|
10 August 2003
Complaint against the decision 16 F 229/03 UG from 24.09.2003
in the case of international child abduction to Germany and
resulting boycott of access due to political persecution by
the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven
Dear Mr. Wolfgang Thierse, president of the German parliament,
Dear Mrs. Marita Sehn chairwoman of the petition committee
at the German federal parliament,
With the authorisation of the petitioner of the present petition
proceedings at the German Federal Parliament Pet 4-14-07-301-050630
the herein documented events at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
and at the higher regional court of Oldenburg are indicated
as further proof for the establishing an independent enquête
committee on the judiciary crimes against humanity by the
practice of German family law jurisdiction.
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, and nationality?
3) Why proceedings in child matters are deliberately delayed,
e.g., here at the district court of Wilhelmshaven and at the
higher regional court of Oldenburg in access proceedings after
international child abduction to Germany over the period of
one year, while expeditious proceedings are presented to the
German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the legal matter of
"alleged coloured hair" against the free press before
the culminating point of the election campaign 2002?
Is the in the Federal Republic of Germany the alleged coloured
hair of the German chancellor a higher legal good than children?
Hereby the official demand is entered for correct publication
of the present objective facts on the history of legal policy
of Germany within the conclusive recommendation of the German
federal parliament, within a publication of the German federal
parliament BTD, within the report on the activities of the
petition committee in the year 2003 in reference to the present
petition Pet 4-14-07-301-050630.
The present, documented proceedings of the political persecution
by the district court of Wilhelmshaven and the higher regional
court of Oldenburg are to be integrated within the petition
proceedings Pet 4-14-07-301-050630.
Hereby the official complaint for integrating the existing
online documentation (web page) on the respective judicial
incident into the internet presence of the German federal
parliament is entered.
Online-Documentation:
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/crc_wd/pol_enquete_db_pet.html
Dear Mr. Wolfgang Arenhoevel,
chairman of the German Association of judges,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs at the German Association of judges,
Hereby the official demand is entered at the German association
of judges for official stances on the practised and documented
leitkultur of German family judges and on the democracy-constitutionality
philosophy of the German association of judges in the German
judicial reality.
In fact, the present questions are of crucial importance within
the socio-political and legal policy context of German history,
resulting from the documentation of the history of the present
proceedings.
Within the socio-political and legal policy context of German
history, among others the following basic questions have to
be reflected and answered:
Is the so-called "independent" German judiciary
able and interested to effect a "real independent, voluntary
self control and self monitoring" ?
Is the credo of the Nazi-jurists' ideals of "Acquittal
for their own purposes" and "There is honour among
thieves" still valid during the century following the
Nazi-terror?
Is the systematic self-acquittal for own purposes with writing
in the style of Persilscheine still en vogue in Germany?
Is the so-called "independent" German judiciary
able and interested to guarantee that all humans independent
from sex, nationality and status are equal before the law?
Is the so-called "independent" German judiciary
able and interested to act against the economic dependence
and political dependence which the Association of German judges
has described within its press releases?
Is the so-called "independent" German judiciary
able and interested to prove that within the political judicial
reality of the so-called Federal Republic of Germany, Germany
has no longer a Fuehrer and Germany is no longer a Fuehrer
state ?
Is the so-called "independent" German judiciary
able and interested to prove that the German judiciary will
not let itself get instrumentalised for the political persecution
of children rights and human rights activist?
Is the so-called "independent" German judiciary
able and interested to prove that the German authorities can
serve the humans and not that the Human Material has to serve
the German authorities?
Does the herein documented behaviour and proceedings of German
family judges correspond to the quality standard of German
judge's performance promoted by the Association of German
judges?
The usual legal delay to inform the petitioner at least about
the entry of the present document is two weeks.
Dear Mrs. Astrid Vockert, Vice president of the Parliament
of Lower Saxony,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs at the Parliament of Lower Saxony,
In the German history of international child abduction the
proceedings of judicial, social and administrative authorities
of Lower Saxony have already a fixed famous place due to their
documented low conscience of injustice and due to certain
traditional family law practices. The proceedings of authorities
of Lower Saxony in cases of international child abduction
have already provoked the intervention of the French President
Jacques Chirac and the US-President Bill Clinton.
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament
of the Land of Lower Saxony to establish an independent enquête
committee of the Parliament of the Land of Lower Saxony on
Judiciary Crimes against Humanity by the practice of German
family jurisdiction effected by judicial and social authorities
of the Land of Lower Saxony.
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament
of the Land of Lower Saxony to assist and support correctly
and effectively the district court of Wilhelmshaven in ordering
the following touring exhibitions for the delay at least of
one month to the district court of Wilhelmshaven by exhibition
exchange every six months :
a) Judiciary under National Socialism - About Crimes in the
name of the German people
b) Psychiatry within the Third Reich in Lower Saxony "War
mööt wi hier smachten - Death by starving and euthanasia
in the state hospital and nursing home/mental institution
Wehnen during the Third Reich"
c) Decision taking policy of the marine courts in Wilhelmshaven
(1939 - 1945)
d) Living and working in the branch concentration camp Neuengamme
of Wilhelmshaven
e) Criminal law proceedings of Oldenburg against foreigners
under National Socialism
f) Living conditions of foreigners as forced labour in the
City of Oldenburg during WW II
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament
of the Land of Lower Saxony to include a paragraph against
child abduction and boycott of access in the Constitution
of the Land of Lower Saxony.
