Michael Hickman
Wilhelmshaven
Germany
Amtsgericht Wilhelmshaven
Direktor Kahlen
Stellvertretender Direktor Schröder
Rechtsantragsstelle
Marktstraße 15-17
26382 Wilhelmshaven
04421 408 117
Dr. Busch, Frau Bakker, Herr Wessels, Frau Ballnus
Justizministerium Niedersachsen
Justice ministry of Lower Saxony
Beschwerdezyklus AKTENZEICHEN 4121 E -S4. 54/03 und AKTENZEICHEN 3700 E -
204.37/03
Am Waterloo Platz 1
30169 Hannover
poststelle@mj.niedersachsen.de
Niedersäschischer Landtag
Pet-00447/08/15
Pet-05816/11/14
Landtagsverwaltung
Heinrich-Wilhelm-kopf-Platz 1
Postfach 4407
30044 Hannover
Telefax: 0511 3030 2806
vockert@vockert.de,
klaus.krumfuss@t-online.de,
info@frauke-heiligenstadt.de
The South African President
Mr. T.M. Mbeki
Office of the President
Private Bag X1000
Pretoria 0001
President@po.gov.za
The Hague Conference on Private International Law Mr. Hans van Loon, Secretary
General
Prof. William Duncan
Deputy Secretary General
Permanent Bureau of
The Hague Conference
on Private International Law
Scheveningseweg 6
2517 KT Den-Haag
The Netherlands
Wd@hcch.nl
Hvl@hcch.nl
secretariat@hcch.net
|
Marita Sehn
Anke Schwarzbäck
Petition Committee at the German Bundestag
Petitionsausschuss des deutschen Bundestages
Pet 4-14-07-301-050630
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin
marita.sehn@bundestag.de
klaus.hagemann@bundestag.de
Wolfgang Thierse
President of the German federal parliament
Präsident des Deutschen Bundestages
Personal Referent
Persönlicher Referent
Wolfram Kolodziej-Derfert
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin
wolfgang.thierse@bundestag.de
praesident@bundestag.de
South African Embassy
Friedrichstrasse 60
10117 Berlin
botschaft@suedafrika.org
Deutscher Richterbund
Vorsitzender Wolfgang Arenhövel
Kronenstr. 73/74
10117 Berlin
Wolfgang.Arenhoevel@lg-os.niedersachsen.de
frank.sta.freiburg@t-online.de
jan.grotheer@fg.justiz.hamburg.de
elmar.herrler@olg-n.bayern.de
brigitte.kamphausen@lg-duisburg.nrw.de
BettinaLeetz@web.de
August-Wilhelm.Marahrens@lg-h.niedersachsen.de
dwtapper@rz-online.de
HanspeterT@t-online.de
info@drb.de
Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Wilhelmshaven
Eberhard Menzel
Zimmer 252
Rathausplatz 1
26382 Wilhelmshaven
info@stadt.wilhelmshaven.de
Fax 04421 16 16 36
Herr Ralf Janßen, Frau Britta Kappe, Herr Hofmann
Ausländeramt Stadt Wilhelmshaven
City-Haus, Rathausplatz 10
26380 Wilhelmshaven
ralf.janssen@stadt.wilhelmshaven.de
Fax: 04421 16 41 12 67
|
|
2 September 2003
Intimidation, threathening and coercion methods by German authorities against
foreign left-bhind parents vicitmized by international child abduction to
Germany
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 are indicated as further proof
for the establishing of an independent enquête committee on the judiciary
crimes against humanity by the practice of German family law jurisdiction.
Why there are written laws in Germany, which are valid respectively invalid
for a certain population group due to sex, status, and nationality out of
political motivation ?
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 Madams, Dear Sirs, at the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
Copies to the
FILE NUMBER
16 F 229/03 UG
16 F 357/03 SO
URGENT ! PLEASE, PUT FORWARD IMMEDIATELY! DRINGEND ! BITTE
SOFORT VORLEGEN !
On the official recommendation of the legal representation Dr. Uwe Biester
the following legal matter is to be opened at the District court of Wilhelmshaven.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents the violation to the right
to a fair trial of the applicant and father in that on the 20.08.2003 three
weeks after the court decision of the 25 July 2003 the relevant documents
submitted by the legal representation of the opposing party Dr. Uwe Biester
dated the 15 July 2003 and 16 July 2003 respectively were handed over
to the applicant.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that it does not work in a
manner that is transparent or open, which would lead to the assumption that
there could be a conflict of interests between on the one hand the
official judicial independance, on the other hand Dr. Uwe Biester who holds
a position in the State Parliament which has a influence on the carriers
of Judges in the State of Lower Saxony.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the legal representation
Dr. Uwe Biester has attempted on the 16. July in the case 16
F 229/03 on page 2 has once again deliberately attempted to mislead the court,
in that he has attempted "to turn the perpetrator into the victim".
The district court of Wilhelmshaven has documented that the legal representation
Dr. Uwe Biester has made the false statement that criminal charges out of
the mother's circle and from her surrounding environment against the applicant
and father have "gone to the wind", whereas the district court of Wilhelmshaven
has documented that criminal charges based on false statements against the
applicant and children's father have been processed in the foreign father's
absence leading to a judgement, which resulted in the father having to pay
a fine where the change has to date not been refunded.
As a result of the official recommendation of Dr. Biester the following case
must be reopened at the district court of Wilhelmshaven to correctly ensure
the right to a fair trial and the right to be heard within the judicial reality
in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Proceedings' history
On 02.04.00, the foreign left-behind father Mr. Hickman phoned Mrs. Rita
Eden-Reske from the Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven to
tell her that he wanted an appointment with her as soon after he arrived
in Germany as possible to ask for her help and to regulate access with the
children. On 03.04.00, the foreign left-behind father Mr. Hickman travelled
from South Africa together with his mother to Germany, i,e, the South African
grandmother of the children abducted to Germany.
On 04.04.00, at approximately 13.30 the foreign left-behind father Mr. Hickman
arrives in Wilhelmshaven. As arranged he met on the with Jugendamt Mrs. Eden-Reske
as planned during the following days. To the meeting Mrs. Eden-Reske invited
Dieter Viering who came in his capacity as deputy director. After the meeting
Dieter Viering handed over an invitation by the police for a witness hearing
as the accused.
