Michael Hickman
Wilhelmshaven
Amtsgericht Wilhelmshaven
-Familiengericht-
Postanschrift:
Amtsgericht, Postfach 1154,
26388 Wilhelmshaven
04421 408 117
Beschwerdezyklen beim Justizministerium von Niedersachsen AKTENZEICHEN 4121
E -S4. 54/03 und AKTENZEICHEN 3700 E - 204.37/03
Dr. Busch, Frau Bakker, Herr Wessels, Wallnus
Am Waterloo Platz 1
30169 Hannover
poststelle@mj.niedersachsen.de
Niedersächsischer Landtag
Hinrich-Wilhelm-Kopf-Platz 1
30159 Hannover
Postfach 4407
30044 Hannover
vockert@vockert.de,
klaus.krumfuss@t-online.de, info@frauke-heiligenstadt.de
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
Commission on Human Rights
Support Services Branch
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
1503@ohchr.org
|
Marita Sehn
Anke Schwarzbäck
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
Präsident des Deutschen Bundestages
Personal Referent
Persönlicher Referent
Wolfram Kolodziej-Derfert
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin
wolfgang.thierse@bundestag.de
praesident@bundestag.de
Mr Sibusiso Bengu
The South African Ambassador to Germany
South African Embassy
Friedrichstrasse 60
10117 Berlin
Tel: +49 30 22073101
botschaft@suedafrika.org
The South African President
Mr. T.M. Mbeki
Office of the President
Private Bag X1000
Pretoria 0001
President@po.gov.za
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
Institut für Menschenrechte
Institute for human rights, Berlin
info@institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de
|
04 October 2003
Criminal charges against the German family judge Staubwasser due to deliberate
insult and slandering of the foreign left-behind parent in family law proceedings
of access after 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, under the moral and political
directorship of Mr Kahlen and his deputyMr. Schroeder, at the Children Welfare
Office of Wilhelmshaven under the directorship of Mr Juerjens and his deputy
Mr. Viering and the Immigration Office of Wilhelmshaven under the direction
of Mr Janssen, as well as Mrs Kappe and Mr. Hofmann ( here the named officials
are under the direct responsibility of the politically and morally responsible
mayor Eberhard Menzel) those mentioned 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 on international child abduction
and the boycott of access that follows refused, delayed, and manipulated,
e.g., by judicial, social and administrative officials of the city of Wilhelmshaven,
while expeditious proceedings are presented to the German chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder as a present 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?
The present Online documentation is part of the :
Reporting of the judicial/political 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.
Hereby the official complaint for integrating the existing online documentation
(web page) on the respective judicial incident into the internet presence
of the German federal parliament is entered.
Online-Documentation: http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/index.html
Copies to the
FILE NUMBER
16 F 229/03 UG
District court of Wilhelmshaven
Dear Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven,
Dear Mr. Schroeder, deputy director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs from the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
With reference to the present explained reasoning, compare the explanations
in this respect section 1, 1a), 1b), 1c), 1d), 1e) and in accordance with
the official guidelines of the Federal justice ministry (file number R B 3
- to: 9311/22-2-23 335/2033 from 14. April 2003) as well as in accordance
with the official guidelines of the justice ministry of Lower Saxony. (File
number 4121 E -S4. 54/03 from 11.02.2003 and from 01. August 2003) as well
as in accordance with the regulations for criminal law procdures, criminal
charges against the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven are directly entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
as well as to the politically and morally responsible director of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen on the grounds of deliberate insult and
slandering § 185, 186, 187 German criminal code. Thereby it has to be
examined via the proper legal action, whether the German family judge Staubwasser
is under circumstances deliberately engaging in committing the criminal offences
mentioned earlier.
Profiling of the German family judge Staubwasser
Comparing the pre-Weimar era, the Weimar era, the Nazi-regime, the GDR-regime,
the political judiciary wihtin the FRG astonishing similarities are to be
observed in respect to the mentaility and self-understanding of the judiciary
as well as in respect to the application of judicial methods on political
or half-political problems: also here the continuity of pre-democratic thinking
patterns under the surface of seemingly democratic forms is remarkable.