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament
of the Land of Lower Saxony to pay reparations to the federal
organisation of the victims of euthanasia in accordance with
the federal law on reparations on the victims of national
socialist persecution (BEG) and to offer research budgets
with the amount of 250.000 EURO.
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament
of the Land of Lower Saxony to establish an independent enquête
committee of the Parliament of the Land of Lower Saxony on
the incidents of pseudo-patients and psychiatry victims in
the
nursing home/mental institution Wehnen.
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament
of the Land of Lower Saxony to immediately close the nursing
home/mental institution Wehnen.
Hereby the official demand is entered to publish the present
petitions and the respective conclusive recommendations in
a publication of the Parliament of the Land of Lower Saxony
as well as on the activities of the petition committee at
the Parliament of the Land of Lower Saxony.
Dear Dr. Busch, Mrs. Bakker, Mr. Wessels, Mrs. Ballnus,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs at the Justice Ministry of Lower Saxony,
In the German history of international child abduction the
proceedings of judicial, social and administrative authorities
of Lower Saxony already have a fixed famous place due to their
documented low conscience of injustice and due to certain
traditional family law practice. The proceedings of authorities
of Lower Saxony in cases of international child abduction
have already provoked the intervention of the French President
Jacques Chirac and the US-President Bill Clinton.
With reference to the complaint cycle document number 4121
E -S4. 54/03 and document number 3700 E - 204.37/03, official
demand is made to the justice Ministry of Lower Saxony in
respect of the official stance of the Justice Ministry of
Lower Saxony as to the amount of voluntary reparations payments
that the Justice Ministry of lower Saxony is prepared to recommend
to the Land of Lower Saxony to pay to the UN-Children's Rights
Commission, to UNICEF, to the Commissioner for Human Rights
at the European Parliament, project for the Protection of
Human Rights, as well as national and international NGO's
active in the field of missing, exploited, abused and abducted
children, due to the incorrect, behaviour and procedures of
judges of Lower Saxony in cases of international child abduction
and boycott of access.
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament
of the Land of Lower Saxony to assist and support correctly
and effectively the district court of Wilhelmshaven in ordering
the following touring exhibitions for the delay at least of
one month to the district court of Wilhelmshaven by exhibition
exchange six months :
a) Judiciary under National Socialism - About Crimes in
the name of the German people
b) Psychiatry within the Third Reich in Lower Saxony "War
mööt wi hier smachten - Death by starving and euthanasia
in the state hospital and nursing home/mental institution
Wehnen during the Third Reich"
c) Decision taking policy of the marine courts in Wilhelmshaven
(1939 - 1945)
d) Living and working in the branch concentration camp Neuengamme
of Wilhelmshaven
e) Criminal law proceedings of Oldenburg against foreigners
under National Socialism
f) Living conditions of foreigners as forced labour in the
City of Oldenburg during WW II
Due to the present violations of the right to a fair trial
by deliberately hindering consultation of the file during
the preparation of this appeal, hereby the official complaints
to the supervision authority are entered against director
Kahlen, the deputy director Schroeder, the family judge Straubwasser,
the family judge Hintze.
The petitioner has been prevented several times from consulting
the file during the preparation of this appeal for the second
instance, i.e., the higher regional court of Oldenburg, against
numerous request to consult the file were refused.
This includes both numerous written requests as well as the
verbal requests on 06.08.03, 07.08.03, and 08.08.03.
This concerns the following files:
16 F 931/95
16 F 298/96 J
16 F 298/96 JO Beiordner
16 F 327/96
16 F 1432/99
16 F 1432/99 Beilage
16 F 605/00UG
16 F 483/01 UG
14 UF 186/02 Band 2
14 UF 186/02 Band 3
16 F 229/03 UG
16 F 357/03 SO
4 Cs H27/00
On the 06.08.03 judge Hintze of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
was tasked to make a decision for the plaintiff to consult
the file.
Although the petitioner should be notified on the following
day, this has not occurred correctly until today.
Contrary to the official requests of the petitioner, the petitioner
has not been correctly informed by district court of Wilhelmshaven
in respect to the whereabouts of the files or to the request
return of the files by the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
After several official request and complaints, the petitioner
is only informed by the district court of Wilhelmshaven with
the following notifications:
--- Letter dated 31.07.03 16 F 229/ from German family judge
Tiarks " the file is as you know with the expert".
--- Letter dated 01.08.03 from the deputy director of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven Schröder "as part
of the justice administration it does not lie within my area
of responsibility and competence give you access to your file.
--- Letter dated 07.08.03 16 F 229/03 UG from staff member
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Frau Stift, your request
can not be granted as the file is at present still with the
expert.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven refuses to explain against
the official legal demands :
--- why all of the files mentioned above should be with the
psychologist expert
--- where exactly hasevery single file ended up within the
German judicial reality
--- why the respective files sent from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven to the psychologist expert are not ordered
to be sent back to the district court of Wilhelmshaven whereas
the psychologist expert is already officially rejected due
to the incorrect proceedings of the German family judge Staubwasser
FILE NUMBER
16 F 229/03 UG
District Court of
Wilhelmshaven
Dear President of the higher regional court of Oldenburg,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs from the higher regional court of Oldenburg,
Following the official complaint to the supervision authority
against the German family judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven due to violations of the right of a
fair trial and the violations of the right to be heard (document
of the 28.07.03 handed in on the 29.07.03 per fax and again
on the 29.07.03 in person with the entry stamp of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven) the petitioner was confronted with
a reaction of an "extraordinarily manner" by the
district of Wilhelmshaven to inform him in a way which clearly
was not in accordance with the regulations of correct legal
correspondence. See to that end the criminal charges against
employees of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, German criminal
code §267 falsifying of documents, StGB 269 falsifying
of relevant proof data, violation of procedural requirements
and irregularities in violation of the right to a fair trial.