When the foreign left-behind father asked Dieter Viering what was in the
envelope, Mr. Viering said that he had no idea, but it would obviously be
nothing important. Mr Hickman then opened the letter and read the document
contained therein, He again asked Mr. Dieter Viering what it was about. Mr.
Viering again said that he had no idea why the police wanted to see the foreign
left-behind parent but after reading the letter said that it was not important.
When the foreign left-behind father Mr. Hickman asked why there was no address
on the letter only South Africa he answered that the police did not know
where he would be staying while in Germany. The foreign left-behind father
then asked the deputy Jugendamt director Viering how come the police knew
that he would be in Germany, and that he would be attending a meeting at
the Jugendamt. As a result of these questions the deputy director of the
Children Welfare Office of Wilhelmshaven Mr Viering became very agressive
and refused to answer Mr. Hickman's further questions. Mr. Viering abruptly
ended the meeting.
On 03.04.2000, the invitation FILE NUMBER 40451061 - 2000004396 from
the police to attend a hearing as the accused was prepared by Herr Bulla
PI Wilhelmshaven, 1 Polizeikommissariat, KED, Ebertstrasse 80. This invitation
was written on the very same day the petitioner Mr. Hickman left South Africa
together with his mother for Germany, i.e. the South African grandmother
of the children to visit the children in Germany. This invitation was written
one day after Mr Hickman phoned Germany and spoke to Mrs. Eden-Reske of the
Jugendamt to announce that he would be travelling to Germany and to make
the appointment to meet at the Jugendamt.
Herrn Michael Hickmann
03.04.03
Südafrika,
Sehr geehhrter Herr Hickmann,
zu Ihrer Vernehmung als Beschuldigter
Beleidigung
Erscheinen Sie bitte am Dienstag, 11.04.2000 um 13.00Uhr in 1 Polizeikommissariat
Zimmer 29
Bringen Sie bitte folgende Ausweispapiere/Unterlagen mit: Pass
Im Verhinderungsfalle bitte ich um rechtzeitige Mitteilung unter Angabe des
Verhinderungsgrundes. Falls Sie beabsichtigen,die Reise von einem anderen
als dem in der Anschrift genannten Ort aus anzutreten oder außerhalb
beschäftigt sind, teilen Sie dies bitte unverzüglich mit. Sollen
Sie auf Ihre Mittteilung keine Nachricht erhalten, bleibt es bei dieser Vorladung.
On 11.04.2000, the foreign left-behind father Mr. Hickman attends the invitation
by the police for a witness hearing as the accused as requested.
Police agent Bulla tells the foreign left-behind father that the charges
would have been laid against the the foreign left-behind father by the City
of Wilhelmshaven but that he would not name the person who had laid the criminal
charges.
Police agent Bulla also tells the foreign left-behind father that he would
have been charged because the foreign left-behind father would have written
letters to the press.
The objective fact is that 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 Mr. Hickman.
The foreign left-behind father informs police agent Bulla that he will personally
defend the issue. The foreign left-behind father Mr. Hickman refuses to make
any statement whatsoever to Mr. Bulla, and states that he would prepare his
case in writing once all the details are correctly provided to him.
Police agent Bulla then tells the foreign left-behind father that he was
to pay 1000 DEM to the prosecutor of Oldenburg, and if he did not do so the
foreign left-behind father would be forceably removed from Germany and would
never be allowed to return if he had been forceably deported. Police agent
Bulla made it quite clear that the foreign father would be arrested and deported
if the foreign left-behind father does not immediately produce 1000 DEM.
Police agent Bulla puts the foreign, left behind parent under pressure with
intimidation and coercion in that he would be prevented contact to the children
that had been taken to Germany.
The foreign left behind parent allows himself to be ensured by the police
agent Bulla, that via the office of the public prosecutor in Oldenburg that
he would have the opportunity to defend his case before court.
Police agent Bulla lets the foreign left behind parent sign a document for
which police agent Bulla has presented no translation, a document, which
the foreign left behind parent due to his understanding of German as a foreign
language at the time does not understand.
The foreign left behind parent in face of the threat by police agent
Bulla paid the amount demanded, because of the fear that due to non payment
that he would be deported from Germany and that he would in future not be
allowed to return to Germany to visit his children abducted to Germany.
Bank transfer slip, Sparkasse Wilhelmshaven Nr. 282 501 10, Date; 11.04.03
the transfere of DM 1000 to the account of office of the public prosecutor
Oldenburg, acc.-Nr. 106024425, Bankcode; 25050000 clientref.-Nr. AZ 323 JS
1336369/0
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
District 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.
Strangely Mr Hickman was required to deposit DM 1000 in advance of the judgement
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven's judgement, the exact amount that
was required of him to pay.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven also documents by these incidents that
court decision are predetermined somewhere else outside the court and that
the judge at the district court of Wilhelmshaven only has the function to
provide his signature to the foreign predetermined decision.
To date Mr Hickman has not been able to get a copy of the judgement made
against him in his absence.
When the South African Consul Peter Weideman after the foreign left-behind
parent had reported the matter to him in July 2001 took the matter up with
the German federal justice ministry he was informed that the left-behind
parent had signed that the court could appoint a legal representation for
the foreign left-behind parent. This means that the German federal ministry
of justice confirms that the police agent Bulla had mislead and lied to the
left-behind parent on 11.04.2000. This legal representative appointed to
represent Mr. Hickman at no time made contact to Mr. Hickman before, during
or after the court hearing. The legal representative at no time informed
Mr. Hickman of the out come of the respective court proceedings, the verdict.
or the sanction applied.
On the 29.03.01 in the letter CY/gv the Embassy of the federal republic
of Germany in Pretoria answered Mr. Hickman in the matter presented.
Sehr geehrter Herr Hickman,
"Bezüglich der Sicherheitsleistung von DM 300,00 am 25.07.1996 und DM
1.000,00 aus dem Jahre 2000 können Sie über deren Verbleib
derzeit wohl nur über das 1. Polizeikommissariat Wilhelmshaven erfahren,
wie der Stand der Dinge ist".
