27 June 2003
State-run child abduction and alienation programs
Dear Mr. Wolfgang Thierse, president of the German
parliament,
Dear Mrs. Marita Sehn chairwoman of the petition committee at the
German federal parliament,
thank you very much for opening the petition proceedings Pet 4-14-07-301-050630
18 August 2002 for establishing an independent enquête committee
on the judiciary crimes against humanity by the practice of German family
law jurisdiction from on the initiative of Wolfgang Thierse, president of
the German parliament.
In the letter from 13 Mai 2003, post stamp 14 Mai 2003, the petition
committee at the German federal parliament declares to process the petition
Pet 4-14-07-301-050630 and the forwarding the petition to the competent
parliamentarian rapporteurs.
Official demands:
Hereby the official demand is entered for a clear indication of the
causes for the following objective facts within a conclusive recommendation,
a publication of the conclusive recommendation in a publication of the
Bundestag, and within the activity report 2003 of the German parliament
:
1) Why there are written laws in Germany, if the competent German
authorities themselves do not respect these laws ?
2) Why there are written laws in Germany, which are valid respectively
invalid for a certain population group due to sex, status, nationality
?
As documented within German history, totalitarian, anti-democratic
systems avoid an independent, effective and transparent control an monitoring
of the judiciary in order to guarantee that the German judiciary can be
instrumentalized for political aims.
The present, documented proceedings of the German jurist/politician
Dr. Uwe Biester and of the justice ministry of Lower Saxony are to be
integrated within the petition proceedings Pet 4-14-07-301-050630.
Under the motto "Lower Saxony is able to do more - progress and security"
Dr. Uwe Biester works as an advocate in Wilhelmshaven for child abduction
and boycott of accesss and is at the same time as politician a member of
the judiciary evaluation office (Justizprüfungsamt) at the justice
ministry Lower Saxony.
Dear Mr. Kahlen,
director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
The objective fact is that the behavior and proceedings of Mr. Kahlen,
director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, of the German family judges
at the district court of Wilhelmshaven, and of Dr. Uwe Biester deliberately
contradict the official promisses and statements of the honorable and
honest German federal minister of justice Herta-Daeubler Gmelin for the
improvement of the situation of children abducted to Germany and withheld
in Germany, as documented in the national and international media overview
1998-2002.
The responsible German family judge Staubwasser from the district
court of Wilhelmshaven declared during the preliminary court hearing on
access on 21 Mai 2003 that he opens new proceedings under a new file number
for the legal matter on falsifying documents by the German mother of the
child as demanded on 19 Mai 2003, the cancelling of the judgement 16 F 298/96
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven from 12 August 1997.
Until today there is no notification about the respective file number
for the legal matter mentioned above by the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
Hereby the official demand is entered for the verification of this
matter by Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
for the indication of the respective proccedddings and file numbers as well
as the forwarding of a copy of the present document to the competent supervision
authority against undue delay of proceedings and manipulation of proceedings.
Against the official guidelines of the German federal ministry of
Justice (FILE NUMBER R B 3 - to: 9311/22-2-23 335/2033 from 14 April 2003),
the official legal demands for criminal prosecution entered at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven (by fax on 5 June 2003, by recommended letter 13 June
2003) are not answered with confirmation of entry and informing about processing
respectively forarding.
Hereby the official demand is entered for the verification of this
matter by Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
for indicating the respective file numbers and correct status description
of the respective proceedings as well as the forwarding of a copy of the
present document to the competent supervision authority against undue delay
of proceedings and manipulation of proceedings.
Mr. Hickman involves the International Social Services South Africa
and ISS Germany (letter to Mrs Frances Viviers 13.01.00) and complains
about the lack of co-operation of the Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven and inacceptable
treatment by police inspector Has on behalf of the Jugendamt. Mr Hickman
is interogated and intimidated by Inspector Has under the supervision of
psychologist Frau Renate Terlinden of the Clinic for Child Psychology, Reinhard-Nieter-Hospital
in co-operation with the Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven. The intimidation is undertaken
to persuade Mr Hickman into accepting that he should leave Germany, never
to return, He should leave his ex-wife and children in peace.
In response to Mr. Hickman's complaint letter, the Children's Welfare
Office (Jugendamt) Wilhemshaven in the person of the deputy director Dieter
Viering lays criminal charges against against Mr. Hickman.
Mr. Hickman has to pay 1000 DEM (PI Wilhelmshaven 1. Polizeikommissariat
KED. FILE NUMBER 40451061 - 2000004396 signed Bulla, 11. April 2000). The
matter is brought to court without the knowledge of Mr. Hickman. Mr Hickman
is not legally represented. Mr Hickman was not given a fair trial. Mr.
Hickman is found guilty by the German judge Dr. Bessel. The German judge
Dr. Bessel later on becomes a family judge at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
and processes child abduction and boycott of access in the family matter
of Mr. Hickman. The German judge Dr. Bessel himself enters a demand for
his own rejection due to bias by the proceedings of 4 Cs H 27/00. But the
Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg decides that the German family judge Dr.
Bessel who has fined Mr.Hickman in his absence is not biased (FILE NUMBER
14 AR 2/01). Until today Mr.Hickman has not been able to get a copy of the
jugdment in his absence.
