case study : proceedings' history
|
| |
|
- Prelude
- Phase I
- Phase II
- Phase III
- Phase IV
|
|
|
Here is a brief account of the
circumstance surrounding the abduction of John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman
from South Africa to Germany and the deliberate and willful Germany state
sponsored boycott of access to the children since then. Here you will see
how prominent German politicians, the German Federal Ministry of Justice,
the German judiciary, the German institution known as "Jugendamt" the German
Evangelical Lutheran Church and ordinary German citizens have played a role
to deny both the foreign parent and the victim children the justice that they
were entitled to.
|
|
Prelude
The objective situation and the social reality in the case
study presented is that the German mother together with the
German grandmother took the children born and raised abroad
to Germany in 1996.
In summer 2001 an international hunger strike takes place
in Berlin during which dedicated grandparents and parents
protest against the proceedings and working methods of German
authorities in child abduction and boycot of access. The conscience
of the public eye is promoted for these problems by means
of national and international media reports. The South African
father Michael Hickman is the first of the hunger strikers,
who has a court hearing on his family matter after the international
Berlin hunger strike 2001 (compare international
media coverage).
|
- custody proceedings and access proceedings in Germany
since 1995
(residence of the foreign left-behind parent in his
home country South Africa)
- custody proceedings and access proceedings in Germany
since 2001
(residence of the foreign left-behind parent in Germany)
|
|
Phase I
- Decision of 15.08.2001 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00
UG by the German family judge Dr. Bessel of the District
Court of Wilhelmshaven ordered contact between the children
and father of the children.
- boycott of the court ordered contact on the 21.08.01
with the help of third parties.
- non-enforcement of the court order for access
- undue delay of proceedings in child matters by the
court over a period of more than one year
- 03.09.2002 The broadcasting of the ARTE TV documentary
(Theme evening. War over children)
- The director of the Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
of Wilhelmshaven Klaus Jürjens admits wrongdoing
of the Children Welfare Office.
- The German family judge Bessel admits during an
Interview difficulties of family law proceedings.
- 04.09.2002 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG. Court
hearing at the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
- The German family judge Staubwasser refuse to order
the deputy director of the Children's Welfare Office
(Jugendamt) of Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering to leave
the court hearing and thereby works together with a staff
member of the Children's Welfare Office against whom criminal
proceedings and complaints to the supervision authority
are being processed.
- The deputy director of the Children's Welfare Office
(Jugendamt) of Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering recommends
two years of exclusion from access.
- After an undue delay of one year at the district court
of Wilhelmshaven, the German family judge Staubwasser
sets a delay of one month for his decision taking, which
the German family judge Staubwasser deliberately exceeds.
- Decision dated 04.10.2002 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00
UG of the German family law judge Staubwasser, which is
only published after official complaints against undue delay.
- Arbitrary denial of access on access, which has
not taken place over the period of one year, whereas
the court ordered access has deliberately not been
enforced by the court.
|
Phase II
- 03.04.2003 An application to court for an urgent
interim order to regulate access is made immediately on
expiry of the arbitrary half year court ordered exclusion
of access in Phase 1 and the preceding
arbitrary boycott of and refusal to enforce access for one
year during phase 1.
- 09.04.2003 The German family judge, judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven sets a deadline
of 10 days FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG to the legal representation
of the children's mother, i.e. the legal representation
of Dr. Uwe Biester, represented by attorney Lange, for comment
on the submission of the father.
- The legal representation of Dr. Uwe Biester, represented
by attorney Lange deliberately ignores the deadline
set by the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
- 06.052003 An official complaint is entered at
the court regarding the delay in the processing of the urgent
interim order in the case of legal matters to regulate
access to children.
- Consequently the district court of Wilhelmshaven
informs the applicant and children's father of the position
taken by the legal representation of Dr. Uwe Biester,
represented by attorney Heiko Lange dated the 06.05.03,
which again presents the previously documented defamation
and discrediting strategy against the foreign father.
