughes dismisses this evidence as sloppy journalism and contests the monetary scale of the lawsuits.
A reminder: Füllmich has been in prison for years and is without access to his papers or indeed the Internet. He is therefore unable to provide the evidence Hughes demands.
Hughes has ZERO evidence that Füllmich did not work on lawsuits against DB et al. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that Füllmich’s claims are substantially false, on the contrary.
Two further examples of Hughes’ ignorance:
(1) Fuellmich: "I used to work for Jürgen Fitschen, not as a lawyer, but in the corporate banking business of Deutsche Bank in Tokyo." Hughes remarks: “If true, then Fuellmich used to work FOR DB - a little known fact and the exact opposite of being its claimed nemesis.”
This is NOT “a little known fact”: when he was free to speak, I heard Füllmich say this umpteen times. Once again, Hughes as a latecomer to the story proves himself to be entirely ignorant. Once Füllmich realised that Deutsche Bank was corrupt, he left.
(2) Hughes is surprised that Füllmich should have been a shareholder in Deutsche Bank. This proves Hughes to be thoroughly ignorant of common activist practice, namely to purchase shares in order to be able to attend shareholder meetings and speak out against malpractice.
A further reminder: No-one except Hughes and his gullible fans is interested in Füllmich’s more distant past. Of note, however, is that he ran a substantial lawfirm in Germany for very many years and had been able to purchase a ranch in California, presumably from income earned as an attorney.
________
With his credulity and naïve trust in the German legal system, Hughes demands exhaustive and exhausting proof using court records, and rejects reports in leading outlets such as the Handelsblatt (equivalent to the Financial Times in the UK or the Wall Street Journal in the USA) and Deutschlandfunk (German equivalent of BBC Radio4).
Here the tables must be turned.
In view of the egregious errors and omissions paraded above, Hughes has no standing. His claims to perform due diligence and avowal of truthfulness have been disproven.
His further reflections are not worthy of consideration. I do not see it as my task to explain why his several other contentions on points of detail are misguided.
Character: My principle website is https://www.character-and-ethics.com/ Others are listed at https://www.character-and-ethics.com/site-guide.html
I do not need to engage in character assassination. It is Hughes who has discredited himself. With my “Foul Principles of David A. Hughes” I merely describe the tricks (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) he has deployed in order to gain attention for a vicious and despicable defamation of Füllmich.
There comes a point when the good faith of an interlocutor has been refuted; the next step is to question their character. This is not ad hominem, which expression refers to the failure to use argument and evidence from the beginning. I have used argument and evidence.
The attempt by Hughes to counter my critique proves him again to have become a malicious and mendacious character. The question then arises of why the exponent of Omniwar should have turned on easy-target imprisoned Füllmich, instead of pursuing the villains he identified there.
Leaving mental illness aside, the hypothesis presents itself that he has been hired by the Verfassungsschutz, the German domestic intelligence service (allegedly devoted to protecting the constitution, when it does the exact opposite). That is, Hughes has succumbed to evil.
__________________________
Here are some remarks by members of UK Column:
“David Hughes is speculating and ‘asking questions’ based on nothing more than an attempt to create suspicion where there is none. He simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
“What the hell has got into David Hughes? I used to think him a critical thinker and a good writer. As soon as Brian alluded to certain people attacking others, I immediately thought of Hughes and his insane attack on Füllmich. What a let down!”
“As Mike posted: «without merit». He has forfeited his right to a hearing. Let us stop wasting time on this controlled opposition.”
_________________