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Claudia Yakovenko
On the 23.04.00 the foreign left behind father wrote to the district court
of Wilhelmshaven requesting information regarding all criminal judgements
made against him as from the year 1996 to the date of writing. No answer
to this letter that is documented in the file 16 F 605/00 UG has been received
to date.
Eilt!
Amtsgericht Wilhelmshaven
26382 Wilhelmshaven
Fax +49 4421 408192
Ich verlange so schnell wie möglich voller Besonderheiten von alle Strafverfahren
gegen Michael Hickman und derend Urteilen dass vor das Amtsgericht Wilhelmshaven
seit 1996 angehört worden sind.
Ich bitte um Bestätigung und eine umgehende Antwort auf diesen Brief
per Fax.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Michael Hickman
On 20.04.01 FILE NUMBER AZ 14 AR 2/01, the higher district court of Oldenburg
informs the foreign left-behind father that judge Bessel had processed the
legal matter of criminal charges against the foreign left-behind father.
Whereas judge Bessel had been working before in the field of criminal law,
he is now the German family judges processing the family law matter of the
foreign left-behind father. The German family judge Bessel is indicating
these facts to the higher district court of Oldenburg and is asking if he
is to be rejected according to procedural requirements on grounds of bias.
The higher district court of Oldenburg then contacted the foreign left-behind
father and aks for his stance:
Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg
20.04.2001
26135 Oldenburg
Geschäftsnummer 14 AR 2/01
Herrn Michael Hickman
Torquay Avenue
Durban 4052
Südafrika
Sehr geehrter Herr Rechtsanwalt,
In der Familiensache
Hickmann gegen Hickmann
Hat der nunmehr für das verfahrenzuständige Richter am Amtsgericht
Dr. Bessel dem Oberlandesgericht die Akten gemäß § 48 ZPO
(Amtsüberprüfung der Ausschließung)
Vorgelegt und dann ausgeführt:
Ich zeige einen Umstand an, der meine Ablehnung rechtfertigen könnte.
Im Zuge meiner Tätigkeit als Strafrichter habe ich gegen den Antragsteller
im Verfahren 4 Cs H 27/00 einen Strafbefehl erlassen, da er im Zuge des familiengerichtlichen
Verfahrens Mitarbeiter des Jugendamtes der Stadt Wilhelmshaven beleidigt
hat, in dem er gegenüber einem privaten Fernsehsender äußerte,
die Art und Weise, wie er behandelt werde, erinnere ihn an die der Juden
im Nationalsozialismus und er ihre Arbeitsweise mit dem Stil der Gestapo
verglich.
Es wird Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme bis zum 8. Mai 2001 gegeben.
Hochachtungsvoll
Der Berichterstatter
Kuhlmann
The foreign left-behind father informs the higher district court of Oldenburg
that he rejects the German family judge Bessel and requests more information
from the higher district court of Oldenburg on the respective legal matter
of criminal charges against the foreign left-behind father.
The higher district court of Oldenburg rejects the rejection of judge Bessel
and does not inform the foreign left-behind father on the criminal charges
against the foreign left-behind father.
On 01.10.02 at 15.00, the foreign left-behind father informs Dr. Horst Heitland
from the Task Force International Child Matters and judge Eberhard Carl from
the German federal ministry of justice on the present legal matters at a
meeting at the justice ministry in Berlin attended by Peter Weideman and
Dagmar Ham from the South African Embassy.
On 18.07.2003, the prosecutor of Oldenburg is addressed with a request
for information concerning the status of the investigations AZ 323 Js 13369/00,
on which the prosecutor of Oldenburg answers on 25.07.2003 as follows:
25 Juli 2003
In obliger Angelegenheit wird auf Ihre Anfrage mitgeteilt, dass sämtliche
Verfahren abgeschlossen sind.
Hochachtungsvoll, Anderssohn Amtsanwältin
z.v.V. Beglaubigt Behrens Justizangestellter.
On 29.07.03 the foreign father telephones the prosecutor Anderssohn from
the prosecutor of Oldenburg and requests more information regarding the case.
Prosecutor Anderssohn states that she will answer the request for information
on the present matters and states that she will phone the foreign left-behind
father back.
On 30.07.03, prosecutor Anderssohn from the prosecutor of Oldenburg phones
Mr Hickman and informs the foreign left-behind father, that the case had
been tried and that he had been found guilty. She informed him that he had
been legally represented by what the foreign left-behind father understood
as Herr Detlefs. When the foreign left-behind father asks why he had never
been informed, prosecutor Anderssohn said that it is on file that the foreign
left-behind father would have had agreed to the arrangement. When the foreign
left-behind father asks why he had not been informed of the judgement prosecutor
Anderssohn states that Herr Detlefs would have been informed.
On the 01.08.03 when the foreign father enquires at the district court of
Wilhelmshaven as to where he could locate Herr Detlefs, he is told that there
would be no Herr Detlef working at the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
On 01.08.03, the foreign left-behind father phones prosecutor Anderssohn
to check the name of the person that allegedly played the role of the legal
representation in the present legal matters for the foreign left-behind father
at the district court of Wilhelmshaven without informing the foreign left-behind
father. Prosecutor Anderssohn then spelled out the name Rehdleff.
On 01.08.03, directly after speaking to prosecutor Anderssohn, the foreign
left-behind father phones the district court of Wilhelmshaven to check on
the name and the person Rehdleff. He is told there is only a Herr judicial
inspector (Justizinspektor) Redlefs, who would be located in Office Room
107 next door to judge Schroeder, the deputy director of the court, in Office
106.
On the 25.08.03, the foreign father approaches Herr Redlefs of the district
court in Wilhelmshaven and asks him for information on the present legal
matter. Herr Redlefs denies any knowledge of the case, and says that he would
not have been involved.
Typical Unfair trial by German authorities against foreign left-behind parents
The German history of international child abduction portrays within the Opigez
case several aspects of the state-run child abduction and alienation programs
by German authorities which are also documented within the Hickman case at
the district court of Wilhelmshaven:
Immer mehr binationale Ehen werden geschlossen - scheitern sie, nimmt der
Streit um die Kinder oft eine dramatische Entwicklung. Nicht selten entführen
Väter und Mütter ihre eigenen Kinder in ihr Heimatland - meist
eine überstürzte Reise ohne Abschied und Rückfahrtticket.