Hereby the official demand for consultation of the file of the proceedings
4 Cs H 27/00 into the complete and correctly maintained file is anew entered.
Hereby the official demand for forwarding a copy of the decision taken
by the German Bessel against Mr. Hickman in the proceedings 4 Cs H 27/00
is anew entered.
Hereby the official demand is entered for the verification of this
matter by Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
as well as the forwarding of a copy of the present document to the competent
supervision authority against undue delay of proceedings and manipulation
of proceedings.
Dear Mrs. Astrid Vockert,
Vice president of parliament of Lower Saxony,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs at the parliament of Lower Saxony,
Especially in respect to the historical role and responsibility
the authorities of Lower-Saxony in the German history of international
child abduction the involvement with xenophobian and racist working methods
by jurists/politicians of Lower Saxony is definitely unacceptable.
While Gerhard Schroeder is president of Lower Saxony, the proceedings
of the Higher Regional Court of Celle, situated in the heart of Gerhard
Schroeder's German home land Lower Saxony, provoke later on as a result
the intervention of the French president Jacques Chirac, of the US-president
Bill Clinton, and the Resolution of the US-House of Representatives accusing
Germany to violate the Hague Convention of Civil Aspects on International
child Abduction at the period when Gerhard Schroeder is German chancellor.
In Lower Saxony it is possible that under the motto "Lower Saxony
is able to do more - progress and security" Dr. Uwe Biester works as an
advocate in Wilhelmshaven for child abduction and boycott of accesss and
is at the same time politician on the regional level and member of the
judiciary evaluation office (Justizprüfungsamt) at the justice ministry
Lower Saxony.
Hereby the official petition is entered to the parliament of Lower
Saxony to dismiss Dr. Uwe Biester, member of the judciary evaluation office
(Justizprüfungamt) at the justice ministry of Lower Saxony from his
judicial/poltical office.
Hereby the official petition is entered to the parliament of Lower
Saxony to recommend to the competent and responsible chamber of advocates
to withdraw from Dr. Uwe Biester,the license of working as an advocate.
Reasoning
The sociological analysis of the promotion of child abduction and
boycott of access by state authorities portrays that the within the basic
layout of civil societies, the state does not play the role of the mediator
between different interest groups within society, but that the state penetrates
society to interfere within family (core cell of society) via the available
state authorities with the aim to apply a certain ideology for different
political and economical interests.
Comparing state-run child abduction and alienation programs like the
General Child Welfare Law (Long Walk Home), the Nazi-Lebensborn program
or the documented disrespect and violation of the Hague Convention of Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction as well as of the European Convention
for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights by the practice
of German family law jurisdiction, it turns out that all of these programs
are also executed before a certain racist discriminatory background.
All of these state-run child abduction programs are combined with
alienation programs which intentionally use the psychological phenomenons
of the Stockholm-Syndrome, cultural and parental alienation.
All of these state-run alienation programs are destined to form and
program the subjected children.
In the end, the program subjected alienated children shall be insecured
by the paradox of hate and condemnation against their own origin while
they are forced to give up and forget their identity.
In the end, the program subjected alienated children shall speak out
against their own origin and identity in order to confirm the ideology
of the applied child abduction and alienation program. In the following
step, these children are abused anew. This time for propaganda reasons to
propagate that the program would be right and good and would have honorable
intentions.
All of these state-run child abduction and alienation programs declare
in their official propaganda to protect the child and the well-being of
the child, while social reality reveals that it is about everything else
than the children.
By integrating the sociological study in literature "Animal Farm"
by George Orwell into the sociological analysis of the promotion of child
abduction and boycott of access by state authorities, it also turns out
that societies and their organization of the political state which apply
child abduction and boycott of access use totalitarian ideologies as well
as strong social differences between master-beings and sub-beings.
This also means that certain power interests are part of the leitkultur
of state-run child abduction and alienation programs.
Applying this observation as a filter on the historical examples of
state-run child abduction and alienation programs, the respective layouts
can be described as the following exploitation of human material for political
economic interests :
1) General Child Welfare Law (Long Walk Home): enforcing cultural
alienation as the following phase after parental alienation subjected
to the master culture;
using mixed children to create a slave class
2) Nazi-Lebensborn program: enforcing cultural alienation as
the following phase subjected to the master culture;
using the abducted children to enlarge the population by Germanization
whereas controlled, programmed population growth is needed for expansion
by war and for the creation of the empire, i.e. the German Reich
3) practice of German family law jurisdiction:
enforcing cultural alienation as the following phase subjected to
the master culture;
using children of separation and divorce for the German divorce industry
to generate turnover for the judicial/social business by passing the children
on from one family law professional to the next, from one German authority
to next, during the enforced alienation cycles
The analysis after this filter application reveals further interesting
aspects which are population and power.
All these societies have demographical problems with the growth of
population. But a stable increasing growth of population is needed to secure
expansion and extension of power interests.
In the German history of international child abduction, this approach
is to be explained as the following:
Instead of adapting the innerstate jurisdiction in accordance with
the international obligations, the German government under the German chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder with the election campaign slogans 1998 "There is also
the human way..." and 2002 "We protect our children" vetoes against the
European Court of Human Rights, while the honorable and honest German federal
minister of Justice Herta Daeubler-Gmelin officially states that the Well-Being
of the Child is to be defined on German soil by German blood.