The documents personally delivered by the so-called employee
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven on the 29 July 2003
is the document, titled decision and dated the 25.07.03 to
the present file number, with reference to the document, titled
decision and dated the 03.06.03, to the present file number,
of the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven on the regulation of access with the children
in expeditious proceedings by an interim order to bridge the
undue delay of proceedings by the ordered psychologist expert
opinion.
The decision of the German family law judge Staubwasser of
the district court of Wilhelmshaven is to be rejected because
it is unfounded and in addition, it does not follow the legal
guidelines and indications during the preparation of the decision
and as well as in the decision itself.
Due to this fact the present legal matter regarding the restoration
of contact to the children abducted to Germany is to be referred
to the Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg for it's attention
to the matter.
The higher regional court of Oldenburg has to provide remedies
to the documented incorrect working proceedings, irregularities,
and violations in family law proceedings at the district court
of Wilhelmshaven in regard to the international abduction
of children and contact with the children brought to Germany.
Reasoning
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents the following
events in the proceedings history of the present case of international
child abduction to Germany and the boycott of access in its
wake:
Short Overview:
a) Decision of 15.08.2001 document 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.
b) boycott of the court ordered contact on the 21.08.03 with
the help of third parties.
c) non-enforcement of the court order for access
d) undue delay of proceedings in child matters by the court
over a period of more than one year
e) 03.09.02 The broadcasting of the ARTE TV documentary (Theme
evening. War over children)
f) 04.09.02 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG. Court hearing at the
district court of Wilhelmshaven. After an undue delay of one
year at the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the German family
judge Staubwasser sets a delay for his decision taking, which
the German family judge Staubwasser deliberately, exceeds.
g) Decision dated 04.10.02 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 not been
enforced by the court.
h) 03.04.2003 new legal demand for access via an interim order
and four weeks of doing nothing by the German family judge
Staubwasser in child matters on access with the children against
the official demand on expeditious proceedings by an interim
order
i) 21.05.2003 FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG. Preliminary, verbal
court hearing.
j) Court order dated the 03.06.03 FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03
UG published after an official complaint to the morally and
politically responsible director of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven is entered regarding the deliberate delaying
of proceedings. Two months inactivity by judge Staubwasser
after the naming of the
psychological expert in his decision of the 03.06.03.
k) 07.07.2003 new legal demand for access by an interim order
FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG.
l) 23.07.03 amendment to the demand for access by an interim
order. Regulations have to be made in addition to the interim
demand for access by expeditious proceedings to bridge the
delay of the ordered psychological report.
m) 29.07.03 compliant to the supervision authority against
the German family judge Staubwasser due to violations of the
right to a fair trail and due to violations of the right to
be heard.
n) Decision dated the 25.07.03 FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG
only published on the 29.07.03 after the official complaint
from the 29.07.03.
The factual incorrect proceedings of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven and of the other participants in the proceedings
are substantiated explained and documented in the following
documents lodged with the district court of Wilhelmshaven
until the 25.07.2003:
--- 16 pages documentation and presentation of evidence
of the 06.06.03 petition of the 05.06.03 to the politically
and morally responsible director of the District court of
Wilhelmshaven.
--- 23 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 24.06.03: comprehensive documentation i.e., documentation
with attachment: The official recommendation for the disqualification
of the office of foreigners of the City of Wilhelmshaven from
nomination for the prize for the friendliest office for foreigners
2004 to the Alexander von Humbolt-Stiftung presented by Children
Rights International 20 June 2003.
--- 8 pages + 35 pages documentation and presentation of evidence
of the 07.07.03. " It is to be regulated via means of
an interim order in expeditious proceedings together with
the attachment "State run child abduction and alienation
programmes/manipulation of family court proceedings by the
Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt) of the 06.07.03"
--- 5 pages + 30 pages documentation and presentation of evidence
of the 27.06.03 comprehensive documentation, i.e. documentation
with attachment: State run child abduction and alienation
programmes/manipulation of family court proceedings by German
jurists/politicians by Children Rights International 27 June
2003
--- 34 pages + 45 pages + 6 pages documentation and the presentation
of evidence of the 23.07.03 comprehensive documentation that
refers to the documentation with attachment of the 22.07.03:
It is to be regulated in addition to the interim order by
expeditious proceedings to bridge the delay by the ordered
psychologist expert opinion +++ Should courts order PAS-children
to visit/reside with the alienated parent? A follow up study?
+++ information leaflet issued by the district court of Holzminden
for parents within the framework of proceedings on custody
or access for the preparation to heard by a judge
The factual incorrect proceedings of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven and of the other participants in the proceedings
are substantiated explained and documented in the following
documents lodged with the district court of Wilhelmshaven
since the 25.07.2003:
--- 7 pages documentation and presentation of evidence from
the 28.07.03. Complaint to the supervision authority against
the German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven: Violation of the right to a fair trail,
violation of the right to be heard. Rejection of the expert
psychiatrist Dr. Winterscheid of the state mental hospital
Wehnen 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 law judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
in the legal matter of international child abduction to Germany.
