Does the district court of Wilhelmshaven officially recommend criminal proceedings against the
German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder due to deception in legal proceedings, misuse of authority, etc. in proceedings on international child abduction and boycott of access ?

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.
1) Why are proceedings in child matters 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 groups due to sex, status, and nationality out of political motivation ?

FILE NUMBER
16 F 229/03 UG
URGENT !
PLEASE, PUT FORWARD IMMEDIATELY!

Does the district court of Wilhelmshaven officially recommend criminal proceedings against the
German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder due to deception in legal proceedings, misuse of authority, etc. in proceedings on international child abduction and boycott of access ?

Dear Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs at the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
Certainly, as decent German citizens you are aware of German history, which is welcomed as a praiseworthy approach.
Nevertheless, the principal aspects and the facts relevant to the proceedings are to be correctly indicated here for updating of the present file and for further explanation of the present situation.
It is nothing new to the world, that German judges violate the German constitution and existing German laws out of various interests such as power interests, economic interests, political interests, career interests, chaste spirit, etc.

German judges do make politics although their task according to the democratic separation of powers officially is to control and monitor the political state powers.
German judges have promoted Hitler and National Socialism.
German judges with the judiciary apparatus have served as a terror instrument on the one hand, for the unscrupulous implementation of the propagated political aims as well as on the other hand for the oppression and silencing of resistance and opposition with obedience to the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler.
German judges have covered each other when it was about assuming responsibilities for the German Crimes against Humanity.

Der anschließende Hochverratsprozeß gegen Hitler, Ludendorff und andere geriet zu einer Farce. Die Angeklagten durften Propagandareden gegen die Republik und ihre Politiker halten; der Ankläger agierte eher als Verteidiger. Am 1. April 1924 wurde Ludendorff freigesprochen, Hitler erhielt fünf Jahre Festungshaft mit der Aussicht auf Begnadigung nach sechs Monaten, die übrigen Angeklagten kamen mit noch geringeren Strafen davon. Das Gericht lehnte es ausdrücklich ab, den NSDAP-Führer gemäß den Bestimmungen des Republikschutzgesetzes als wegen Hochverrats verurteilten Ausländer nach Österreich abzuschieben: Bei einem Mann, "der so deutsch denkt und fühlt wie Hitler" und der sich durch "rein vaterländischen Geist und edelsten Willen" auszeichne, komme diese Maßnahme nicht in Frage.
Kampf um die Republik 1919-1923; Informationen zur politischen Bildung (Heft 261)
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung- Reinhard Sturm

In einem Gemeinwesen, das den Staat als Mittel der nationalsozialistischen Weltanschauung ansieht, ist das Gesetz Plan und Wille des Führers...Der deutsche Rechtswahrer ist heute Mitarbeiter des Führer. Nationalsozialistisches Recht und Plan und Wille des Führers können nur von Nationalsozialisten erkannt und gewahrt werden. Der Führer ist nicht Staatsorgan, sondern oberster Gerichtsherr der Nation und höchster Gesetzgeber...
- Staatsrechtler Carl Schmitt
Ich werde dem Führer des deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, treu und gehorsam sein, die Gesetze beachten und meine Amtspflichten gewissenhaft erfüllen, so wahr mir Gott helfe.
- auf den Führer verpflichten

- "Mein Führer!
Ihnen, meinen Führer, bitte ich melden zu dürfen: das Amt, das Sie mir verliehen haben, habe ich angetreten und mich inzwischen eingearbeitet.
Mein Dank für die Verantwortung, die Sie mir anvertraut haben, soll darin bestehen, daß ich treu und mit aller Kraft an der Sicherheit des Reiches und der inneren Geschlossenheit des deutschen Volkes durch eigenes Beispiel als Richter und als Führer der Männer des Volksgerichtshofs arbeite, stolz, Ihnen, mein Führer, dem obersten Gerichtsherrn und Richter des deutschen Volkes, für die Rechtsprechung Ihres höchsten politischen Gerichtes verantwortlich zu sein.
Der Volksgerichtshof wird sich stets bemühen, so zu urteilen, wie er glaubt, daß Sie, mein Führer, den Fall selbst beurteilen würden.
Heil mein Führer! In Treue, Ihr politischer Soldat Roland Freisler."
- Dies schrieb Freisler am 15. 10. 1942, wenige Wochen nach seiner Ernennung zum Präsidenten des Volksgerichtshofs. Zitiert nach Heribert Ostendorf, "Roland Freisler – Mörder im Dienste Hitlers", in: Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 5/1994, S. 169
The following criminal charges were entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven in accordance with the official guidelines of the German federal ministry of justice (FILE NUMBER R B 3 - zu: 9311/22-2-23 335/2033 from 14 April 2003) as well in accordance with the official guidelines of the justice ministry of Lower Saxony (FILE NUMBER 4121 E -S4. 54/03 from 11 February 2003 and from 1 August 2003) :