Analyzing the possible power interests behind the documented leitkultur
of this German interest may read: Germany over all in the world and German
authority mentality over all in the world.
Comparing the documented disrespect and violation of the Hague Convention
of Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as well as of the European
Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights
by the practice of German family law jurisdiction, it turns out that among
all involved German authorities, the social authorities on the administrative
responsibility axis of the family policy, i.e., the Children Welfare Office
is the less monitored and controlled German authority, which evades quality
assessment and quality control.
The media coverage since 1998 clearly documents the systematic misuse
of authority at the bottom of the German family policy axis, where the
Children Welfare Office works together with German family courts to transport
the family policy guidelines into the executive components of the German
family law policy axis (See among others one of the latest media reports
DIE ZEIT Nr. 26; 18.Juni 2003; Dossier; Der Verdacht; Allmächtiges
Jugendamt).
First of all the German authority is always right and the Human Material
has to serve the German authority. Logically German authorities do not
commit blunders.
In addition, from the staff member of the Children Welfare Office
up to the staff member of ministries the ideology of hatred against men,
obsession of family destruction, and child abuse can be executed without
any control and monitoring.
The case constellation of the structure and of the interaction of
the protagonists is the same : children welfare office, psychologist,
family judge, (advocate of the opposite legal party).
The political/judicial aim of the proceedings is the same: legalization
of child abduction and boycott of access as well as covering the documented
and proven mistakes of the German authorities.
This case scaffold serves as the basic skeleton to model innumerous
cases in German child matters with the flesh of the individual case profiles.
With the increasing time factor also the complexity factor is increasing.
As German family judges usually base their decisions on the reports
of the children welfare Office they often provide the initial case orientation.
The biased Children Welfare Office prepares the case with its respective
discrimination interests (gender discrimination, cultural discrimination,
etc.). The respective reports and recommendations are constructed and used
to create a theoretical reality in the file of the proceedings which is
different from the social reality and facts and even opposes the latter
ones.
As there is no civilized standard for morally, politically and judicially
legalizing child abduction and boycott of access, neither on the national
level nor on the international level, the task for justifying child abduction
and boycott of access as well as explaining the interest of the child in
this context demands to constantly distort the value pattern of moral and
ethnical standards, which leads to constant distancing of the constructed
justifying pseudo reality from the social reality. The usual tactics are
to blame the left-behind parent and environment for the paradox to justify
and legalize child abduction and boycott of access.
The German family judge which sooner or later comes into the difficult
position to explain the incorrect proceedings of the German social authorities,
i.e., the Children Welfare Office, and the German judicial authorities,
i.e. the family court.
The German family judge is interested to deviate from the own responsibility
and evades by introducing further family law professionals, such as psychological
experts, into the family court proceedings. Thereby the German family judge
intends to use the psychologist's report as the basis for his court decision
to pretend the scientific background of the predetermined court decision
for the legalization of child abduction and boycott of access.
An psychologist's report within the present context can be steered
and influenced by various aspects. By the choice of the so-called psychological
expert: The psychologist has no scientific competence in the subject
matter of child abduction, Stockholm Syndrome, parental alienation, cultural
alienation or the psychologist has only competencies in completely different
psychological working fields. By predetermining the outcome of the psychologist's
report: The family judge gives orders what is how to investigate. The reports
and documents of the Children Welfare Office indicate the orientation for
the psychologist.
An psychologist's report within the present context can be steered
and influenced by various working methods. The psychologist effects the
examination of the case without putting into question the existing court
documents in the file. The psychologist does not correctly hear all parties.
The psychologist does not examine correctly the interaction between the
parties. The psychologist does not examine the objective facts and logical
implications to verify false accusations.
The German family judge then bases its decision on the reporting by
the Children Welfare Office and on the reporting by the psychologist who
has before based his own reporting on the reporting by the Children Welfare
Office and by the family court.
Thereby the propagation of the second-hand knowledge gains the more
and more distance from social reality which leads to a master piece of
absurdity.
This phenomenon becomes evident, if it comes about assuming responsibilities
by the German authorities and German family law professionals, while their
wrongdoing becomes proven and public.
In the official propaganda of German authorities these cases are often
described as high-conflict cases, whereas the German authorities do deliberately
not mention in public that the German authorities have explicitly failed
to play the role as a mediator and factor of order, by committing severe
blunders which they afterwards try to cover and hide.
The term "high-conflict cases" does also encompass the concept that
German authorities increase the conflict with their incorrect proceedings
instead of solving the conflict.
This whole business illustrates that it is not about the poor children
but about the poor German authorities and the poor German family law professionals.
Nevertheless, the official terminology for such behavior is "protecting
the well-being of the child".
For further illustration the case-study of the Hickman case is used.
In comparison with the present Hickman case of international child
abduction and boycott of access the case profile modeling is to be analyzed
as the following:
1) Interaction among the German judicial, social and administrative
authorities
2) Manipulation of family law proceedings by German jurists/politicians
1) Interaction among the German judicial, social and administrative
authorities
As documented and proven, the Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
of Wilhelmshaven recommends sole custody after international child abduction
to Germany and supports boycott of access to bi-national children withheld
in Germany against the guidelines of Bad Boll.