--- 5 pages documentation and presentation of evidence from
the 30.07.03. Criminal charges against employees of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven: German criminal code §267 falsification
of documents, §269 falsification of proof relevant data,
violation of procedural requirements and irregularities by
violating the right to fair trial.
--- 8 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 31.07.03. Criminal charges against the German family judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven: German
criminal code § 202 violation of postal secret, §
202a espionage of data, § 267 falsification of documents,
§ 269 falsification of proof relevant data, § 274
burking of documents. Indicating a document in the decision
as so-called proof material without providing the source and
origin as well as deliberate refusal of verification of the
document's by the German family judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven against official legal demands
--- 8 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 01.08.03. Criminal charges against the German family judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven: German
criminal code. § 263 deception in legal proceedings,
§ 339 misuse of authority, deliberate deception of participants
in the proceedings by deliberately re-naming participants
of proceedings participating in the court hearing from 21.05.2003
for advantaging
participants of proceedings by the German family law judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
--- 6 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 03.08.03. Criminal charges against the German family court
judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven:
German criminal code: § 153 false declaration under oath,
§ 263 deception in legal proceedings, § 339 misuse
of authority, § 269 falsification of proof relevant data,
§ 274 burking of documents, § 348 false documented
statements in office. Deliberate false declarations on the
documentation of the petitioner, the status of the file in
the legal case and deliberate burking of documents by violating
the right to fair trial by rejecting of offered evidence given
by the German family law judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven.
--- 8 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 04.08.03. Criminal charges against the German family law
judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven:
German criminal code: § 235 child abduction, § 263
deception in legal proceedings, § 339 Misuse of authority,
§ StGB 269 falsifying of proof relevant data. Deliberate
false declarations on the documented proceedings of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven in the social reality as well as in
judicially constructed reality by the German family judge
Staubwasser of the district court of in the presented case
of international child abduction to Germany and the resulting
boycott of access since 1995.
--- 9 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 05.08.03. Criminal charges against the German family law
judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
German criminal code: § 239a Erpresserischer Menschenraub,
$ 240 Coercion, § 241 threatening, § 241a political
persecution, § 263 deception in legal proceedings, §
339 misuse of authority. Deliberate coercion of the petitioner
and father of the child under violation of freedom of speech
with the intention of the German family judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, to blackmail, threat
and intimidate with the threat and coercion to prevent the
access to the children, if the petitioner and father of the
child is complaining in public and in the media about the
incorrect proceedings of German judicial and social authorities
of Wilhelmshaven in family law proceedings on international
child abduction to Germany, whereas the German family judge
Staubwasser is engaging in the political persecution of children
rights and human rights activists.
--- 8 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 05.08.03. Complaint to the supervision authority against
the German family law judge Staubwasser of the district court
in Wilhelmshaven: Violation of the right to a fair trial,
violation of the right to a hearing. Rejection of the psychologist
Markworth on the grounds of the violation of the right to
a fair trail by the German family judge Staubwasser of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven in the family law proceedings
in the case of international child abduction to Germany.
--- 9 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 06.08.03. Criminal charges against the German family law
judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven:
German criminal code: § 185 insult, § 186 deliberate
slandering, § 187 slandering. Deliberate insult, defamation
and discrediting of the petitioner and father of the child
and deliberate biased proceedings by the German family law
judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven as
intentional distraction from the incorrect proceedings of
the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
--- 8 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 07.08.03. Criminal charges against the family law judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven: German
criminal code: § 185 insult, § 186 deliberate slandering,
§ 187 slandering, § 189 deliberate insult of the
memorial of deceased. deliberate insult of the memorial of
deceased, here the foreign left behind grandfather of the
children brought to Germany in family law proceedings by the
German family law judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven in the present case of international child
abduction and the resulting boycott of access
--- 8 pages documentation and presentation of evidence of
the 07.08.03. Criminal charges against the family court judge
Staubwasser of the district court in Wilhelmshaven: German
criminal code: § 185 insult, § 186 deliberate slandering,
§ 187 slandering, $ 189. Deliberate slandering, defamation
and discrediting of the binational children participating
in the proceedings in the present case of international child
abduction and the resulting boycott of access by the German
family law judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
--- 20 pages documentation and presentation of evidence from
08.08.03. Criminal charges against the family court judge
Staubwasser of the district court in Wilhelmshaven: German
criminal code: § 83 preparation of high treason, §
86 distribution of propaganda material of organisations violating
the German constitution, § 132 pretending office titles,
§ 211 preparation and attempt of judiciary murder, §
234 Trafficking of humans, § 235 child abduction, §
239 preparation and attempt of deprivation of freedom, §
241a political persecution. Preparation of high treason and
as well as distribution of propaganda material of organisations
violating the German constitution for protection and propaganda
reasons of German crimes against humanity, while with the
pretension of office titles preparation and attempt of deprivation
of freedom and judiciary murder is effected in order to promote
the political persecution of children rights and human rights
activists while the illegal legalisation of trafficking of
humans and child abduction is used for the coercion and blackmailing
of the petitioner and father of the child in the present case
of international child abduction and the resulting boycott
of access.