- 21.05.2003 File number 16 F229/03 UG interim
court appearance in the access matter.
- The German family judge, judge Staubwasser works
once again together with the deputy director of the office
of child matters ( Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering,
against whom both criminal charges have been laid and
against whom an official enquiry are in progress.
- The German family judge, judge Staubwasser informes
the representative of the South African Embassy who
was to be invited to attend the court hearing as an
observer, that it was only a preliminary hearing not
requiring their presence and that a representative of
the South African Embassy need only attend the main
hearing.
- Decision date the 03.06.2003 file number 16 F
229/03 UG which was published after official complaint had
been made to the morally and politically responsible director
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen due to
the delay of proceedings and incorrect working methods
employed.
- The application to grant access via urgent interim
order is rejected. The German family court judge Staubwasser
thereby contradicts himself, in that he himself in
his decision of 04.10.02 in respect of the hearing
of the 04.09.02 indicated that an exclusion of access
for more than half a year would be harmful to the well
being of the children.
- Whereas the deputy director of the children welfare
office ( Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering earlier
in Phase 1 in revenge because the
foreign left behind father made public the incorrect
working methods of the children welfare office (Jugendamt)
demanded that he should have no contact to his children
for a period of two years. Now the family court judge
Staubwasser declares in his decision that the deputy
director of the children welfare office (Jugendamt)
wishes not to make a
statement. The family court judge Staubwasser deliberately
does not mention in his decision, how come the children
welfare office (Jugendamt), that presents itself and
it's actions as in the best interest of the child,
suddenly has nothing to say and refuses to make a recommendation,
report or to give an opinion.
- The expert Dr. Winterscheid from the state hospital
Wehnen is tasked to make a psychological appraisal
and report. Two months of inactivity on the part of
the family court judge Staubwasser follow after the
naming of the expert in the decision of the 03.06.03.
- Whereas the court hearing of the 21.05.03 was declared
as an interim hearing the German family judge Staubwasser
during the course of the court proceedings changes
the order of the proceedings. In his decision the German
family court judge Staubwasser all of a sudden decides,
that in the main issue there will be no further final
court hearing, he decides that after the report of
the psychologist is entered without a further court
hearing to evaluate and to debate the psychological
report, that he would make his final decision. In this manner
the German family judge Staubwasser wants to prevent, that
the representative of the South African Embassy, who was
to be invited to participate in these court hearings
would be present as a witness, to prevent that they
would be witness to this extra special spectacle of
German justice.
|
|
Phase III
- 07.07.2003 A new application is made to court
under file number 16 F 229/03 regarding access via an urgent
interim order is made immediately on expiry of the arbitrary
half year court ordered exclusion of access in Phase 1 and the preceding arbitrary boycott
of and refusal to enforce access for one year during Phase 1.
- The German family judge Staubwasser is given the
opportunity, to correct himself and his incorrect working
methods as described in phase I and phase II and to correctly
offer legal protection against the judge within the
German judicial reality.
- 22.07.2003 The application is made for an urgent
interim order to be granted in respect to access to bridge
the delay of proceedings in ordering that a expert psychological
report be made and the application to substantiate the
qualifications and competence of the expert Dr. Winterscheid
of the state hospital Wehnen.
- Only after the official complaint of the 23 July
2003 in respect of the renewed delay of proceedings,
Dr. Winterscheid of the state hospital Wehnen writes
an invitation on the 25.07.03, which was sent the next
day on Saturday the 26 July 2003, which reached the
applicant on Monday the 28 July 2003, which informed
him of the appointment on the 30 July 2003, to which
he should appear day after next in Wehnen.
- 28.07.2003 The expert dr. Winterscheid is rejected
on the grounds of the violation to the right of a fair
trial and the right to be heard by the family court judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven as well
as the ground of the two months delay from the naming of
the expert in the decision of the 03.06.2003 in Phase II. Official complaint to the supervision
authority against the German family court judge Staubwasser.