During an overall comparison between different state and society forms under
different ideologies mentality and behavior patterns are effected behind the
fiction of the non-political and impartial character of the judiciary as
a standalone independent power. In fact the judiciary is not only within democracy
but also in pre-democratic state and society forms part of politics. As such
a power the judiciary has to be regarded as a political power. This is especially
valid for the handling of political incidents . thus political judiciary
in the actual sense and meaning. But this is also valid for further fields
of judicial activity, which seem to be more disconnected, inasmuch they are
in relationship with the development of social reality. The fiction of impartial
character of the judiciary covers the fact that functionaries and especially
jurists in their behavior are for a major part dependent of political influences
and social origin. Their idea of the state, their political conscience is
within the overall system comparison still oriented on pre-democratic values.
They are not able to see their theory and their practice within the context
which is given to them by the democracy process effected on Germany.
In fact, during execution of these political processes appears a tendency
to base court decisions on interpretation and on trespassing interpretation,
which results from the often one-sided political orientation of judges. In
many cases this attitude of the judiciary as well as their influence on the
political atmosphere of the public by diverse methods of manipulation of file
and proceedings has taken effect against democracy and separation of powers.
The inner attitude of these judges' characters towards the democratic constitutional
state leads to proceedings and decisions which are also determined by prejudices.
It is nothing new to the world, that German judges and German judges do
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 and jurists 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 and jurists 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 and jurists 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 district court of Wilhelmshaven has documented the following extremely
contradictory behaviour and working methods of the family judge Staubwasser:
As proven and documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven in the following
Hickman case study and case history and the working methods of the family
judge Staubwasser are in extreme contradiction to the duties of the German
state in respect of international law:
--- of the European Convention of fundamental freedoms and Human Rights
--- of the Universal declaration of Human Rights
--- of the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child
--- of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
--- Convention on contact concerning children, Council of Europe
Contradictory statements and
proceedings of the German family judge
Staubwasser
The district court of Wilhelmshaven has documented
how the family judge Staubwasser in family court proceedings regarding access
to children abducted to Germany contradicts himself:
01.03.02 The family psychological assessment in the matter of the regulation
of access and custody in regards to the two children abducted to Germany in
the case 16 F 605/00 UG, by the psychological expert Warhonowicz expresses
the following:
The escalation in tensions of the past and the loss of contact to their
father does not conform with the best interest of the children. Ordered
exclusion of access between the father and his sons does not serve the best
interests of the children, as it would contribute to and to entrench the
already evident alienation. Even a limited exclusion of access brings with
it the danger that future parent child relationships will remain loaded with
conflict and would probably end up in a permanent break in relations.
The refusal of one of the parents to work on the a process of reduction
of tensions would be evaluated as an reservation on the competence of that
parent to bring up the children. It is strongly recommended to postpone the
deliberation on the matter of access and custody for a period of six months.
In the interim parents are to attend the proposed family councelling
and therapy which could possibly by then have produced reportable reductons
in the tensions between the parties.
In the official minutes of the court hearing recorded by family judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven held on the 04.09.2002 FILE NUMBER
16 F 605/ 00 UG about which the applicant is informed on 23.10.03 together
with the decision of the hearing FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG dated on
04.10.2003, the psychological expert Warhonowicz expreses the following:
In the matter I have the following to present:
Initially I would like to say, that it is for children of this age that
it is very import that they have contact to both parents.
The expert explained in response to questions from the court:
If I should be asked if the mother does not agree with the proposed arrangement
that it indicates aspects which are harmful to the children’s wellbeing, may
I say the following:
Certainly, it is so that the parents considering the matter of parental
tolerance, should encourage contact to the other parent. If they do
not do so this would indicate a deficiency in their capacity of parental
capability.
In the decision 16 F 605/00 UG dated the 04.10.02 the German family judge
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven publishes the following statement over
the applicant and foreign father as well as about access with the children
:
Concerning the duration of the exclusion of access the court followed the
estimate of the psychological expert. A longer exclusion of access could not
be ordered. As the psychological expert convincingly argued, the present break
in contact to the father does not serve the wellbeing of the children.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents how the family court proceedings
regarding access to the children abducted to German have been deliberately
delayed for a period of over a year, that the court ordered access was deliberately
not enforced and in the wake thereof access is arbitrarily excluded for a
further period of half a year, following access that had not taken place for
a period of one year. In this decision the district court of Wilhelmshaven
with the family judge Staubwasser in it‘s arbitrary decision to exclude access,
the German judge Staubwasser
States that the exclusion of access for more than half a year would be damaging
to the wellbeing of the children. The application of the left behind foreign
parent at the end of the half year exclusion of access to regulate access
via an interim order is rejected to deliberately prevent access until the
main hearing which is in turn purposely delayed.