Auf einen Schlag verlieren die Kinder einen Elternteil, Freunde, Großeltern,
ihre gewohnte Umgebung. Der zurückgelassene Elternteil weiß oft
nicht einmal, wo sich die Kinder aufhalten, für ihn beginnt eine qualvolle
Zeit des Wartens und ein zermürbender Kampf mit den Behörden eines
fremden Landes.
Krieg um Kinder; Themenabend ARTE TV, NDR am 3. September 2002 ab 20.45 Uhr
In the case of the French, left-behind father Opigez like in the case of
the South African father Hickman the German Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
abuses the access contacts between children removed to Germany and the left-behind
parents in order to demoralise and humiliate children and parents.
It is intended :
--- to make the children believe that the left-behind parent would be a bad
parent
--- that the children reject as fast as possible the left-behind parent
--- that the left-behind parent in respect to the humiliation, discrimination,
and intimidation, executed with the support of the powerful state authority,
will give up to re-establish contact with the children abducted to Germany
Rückführungen werden angeordnet, aber nicht durchgesetzt, zuweilen
werden sie auch ohne Anhörung des zurückgelassenen Elternteils
mit dubiosen Kindeswohl-Begründungen ausgehebelt. In Deutschland werden
die Jugendämter eingeschaltet, die laut HKÜ gar nicht zuständig
sind. Das HKÜ, so wird stets von den Experten betont, ist kein Institut
zur Sorgerechtsentscheidung, sondern primär ein Rückführungsabkommen.
Die Kinder waren bei ihrer Entführung ein und zweieinhalb Jahre alt,
bei der "Ablehnung" des Vaters gerade vier und fünf. Das oberste Gericht
des Staates New York forderte vergeblich die Rückkehr der Kinder, der
Vater, der das volle Sorgerecht hat, die kranke Mutter, die mittlerweile
dieses Sorgerecht unterstützt, können gegen die Beschlüsse
von Jugendamt und Gerichten nichts ausrichten.
Elián ist überall, Deutschland, ein Entführungsparadies:
Viele Eltern kämpfen mit dubiosen Mitteln um ihre Kinder - Die Welt,
29.01.2000 Aber die Erfahrungen, die ich mit Ämtern und Gerichten in
der Bundesrepublik machen musste, nachdem die Ehe gescheitert war und meine
Ex-Frau mir den Umgang mit den Kindern verweigerte sind genauso wie bei Catherine
Meyer oder Joseph Cooke, deren Kinder gegen ihren Willen in Deutschland blieben.
Wir alle mussten feststellen, dass wir verloren sind, wenn wir auf die Hilfe
deutscher Gerichte vertrauen, um den Kontakt zu unseren Kindern aufrechtzuerhalten.
Der Spiegel, 05.06.2000, Sorgerecht, "Jede Art von Druck ist wichtig
Die "Washington Post" hatte über den vergeblichen Kampf des ehemaligen
GI Joseph Cooke berichtet, seine beiden Kinder wiederzubekommen, die US-Staatsbürger
sind. Die Mutter, eine Deutsche, habe die beiden im Alter von ein und zwei
Jahren zu einem Besuch nach Deutschland mitgenommen. Dort habe sie die Kinder
dem Jugendamt übergeben und sich selbst in psychiatrische Behandlung
begeben. Das Jugendamt habe eine Pflegefamilie gefunden, bei der die heute
neun und zehn Jahre alten Kinder seither lebten. Die Mutter wohne inzwischen
wieder in den USA. Nach US-Recht hat der Vater das Sorgerecht. In den USA
gibt es mittlerweile eine Initiative von dutzenden Eltern, die ähnliches
erlebt haben.
Fischer in USA wegen Sorgerechtsfall unter Druck, Freie Presse /Politik 9.5.2000
23:2
Durchschnittlich fünfeinhalb Wochen brauchen britische Richter für
ein Verfahren nach der Haager Konvention. In Deutschland dagegen brüten
Gerichte, wie Weitzel einräumt, bis zu einem Jahr über Entführungsfällen.
Dann können Kinder häufig schon deshalb nicht mehr nach Übersee
oder ins europäische Nachbarland zurückgeschickt werden, weil sie
sich bei ihrem deutschen Elternteil eingelebt haben.
Deutsche Richter und Jugendämter befragen die Kinder aus kaputten Ehen
zuerst ausgiebig nach ihren Wünschen, bevor die Gerichte entscheiden
können. "Nach deutschem Recht", begründet Christian Arns vom Bundesjustizministerium
die Langsamkeit, "steht immer das Kindeswohl im Vordergrund." Ein hehrer
Vorsatz, nur nicht leicht einzuhalten.
Bei ausländischen Experten wie dem britischen Fachmann für internationales
Familienrecht, Nigel Lowe, stößt die deutsche Interpretation der
Haager Konvention auf Unverständnis. Die Entscheidung, eine Kindesentführung
möglichst zügig zu beenden und damit die zerstrittenen Eltern daran
zu hindern, sich per Faustrecht Vorteile zu verschaffen, dürfe nicht
mit einem Sorgerechtsverfahren verwechselt werden, kritisiert der britische
Professor. Und tatsächlich heißt es in der Haager Konvention ausdrücklich,
ein Beschluss "ist nicht als Entscheidung über das Sorgerecht anzusehen".
Die gestohlenen Kinder, Eine Französin klagt, ihr deutscher Ex-Ehemann
enthalte ihr die Söhne vor, Amerikaner erzählen im Internet, ihre
früheren Ehefrauen verwehrten ihnen jeden Kontakt zu den Kindern in
Deutschland. Am Pranger stehen auch deutsche Gerichte, die Verstöße
gegen internationales Recht billigen. Der Spiegel, 01.05.2000
Als sich der Geschäftsmann auf die Rückkehr seiner Familie ins
gemeinsame Haus in New York freute, kam ein Anruf von jenseits des Atlantiks.
Seine Frau teilte ihm mit, dass sie «die Kinder in einen Zug setzen»
würde. Erst nach Tagen war Cooke in der Lage, diesen wirren Satz zu
dechiffrieren. Er bedeutete, dass Christiane sich wegen mentaler Probleme
in eine Nervenklinik hatte einweisen lassen und die gemeinsamen Kinder, ohne
sein Wissen, kurzerhand dem deutschen Jugendamt übergeben hatte.
