Why Are We Naming and Shaming Lawyers in The Juicy Fields Case?

The two most prominent German lawyers on our target list have broken the German Bar Associations’ rules on cosponsoring conferences and otherwise associating with fraudulent companies. We are now naming and shaming, before of course, litigating. Many people are surprised and asking why we are doing this. Here are the answers

Over the last six weeks or so, we have encountered our second legal pushback in Germany as we proceed with our case against the multiple facilitators of the fraud who we have so far identified with our extensive research, now ongoing for almost a year.

Namely, we are now in discussions with the Frankfurt prosecutor’s office after Mr. Peter Homberg’s lawyers (outside of Dentons) contacted them to file an emergency injunction against us to take down the post in which we named him, along with other German cannabis industry insiders, as being a facilitator of the fraud.

In the past, Mr. Kai Friedrich Niermann has unsuccessfully attempted to get cannabis media to take down articles about his involvement in the fraud (Green Market Report) – which rightly ignored him. Ms. Lisa Haag (also a target of Olofsson’s investigation) has also attempted to get the litigation team to take down the link to Michael Knodt’s less than fully researched article about the involvement of Stefan Graf (see our own chart of how the scam proceeded, always with the involvement of the original scammers). We refused.

Ms Haag has also spread rumours about members of the team, which we have been able to successfully shut down with proof.

It is also very clear to us that there is continued coordination between the named individuals in our post and the two lawyers we have now named. This is one of the many reasons why we have a strong case, at minimum, at collusion to cover up a fraud, and involvement of the same which now also involves these lawyers.

We do not need anything else to make our point in court.

In the most recent German case, as we have pointed out, Mr. Homberg and the prosecutor in Frankfurt have no jurisdiction over the material.

However, why have we named these lawyers?

The First Reason

This was created by Rogers’ team at the ICBC and posted, by Friedrich Niermann on or about August 9, 2021, according to dates from approximate posts from his Linked In feed. This is interesting as it is also around the same date that Finn Hansel from Sanity Group alerted Rogers about Juicy Fields. The fact that Friedrich Niermann appears to have posted this advertorial also appears to bear out that he and Rogers had talked specifically about the issue.

Two years ago, in the summer of 2021, these promotional posts were created by the ICBC and promoted on social media by Juicy Fields to promote the company and create the illusion that it was legitimate. This is precisely why the German Bar Association has a rule against lawyers cosponsoring conferences with fraudulent sponsors, Particularly the main one.

This is of course proof that here is no way that either Homberg or Friedrich Niermann would not have known that their images were being cross promoted this way, and further as a result, had a basic duty of care to do a basic compliance check on the company.

No more “paperwork” is required to prove this. The rules of the German Bar (linked here in English) are very specific in this. See Section Two, §6, regarding publicity and Section 7, §29.

In Friedrich Niemann’s case, as we can prove with additional witness statements that he failed to prevent a conflict of interest in representing both Alex Rogers, as his German-based business attorney, and worked on behalf of Juicy Fields to negotiate deals with an obviously fraudulent intent as well as promoted the company on social media specifically and by name.

We are arguing to the Frankfurt prosecutor that in effect, Homberg did this as well by allowing his image and the Dentons name to be cross promoted with Juicy Fields as of summer 2021.

The Second Reason

If Sanity Group, as we have proof of, dropped out as a sponsor of the ICBC in early August 2021, because their investors were warning them that the firm was a Ponzi scheme, why didn’t both German lawyers per above?

This alone proves that there was no way that reasonable due diligence was performed by either lawyer. This also creates a claim for negligence, no matter who actually did work for the company directly (as in Friedrich Niermann’s case).

The Third Reason

Alex Rogers claimed, as of August 2021, when challenged, that both lawyers had advised him that Juicy Fields was not a fraud. This is why he claimed he was justified in continuing to take money from them for another year.

If cannabis lawyers in Germany are not vigilant to appearing next to obvious fraudulent companies within the industry, the self-regulating rules of the German Bar are also broken.

If Rogers is not interested in prosecuting Friedrich Niermann for blatant negligence, we are going to be happy to.

The Fourth Reason

Conflict of interest, in Friedrich Niermann’s case is obvious and easy to prove. He worked for both Juicy Fields and cosponsored the ICBC with them as he represented Rogers’ interests with regards to the conference. This is also against the rules of the German Bar.

We Proceed Without Fear and Legal Censure

We are continuing to proceed with our cases because we also know that we are right. So do financial authorities in Lithuania who have now begun the process of a money laundering investigation, cross border, with Europol.

We also expect further SLAPP lawsuits to attempt to shut us down. This is not going to happen. We are well defended, backed with evidence, and we are not going to rest until our clients are made whole and mandatory changes are made both within the cannabis industry as well as the legal, banking, and accounting side of the discussion.

Accountability, transparency, and honesty are the three pillars of any commercial endeavour. It is overdue real regulation and compliance came to the European cannabis industry.