In addition, the German family judge has as documented neither feelings
of shame or of guilt, in juggling the term " The wellbeing of the child"
backwards and forwards through his judgements, whereas the family judge Staubwasser
to date has refused to answer all official demands to define and to clarify
the concept and definition of the "wellbeing of the child".
Analyzing the case study and proceedings history as effected by the German
family judge Staubwasser, the ultimate aim of the German family judge Staubwasser
is as documented to refuse self-correction and thereby the legal protection
against the judge, which is clearly violating the democratic constitutional
principles, as well as to hinder and prevent by all means possible the access
with binational children brought to Germany, which clearly violates the national
and international legal obligations.
As documented the German family judge Staubwasser is
neither interested to find a solution to parental conflict, nor to strike
a fair balance between the interests at stake nor to implement the children's
right to both parents and the parental right to care and upbringing within
his legal policy practice.
Poltical Persecution of the German family judge Staubwasser
In the decision of 165 F 605/00 UG of the 04.10.2002 made public by the
German family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven makes
the following statement about the applicant and foreign father:
Concerns expressed by the applicant in her presentation of the 18.12.2000
in connection with the competence of the applicant to conduct his own legal
affairs have in the light of the expert opinion have not been evident and
need not be persued further.
After the applicant has engaged himself as documented and proven in several
judicial and political initiatives as well as in public relations work against
child abduction and boycott of access under misuse of authority, as well as
against child abuse and human rights violation by German authorities on the
national and on the international level (including direct judicial and political
initiatives against the incorrect proceedings of the German family judge
Staubwasser himself), the German family judge Staubwasser in his decision
of the 2.09.03 now gives the appointed psychological expert Dr. Winterscheid
( he who has the task to evaluate wether PAS exists in the children abducted
to Germany in 1995) using the strategy of
remote control orders the appointed psychologist expert Dr. Winterscheid
to evaluate the applicant's ability to himself engage in legal proceedings.
In opposition to the principles of a constitutional state the German family
judge Staubwasser intends to reduce the effect of the legal and political
initiatives as well as the public relations efforts of the foreign father,
which are both legally acceptable and in conformance with the constitution,
instead of finding solutions for the issues at hand as well as for the documented
uncorrect working methods of the German officials authorities.
Concerning the documented measures of the political persecution by the German
family judge Staubwasser, the district court of Wilhelmshaven documents a
history of every increasingly harder measures being taken.
First of all, the German family judge Staubwasser applies the strategies
of blackmail, coercion, and threats to force the applicant the foreign left
behind parent to force him abstain from his criticism of the incorrect working
methods of German officials and to refrain from further in the future.
The German family judge Staubwasser then delays his proceedings so long
so that the applicant and foreign father will be most probably deported in
the interim.
After these methods of the family judge Staubwasser are shown to have no
effect, the German family judge Staubwasser then contradicts himself and declares
the applicant and foreign father as incompetent to conduct his own legal
matters.
Furthermore, the German family judge Staubwasser serves himself in that
he appoints a new family psychological assessment, although he in so doing
contradicts himself, he does so, so as to be able to steer the psychological
expert to declare the applicant incompetent to attend to his own legal matters
instead of concentrating on the children.
As documented the German family judge Staubwasser is violating the civil
procedure regulations. The German family judge Staubwasser from the district
court of Wilhelmshaven reacts (dated the 23.09.2003) on the complaint about
inactivity against the German family judge Staubwasser to the appeal instance,
i.e. the higher regional court of Oldenburg, with the accusation that the
petitioner would be allegedly "unable to conduct his own proceedings", whereas
the German family judge Staubwasser wants to influence the civil and the criminal
law proceedings against the German family judge Staubwasser to his advantage,
inclusively the complaint proceedings against his incorrect proceedings of
deliberate undue delay of proceedings.