Für den Amerikaner war klar, dass er innerhalb kürzester Zeit wieder
mit seinen Kindern, die beide in Amerika geboren und US-Staatsbürger
sind, vereint sein würde und sie zurück in die Vereinigten Staaten
nehmen könnte. Er hatte die Rechnung jedoch ohne die deutsche Justiz
gemacht. Sehr zur Verwunderung von Cooke hatten die deutschen Jugendbehörden
Danny und Michelle, ohne ihn jemals zu kontaktieren,einer Pflegefamilie übergeben.
Kinder plötzlich wichtiger als Raketenabwehr, Bei seinem Besuch in den
USA wird Außenminister Joschka Fischer von scharfer Kritik an deutschen
Sorgerechtsentscheidungen überrascht, Berliner Morgenpost, 10.05.2000
Darunter ist auch der gravierendste Fall des Amerikaners Joseph Cooke, dessen
deutsche Frau die beiden gemeinsamen Kinder 1992 nach Deutschland entführt
und dort dem Jugendamt übergeben hatte, nachdem sie wegen Depression
in eine psychiatrische Anstalt eingeliefert worden war. Weder das Jugendamt
noch die deutschen Gerichte benachrichtigten den leiblichen Vater. Sie steckten
die Kinder in eine Pflegefamilie, wo sie heute noch leben. Joseph Cooke kämpft
seither vergebens um die Rückführung seiner Kinder in die USA.
Berliner Morgenpost, 25.05.2000, US-Parlament prangert Kindesentführungen
an, Resolution gegen Deutschland verabschiedet
That's right, stolen. Hundreds of children have been kidnapped by their German
parents and taken back to Germany. Their non-German parents have no access
to them and in some cases no visitation rights--nothing. The German courts
maintain that they are better off in Germany, being raised by Germans.
Bring the Stolen Children Home, Washington Post, 25.05.2000
Diese Entscheidung ist zuerst eine Hilfe in der Not. Sie ist acht Jahre später
ein Aktenstapel, in dem fünf gerichtliche Entscheidungen, Beschwerdeschriften,
Gutachten und Anträge liegen. Es wird eine lange Geschichte, in der
ein Vater um seine Kinder kämpft.
Im Oktober 1992 stellt das Jugendamt den Antrag, die elterliche Sorge allein
auf die Mutter zu übertragen.
Das Jugendamt hört den Vater nicht an. Es informiert ihn nicht, dass
seine Kinder in Pflegschaft gegeben werden. Die Adresse des Vaters sei nicht
auffindbar gewesen, heißt es noch heute im Amt. Aber auf dem Deckblatt
von Christiane Cookes Scheidungsantrag an das Familiengericht Tuttlingen
steht Joseph Cookes New-Yorker Anschrift. Man hätte sich
verständigen können in den Behörden der Kleinstadt.
Ab hier läuft der Zug auf der falschen Schiene. Denn Jugendamt und Pflegefamilie
halten nichts von einem Vater, der sich elf Monate nicht meldet. Der Vater
wiederum weiß nicht, wo seine Kinder sind.
Das Jugendamt Tuttlingen beantragt im Juni 1993 beim Einwohnermeldeamt, eine
Auskunftssperre über die Kinder zu erlassen und begründet das mit
der Furcht, der Vater könnte die Kinder entführen wollen. Die Auskunftssperre
wird im Juli genehmigt. Der Vater hat jetzt keine Chance mehr, die Kinder
auf dem offiziellen Weg zu finden.
Berliner Zeitung, 27.05.2000, Der fremde Vater
Aufsehen erregte besonders der Fall Cooke: Ämter und Gerichte in Baden-Württemberg
hatten Sohn und Tochter des Amerikaners zu Pflegeeltern gegeben, weil die
mit ihnen nach Deutschland gereiste Mutter sich mit Depressionen in Behandlung
begeben wollte. Der ahnungslose Vater in den USA wurde nicht eingeschaltet.
Erfolglos klagte Joseph Cooke anschließ end, um Sohn und Tochter von
den Pflegeeltern zurückzubekommen.
Verloren vor Gericht, Für entführte Kinder aus binationalen Ehen
gibt es das Haager Abkommen - über das sich die deutsche Justiz oft
hinwegsetzt, Der Spiegel, 05.06.2000
Parents in America and other countries also complain that Germany, more than
any other western democracy, has failed hundreds of times to abide by international
conventions ensuring the swift return of children abducted by a disgruntled
parent.
French President Jacques Chirac spoke this year of Germany applying "the
law of the jungle" in custody cases and has twice called on Herr Schroeder
to personally find a more equitable solution.
Clinton joins child access fight, This is London, 01.06.2000
Schroeder, himself three times divorced and earlier a lawyer who handled
custody cases, admitted that the German authorities had made mistakes in
the controversial case of the two children of New Yorker Joseph Cooke.
Germany's Schroeder defends child custody rulings, Reuters, 01.06.2000
Am wenigsten wird der sorglose Umgang deutscher Gerichte und Jugendämter
mit dem Umgangsboykott des sorgeberechtigten Elterteils weiter hingenommen
werden können. Dass Joseph Cooke seine Kinder überhaupt nicht sehen
darf, ist eine Verhöhnung des Opfers. Die Entführer werden belohnt,
die Opfer-Eltern werden mit dem Entzug sämtlicher Rechte an ihren Kindern
bestraft.
Verhöhnung der Opfer, Wie die deutsche Justiz ausländische Elternteile
ausgrenzt, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 02.06.2000
Aus den Praxen der Therapeuten ist bestens bekannt, dass die Suche nach verlorenen
Eltern nie aufhört. Sollen die Kinder von Joseph Cooke oder Catherine
Laylle wirklich warten, bis sie als Erwachsene auf der Couch liegen, um ihre
Entbehrung zu verarbeiten? Müssen Jugendämter, Familienrichter
und Pflegefamilien nicht vielmehr angehalten werden, die psychischen Langzeitfolgen
ihres Tuns zu bedenken lernen, als forsch und unerbittlich die Kurzzeitfolgen
einer Wiederbegegnung mit dem verlorenen Elternteil als schädlich einzustufen?
