I am always receiving different questions from different sides. From many who have already supported us, but also from many who are thinking about supporting us. They call, write or talk to me. I take a lot of time for answering your questions and am gladly at your disposal.
Background is usually that one does not understand why I act, how I act at present. Since these questions are almost always the same, I would like to answer them here directly in order to make my actions more understandable.
One of the most frequent questions that reaches me concerns the "freezing" of DocMobile funds. It should be said here that I did not "freeze" the funds. The action of the alleged executive committee from the last general meeting, which was declared invalid by the court, led to this. They had tried to gain immediate access to the bank and, through their behaviour and the communication they were using, made it impossible for them to service any payments. On the bank the four-eye-principle prevails, means, 2 entitled board members must release payments. Since the bank was informed that I was no longer a member of the Board of Managing Directors, the consequence was that I could no longer issue releases. The only remaining authorized member of the Board of Managing Directors was the 2nd Chairman, who, however, could not carry out a four-eye principle alone. Thus, the use of the funds was no longer possible until the supposedly new Board of Managing Directors had legitimised itself at the bank - this was debated with the bank and not carried out.
Once the original situation had been restored, further steps would have been possible, but at that time I became aware that payments not in accordance with the statutes were to be made by suggesting to me that they were in accordance with the statutes. With this knowledge, of course, I can no longer release any payments, as I would be just as liable as the persons already involved.
Now I am accused of blocking work on the ground because I am not releasing any money. This is the logical consequence of the previous debates, which clearly showed that the money should be used for other expenses contrary to the statutes. The donations should be used exclusively on the ground to ensure that the work on the ground can be managed in the long term. However, this is no longer possible when resources are spent on other concerns.
Now I am further accused that I publicly present the board dispute on this (my) website. This became necessary, because any access to the association communication was taken from me ( even before the election of the new executive committee at the invalid general meeting ) and it is important to me that the donors, volunteers and interested persons are informed about the work of the association transparently - also and in particular how the donation funds are (should be) used. Because it is exactly this transparency that is shied by "the new ones".
I hereby say clearly and unequivocally what I also say to all those who ask: Please support the people on the spot, because they need you. Please also support the people who help locally. Please do this with donations in the form of material donations or in the form of labour or by spending your money directly on the spot for aid. In order to put an end to this whole disaster, I have already filed an application with the court. To anticipate it right from the start, the processing of this application is also being boycotted, in which it is decided who was a member, who is a member and who cannot become a member.
I have noticed for myself that there can no longer be any trusting cooperation with the actors involved and will resign at the next opportunity. Until then, however, I consider it my duty to
1. to ensure the proper use of the available funds and
2. to inform you and thereby keep you up to date.
Because it wasn't me, not the board of directors or any entity... but YOU were and have been since DocMobile.