In 1996, on the conference in Bad Boll the German institution "Children's
Welfare Office" justifies itself not being a "Kidnapping Office". Very
obvious is the fact, that within the judgements of the European Court of
Human Rights against Human Rights violations by German family law jurisdiction
as well as within the violation of Hague Convention cases the Children's
Welfare Office are involved.
Interaction among the German judicial, social
and administrative authorities - Phase I
Mr. Hickman is the first hunger striking parent, who had a court hearing
on access with the children after the international Berlin hunger strike
2001.
In autumn 2001, the district court of Wilhelmshaven orders access
with a court decision, which was boycotted with the support of the Children's
Welfare Office of Wilhelmshaven and which the district court of Wilhelmshaven
refuses to enforce.
On 27 November 2001, Ralf Janssen from the immigration office Wilhelmshaven,
refuses to grant a residence permit for a period of three years.
On 12 December and on 20 December 2001, further demands for the residence
permit are entered.
The immigration office of Wilhelmshaven issues a limited tolerance
of residence for the duration of the family court. proceedings. The family
court/district court of Wilhelmshaven together with the Children Welfare
Office (Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven is deliberately delaying the proceedings
for the period of one year.
Role and function of the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven in international
child abduction and boycott of access:
1) While the left-behind foreign parent is engaging in re-establishing
access to the children via the German judicial and social authorities,
the German administrative authorities destabilize the foundation for the
legal engagement for access with the children by the threat to interfere
in the needed possibilities of presence in Germany.
2) The German administrative authorities force the foreign left-behind
parent to invest in the legal engagement for securing his basic residence
status. While this represents for the foreign left-behind parent a further
moral and psychological burden, as a side effect further turnover for the
German judicial business is generated in additional judicial proceedings.
Interaction among the German judicial, social and administrative authorities
- Phase II
As documented and proven, the German administrative authorities of
the City of Wilhelmshaven under the responsibility of mayor Eberhard Menzel
engage together with the Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in political
persecution of Mr. Hickman as Mr. Michael Hickman and his case together
with the incorrect proceedings of the authorities of Wilhelmshaven have been
repeatedly reported by the national and international media.
Against the promise the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the
competent German federal justice minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin has given
to the international community in summer/autumn of 2000, which is documented
by the national and international media, to speed up German court proceedings
in child abduction and boycott of access, the district court/family court
of Wilhelmshaven then produces deliberately an undue delay of over one year.
On 20. August 2002, the city of Wilhelmshaven under the responsibilitiy
of major Eberhard Menzel with Mr. Gödeken and Mr. Hans-Dieter Siehl
from the supervision authority of the Children's welfare Office (Jugendamt)
Wilhelmshaven is threatening Mr. Hickman with criminal charges if Mr. Hickman
enteres further complaints to the supervision authority against the Children's
Welfare Office (Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven.
Mr. Hickman also takes part in the international Berlin hunger strike
2002. As during the hungerstrike the year before, Mr. Hickman's case is
among many others reported in the national and international media together
with the behavior and proceedings of German authorities.
In autumn 2002, after the media has reported on the proceedings of
the authorities in Wilhelmshaven, the next court hearing takes place after
an undue delay of proceedings for one year.
ARTE TV broadcasts on 3 September 2002 a whole evening on the subject
matter of international child abduction. Within one film, the case of
Mr. Hickman and the German authorities represented by Wilhelmshaven is
reported. The director of children's welfare office Klaus Juerjens admitts
in front of the camera that the children's welfare office has committed
mistakes.
Directly the next day on 4 September 2002, the court hearing on access
delayed for one year takes place at the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
The competent German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG hears during this court hearing
the deputy director Dieter Viering of the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
Wilhelmshaven against whom a complaint to the supervision authority and
a criminal charge is entered.
Once again, the competent German family judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven AKTENZEICHEN 16 F 605/00 UG refuses to order the
deputy director of the Children Welfare Office of Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering
to leave the court hearing but deliberately works together with a staff
member of the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven, who normally
is to be rejected due to bias.
The deputy director Viering of the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
Wilhelmshaven recommends to cut off the contact between left-behind foreign
father and the abducted, access boycotted children for two years.
These proceedings clearly contradict the guidelines of the conference
of Bad Boll 1996 during which the German institution Children's Welfare
Office (Jugendamt) officially states that it would not be a kidnapping
office.
The competent German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven announces 4 weeks for his decision taking. The competent
German family judge of the district court of Wilhelmshaven deliberately
outruns the delay he has set himself.
Only after a series of official complaints like against the repeated
deliberate delay in child matters by the district court of Wilhelmshaven
the German family judge Staubwasser reacts.
The competent German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven decides then :
-- After deliberate refusal to proceed and undue delay of year against
the guidelines of the German federal constitutional court for expeditious
proceedings in child matters, here child abduction and boycott of access
-- After the media has reported on the district court of Wilhelmshaven
and on the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt) of Wilhelmshaven that
the foreign left-behind parent, here the South African father, shall not
see the children for half a year.
It is forbidden to Mr. Hickman to talk in public on the proceedings
of the German authorities.