Das Haager Abkommen zur Kindesentführung hat den Rahmen geschaffen,
der das Faustrecht bei Elterntrennung unmöglich machen sollte.
Das Problem ist bekannt, die deutschen Defizite auch, Dokumentationen liegen
längst vor. Für die Kinder von Joseph Cooke, die im zarten Alter
von ein und zwei Jahren entführt wurden, wird sich durch die Arbeitsgruppe,
so sie sich denn irgendwann konstituiert, gar nichts ändern. Die Umgangssperre,
die Pflegeeltern, Jugendamt und Familienrichter über den beraubten Vater
verhängt haben, wird nicht aufgehoben werden. Es wird nach den sieben
Jahren ein weiteres Jahr verstreichen, in dem die Kinder ihren Vater nicht
kennen lernen können, und am Ende wird es von jugendamtlicher deutscher
Seite heißen: Die Kinder kennen ihren Vater nicht, sie wollen nicht
zu ihm, die Begegnung ist psychisch nicht zu verkraften. Die Verhöhnung
der Opferväter und -mütter mit immer denselben Vereitelungsritualen
mutet wie ein ausgeklügeltes Catch-22 an: Ämter und Gerichte lassen
Zeit verstreichen, die dann flugs zur Begründung für den Psychoschock
durch den unbekannten Vater herangezogen wird.
Was Kinder brauchen, Das Trauma der Vaterentbehrung sollte in Deutschland
ernster genommen werden – Debatte, Die Welt, 08.06.2000
In 1992, during what was supposed to be a two-week vacation, Cooke's German-born
wife, who was suffering from depression, checked herself into a mental health
clinic and turned the children over to the German Youth Authority. Although
the children - Daniel, 3, and Michelle, 1 - were American citizens, Cooke
was not contacted when they were placed with a foster family in a small town
in southern Germany.
Under the Hague treaty on child abduction, children are to be returned to
their country of "habitual residence" for custody decisions except in extreme
circumstances. But a German court ruled in 1995 that the children had bonded
with the foster family and would suffer "severe psychological loss" if separated
from them. An appeals court concurred, saying that if returned to the United
States, the children would suffer "language shock."
Germany Aids U.S. Father, Federal Officials Intervene in Custody Flap, Washington
Post, 27.07.2000
Wer die Akten zu diesem Fall liest, kann tatsächlich zu dem Urteil kommen,
dass von deutschen Behörden am Anfang – also zu Beginn der 90er-Jahre
- Fehler gemacht wurden. Als die Mutter nach Deutschland kam und die Kinder
einer Pflegefamilie übergab, wurde durch das Jugendamt offensichtlich
nicht nach dem leiblichen Vater geforscht - obwohl er in den USA leicht aufzufinden
gewesen wäre.
Joseph Cooke, der amerikanische Vater zweier nach Deutschland entführter
Kinder, wusste lange nicht, wo seine Kinder überhaupt stecken. Als er
sie endlich in einer Pflegefamilie aufgespürt hatte, war es zu spät.
Die Pflegeeltern hatten plötzlich mehr Rechte als der eigene Vater,
weil die kleinen Kinder sich so schön an sie gewöhnt hatten. Das
Jugendamt forschte vor der Platzierung des Kindes in der Pflegefamilie erst
gar nicht nach dem anderen Elternteil. Und dann musste der ausgegrenzte Vater
auch noch unter strenger Psycho-Beobachtung in Deutschland seine Tauglichkeit
als Vater unter Beweis stellen - was ihm nicht gelang.
Berliner Zeitung, 02.06.2000, Sorgerecht, "Wir kämpfen für das
Wohl der Kinder"
A German social worker who urged Patricia Cooke to cancel her visit warned
in writing that, "if you persist in making contact at the end of June, you
are advised that the Youth Agency views it strictly necessary that the visit
not take place in the foster home, but on neutral territory and accompanied
by a psychological professional."
Cooke responded that she did not understand the need for a psychologist to
be present.
"I would like to do the normal things a grandmother does, like take them
for ice cream," she said.
The next letter informed her of the reduced hours and gave her the address
of the psychologist who would oversee the visit. The letter appeared to suggest
that future visits would be dependent on her behavior.
22.06.2000, U.S. Family Is Dealt a Blow, Washington Post
In the Cooke case, she complained that the U.S. government wasn't notified
when Cooke's children were placed in foster care, argued that they shouldn't
have been given to foster parents when a competent parent wanted them, and
protested the role of the Youth Authority in denying access to the Cookes.
Six months ago, a German judge took away his visitation rights, which had
never been enforced. The judge said the children were alienated from him
so it was in their best interests not to see him again.
Meanwhile, Mr. Cooke has been permitted to see his children again, albeit
only for two hours, in the company of a psychologist and an interpreter in
Germany. The grandmother's already paltry visitation rights, however, have
been cut in half by the local youth services agency.
Recently the Youth Authority, angry that his case has been widely publicized,
retaliated against Cooke's mother, Patricia, telling her that her right to
visit the children for six hours at a time had been reduced to two hours.
Future visits, the authority hinted, would depend on her behavior.
She said Youth Authority officials put the blame on her, saying the children
were aware of the publicity she has given to the case and were traumatized
by it.
At war over stolen kids, Chicago Tribune, 08.07.2000
Clinton raised the custody issue with Schroeder last year after an article
in The Washington Post detailed several cases in which children were illegally
taken to Germany from their homes in the United States by one parent and
then not allowed contact with the American parent. Despite the Hague Convention,
German courts had refused to return the children or enforce visitation orders.
Despite numerous attempts by his attorney to set up other meetings, no more
are scheduled."Right now, I'm back to where I was before," Cooke said. "This
is crazy." Shortly after the January visit, the psychologist assigned by
the local social services agency to mediate the reunion advised Cooke that,
in conversations with Daniel and Michelle, he should refer to their foster
parents as "your parents."
Children Still Beyond Reach, Germany Falls Short in Custody Disputes, Washington
Post, June 13, 2001
It is not without cause that Youth Welfare Offices in Germany are discredited
as "kidnapping-offices" or "mother-offices". And not without cause did the
French President Jacques Chirac call German family law "the law of the jungle".