Substantiated explanation :
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents the following
events in the proceedings' history of the present case of
international child abduction to Germany and the boycott of
access in its wake:
Phase I
Procedural techniques: promotion of boycott of access,
the refusal to enforce the court for access from 15.08.01
FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG, undue delay of proceedings over
a period of over a year.
Aim: The petitioner, here the foreign left behind father,
should give up and leave Germany of his own accord, when he
establishes that due to the manipulation of procedures he
has no hope of success in his case.
Result: The petitioner here the foreign left behind father,
is not impressed by the undue delay of proceedings, but engages
in accordance with the right of freedom of speech enshrined
in the German basic law to enter into hungestrike and other
public demonstrations, public relations and media reports
against international child abduction and boycott of access,
as well as against the incorrect working methods of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven and other participants in the proceedings.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven must go into the second phase to achieve
his aims.
Phase II
Procedural techniques: Arbitrary denial of access from
the 04.10 2002 FILE NUMBER 16 f 605/00 UG with prohibition
of access for a period of half a year, of access that had
not been taken place because of the boycott of access followed
by the non-enforcement of the court ordered access over a
period of over a year. Intentional defamation and discrediting
strategies against the petitioner and father of the child.
Blackmail, threats and coercion are used against the petitioner
and father of the child, so that he should renounce on criticism
against the district court of Wilhelmshaven and against other
participants in the proceedings and stop further public relations
work. Undue delay in publishing the decision.
Aim: The petitioner, here the foreign left-behind father,
must be deported from Germany, so that the German family law
judge can publish his decisions in the absence of the father
of the child. The petitioner and father of the child must
be humiliated and intimidated by means of the intentional
defamation and discrediting strategy.
Result: The plaintiff, here the foreign left-behind father,
does not allow the undue delay of proceedings to influence
him, but continues to engage in accordance with the right
of freedom of speech enshrined in the German constitution
to enter in political and legal actions against international
child abduction and boycott of access, as well as against
the discrimination of bi-national children and their left
behind environment. The plaintiff successfully counters the
attempt to have him deported from Germany. The German family
court judge Staubwasser of the lower court of Wilhelmshaven
must go into the third phase to achieve his aims.
Phase III
Procedural technique: rejection of the interim order from
03.06.2003 and from 25.07.2003 FILE NUMBER 16 f 229/03 UG
for bridging the undue delay of proceedings by the psychologist
expert opinion after the arbitrary prohibition of access for
a further period of half a year on access which never had
been taken place after boycotted access followed by the non-enforcement
of court ordered access over a period of over a year. Intentional
defamation and discrediting strategies against the petitioner
and father of the child. Blackmail, threats and coercion are
used against the petitioner and father of the child, so that
he should renounce on criticism against the district court
of Wilhelmshaven and against other participants in the proceedings
and stop further public relations work. Insult and slandering
of the father of the child branding him as being "mentally
ill". The defamation and discrediting strategy now aims
at sending the petitioner and father of the child into a psychiatric
institution with the intention of depriving him of his freedom
and of judiciary murder, to get him out of the way.
Aim: The petitioner, here the foreign left-behind father,
must be disposed of in a closed psychiatric institution, so
by effectively silencing him. As the preceding strategies
of the German family judge Staubwasser in the first and second
phases failed to achieve the intended result, that the petitioner
and father of the child would of his own accord give up and
leave Germany, and that the petitioner and father of the child
does not allow himself to be deported from Germany without
any resistance, the German family law judge Staubwasser now
attempts to have the petitioner sent to a closed psychiatric
institution to get rid of him, as the incorrect working methods
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven and of the German family
judge Staubwasser have already been reported in the public
and in the media. The coercion and blackmail strategy of the
German family judge Staubwasser against the petitioner and
father of the child are to make him renounce on his criticism
against the district court of Wilhelmshaven and against participants
in the proceedings and to refrain from further public relations
work have failed, the German family judge Staubwasser wants
to put a stop to all further publicity in this manner.
Result: The petitioner, here the foreign left-behind father,
does not allow the undue delay of procedures to influence
him, but continues to engage in accordance with his right
of freedom of speech enshrined in the German basic law and
enters in political and legal actions against international
child abduction and boycott of access, as well as against
the discrimination of bi-national children and their non-German
left-behind environment.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven takes his well deserved vacation and the
German family judge Tiarks reports on the 31.07.03 case number
16 F 229/03 UG that he does not know when the German family
law judge Staubwasser of the lower court of Wilhelmshaven
will return from his leave. The German family judge Staubwasser
is relying on the possibility that when he returns from his
leave to the district court of Wilhelmshaven, that the petitioner
and father of the child would already have been disposed of
and that the petitioner and father of the child would not
be able to make further appeal against the working methods
of the German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven. The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents
that not only the German family judge Staubwasser would be
on leave but also the files of the present case of international
child abduction would also be on leave from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven.
Legal demands to the higher regional court of Oldenburg
The document of the German family judge Staubwasser from
the district court of Wilhelmshaven with the title decision
and dated on the 25.07.2003 FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG is
neither founded nor admissible.
The document of the German family judge Staubwasser of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven with the title decision and
dated on the 03.06.2003 FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG is neither
founded nor admissible.
In respect to the invalidity and the non-legal binding of
the decisions by the German family judge Staubwasser from
the district court of Wilhelmshaven documented in the files
of the present cases of international child abduction and
the resulting boycott of access at the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
the violations of procedural requirements and irregularities
in family law proceedings at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
with violations of the right to fair trial and the right to
be heard are correctly indicated to the district court of
Wilhelmshaven (see Section 5a, 5b1, 5b2, 5c).
