|
23 September 2003
Complaint on the inactivity of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
to the higher regional court of Oldenburg in the case 16 F
229/03 UG of international child abduction to Germany and
resulting boycott of access against 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 of an independent enquête
committee on the judiciary crimes against humanity by the
practice of German family law jurisdiction.
1) Why proceedings in child matters are refused, delayed,
and manipulated, e.g., at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
and at the higher regional court of Oldenburg on child abduction
and boycott of access, 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
?
2) Why are there written laws in Germany, which are valid
respectively invalid for a certain population group due to
sex, status, and nationality out of political motivation?
FILE NUMBER
16 F 229/03 UG
District Court of
Wilhelmshaven
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs from the higher regional court of
Oldenburg,
Hereby the legal demand is made in the following inactivity
complaint:
In the case concerned the inactivity complaint to the higher
regional court of Oldenburg against the district court of
Wilhelmshaven and the family court judge Staubwasser is admissible
in conformance with the opening statement, in that it concerns
an extreme exceptional case delay which lies well beyond what
one can describe as being normal, as documented by the district
court of Wilhelmshaven.
In arguments over the access of a parent with his/her child
the claim for the granting of effective legal protection has
special importance. As every delay of proceedings leads to
legal disadvantage to the parent in question - the parent
can not effect his access rights, which are fixed within the
final decision but is not allowed to be excluded in advance.
Delay leads to further estrangement, which increases the danger,
that the access in conformance with the German civil code
§ 1684 paragraph 4 S 1 will be restricted or even denied.
Therefore for an inactivity complaint in litigation over access
is not only admissible if an unjustifiable standstill of proceedings
is reached which results in a denial of legal protection (
higher regional court Saarbrücken, OLGR 1999,179) or
if the inactivity of the court is based on arbitrary behaviour
which complies with the act of denying of legal recourse (
Federal court of Law NJW-RR1995,887; Decision of the senate
of the 24 July 2001 - 16 WF 78/01 - Not published.) but already
then when a delay is alleged, which will lead to a loss of
legal rights ( Federal constitutional court, Family rights
magazine 2001,753) This is definitely the case here.
Where threatened as here by an actual and note worthy loss
of legal rights the
appeal court approached with the inactivity complaint, i.e.,
in this case the higher regional court of Oldenburg has to
take measures, which guarantee effective legal protection
the complainant at least in the future.
The constitutional principle requires in the interest of legal
security that controversial legal situations be solved in
reasonable time. In legal matters concerning children the
time span of the procedures requires special sensibility as
there is the danger that a de facto predetermining of the
outcome could occur. In access right proceedings every delay
leads to a de facto exclusion of access, besides facts will
be created, which could have an effect on the out come of
the proceedings (BverfG 66/00).
Hereby the official legal application is made to the higher
regional court of Oldenburg, to ensure that the district court
of Wilhelmshaven proceeds in a manner in conformance which
can be described as being oriented in the best interest of
the child, in that family court proceedings are to be expedited.
proceedings' history
The district court of Wilhelmshaven and the higher regional
court of Oldenburg both document the following case history
and objective content in the current case of international
child abduction to Germany and the resulting boycott of access
Prelude
The objective situation and the social reality in the case
study presented is that the German mother together with the
German grandmother took the children born and raised abroad
to Germany in 1996.
In summer 2001 an international hunger strike takes place
in Berlin during which dedicated grandparents and parents
protest against the proceedings and working methods of German
authorities in child abduction and boycott of access. The
conscience of the public eye is promoted for these problems
by means of national and international media reports. The
South African father Michael Hickman is the first of the hunger
strikers, who has a court hearing on his family matter after
the international Berlin hunger strike 2001 (compare international
media coverage).
Phase I
--- Decision of 15.08.2001 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG by the
German family judge Dr. Bessel of the District Court of Wilhelmshaven
ordered contact between the children and father of the children.
--- boycott of the court ordered contact on the 21.08.01 with
the help of third parties.
-- non-enforcement of the court order for access
--- undue delay of proceedings in child matters by the court
over a period of more than one year
--- 03.09.2002 The broadcasting of the ARTE TV documentary
(Theme evening. War over children)
--- The director of the Children Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
of Wilhelmshaven Klaus Jürjens admits wrongdoing of the
Children Welfare Office.
--- The German family judge Bessel admits during an Interview
difficulties within family law proceedings.
--- 04.09.2002 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG. Court hearing at
the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
--- The German family judge Staubwasser refuses to order the
deputy director of the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
of Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering to leave the court hearing
and thereby works together with a staff member of the Children's
Welfare Office against whom criminal proceedings and complaints
to the supervision authority are being processed.