Divorce and Separation in Germany : Causes and Consequences; Endeavour of
explanation;
Presentation by Karin Jaeckel, Dr. Phil.; Washington, D.C., June 7-9, 2001
Die unendliche Dauer gerade von Umgangsregelungen ist in sich schon ein Gesetzesverstoß.
Gerade bei jungen Kindern ist Zeit der alles entscheidende Faktor. Bei Elián
erschienen sechs Monate schon unerträglich lange. Der amerikanische
Vater Joseph Cooke kämpft indessen schon seit neun Jahren mit deutschen
Gerichten darum, seine nach Deutschland verbrachten Kinder zu sehen. Dass
er für die in seiner Heimat das Sorgerecht hat, hat die Ämter hier
wenig gekümmert. Denn auch hier hatte die deutsche Justiz im Verein
mit dem Jugendamt Vaterschaft als entbehrlich eingestuft.
Sehnsucht nach Samuel, Väter und Mütter, die ihre vom Partner nach
Deutschland entführten Kinder oft jahrelang nicht sehen konnten, protestieren
in Berlin gegen deutsche Ämter und Gerichte.Der Spiegel, 06.08.2001
The German history of international child abduction portrays within the Cooke
case several aspects of the state-run child abduction and alienation programs
by German authorities which are also documented within the Hickman case at
the district court of Wilhelmshaven:
--- involvement of the German Children welfare office in German family law
proceedings for the legalization of child abduction and boycott of access
--- deliberate undue delay of court proceedings to enforce the alienation
cycles (cultural and parental) on the abducted and access boycotted children
--- non-enforcement of court orders for return or access with the children
--- cultural discrimination and gender discrimination against the left-behind
parents
--- retaliation measures by German authorities if left-behind parents and
left-behind environments criticize in public and in the media about the incorrect
proceedings of German authorities
As documented and proven, the Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt) of Wilhelmshaven
in the Hickman case 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.
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 of one year and after the non-enforcement of court ordered
access for the period of 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 made 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
has been 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 should under
normally circumstances 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
decides then :
---After deliberate refusal to proceed and undue delay of a 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.
The 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 documents the arbitrary denial of access on access, which
has not taken place over the period of one year, whereas the court ordered
access has deliberately not been enforced by the court.
Mr. Hickman is forbidden 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 to the children
abducted to Germany and to hold 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 direct revenge and retaliation on the foreign left-behind
environment, if they bring to the public eye and report in the media on the
incorrect proceedings of German authorities.
In accordance with the widely spread German logic and attitude towards the
principle of freedom of speech, the German judge as in Wilhelmshaven naturally
decides that no one has the right to dare to criticise the proceedings of
German authorities in public and certainly not in the media.
The behaviour and strategy of the German Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
and the German family court in the Hickman case are parallel to the Cooke
case.
Wie die Zeitung berichtete, wurde einer Großmutter das Besuchsrecht
für ihre beiden in Deutschland lebenden Enkel gekürzt. Dies sei
offenbar eine "Strafe", weil sie sich an die Medien gewandt habe, schrieb
das Blatt und zitierte einen Sprecher des Außenministeriums in Washington:
Eine "schreckliche und absurde" Entscheidung. Weil sie, so die Zeitung, in
den Medien zum Schaden der Kinder einen Aufruhr ausgelöst habe, sei
sie aufgefordert worden, ihren geplanten Besuch abzusagen. Schließlich
sei ihr ein um zwei Stunden gekürzter Besuch gestattet worden.
Allerdings nur mit einem Psychologen. Die Kinder waren von ihrer deutschen
Mutter zu vermeintlichen Ferien mit nach Deutschland genommen worden.
Südkurier, 23.06.2000; Washington rügt Gericht, Zeitung: US-Großmutter
im Adoptionsstreit gestraft; Washington/Konstanz (dpa/sk) Im Sorgerechtsstreit
um deutsch-amerikanische Kinder hat das US-Außenministerium nach einem
Bericht der "Washington Post" die Jugendbehörden in Tuttlingen scharf
kritisiert.
Using methods borrowed from the middle ages inquisition scenario of pseudo
proceedings, the abducted and withheld children and access to them is abused.
The children are held hostage to force the victims of incorrect proceedings
by German authorities to renounce on their criticism against the German authorities
and against the German family law policy being practiced, as well as in order
making them refrain from further criticism in future.
Witnesses who are to be heard for the present legal matter
Hereby the official legal demand is made to the district court of Wilhelmshaven
to hear the following witnesses both in writing and in word.
---Rita Eden-Reske, social worker of the Jugendamt of the City of Wilhelmshaven
---Dieter Viering, the deputy director of the Jugendamt of the City of Wilhelmshaven
---Klaus Jürjens, director of the Jugendamt of the City of Wilhelmshaven
---Mayor Eberhard Menzel responsible for the Children Welfare Office, in
accordance with the District Government in Hannover file number 407c-51020/2-32
"the professional responsibility lies exclusively with the City", "ultimately
the Mayor".
--- Police agent Bulla PI Wilhelmshaven, 1 Polizeikommissariat
--- Mr. Redlefs from the district court in Wilhelmshaven
---Peter Weidemann, from the South African Embassy
Official legal demands:
Hereby the official request is repeated to deliver a copy of the judgement
against Mr. Hickman by judge Bessel in the case 4 Cs H 27/00 Hereby
the official demand to the district court of Wilhelmshaven is entered to
open criminal charges against the City of Wilhelmshaven, here the Children
Welfare Office (Jugendamt) and the responsible mayor Eberhard Menzel.
Hereby the official demand to the district court of Wilhelmshaven is entered
to request that the case file be returned to the district court of Wilhelmshaven
for the applicant to have access to the file and to send him copies of all
documents relevant for decision taking in accordance with his right to a
fair trial.
Further proof and reference material
Further presentation of facts on the behaviour and proceedings of the responsbile
Mayor Eberhard Menzel will be handed in after informing about the respective
file number of the present legal matter.
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 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 district court of Wilhelmshaven has
a clear understanding of the value of legal goods "coloured hairs vs. Children
and Humans".
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 district court of Wilhelmshaven 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.
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
g) Activities of the main denazification committee for the region of Oldenburg
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 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 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.