Once again in the German history of international child abduction,
the German authorities try to force the foreign left-behind parent to leave
Germany in order to make it difficult to maintain contact and access with
the children abducted to Germany and to held court hearings preferably without
the presence of the foreign left-behind parent.
Once again in the German history of international child abduction,
the German authorities take directly revenge and retaliation on the foreign
left-behind environment, if they inform the public eye and report in the
media on the incorrect proceedings of German authorities.
In accordance with the widely spread German logic, the German judge
like in Wilhelmshaven naturally decides that no one has the right to dare
criticizing the proceedings of German authorities in the public and certainly
in the media not at all.
The behavior and strategy of the German Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
and the German family court in the Hickman case are parallel to the Cooke
case.
In the Cooke case, the German Children Welfare Office is involved
into international child abduction from the USA to Germany.
Immediately after the decision of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
dated the 04.10.2002, received by the legal party of the foreign,
left-behind parent on the 22.10.2002 with an accompanying letter from the
court written on the 18 October 2002, the city of Wilhelmshaven, under
whose responsibility the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt) of Wilhelmshaven
has intentionally negatively influenced the family court proceedings, informs
that Mr. Hickman has to leave Germany within one month.
In the meantime, while the district court of Wilhelmshaven is deliberately
delaying the family court proceedings for one year after the non-enforcement
of the own court decision for access since autumn 2001, the social welfare
office of Wilhelmshaven classifies Mr. Hickman in social welfare with the
decision 7 March 2002 paying the living costs and the rent.
Seven days after the ARTE TV broadcasting and six days after the court
hearing, the social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven informs that Mr. Hickman
is no longer granted social welfare and stops paying the living costs and
the rent on 10 September 2002. No reason is given for the canceling both.
The social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven changes the status of the
foreign left-behind parent and stops the payments even before the court
decision of the district court of Wilhelmshaven is published by the responsible
German family judge Staubwasser.
The social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven under the responsibility
of mayor Eberhard Menzel has not explained until today how the social
welfare office predicts or even predetermines court decisions of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven.
The social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven under the responsibility
of mayor Eberhard Menzel has not explained until today why the social
welfare office of Wilhelmshaven additionally disrespects all democratic,
constitutional rules by deliberately ignoring that independent from what
court decision ever, the proceedings can continue in further complaint and
appeal proceedings.
On the other hand, the German family judge Staubwasser from the district
court of Wilhelmshaven has not explained until today, how the social welfare
office of Wilhelmshaven which is like the Children Welfare Office of Wilhelmshaven
under the responsibility of mayor Eberhard Menzel predicts or even predetermines
court decisions of the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
On 18 September 2002, a complaint is entered against the proceedings
of the social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven. During the complaint proceedings
the social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven argues that it would have been
informed that Mr. Hickman would have left Germany to return to his home
country South Africa.
On the same day after the complaint on 18 September 2002, the social
welfare office of Wilhelmshaven informs Mr. Hickman that he has to co-operate
and deliver information within one month.
On the same day after the complaint on 18 September 2002, the social
welfare office of Wilhelmshaven informs that Mr. Hickman is classified
anew in social welfare.
On 29 September and on 4 November 2002, consultation of the file is
officially demanded at the social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven.
The social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven refuses to grant consultation
of the file until today and does not answer where the information comes
from that Mr. Hickman would have left Germany, while Mr. Hickman is waiting
in Wilhelmshaven for the publication of the court decision of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven.
Apart from the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven also the deputy director of the Children Welfare Office
Dieter Viering has not explained until today how the social welfare office
under the responsibility of major Eberhard Menzel predetermines the court
decision which the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven only publishes after complaints against undue delay of
proceedings.
On the one hand, the social welfare office and the immigration office
of Wilhelmshaven inform Mr. Hickman that he has an obligation to co-operate
and that he has to deliver information if he wants to get a residence status
and payments.
On the one hand, the social welfare office and the immigration office
of Wilhelmshaven deliberately refuses to co-operate and to deliver the
information, who has deliberately provided false information in order to
manipulate files and proceedings.
Role and function of the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven in international
child abduction and boycott of access:
1) While the left-behind foreign parent is engaging in attempting
to re-establishing access to the children via the German judicial and
social authorities, the German administrative authorities destabilize
the foundation for the legal engagement for access with the children by
the threat to interfere in the needed possibilities of presence in Germany.
2) The German administrative authorities
interfere in the judicial proceedings with the threat that the foreign
left-behind parent should leave Germany and without verifying if the judicial
proceedings continue in further appeal and complaint proceedings. As documented
the city of Wilhelmshaven under the responsibility of mayor Menzel is interfering
with the intimidation methods of deportation from Germany and political
persecution of Mr. Michael Hickman via the immigration office.
3) The German family judge staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
intends to wait with publishing his court decision until the administrative
authority, i.e. the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven, has deported the
foreign left-behind parent from Germany. The German family judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven thereby intends to publish his court
decision without the presence of the foreign left-behind parent which
will make possible complaint and appeal difficult. The German family judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven is then falsifying the
date of the decision taking of his court decision on 4 October 2002, so
that he will be still within the delay for decision taking of one month
he himself has set. The German family judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven thereby tries to disguise the objective fact of
his deliberate undue delay and his tactics due to the official complaints
against his delaying tactics. Nevertheless, the German family judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven proves himself his delaying tactics
as the accompanying letter of the district court of Wilhelmshaven is dated
on the 18 Oktober 2002.