--- The deputy director of the Children's Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
of Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering recommends two years of exclusion
from access.
--- After an undue delay of one year at the district court
of Wilhelmshaven, the German family judge Staubwasser sets
a delay of one month for his decision taking, which the German
family judge Staubwasser deliberately exceeds.
--- Decision dated 04.10.2002 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG of
the German family law judge Staubwasser, which is only published
after official complaints against undue delay.
--- Arbitrary denial of access on access, which has not taken
place over the period of one year, whereas the court ordered
access has deliberately not been enforced by the court.
Phase II
--- 03.04.2003 an application to court for an urgent interim
order to regulate access is made immediately on expiry of
the arbitrary half year court ordered exclusion of access
in phase one and the preceding arbitrary boycott of and refusal
to enforce access for one year during phase 1.
--- 09.04.2003 the German family judge, judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven set a deadline of 10
days file number 16 F 229/03 UG to the legal representation
of the children's mother, the legal representation of Dr.
Uwe Biester, represented by attorney Lange, for comment on
the submission of the father.
--- The legal representation of Dr. Uwe Biester, represented
by attorney Lange deliberately ignored the deadline set by
the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
--- 06.052003 an official complaint is entered at the court
regarding the delay in the processing of the urgent interim
order in the case of legal matters to regulate access to children.
--- Consequently the district court of Wilhelmshaven informs
the applicant and children's father of the position taken
by the legal representation of Dr. Uwe Biester, represented
by attorney Heiko Lange dated the 06.05.03, which again presents
the previously documented defamation and discrediting strategy
against the foreign father.
--- 21.05.2003 File number 16 F229/03 UG interim, court appearance
in the access matter.
--- The German family judge, judge Staubwasser works once
again together with the acting department head of the office
of child matters ( Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering,
against whom both criminal charges have been laid and against
whom an official enquiry are in progress.
--- The German family judge, judge Staubwasser informed the
representative of the South African Embassy who was to invited
to attend the court hearing as an observer, that it was only
a preliminary hearing not requiring their presence and that
a representative of the South African Embassy need only attend
the main hearing.
--- Decision date the 03.06.2003 file number 16 F 229/03 UG
which was published after official complaint had been made
to the morally and politically responsible director of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen due to the delay
of proceedings and incorrect working methods employed.
--- The application to grant access via urgent interim order
is rejected. The German family court judge Staubwasser thereby
contradicted himself, in that he himself in his decision of
04.10.03 in respect of the hearing of the 04.09.02 indicated
that an exclusion of access for more than half a year would
be harmful to the well being of the children.
--- Whereas the acting department head of the children welfare
office ( Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven Dieter Viering earlier in
phase 1 in revenge because the foreign left behind father
made public the incorrect working methods of the children
welfare office (Jugendamt) demanded that he have no contact
to his children for a period of two years. Now the family
court judge Staubwasser declares in his decision that the
acting department head of the children welfare office (Jugendamt)
wishes not to make a statement. The family court judge Staubwasser
deliberately does not mention in his decision, how come the
children welfare office (Jugendamt), that presents its self
and it's actions as in the best interest of the child, suddenly
has nothing to say and refuses to make a recommendation, report
or give an opinion.
--- The expert Dr. Winterscheid from the state hospital Wehnen
is tasked to make a psychological appraisal and report. Two
months of inactivity on the part of the family court judge
Staubwasser follow after the naming of the expert in the decision
of the 03.06.03.
--- Whereas the court hearing of the 21.05.03 was declared
as an interim hearing the German family judge Staubwasser
during the course of the court proceedings changes the order
of the proceedings. In his decision the German family court
judge Staubwasser decides, that in the main issue there will
be no further final court hearing, he decides that after the
report of the psychologist is entered without a further court
hearing to evaluate and to debate the psychological report,
that he would make his final decision. In this manner the
German family judge Staubwasser wants to prevent, that the
representative of the South African Embassy, who was to be
invited to participate in these court hearings would be present
as a witness, to prevent that they would be witness to this
extra special spectacle of German justice.
Phase III
--- 07.07.2003 a new application is made to court under file
number 16 F 229/03 regarding access via an urgent interim
order is made immediately on expiry of the arbitrary half
year court ordered exclusion of access in phase one and the
preceding arbitrary boycott of and refusal to enforce access
for one year during phase 1.
--- The German family judge Staubwasser is given the opportunity,
to correct himself and his incorrect working methods as described
in phase I and phase II and to correctly offer legal protection
against the judge within the German judicial reality.