Protection against deportation from Germany of foreign left-behind parents
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament of the Land of
Lower Saxony to correctly guarantee the residence status for the foreign
left-behind parent in Germany in order to guarantee his right to a fair trial
and the right to be heard within the judicial reality of the Federal Republic
of Germany.
In the case presented of international child abduction to Germany the administrative
authority, in this case the immigration office (Ausländerbehörde)
of the City of Wilhelmshaven under the authority of the mayor Eberhard Menzel
as documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven has repeatedly attempted
to influence judicial proceedings and political initiatives against child
abduction and boycott of access with the threat of deportation of the foreign
left-behind parent.
Hereby the official demand is entered, to refrain from the attempt to deport
the left behind parent from Germany.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven does not document openly and with transparency,
if possibly and under circumstances there exists a kind of collision of interests
between on the one hand, the official independence of judges and on the other
hand, the objective fact that the legal representation Dr. Uwe Biester with
the attorney Dr. Uwe Biester occupies a political/judicial position at the
ministry of justice with the government of Lower Saxony and has thereby at
the judiciary evaluation office (Justizprüfungsamt) influence on judicial
carreers in Lower Saxony.
Until today it has not been correctly clarified in how far the socio-political
status of the attorney Dr. Uwe Biester can under circumstances have an influence
on proceedings at German judicial authorities like at the district court
of Wilhelmshaven in which the legal representation Dr. Uwe Biester participates.
The objective fact is that within the present proceedings at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven on international child abduction to Germany and the
resulting boycott of access, in which the legal representation of Dr. Uwe
Biester is involved, irregularities in procedural requirements occur as repeatedly
documented. Like the undue delay of proceedings and the non-enforcement of
court ordered access.
In addition to a political/judicial position at the with the government of
Lower Saxony on the regional level, the attorney Dr. Uwe Biester also occupies
at the city council of Wilhelmshaven on the local level.
Until today it has not been correctly clarified in how far the socio-political
status of the attorney and member of the city council Dr. Uwe Biester can
under circumstances have an influence on proceedings at German social and
administrative authorities like at the Children Welfare Office of Wilhelmshaven
and at the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven, which are involved in family
law proceedings at the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
The objective fact is that within the present proceedings at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven on international child abduction to Germany and the
resulting boycott of access, in which the Children Welfare Office of Wilhelmshaven
and the immigration office of Wilhelmshaven are involved, irregularities
in procedural requirements occur as repeatedly documented. Like the attempt
to deport the foreign left-behind parent from Germany before the decision
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven on the arbitrary denial of access
is published on access which never has taken place before because the court
ordered access has deliberately not been enforced over the preceding deliberate
undue delay of proceedings for the period of one year.
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament of the Land of
Lower Saxony to dismiss the attorney Dr. Uwe Biester immediately from his
political offices at the government 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
g) Activities of the main denazification committee for the region of Oldenburg
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 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 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 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 Mr. Eberhard Menzel, mayor of Wilhelmshaven, Mr.
Ralf Janssen, Ms. Britta Kappe, Mr. Hofmann from the immigration office of
Wilhelmshaven,
Hereby the official demand is entered to correctly guarantee the residence
status for the foreign left-behind parent in Germany in order to guarantee
his right to a fair trial and the right to be heard within the judicial reality
of the Federal Republic of Germany.
In the case presented of international child abduction to Germany the administrative
authority, in this case the immigration office (Ausländerbehörde)
of the City of Wilhelmshaven under the authority of the mayor Eberhard Menzel
as documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven has repeatedly attempted
to influence judicial proceedings and political initiatives against child
abduction and boycott of access with the threat of deportation of the foreign
left-behind parent.
Hereby the official demand is entered, to refrain from the attempt to deport
the left behind parent from Germany.
Hereby the official demand to the City of Wilhelmshaven to support the exhibition
"Wilhelmshaven for humaneness and for human rights" by means of a subsidary
budget.
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
g) Activities of the main denazification committee for the region of Oldenburg
Dear Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
Dear Mr. Schroeder, deputy director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
As the moral and political director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
you are certainly interested in a praiseworthy manner to prove that you personally
have broken with the fatal continuity of the working methods of the Nazi-Jurists
in the judicial reality of the Federal Republic of Germany.
The self-acquittal of the Judiciary is an incident with many participants,
which links the history of the federal republic to the history of the Third
Reich.
The Post of Gdansk
History of a German Judicial Murder
It is documented, that the main denazification committee of the district
of Oldenburg promoted among others on 22.2.1949 the career of the Nazi-Jurist
Dr. Bode within the Federal Republic of Germany, who had taken part in the
judicial murder of Gdansk.
Your sincere and honorable legal policy mentality and your action pattern
of responsible German jurists has to be definetely supported.
Hereby the official demand is entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
to open a memorial at the entrance to the district court of Wilhelmshaven
that names the Nazi-Jurists who were active in Hitler's regime who later
made careers in the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular in the region
of Wilhelmshaven and Oldenburg
Your personal stance of moral courage is welcomed to distance yourself in
public from, what has been documented by world history on the German terror
judiciary. Certainly, you are aware in your daily business how easily the
German judiciary is to be abused as an instrument of terror with manipulation
of files and proceedings to match politically predetermined court decisions.
Your sincere approach as German jurists to learn your lessons from that for
your legal policy interpretations and your legal policy practicising within
the German Federal Republic of Germany is definetly welcomed.
It is to be assumed, that you personally as decent, respectable Germans,
additionally as German jurists in political offices, will have no problems
at all with facing and coming to terms with the past of the German judicial
history and that you correctly and with good will, transparency and honest
enlightenment and clarification of facts stand up as a trend-setting good
example for humanity, human rights and democracy within the judicial reality
of the German Federal Republic of Germany.
Your sincere and honorable legal policy mentality and your action pattern
of responsible German jurists has to be definetely supported.
Hereby the official demand is entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
to order 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
g) Activities of the main denazification committee for the region of Oldenburg
Respectfully
Hochachtungsvoll
Michael Hickman
Voluntary Independent Special Rapporteur
on the situation of
Human Rights in Germany
to the United Nations and
to the European Institutions
|
Related Subject Matter:
|
|