The opportunity has been correctly given to the German family
judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven after
the 03.06.2003 to correct his own incorrect proceedings and
to implement correctly the legal protection against the judges
within the German judicial reality.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven deliberately refuses a self-correction as
documented, although the district court of Wilhelmshaven in
its decision violates in a manner the entitlement for the
right to be heard.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven deliberately refuses as documented the legal
protection for the petitioner and father of the child, which
is enshrined in the German basic law, with the lack of control
and the lack of correction of miscarriage of justice and is
thereby deliberately contradicting the principles of constitutionality.
The German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven in it's decision violates the procedural
requirements with refusal to hear the plaintiff, undue delay
of proceedings and further documented incorrect proceedings.
The German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven proves himself that he is definitely lying,
that he is making deliberate false declarations, that he is
violating the right to be heard by refusing offered proof
material, that he is burking documents and that he his publishing
this black on white in his decisions.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven makes the assumption in the document titled
decision dated the 25.07.03, there has been no new information
or proof produced by the petitioner since the document titled
decision dated the 03.06.03.
That this statement made by the German family court judge
Staubwasser does not convey the truth is elaborately put forward
in paragraph 5b1.
To guarantee the procedural requirements that the right to
fair trial and the right to be heard can not be deliberately
refused and to prevent that the documented incorrect proceedings
of the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven are copied and duplicated by the judges of
the higher regional court of Oldenburg by refusing offered
proof material, by burking of documents, by false declarations,
etc. the following legal demands are hereby entered at the
higher regional court of Oldenburg:
The following documentation and presentation of evidence by
the petitioner is to be indicated correctly substantiated
and detailed in the decision of the higher regional court
of Oldenburg within the present legal matter.
In the decision of the higher regional court Oldenburg the
following has to respected:
A ten line summary of the content analysis of every single
page of app. 200 pages (see Section 5b1) the following documentation
and presentation of evidence by the petitioner within the
discussion of the opinion of the legal party of the petitioner
and father of the child.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven recorded as is certified in the decision
of 25.07.03 that this would only be about the "alleged
incorrect proceedings of the court and other participants"
by petitioner whereas the family court judge Staubwasser himself
engages in deliberate deception and false statements, as the
objective fact is that is not about "alleged" but
"factual incorrect proceedings of the court and other
participants", as the district court records in it's
own files.
That the statement of the German family judge Staubwasser
does not represent the truth is presented in Section 5a, 5b1,
5b2, 5c.
To guarantee the procedural requirements that the right to
a fair trial and the right to be heard can not be deliberately
refused and to prevent that the documented incorrect proceedings
of the German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven are copied and duplicated by the judges of
the higher regional court of Oldenburg by refusing offered
proof material, by burking of documents, by false declarations,
etc. the following legal demands are hereby entered at the
higher regional court of Oldenburg:
The following documentation and presentation of evidence by
the petitioner is to be indicated correctly substantiated
and detailed in the decision of the higher regional court
of Oldenburg within the present legal matter.
In the decision of the higher regional court Oldenburg the
following has to respected:
A ten line summary of the content analysis of every single
page of app. 300 pages (see Section 5a, 5b1, 5b2, 5c) the
following documentation and presentation of evidence by the
petitioner within the discussion opinion of the legal party
of the petitioner and father of the child.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven makes the assumption in the document titled
decision dated the 25.07.03, there has have been no new information
or proof produced by the petitioner since the document titled
decision dated the 03.06.03.
That the statement in the document dated the 25.07.03 of the
German family law judge Staubwasser does not convey the truth
is proven by the German family law judge Staubwasser himself
in the document dated the 25.07.03.
As the document titled decision dated the 25.07.03 drawing
attention to the document titled decision date the 03.06.03,
documents considerable new, actual circumstances in respect
to the behaviour and proceedings as well as to the style of
decision taking of the German family judge Staubwasser.
The document titled decision dated the 25.07.03 documents
the first time ever and thereby the new following phenomenon:
--- the German family law judge Staubwasser refrains after
a series of official complaints from the violations of the
freedom of speech in regard to the public relations and media
work of the petitioner and father of the child, although the
German family law judge with reference to the document of
the 03.06.03 continues with the strategy of coercion and blackmail
against the petitioner and father of the child, so that the
petitioner and father of the child to renounce on his criticism
against the incorrect proceedings of German authorities and
will refrain from it in future
--- the German family judge Staubwasser after a series of
official complaints refrains from his defamation and discrediting
strategy against the petitioner and father of the child, although
the German family law judge Staubwasser with reference to
the document of the 03.06.03 still sticks to biased "running
down" of the petitioner and father of the child
--- the German family law judge Staubwasser does not mention
a single time "the well being of the child" while
at the same time the official definition of the concept of
the term "the well-being of the child" used in the
preceding decisions is not answered against the official legal
demands
--- the German family law judge Staubwasser mentions for the
first time "the faulty procedures of the court and other
participants"
To prevent that the documented incorrect proceedings of the
German family judge Staubwasser from the district court of
Wilhelmshaven are copied and duplicated by the judges of the
higher regional court of Oldenburg, the following official
legal demand is entered at the higher regional court of Oldenburg
to indicate correctly substantiated and detailed within the
decision of the higher regional court of Oldenburg the historical,
socio-political and legal policy backgrounds of the mental
institution Landeskrankenhaus Wehnen which has been ordered
by the German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven to effect the psychological expert opinion
on PAS-children.