Interaction among the German judicial, social and administrative authorities
- Phase III
During Phase III, the foreign left-behind parent engages in two civil
legal matters at the district court of Wilhelmshaven as well as in several
criminal proceedings against child abduction and child abuse.
Legal matter number 1 is a new application for access with the children
abducted to Germany.
On 3 April 2003, Mr. Hickman enters a new legal demand for access.
Although the legal demand is entered as an interim order, which officially
is destined to speed up the German court proceedings, the district court
of Wilhelmshaven with the responsible German family judge Staubwasser is
again delaying the proceedings.
Only after a complaint on 6 Mai 2003, the district court of Wilhelmshaven
reacts and the opposite legal party enters its requested statement on 6
Mai 2003 at the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
The preliminary court hearing then finally takes place on 21 May 2003.
And again the competent German family judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven is working together during this court hearing the
deputy director Dieter Viering of the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
Wilhelmshaven against whom a complaint to the supervision authority and
a criminal charge is entered.
And again the district court of Wilhelmshaven with the responsible
German family judge Staubwasser is delaying the proceedings and does not
publish the interim court decision.
Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, who is
politically and morally responsible for the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
is requested on 2 June 2003 to integrate a copy of the documentation on
the Non-compliance of the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child by
the contractory state of Germany into the file 16 F 229/03 UG within the
pending and internationally observed Hickman-proceedings as well as to
assure that this documentation correctly and undamaged remains within
the file.
While the district court Wilhelmshaven repeatedly and deliberately
delays the proceedings on access with children abducted to Germany, Mr.
Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, works all of a
sudden with the speed of light and answers the very same day.
Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, refuses
immediately to process the legal demands and deliberately eliminates the
proof and reference material as he doesn't send it back to the petitioner,
so that the petitioner cannot add the proof and reference material relevant
for the proceedings to the respective file himself.
Curiously, only then, one day later on 3 June 2003, the responsible
German family judge Staubwasser publishes his court decisions in which
he again is complaining about the media presence of the foreign, left-behind
parent and in which again he is denying to assure contact and access with
the children abducted to Germany.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven is proving itself that the responsible
German family judge Staubwasser had already prepared his court decision
but that judge Staubwasser has deliberately waited and delayed, as he intended
to publish the court decision after Mr. Hickman would have been deported
from Germany in accordance with the ultimatum set by the immigration office
on 15 June 2003.
Legal matter number two is the demand for verifying the status of
sole custody which was given to the German abducting and access boycotting
mother of the children.
On 19 Mai 2003, the cancelling of the judgement 16 F 298/96 of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven from 12 August 1997 was demanded at the
district court of Wihelmshaven as according to the legal demand it has to
be verified if the German mother of the child has falsified documents in
order to obtain sole custody after bringing the children to Germany from
South Africa without the knowledge of the father of the child.
This legal demand has been discussed with the responsible German family
judge Staubwasser from the district court of Wilhelmshaven during the
preliminary court hearing on access on 21 Mai 2003.
The responsible German family judge Staubwasser from the district
court of Wilhelmshaven declared during the preliminary court hearing on
access on 21 Mai 2003 that he opens new proceedings under a new file number
for the legal matter on falsifying documents by the German mother of the
child.
And again the responsible German family judge Staubwasser from the
district court of Wilhelmshaven is delaying and manipulating proceedings,
as he has neither informed about the respective file number and proceedings
nor published his court request for the statement of the opposite legal
party until today.
The legal matters on criminal proceedings against child abduction
and child abuse are among others registered :
§ 235 German criminal code, child abduction against the deputy
director Dieter Viering of the Children's Welfare Offfice (Jugendamt)
of Wilhelmshaven from 10 September 2001
§ 235 German criminal code, child abduction and child abuse against
the deputy director Klaus Juerjens, of the Children's Welfare Offfice (Jugendamt)
of Wilhelmshaven from 19 April 2003
§ 235 German criminal code, child abduction against the German
family judge Faße from the district court of Wilhelmshaven from
27 Mai 2003
§ 339 German criminal code, misuse of authority against the German
family judge Faße from the district court of Wilhelmshaven from
6 Mai 2003
Since beginning of the year 2003, the foreign, left-behind parent
has been heard several times (among others on 22 April 2003) as petitioner
and witness at the police station of Wilhelmshaven in criminal charges
due § 235 against the German mother of the child and the German abducting
environment
After the foreign left-behind parent engages in legal matters on civil
proceedings (access and falsifying documents to legalize international
child abduction to Germany) as well as in criminal proceedings against child
abduction and child abuse, the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven all
of a sudden on 11 April 2003 turns Mr. Hickman into an asylum seeker.
Curiously, Mr. Hickman has never entered an official application to
demand asylum in Germany. Mr. Hickman has only entered several official
application on access with his access boycotted children.
The objective fact is that Mr. Hickman is politically persecuted in
Germany due to his engagement for children rights and human rights which
is something quite different from seeking asylum in Germany.