--- 22.07.03 the application is made for an urgent interim
order to be granted in respect to access to bridge the delay
of proceedings in ordering that a expert psychological report
be made and the application to substantiate the qualifications
and competence of the expert Dr. Winterscheid of the state
hospital Wehnen.
--- Only after the official complaint of the 23 July 2003
in respect of the renewed delay of proceedings, Dr. Winterscheid
of the state hospital Wehnen writes an invitation on the 25.07.03,
which was sent the next day on Saturday the 26 July 2003,
which reached the applicant on Monday the 28 July 2003, which
informed him of the appointment on the 30 July 2003, to which
he should appear day after next in Wehnen.
--- 28.07.03 the expert dr. Winterscheid is rejected on the
grounds of the violation to the right of a fair trial and
the right to be heard by the family court judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven as well as the ground
of the two months delay from the naming of the expert in the
decision of the 03.06.2003 in phase II the official complaint
against the German family court judge Staubwasser.
--- Decision of the German family court judge Staubwasser
to reject the application to regulate access via an urgent
interim order file number 16 F 229/03 UG dated the 25.07.03,
which is delivered to the applicant for his information only
after an official complaint is entered against the German
family court judge Staubwasser on the 28.07.03.
-- For the first time the German family court judge Staubwasser
mentions the "inaccurate working proceeds of the court
and other participants."
--- The German family court judge Staubwasser simultaneously
blames the applicant, the children's father for grounding
his application "essentially on legal explanations".
-- The German family court Judge Staubwasser deliberately
suppresses the documentation handed in by the applicant since
the previous decision of the 03.06.03, he documents this in
his decision with the false statement, "new factual circumstances
have not been presented"
The German family judge Staubwasser contradicts himself.
If the accurate naming by the statement of the German family
court judge in the continuos documentation regarding the incorrect
working methods of the court and other participants is nothing
new, the German family judge Staubwasser was very well aware
from the very beginning, that he had applied and covered incorrect
working methods in the present case of access after international
child abduction to Germany.
Phase IV
--- 30.07.-8.03 File number 16 F 229/03 UG A cycle of criminal
charges are entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
against employees of the district court of Wilhelmshaven and
the family court judge Staubwasser.
--- 08.08.2003 A reminder is entered in regard of the application
in regard to the rejection of the expert Dr. Winterscheid
of the state hospital Wehnen out of phase III on the grounds
of the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right
to be heard by the German family court Judge Staubwasser of
the district court of Wilhelmshaven, as well as on the grounds
of the two months delay from the naming of the expert in the
decision of the 03.06.03 out of phase II.
--- 10.08.2003 a complaint is entered against the German family
court judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
of the 25.07.03 file number 16 FR 229/03 UG out of phase III
to the higher regional court of Oldenburg. Judges Bartels,
Schubert and Kuhlmann of the higher regional court of Oldenburg
are rejected on the grounds of the suspicion of bias, who
have already confirmed the exclusion of access by the German
family court judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
out of phase I, although access is excluded for a further
period of half a year after court ordered access which did
not take place for a period of one year and which was deliberately
not enforced by the court.
--- 01.09.03 The decision of the higher regional court of
Oldenburg by the German judges Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann,
file number 14 UF 126/03.
The higher regional court rejects the appeal against the decision
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven referring to formalities,
here the civil process regulation, whereas the higher regional
court under the judges Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann does
legalise all doubts of procedural requirements, irregularities
and mistakes of the district court of Wilhelmshaven which
have occurred to this time. On the other hand, the German
judges Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann while quoting the civil
process regulation, violate the very same civil process regulation,
because the German judges Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann deliberately
ignore the rejection on the grounds of bias in contravention
of the civil process regulation while taking their decision.
--- 19.08.03 the request for information from the applicant
and children's father by the German family court judge Staubwasser
as to whether the applications with the header " Application
rejecting the abuse of office" out of the listed written
documents of the applicant " are to be taken as applications
to reject the judge due to bias"
--- A month later, the German family judge Staubwasser still
refuses to process the application to reject the expert Dr.
Winterscheid from the state hospital Wehnen, an application
that was initially made on the 22.07.03 on the grounds of
the violation of the right to a fair tail and the violation
of the right to be heard by the German family court judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, as well
as on the ground of the complaint of the two month delay of
procedure entered and sent as reminder again on 28.07.2003
and the 08.08.03.
---26.08.03 the explanation in response to the request for
information by the German family judge Staubwasser of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven, that the applications of
the applicant were not intended to be evaluated as the rejection
of the judge on the grounds of bias, that it was obviously
a misunderstanding. Again attention was drawn to the applications
made in regarding speeding up the legal process.