To guarantee the procedural requirements that the right to
a fair trial and the right to be heard can not be deliberately
refused and by deliberate disinformation, by burking of documents
and information, by false declarations, etc. the following
legal demands are hereby entered at the higher regional court
of Oldenburg to proceed as following:
A sound description covering two pages for every aspect of
the selection of the psychological expert of the Hospital
Wehnen (Landeskrankenhaus Wehnen) within the representation
of the opinion by the participant in the proceedings which
is the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven.
For this description a ten line summary of the content analysis
of every single page from section 5d2 of app. 300 pages (see
Section 5a, 5b1, 5b2, 5c) on the proceedings' history of the
present case of international child abduction to Germany and
boycott of access and the resulting boycott of access has
to be considered and integrated.
Aspect 1) participation in Crimes against Humanity during
the Nazi-Terror by the mental institution Landeskrankenhaus
Wehnen
Aspect 2) Murder of patients immediately after WW II in the
mental institution Landeskrankenhaus Wehnen
Aspect 3) Psychiatry victims and pseudo patients Landeskrankenhaus
Wehnen
Aspect 4) Refusal of the German Land of Lower Saxony and of
the City of Wilhelmshaven to pay reparations to the victims
and survivors of the mental institution Landeskrankenhauses
Wehnen
The German family judge Staubwasser from the district
court of Wilhelmshaven states within the document of 25.07.2003
"The petitioner provides his new demand mainly with legal
explanations..."
The German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven documents proves in the document of 25.07.2003
that the German family judge Staubwasser engages anew in defamation
and discrediting strategy against the petitioner and father
of the child.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven proves himself that he is definitely lying,
that he is making deliberate false declarations, that he is
violating the right to be heard by refusing offered proof
material, that he is burking documents and that he his publishing
this black on white in his decisions.
While the German family judge Staubwasser from the district
court of Wilhelmshaven is stating with false declarations
that there would be no new factual circumstances, an objective
fact and new factual circumstance is, that the German family
judge Staubwasser in the continuation of the defamation and
discrediting strategy against the petitioner and father of
the child, is now accusing the petitioner and father of the
child of backing up his argumentation with national and international
guidelines and indications against child abduction and against
boycott of access, while the German family judge Staubwasser
on the other hand, is not backing up his argumentation with
national and international guidelines and indications for
child abduction and for boycott of access.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents with the argumentation
techniques and behaviour/acting pattern of the German family
judge Staubwasser, that the German family judge Staubwasser
might think and practice against the written German basic
law, that he is deliberately misinterpreting the German basic
law and that he is not subjected to the law, but that the
German family judge Staubwasser considers himself to be "God
and Law", and therefore the German family judge Staubwasser
has neither to adhere to the written law nor to base his decision
taking on the written law.
There are no moral, ethical, political and judicial standards,
guidelines and indications for the legalisation of child abduction
and boycott of access. There are only laws, rights and conventions
against child abduction and boycott of access.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven is documenting that the
German family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
classifying his capacity of judgement and his intention of
judgement according to the dual principle and illustrates
this with formula examples black on white, e.g., "Mother
of the child = good" in contrast to "Father of the
child = bad", German = good" in contrast to "Non-German
= bad", "Child abduction and boycott of access =
good" in contrast to "Hunger strike, public demonstrations
and media presence against Child abduction and boycott of
access = bad".
To guarantee the procedural requirements that the right to
fair trial and the right to be heard can not be deliberately
refused and to prevent that the documented incorrect proceedings
of the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven are copied and duplicated by the judges of
the higher regional court of Oldenburg by refusing offered
proof material, by burking of documents, by false declarations,
etc. the following legal demands are hereby entered at the
higher regional court of Oldenburg:
The national and international guidelines and indications
against child abduction and against boycott of access within
the documentation and presentation of evidence by the petitioner
has to be indicated correctly substantiated and detailed within
the decision of the higher regional court of Oldenburg in
the present legal matter.
In the decision of the higher regional court Oldenburg the
following has to respected:
A ten line summary of the content analysis of every single
page of app. 300 pages (see Section 5a, 5b1, 5b2, 5c) of the
National and international guidelines and indications against
child abduction and against boycott of access within the documentation
and presentation of evidence by the petitioner within the
discussion of the opinion of the legal party of the petitioner
and father of the child.
The following legal matter is to be transferred back to the
district court of Wilhelmshaven :
Hereby the official legal demand is entered at the higher
regional court of Oldenburg to correctly define in a substantiated
and detailed manner the concept of the term "Well-being
of the Child" before the "Well-being of the Child"
also gets juggled through the decisions of the higher regional
court.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German
family judge Staubwasser has deliberately refused this definition
until today even against numerous official legal demands.
Whereas the district court of Wilhelmshaven has not explained
until today, if the German family judge Staubwasser is not
able to or not willing to define the "German Well-being
of the Child".
Hereby it is officially demanded that the definition of the
"Well-being of the Child" by the higher regional
court of Oldenburg is correctly presented to the district
court of Wilhelmshaven as an independent definition. This
help is required from the higher regional court of Oldenburg
to assist the district court of Wilhelmshaven in family law
policy.