The social welfare office of Wilhelmshaven informs on 10 April 2003
that from now on the staff members Mr. Henze and Mr. Oppermann would be
responsible for matter and case of Mr. Hickman.
The immigration office of Wilhelmshaven informs on 11 April 2003 that
with a limited tolerance of residence, Mr. Hickman would not be entitled
to the status of social welfare but to the status of an asylum seeker.
Curiously, the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven has granted social
welfare to Mr. Hickman when he had the status of limited tolerance of
residence since February 2002.
Nevertheless, the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven informs on 11
April 2003 that the payments to Mr. Hickman would be reduced according
to the new status of asylum seeker, whereas the social welfare office of
Wilhelmshaven is then not effecting the respective payments and only reacts
after further complaints.
On the present limited tolerance of residence issued on the 16 January
2003 for the period until 15 April 2003, extended to 15 June on the 10
April 2003 and again extended on the 12 June 2003 until the 30 August 2003
the following restrictions have been imposed and added by Britta Kappe,
the senior staff member of the immigration office: Expires on the day of
deportation from Germany. The deportation does not have to be especially
and officially announced.
Role and function of the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven in international
child abduction and boycott of access:
1) Again the German administrative authorities interact with the German
judicial and social authorities and work on the threat to interfere in
the needed possibilities of presence in Germany to disturb the legal engagement
for access with children abducted to Germany.
2) When the foreign left-behind parent engages in new legal proceedings
for access with the children, the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven
simply switches the residence status of foreign left-behind parent into
asylum seeker. The immigration office of Wilhelmshaven thereby follows
several strategies: further demoralization the foreign left-behind parent;
reducing the available living cost which is destined also to hinder the
foreign left-behind parent to engage in his legal and political engagement;
hindering the foreign left-behind parent to spend longer periods of time
outside of Wilhelmshaven, e.g., in Berlin where he could take part in demonstrations,
hunger strikes and/or contact and meet officials of his embassy or the German
federal ministries to discuss his matter as he did before
3) After having arbitrarily played around with the social welfare
status, after having turned the foreign left-behind and victimized parent
into an asylum seeker without any existing official application for demand
for asylum, and after having constantly exercised pressure with the threat
of deportation from Germany, the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven now
informs the foreign left-behind parent that the immigration office can order
the state organs at any opportune moment to bring the foreign left-behind
parent by force out of Germany without notification. The immigration office,
as documented and proven, is constantly manipulating the residence status
during the period time when court decisions of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
are to be taken.
4) The administrative authorities of Wilhelmshaven, Lower Saxony,
present the German understanding of German fair trial as documented and
proven : If the foreign, left-behind parent as petitioner engages in legal
matters against the German abducting environment in international child
abduction and boycott of access, the German authorities are threatening
the foreign, left-behind parent and petitioner to be deported from Germany
by force.
5) The administrative authorities of Wilhelmshaven, Lower Saxony,
present the German understanding of German fair trial as documented and
proven : If the foreign, left-behind parent as petitioner engages in legal
matters against the German authorities due to acts of historical wrongdoing
in child abduction and boycott of access, the German authorities are threatening
the foreign, left-behind parent and petitioner to be deported from Germany
by force.
Manipulation of family law proceedings by German jurists/politicians
The social reality and the social fact of the present case is international
child abduction to Germany regardless of the innumerous documented attempts
to manipulate the files and proceedings.
The objective fact is that the children are born in South Africa and
that the German authorities as well as the advocate and jurist/politician
at the justice ministry with the government of Lower Saxony Dr. Uwe Biester
refuse to explain how it comes that the children all of a sudden turn up
in Germany to become a plaything for German family law jurisdiction.
In addition the child abducting, access boycotting legal party is
legally represented by Dr. Uwe Biester, which as documented and proven
participates in delaying the proceedings and other irregularities.
Under the motto "Lower Saxony is able to do more - progress and security"
Dr. Uwe Biester works as an advocate in Wilhelmshaven for child abduction
and boycott of accesss and is at the same time as politician as well member
of the judiciary evaluation office (Justizprüfungsamt) at the justice
ministry Lower Saxony.
The objective fact is that the district court of Wilhelmshaven tolerates
the delaying tactics and manipulation tactics of the advocate Dr. Uwe Biester
and does only react after official complaints, deliberately acts against
the official promises and statements of the German federal government, among
other with the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and the German federal
minister of justice Herta-Daeubler Gmelin for the improvement of the situation
of children abducted to Germany and withheld in Germany, as documented
in the national and international media overview 1998-2002.
In Lower Saxony it is possible that a German jurists who works for
international child abduction and boycott of access becomes a politician
on the regional level and decides then on the education and career of further
German jurists.
While Gerhard Schroeder is president of Lower Saxony, the proceedings
of the Higher Regional Court of Celle, situated in the heart of Gerhard
Schroeder's German home land Lower Saxony, provoke later on as a result
the intervention of the French president Jacques Chirac, of the US-president
Bill Clinton, and the Resolution of the US-House of Representatives accusing
Germany to violate the Hague Convention of Civil Aspects on International
child Abduction at the period when Gerhard Schroeder is German chancellor.