- Decision of the German family court judge Staubwasser
to reject the application to regulate access via an urgent
interim order FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG dated the 25.07.03,
which is delivered to the applicant for his information
on 29.07.2003 only after an official complaint is entered
against the German family court judge Staubwasser on the
28.07.2003.
- For the first time the German family court judge
Staubwasser mentions the "inaccurate working proceeds
of the court and other participants."
- The German family court judge Staubwasser simultaneously
blames the applicant, the children's father for grounding
his application "essentially on legal explanations".
- The German family court Judge Staubwasser deliberately
suppresses the documentation handed in by the applicant
since the previous decision of the 03.06.03, he documents
this in his decision with the false statement, "new
factual circumstances have not been presented." The
German family judge Staubwasser contradicts himself.
If the accurate naming in the continuos documentation
regarding the incorrect working methods of the court
and other participants is nothing new, the German family
judge Staubwasser was very well aware from the very beginning,
that he had applied and covered incorrect working methods
in the present case of access after international child
abduction to Germany.
|
|
Phase IV
- 30.07.-08.08.2003 FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG
A cycle of criminal charges are entered at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven against employees of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven and the family court judge Staubwasser.
- 08.08.2003 A reminder is entered in regard of
the application in regard to the rejection of the expert
Dr. Winterscheid of the state hospital Wehnen within Phase III on the grounds of the violation
of the right to a fair trial and the right to be heard
by the German family court Judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven, as well as on the grounds of the
two months delay from the naming of the expert in the decision
of the 03.06.03 within Phase II.
- 10.08.2003 An appeal complaint is entered against
the decision of the German family court judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven of the 25.07.03
FILE NUMBER 16 FR 229/03 UG within III to the higher regional
court of Oldenburg. The judges Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann
of the higher regional court of Oldenburg are rejected
on the grounds of the suspicion of bias, as they have already
confirmed the arbitrary exclusion of access by the German
family court judge Staubwasser of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven within Phase I. This is applied
although access is excluded for a further period of half a year
after court ordered access which did not take place for a
period of one year and which has deliberately not been enforced
by the court.
- 01.09.2003 Decision of the higher regional court
of Oldenburg by the German judges Bartels, Schubert and
Kuhlmann, FILE NUMBER 14 UF 126/03. The higher regional
court rejects the appeal against the decision of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven referring to formalities, here the
civil process regulation, whereas the higher regional court
under the judges Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann does legalise
all doubts of procedural requirements, irregularities and
mistakes of the district court of Wilhelmshaven which have
occurred to this time. On the other hand, the German judges Bartels,
Schubert and Kuhlmann, while quoting the civil process regulation,
violate the very same civil process regulation, because
the German judges Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann deliberately
ignore the rejection on the grounds of bias in contravention
of the civil process regulation while taking their decision.
- 19.08.03 Request for information to the applicant
and children's father by the German family court judge
Staubwasser as to whether the applications with the headings"
Legal demand to refrain from possibel misuse of authority"
out of the listed documents of the applicant "are to be
taken as applications to reject the judge due to bias"
- A month later, the German family judge Staubwasser
still refuses to process the application to reject
the expert Dr. Winterscheid from the state hospital
Wehnen, an application that was initially made on the
22.07.03 on the grounds of the violation of the right
to a fair tail and the violation of the right to be
heard by the German family court judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, as well as
on the ground of the complaint about the two month delay
of proceedings entered and sent as reminder again on 28.07.2003
and respectively on 08.08.03.
- 26.08.2003 Explanation in response to the request
for information by the German family judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven. The applications
of the applicant were not intended to be evaluated as the
rejection of the judge on the grounds of bias as this is
obviously a misunderstanding. Again attention was is drawn
to the applications made in respect to speeding up the legal
process.