--- On the 02.09.03 the official application is made to the
district court of Wilhelmshaven to open proceedings against
the City of Wilhelmshaven with the responsible executive being
the mayor Eberhard Menzel, on the grounds of the influencing
of family law proceedings regarding access after international
child abduction by the children welfare office (Jugendamt)
and the immigration office.
--- In post from the mayor of the City of Wilhelmshaven Eberhard
Menzel, dated the 02.09.03, postmark 05.09.03, he records
his readiness, to financially support if needs be a possible
exhibition to nazi injustice and nazi judiciary at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven.
--- 15.09.03 The competent Association of attorneys file number
Jo/Co officially stated that, not the legal representation
of Dr. Uwe Biester with the attorneys Lange and Biester, but
the district court of Wilhelmshaven would be responsible for
the incorrect working methods, in reaction to the forwarded
by the justice ministry of Lower Saxony, against the incorrect
working methods of the legal representation of Dr. Uwe Biester
with the attorneys Lange and Biester. The Association of Attorneys
for the district of the higher regional court of Oldenburg
officially stated, that the deliberate ignoring of the delay
by the legal representation of the German mother, Dr. Uwe
Biester, with attorney Lange in disregard of the 10 days set
by the family court judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven in Phase II, which has been applied for further
delay would not to be criticised and thereby most probably
would correspond to the procedural requirements at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven.
--- The German family court judge Staubwasser still refuses
ca. two months later to process the application made to reject
the specialist Dr. Winterscheid of the state hospital Wehnen;
an application that was initially made on the 22.07.03 on
the grounds of the violation of the right to a fair tail and
the violation of the right to be heard by the German family
court judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
as well as on the ground of the complaint of the two month
delay of procedure entered and sent as reminder again on 28.07.2003
and the 08.08.03
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.
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 the described parts
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 1b; 1b1; 1b2; 1b3; 1b4; 1b5).
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 demand for substantiated reasoning and legal demand
for legal protection against the judge
As documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven and
at the higher regional court of Oldenburg the opportunity
has been correctly and repeatedly given to the German family
judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven 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.
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 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 - started
with the Decision dated 04.10.2002 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00
UG of the German family law judge Staubwasser, which is only
published after official complaints against undue delay and
which represents and illustrates 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 (see also section 1b1).
Note: Online documentation of the case in hand is presently
being prepared and will be published before long, so that
the applications of the applicant and the case description
will not only be available in print form but also in compliance
with the law and the constitution in hypertext ( available
on CD-ROM and over the internet). In this way access to the
information of the extensive case documentation will be considerably
facilitated and simplified. The involved officials, institutions
and other persons in the running judicial and political proceedings
will at the given time be informed of the inauguration of
the site.
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.
Dear Mr. Kramer, president of the higher regional court of
Oldenburg,
As the moral and political directors of the higher regional
court of Oldenburg you are certainly interested in a praiseworthy
manner to proof 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 honourable legal policy mentality and your
action pattern of responsible German jurists has to be definitely
supported.
Hereby the official demand is entered at the higher regional
court of Oldenburg, to open a memorial at the entrance to
the higher regional court of Oldenburg 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 practising within the German Federal
Republic of Germany is definitely 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 honourable legal policy mentality and your
action pattern of responsible German jurists has to be definitely
supported.
Hereby the official demand is entered at the higher regional
court of Oldenburg to order the following touring exhibitions
for the delay at least of one month to the higher regional
court of Oldenburg 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 demand is entered at the higher regional
court of Oldenburg, to open a memorial that names the German
Jurists in the region of Wilhelmshaven and Oldenburg who have
stood up against Adolf Hitler in front of the memorial at
the entrance to the higher regional court of Oldenburg 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 practising within the German Federal
Republic of Germany is definitely welcomed.
The praiseworthy approach not only to name German jurists
without backbone but also to name the jurists of Wilhelmshaven
and Oldenburg, who demonstrated moral courage as German jurists,
and who would rather be sent to concentration camps than to
be subjected to the political instrumentalisation of the German
judiciary, is welcomed.
The usual legal delay to inform the petitioner at least about
the entry of the present document is two weeks.
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 complaint against the judges Bartels,
Schubert, Kuhlmann from the higher regional court of Oldenburg
as well as against the president of the higher regional court
of Oldenburg Mr. Kramer with disciplinary measures and dismissal
from office is entered at the justice ministry 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 and to the
higher regional 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
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 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.