--- Documentation from 16.09.2003 (27 pages) on the official application to institute criminal proceedings against judge Kuhlmann of the higher regional court of Oldenburg on the grounds of kidnapping, child trafficking and the formation of a criminal association with the German Family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven.

-- Annex: "Ewald Schlitt and the disenfranchised judges" (Consult the annex Pages 111-114; The Lexicon of Judicial Errors)
At the same time the legal demand was entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven to refrain from the attempt to commit possible criminal offences like obstruction of justice in office under misuse of authority.
Nevertheless on 22.09.03, FILE NUMBER E 314, Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven expresses his personal political opinion that he will not process the criminal charges.
" I point out that according to German law the public prosecutor and not the courts is responsible for the processing of criminal charges of the nature of those presented.  Should you wish to institute criminal proceedings, you should address the matter to the responsible office of the public prosecutor in Oldenburg"
It can be supposed that Mr. Kahlen with a good German judicial education and as a German jurist he does his office work correctly. One would assume that he knows exactly what he is doing, otherwise it would put into question his position as director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
On the one hand, the district court of Wilhelmshaven refuses to process the criminal charges in accordance with the official statements by Mr. Kahlen, the director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
On the other hand, the district court has to process criminal charges in accordance with the official statements of the German federal ministry of justice as well as in accordance with the official statements of the ministry of justice of Lower Saxony.
In addition, the director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen, who quotes for his reasoning of refusal the "German law", contradicts as well the criminal law procedure regulations, which clearly states that criminal charges are also to be lodged at the district court.
Furthermore, the district court of Wilhelmshaven documents a crucial contradiction between the practised legal policy leitkultur under the moral and political responsibility of the director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen and the official statements of the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents in the case of international child abduction and resulting boycott of access the arbitrary denial of access on access, whereas access has not taken place over the period of one year, as the court ordered access has deliberately not been enforced by the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
In contrast to the practised legal policy leitkultur at the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder officially states as documented, that the proceedings on international child abduction would be speeded up (compare international media coverage).
The documented crucial contradictions result in a legal insecurity within the German judicial reality to which remedies have to be find by correctly applied usual legal remedies.
It has to be verified by means of the available legal remedies if the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in accordance with the official statements of the director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen is lying and deliberately deceiving the public in proceedings of international child abduction and boycott of access with false statements.
It has to be verified, if under circumstances and in accordance with the official statements by the director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen the competent German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who is in accordance with the basic law Art. 65 responsible for the German general policy guidelines, is deliberately making false declarations and thereby is committing as a German jurist in political offices deception in legal proceedings under misuse of authority in cases of international child abduction.
Hereby the official legal demand is entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven to inform correctly within the delay of seven days if the district court of Wilhelmshaven officially recommends criminal proceedings against the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder due to deception in legal proceedings, misuse of authority, etc. or if even the district court of Wilhelmshaven intends itself to apply respective legal remedies.
In addition, it is up to the district court of Wilhelmshaven to process correctly the criminal charges already entered in accordance with the innerstate legal guidelines and for example, to forward these criminal charges to the competent prosecutor.
The phenomenon of political instrumentalisation and of political corruption is nothing new in history of German judiciary.
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 district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that despite repeated official demands, the morally and politically responsible director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen has not made an effort until today to explain the background for the incorrect proceedings documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven in international child abduction and resulting boycott of access.
On the other hand, the competent Association of attorneys file number Jo/Co officially stated on 15.09.03 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, 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.
Hereby the official demand is entered anew at the morally and politically responsible director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen to explain the background for the incorrect proceedings documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven in international child abduction and resulting boycott of access.

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.

 
Michael Hickman


Voluntary Independent Special Rapporteur
on the situation of
Human Rights in Germany
to the United Nations and
to the European Institutions