- On the 02.09.2003, the official application is
made to the district court of Wilhelmshaven to open proceedings
against the City of Wilhelmshaven with the responsible
executive being the mayor Eberhard Menzel, on the grounds
of the influencing of family law proceedings regarding
access after international child abduction by the children
welfare office (Jugendamt) and the immigration office.
- In post from the mayor of the City of Wilhelmshaven
Eberhard Menzel, dated the 02.09.2003, postmark 05.09.03,
he records his readiness to financially support if needs
to be possible exhibitions on Nazi Injustice and Nazi Judiciary
at the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
- 15.09.03 The competent Association of attorneys
file number Jo/Co officially states that, not the legal
representation of Dr. Uwe Biester with the attorneys Lange
and Biester, but the district court of Wilhelmshaven would
be responsible for the incorrect working methods, in reaction
to the complaint forwarded by the justice ministry of Lower
Saxony, against the incorrect working methods of the legal
representation of Dr. Uwe Biester with the attorneys Lange
and Biester. The Association of Attorneys for the district
of the higher regional court of Oldenburg officially states,
that the deliberate ignoring of the delay by the legal representation
of the German mother, i.e. Dr. Uwe Biester with attorney
Lange, in disregard of the 10 days answering delay set
by the family court judge Staubwasser of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven in Phase II, which has been applied
for further delay would not to be criticised and thereby
most probably would correspond to the procedural requirements
at the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
- The German family court judge Staubwasser still
refuses ca. two months later to process the application
made to reject the specialist Dr. Winterscheid of the
state hospital Wehnen. An application that was initially
made on the 22.07.03 on the grounds of the violation
of the right to a fair trial and the violation of the
right to be heard by the German family court judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
as well as on the ground of the complaint about the two month
delay of proceedings entered and sent as reminder again on
28.07.2003 respectively on 08.08.03.
- 23.09.2003 Complaint against inactivity in 16
F 229/03 UG within the case of internatioanle child abduction
to Germany and resulting boycott of access against the
German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven to the higher regional court of Oldenburg
- 24.09.2003 Out of the blue sky and immediately
after the complaint against inactivity against the German
family judge Staubwasser, the district court of Wilhelmshaven
informs the applicant and children's father on 26. September
2003, that the German family judge Staubwasser can work
with speed of light also in child matters,if this corresponds
with his political motivation (compare in this respect
the contrarily beahvior within Phase I).
- In the access matter 16 F 229/03 UG the German family
judge Staubwasser informs about the qualification and
competence proflie of the tasked psychologist expert
and is theresby referring to the legal demand from
22.07.2003 out of Phase III for substantiated
explanation of the qualification and competence of the
tasked psychologist expert Dr.Winterscheid from the
state hospital Landeskrankenhaus Wehnen.
- In the access matter 16 F 229/03 UG the German family
judge Staubwasser reacts now about two months later
on the application made to reject the psychological
expert Dr. Winterscheid of the state hospital Wehnen.
An application that was initially made on the 22.07.03
on the grounds of the violation of the right to a fair
trial and the violation of the right to be heard by
the German family court judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven, as well as on the ground of
the complaint about the two month delay of proceedings
entered and sent as reminder again on 28.07.2003 respectively
on 08.08.03. The German family judge Staubwasser rejects the
application to reject the psychologist expert.
- After the applicant has engaged himself as documented
and proven in several judicial and political initiatives
as well as in public relations work against child abduction
and boycott of access under misuse of authority, as
well as against child abuse and humanr rights violation
by German authorities on the nationall and on the internationale
level (including direct judicial and political initiatives
against the incorrect proceedings of the German family
judge Staubwasser himself), the German family judge
Staubwasser now applies the remote control strategy
and is ordering the tasked the psychologist expert Dr. Winterscheid
to evaluate the applicant's ability for engaging in legal
proceedings.
|
|
|
|