Hereby the official legal demand is entered at the higher
regional court of Oldenburg to create a positive check list
for the district court of Wilhemshaven for the handling of
conflict management in boycotting of access within the decision
that is to be taken on the present legal matter:
Which one of the legally available enforcement means (fine,
imprisonment, altering of custody status) does the court intend
to apply in respect to the repeated interference of access
and the effected boycott of access up to the deliberate undermining
of court ordered access with the help of third parties in
the proceedings at the district court of Wilhelmshaven since
1995?
Which means the court intends to apply for reducing the conflict
instead of increasing the conflict between the legal parties?
Rejection of judges of the higher regional court of Oldenburg
due to bias
From the tool-set of manipulation filters applied by German
authorities the higher regional court of Oldenburg with the
judges Bartels, Kuhlmann, Dr. Schubert chooses as already
documented, for the manipulation of complaint proceedings
the specific tool of confirming and covering the incorrect
proceedings of the German family judge Staubwasser from the
district court of Wilhelmshaven by copying and duplicating
these incorrect proceedings.
The aim of these manipulation filters is to build up a wall
of silence around the political motivation by pushing away
the circulating responsibilities within the initial proceedings
as well as within the resulting complaint proceedings so that
the judiciary scandals are hidden and the incorrect proceedings
are covered.
a) Decision of 15.08.2001 document number 16 F 605/00 UG by
the German family judge Dr. Bessel of the District Court of
Wilhelmshaven ordering contact between the children and father
of the children.
b) boycott of the court ordered contact on the 21.08.03 with
the help of third parties.
c) non-enforcement of the court order for access
d) undue delay of proceedings in child matters by the court
over a period of more than one year
e) 03.09.02 The broadcasting of the ARTE TV documentary (Theme
evening. War over children)
f) 04.09.02 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG. Court hearing at the
district court of Wilhelmshaven. After undue delay of one
year at the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the German family
judge Staubwasser sets a delay for his decision taking, which
the German family judge Staubwasser deliberately, exceeds.
g) Decision dated 04.10.02 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 not been
enforced by the court.
The judges Bartels, Kuhlmann, Dr. Schubert from the higher
regional court of Oldenburg engage in deliberate careless
consultation of the file as documented in the decision of
the higher regional court of Oldenburg on this part of the
proceedings' history.
The judges Bartels, Kuhlmann, Dr. Schubert from the higher
regional court of Oldenburg thereby are responsible by deliberately
covering their German jurist colleague, i.e., the German family
judge Staubwasser from the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
for the practised and documented leitkultur at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven within the German family law policy
(see Section 5a, 5b1, 5b2, 5c).
Hereby the official legal demand is entered for rejection
of the judges Bartels, Kuhlmann, Dr. Schubert from the higher
regional court of Oldenburg due to bias.
Legal demand to refrain from the attempt of applying the
working methods of the Nazi-jurists within the present legal
matter
Hereby the official legal demand is entered to refrain
from applying the attempt of applying the working methods
with the principles "There is honour among thieves"
and "Acquittal for their own purposes" of the Nazi-jurists
within the present legal matter.
Hereby the official legal demand is entered to refrain from
the systematic self-acquittal for own purposes with writing
in the style of Persilscheine.
Legal demand for expeditious proceedings
Especially, as the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
had expeditious proceedings even against the free press in
the legal matter "coloured hair" before the culminating
point of the election campaign 2002 whereas proceedings on
child abduction, boycott of access, violation of custody,
misuse of authority, and German crimes against Humanity are
deliberately delayed and are deliberately not correctly processed.
It is supposed that the German "independent, non-political
and non-corrupt" judiciary as represented here by the
higher regional court of Oldenburg has a clear understanding
of the value of legal goods "coloured hairs vs. Children
and Humans".
Officially, Germany has no longer a Fuehrer.
Officially, Germany is no longer a Fuehrer state.
Legal demand to refrain from the attempt of inciting the
petitioner of the child to the criminal offence of child trafficking
Hereby the official legal demand is entered to refrain
from the attempt to incite the petitioner and father of the
child to acts of criminal offences in trafficking of children
and humans by intentionally generating turnover and profit
of judicial business with the incorrect proceedings by German
authorities in child abduction, boycott of access and misuse
of authority.
Legal delay
The higher regional court of Oldenburg has the usual legal
delay of two weeks to inform the petitioner about the entry
of the present document and the file number of the present
legal matter.
Documentation
The way through the German instances and legal matter are
part of the following scientific observations and evaluations:
Historical competition analysis between the Judiciary Crimes
against Humanity by Nazi-jurists and Judiciary Crimes by the
Practice of German family law jurisdiction.
Documentation series "The patrimony of Hans Litten and
Helmut Kramer"
Reporting of the judicial-scientific field research on the
situation of human rights, children rights, democracy and
separation of powers in Germany to the European Institutions
and to the United Nations.
Attachment
Decision of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG
25 July 2003
Integration into the independent special reporting to the
Children Rights Committee at the United Nations
The present proceedings are part of the voluntary, independent
special reporting to the Children Rights Committee at the
United Nations on the German state report about the non-compliance
with the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Online-Documentation:
http://www.crc-watchdog.org
The State-Run Child Abuse Machinery "Made in Germany"
http://www.crc-watchdog.org/content/reports/popup/030526_crc_germany.pdf
Michael Hickman
Voluntary Independent Special Rapporteur
on the situation of
Human Rights in Germany
to the United Nations and
to the European Institutions
|