In Lower Saxony it is possible that a German jurists becomes politician
and makes career with the subject matter of child abduction and boycott
of access.
Within the present legal matter the advocate Lange acts on behalf
of and under the responsibility of the advocate Dr. Uwe Biester, who is
occupying at the same time a political/judicial position at the justice
ministry with the government of Lower Saxony, so that the fact can be supposed,
that Dr. Uwe Biester is correctly informed about the proceedings, the acting
and the perfomance of advocate colleague Lange and has ordered the documented
kind of behavior of Lange. Dr. Uwe Biester himself and pesronally has intervened
several times in the respective family court proceedings at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven.
As documented in the document from 18 June 2003, Dr. Uwe Biester entitels
the petitioner, who is persistently engaging against child abduction and
boycott of access, as "pathalogical" and his acting as well as his public
relations work as "pathalogical". The intentional defamation strategy will
have to be examined at the given point of time, if this is under circumstances
about further criminal offenses like insult and slandering.
The logical consequences of the argumentation of the advocate and
jurist/politician at the justice ministry with the government of Lower
Saxony Dr. Uwe Biester is that he entitles the authors of the scientific
judicial research on the situation of children rights, human rights, democracy
and separation of powers in Germany as "pathalogical".
The objective fact is that the petitioner also refers to the reporting
of the authors of this scientific judicial research and the case of petitioner
is one case study of this research among many others.
The logical consequences of the argumentation of the advocate and
jurist/politician at the justice ministry with the government of Lower
Saxony Dr. Uwe Biester is that he entitles members of the European Parliament
as "pathalogical".
The objective fact is that the behavior and proceedings of the judicial,
social administrative authorities of Wilhelmshaven of the sample case of
the petitioner are part of the case studies series for the reporting to
the European parliament.
The European institutions have not engaged in refusal to proceed.
The Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament declares the
petition 24/2002 on Child Abuse, Human Rights violations & Violation
of the German Constitution by German family law jurisdiction admissible
in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, insofar
as its subject matter falls within the sphere of the European Union and
forwards 24/2002 to the
Committee on Citizen's Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home affairs
for information.
The logical consequences of the argumentation of the advocate and
jurist/politician at the justice ministry with the government of Lower
Saxony Dr. Uwe Biester is that he entitles the president of the German
federal parliament Wolfgang Thierse as "pathalogical".
The objective fact is that the petition proceedings Pet 4-14-07-301-050630
from 18 August 2002 at the German federal parliament for establishing an
independent enquête committee on the judiciary crimes against humanity
by the practice of German family law jurisdiction are opened on the initiative
of Wolfgang Thierse, president of the German parliament.
The objective fact is that the behavior and proceedings of the judicial,
social administrative authorities of Wilhelmshaven of the sample case of
the petitioner are part of the case studies series for the reporting to
the German federal parliament.
The logical consequences of the argumentation of the advocate and
jurist/politician at the justice ministry with the government of Lower
Saxony Dr. Uwe Biester is that he entitles the president of the USA Bill
Clinton and the president of France Jacques Chirac as "pathalogical".
The advocate and jurist/politician at the justice ministry with the
government of Lower Saxony Dr. Uwe Biester uses the concept of the Well-being
of the Child to justify his behavior, proceedings and tactics without
defining the Well-being of the Child whereas the petitioner clearly states
that child abduction and boycott of access and psycholigical abuse can
certainly not be the interest of the child.
The stance of the petitioner is in this respect conform with the stance
of the president of the USA Bill Clinton and the president of France Jacques
Chirac.
The advocate and jurist/politician at the justice ministry with the
government of Lower Saxony Dr. Uwe Biester defames the public relations
work against child abduction and boycott of access without analyzing the
existing nationalen und internationalen media reports published since
1998 on the subject matter of child abduction and boycott of access
Legal liability
The justice minister of Lower Saxony is legally liable for the correct
processing of the present legal matters.
Note: It has to be refrained from political interference in the German
independent judiciary.
Online-Documentation:
The German administrative authorities of the City of Wilhlemshaven
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/crc_wd/rem_gerd_home_land_city_whv.html
District Court of Wilhemshaven
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/state-run child abduction and alienation
programs/c_wd/rem_gerd_home_land_ag_whv.html
Children Welfare Office of Wilhemshaven Jugendamt Wilhelsmhaven
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/crc_wd/rem_gerd_home_land_jugamt_whv.html
Parliament of Lower Saxony
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/crc_wd/rem_gerd_home_land_landtag.html
Justice Ministry of Lower Saxony
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/crc_wd/rem_gerd_home_land_jm_ns.html
Judicial, social and administrative authorities of Lower Saxony Chancellor
Schroeder's German home Land
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/crc_wd/rem_gerd_home_land.html
The State-Run Child Abuse Machinery "Made in Germany"
A definite contradiction to The Report of the Federal Republic of
Germany to the United Nations in accordance with Article 44, paragraph
1, letter (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child published by
the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth
or Speaking out against Human Rights Violations by an Abusive State System
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/reports/popup/030526_crc_germany.pdf
http://www.crc-watchdog.org
Bernd Michael Uhl
Voluntary Independent Special Rapporteur
on the situation of Human Rights in Germany
to the United Nations and
to the European Institutions
|