The circumstance alone of the second order by the German family judge Staubwasser
of a psychological expert opinion is further proof of his aims, to prevent
access to the children abducted to Germany at all costs, that arise out of
political/ economic motivation. If the German family court judge would have
chronologically followed the psychological recommendations of the first psychological
expert opinion, the one according to which he had made his decision, he would
have had to by now securing access with the children. The family court judge
Staubwasser proves with his working methods that the first psychological expert
opinion was not useable in his political/ economic aims. Therefore he orders
this background he awards a second psychological expert opinion to be made,
with the goal of being able to to better manipulate file and proceedings,
instead according to his official duty to care about the children and the
wellbeing of the children.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
makes his decision public dated the 23.09.03 immediately after a number of
official complaints have been made against him due to the undue delay of proceedings
following the naming of the expert two months previously, the rejection of
the expert on the grounds of the violation of the right to a fair trial and
the right to a hearing by the German family judge Staubwasser, as well as
the inactivity complaint of the 22.09.2003 against the family judge Staubwasser
at the higher regional court of Oldenburg.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German family judge
Staubwasser renounces on 19.08.03 FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG to portray the
petitioner and father of the child as "unable to conduct his proceedings"
when the German family judge Staubwasser addresses the petitioner and father
of the child with the request for information as to whether the applications
with the headings "Legal demand to refrain from possible misuse of authority"
out of the listed documents of the applicant "are to be taken as applications
to reject the judge due to bias"
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German family judge
Staubwasser proves himself to apply now the accusation of "Incapability to
conduct own proceedings" against the German family judge Staubwasser as an
"Emergency Exit", immediately after the complaint about inactivity against
the German family judge Staubwasser, in order to avoid the assumption of responsibility
by the German family judge Staubwasser for his own incorrect proceedings.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German family judge
Staubwasser is trying to portray the petitioner as "unable to conduct his
proceedings" while the petitioner and foreign left-behind father has been
contacted by Members of the European Parliament for arranging a hearing and
meeting.
Conclusion of the documented behaviour and proceedings
of the German family judge Staubwasser
The documented working methods in this case of international child abduction
and the following boycott of access at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
in particular the German family judge Staubwasser carry the characteristics
of the "typically German political justice" which brings the constitutional
democratic illusion into question.
These questionable working methods of a German family judge lead to the
logical judicial consequence of the correct verification by means of the
available legal proceedings. Hereby the legal demand is made to the district
court of Wilhelmshaven to order a psychological evaluation of the family
court judge Staubwasser to investigate his democratic inclination as well
as his character profile.
Concerning the financial damages at a given point of time and at given competencies
it will have to be verified by means of controlling and costs calculations
what the documented incorrect proceedings of the German family judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven are costing to the tax payer.
Formalities
The district court of Wilhelmshaven already documents that within the present
proceedings on international child abduction and boycott of access online
documents are used and that thereby the Internet as the new media is accepted
as court document apart from print documents within the pending proceedings.
In conformance with the points given by the German family judge Staubwasser
and the district court of Wilhelmshaven, hereby the official legal demand
to the district court of Wilhelmshaven is entered for correctly integrating
the present online documentation into the criminal law proceedings.
The documentation of the interaction and reaction of German authorities
in the present legal matter of international child abduction to Germany and
resulting boycott of access is 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/political 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.
The online documentation for the case study presented is to be found under
the following mirrored internet sites at:
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/index.html
Note: Further mirrored site are in preparation.
The direct web page address the updated version of the overview on the proceedings'
history of the case study is available on the Internet under the following
URL :
The direct web page address the updated version of the overview on the proceedings'
history of the case study is available on the Internet under the following
URL :Deutsch:
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/deu/fall_studie/fall_studie.html
English:
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/eng/case_study/case_study.html
The direct web page address for the updated version of the overview pages
on the behavior and proceedings of the German judicial, social and administrative
authorities are available on the Internet under the following URLs:
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/deu/judicial/judicial_index.html
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/deu/social/social_index.html
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/deu/admin/admin_index.html
The direct web page address for the updated version of the overview page
on the behavior and proceedings of the district court of Wilhelmshaven is
available on the Internet under the following URL:
English
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/eng/judicial/ag_whv.html
The direct web page address for the updated version of the overview page
on the political-judicial admissibility and validity of the present proof
and reference material is available on the Internet under the following URL:
Online-Documentation:
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/general_docs/vaild/valid_index.html
Respectfully
Michael Hickman
Voluntary Independent Special Rapporteur
on the situation of
Human Rights in Germany
to the United Nations and
to the European Institutions
|
|