The case of Ewald Schlitt and the "disenfranchised judges"
(Pages 111-114; The Lexicon of Judicial Errors) portrays two
fundamental aspects of the Nazi judiciary, that are once again
to be found today in the realm of family law jurisprudence
on the functional level of the procedural techniques and of
the judicial-political behaviour pattern as documented in
the current case of international child abduction at the district
court of Wilhelmshaven, at the regional court of Oldenburg
and at the higher regional court of Oldenburg.
--- the totally exaggerated judgements, that are deliberately
violating the interstate legal regulations and guidelines
--- the political instrumentalisation of the judiciary, as
a result of deliberate Non-resistance by German jurists as
functionaries of the state in definite contrast to being functionaries
of the citizens
a) In the case Ewald Schlitt (1942) the regional court of
Oldenburg arrives at a decision that deliberately exceeds
the legal requirements.
Hitler and Goebbels are using this legal case for their own
political objectives and arrange via the secretary of state
Freisler a deliberate manipulation of file and proceedings,
to achieve the politically prior determined death sentence.
The competent responsible regional court of Oldenburg offers
no resistance against the manipulation of the court proceedings
ordered by Hitler.
Hitler now has his precedent to carry out what he has long
planned for. At the session of the Reichstag (parliament)
of the 26 April 1942 showered with applause he shouted out:
>> I expect, the German judiciary to understand,
that the nation is not there for the sake of the judiciary,
but that the judiciary is there for their sake of the nation
<<
>> From now on I will intervene in these cases and judges
who apparently do not recognise the command will be relieved
of their office! <<
Following this speech, the Reichstag arrived at a corresponding
decision. For the first time in the history of the civilised
world judges were expendable without legal recourse.
(page 113-114; ; The Lexicon of Judicial errors)
The competent and responsible regional court of Oldenburg
keeps silent.
The competent and responsible regional court of Oldenburg
thereby tolerates the direct political intervention in the
so called " independent " German judiciary.
To date the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the regional
court of Oldenburg, the higher regional court of Oldenburg
have deliberately not name the judges, directors and presidents,
who have stood up against Adolf Hitler.
To date the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the regional
court of Oldenburg, the higher regional court of Oldenburg
have deliberately not name the judges, directors and the presidents,
who demonstrated moral courage as German jurists could, and
who would rather be sent to concentration camps than to be
subjected to the political instrumentalisation of the German
judiciary.
b) On the functional level of the procedural techniques and
of the judicial-political behaviour pattern as documented
in the current case of international child abduction at the
district court of Wilhelmshaven, at the regional court of
Oldenburg (responsible for complaints to the supervision authorities
against judges of the district court of Wilhelmshaven) and
at the higher regional court of Oldenburg (responsible for
complaints and appeal against the district court of Wilhelmshaven)
the following aspects are documented.
--- the totally exaggerated judgements, that are deliberately
violating the interstate legal regulations and guidelines
--- the political instrumentalisation of the judiciary, as
a result of deliberate Non-resistance by German jurists as
functionaries of the state in definite contrast to being functionaries
of the citizens
The district court of Wilhelmshaven and the higher regional
court of Oldenburg do 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
advocate 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 careers in Lower Saxony.
Until today it has not been correctly clarified in how far
the socio-political status of the advocate Dr. Uwe Biester
can under circumstances have an influence on proceedings at
German judicial authorities like at the district court of
Wilhelmshaven and at the higher regional court of Oldenburg
in which the legal representation Dr. Uwe Biester participates.
The objective fact is that within the present proceedings
at the district court of Wilhelmshaven and at the higher regional
court of Oldenburg 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 with the children abducted to Germany.
In addition to a political/judicial position at the with the
government of Lower Saxony on the regional level, the advocate
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 advocate 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 with the children abducted to Germany has deliberately
not been enforced over the preceding deliberate undue delay
of proceedings for the period of one year.
To date the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the regional
court of Oldenburg, the higher regional court of Oldenburg
document silence on the situation just described.
The competent and responsible courts of Wilhlemshaven and
of Oldenburg document in the complaints to the supervision
authority and in the complaint proceedings against the German
family judge Staubwasser of the district court in Wilhelmshaven,
that the regional court of Oldenburg and the higher regional
court of Oldenburg do not stand up against the legal representation
Dr. Uwe Biester and thereby tolerate and support the political
infringement on the so called "independent" German
judiciary.
Hereby the official petition is entered at the Parliament
of the Land of Lower Saxony to dismiss the advocate 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 officially recommend to the
competent bar association to revoke the admittance to the
bar of the attorney Dr. Uwe Biester.
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 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 mental institution
Wehnen.
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 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.
The usual legal delay to inform the petitioner at least about
the entry of the present document is two weeks.
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.
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
|