| 8 October 2003
Complaint against the decision 16 F 229/03 UG from 24.09.2003
in the case of international child abduction to Germany and
resulting boycott of access due to political persecution by
the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court
of Wilhelmshaven
Dear Mr. Wolfgang Thierse, president of the German parliament,
Dear Mrs. Marita Sehn chairwoman of the petition committee
at the German federal parliament,
With the authorisation of the petitioner of the present petition
proceedings at the German Federal Parliament Pet 4-14-07-301-050630
the herein documented events at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
and at the higher regional court of Oldenburg are indicated
as further proof for the establishing 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:
The present 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
behaviour which lies well beyond what one can describe as
being normal, as documented by the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
Where threatened as here by an actual and note worthy loss
of legal rights the
appeal court approached with the 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.
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
(see also Section 1c).
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.
--- 23.09.2003 Complaint against inactivity in 16 F 229/03
UG within the case of international child abduction to Germany
and resulting boycott of access against the German family
judge Staubwasser from the district court of Wilhelmshaven
to the higher regional court of Oldenburg
--- 24.09.2003 Out of the blue and immediately after the complaint
against inactivity against the German family judge Staubwasser,
the district court of Wilhelmshaven informs the applicant
and children's father on 26. September 2003, that the German
family judge Staubwasser can work with speed of light also
in child matters, if this corresponds with his political motivation
(compare in this respect the contrarily beahvior within Phase
I).
-- In the access matter 16 F 229/03 UG the German family judge
Staubwasser informs about the qualification and competence
profile of the tasked psychologist expert and is thereby referring
to the legal demand from 22.07.2003 out of Phase III for substantiated
explanation of the qualification and competence of the tasked
psychologist expert Dr. Winterscheid from the state psychiatric
hospital Wehnen.
-- In the access matter 16 F 229/03 UG the German family judge
Staubwasser reacts now about two months later on the application
made to reject the psychological expert 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 trial 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 about the two month delay of proceedings
entered and sent as reminder again on 28.07.2003 respectively
on 08.08.03. The German family judge Staubwasser rejects the
application to reject the psychologist expert.
Anträge an das Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg
The legal matter is to be referred back to the district
court of Wilhelmshaven.
The district court Wilhelmshaven is to give instructions to
and give legal protection by requiring that the judge correctly
makes corrections in the decision in question.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven is to formulate and give
a correct impartial and unbiased focus for the assessment
by the psychological expert report.
The documented incorrect working methods of the involved German
officials are to be correctly entered as an aim of the direction
for inclusion in the psychological assessment.
Help is to be afforded due to the documented pre-democratic
working methods and the political persecution by the German
family judge Staubwasser.
Reasoning
Profiling of the German family judge Staubwasser
Comparing the pre-Weimar era, the Weimar era, the Nazi-regime,
the GDR-regime, the political judiciary within the FRG astonishing
similarities are to be observed in respect to the mentality
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 behavior 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 procedures 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 counseling
and therapy which could possibly by then have produced reportable
reductions in the tensions between the parties.
In his decisions the family judge Staubwasser names neither
the suggestion for family therapy, neither does he report
that the German mother boycotted and strictly rejected all
reasonable solutions and mediation to reduce the conflict,
neither does the German family judge Staubwasser name that
no mediation took place, because the family judge Staubwasser
did not order mediation to take place.
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 expresses 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".
Analysing 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.
Political Persecution of the German family judge Staubwasser
In the access case 16 F 229/03 UG the German family judge
Staubwasser reacts approximately two months later to the application
to reject the expert Dr. Winterscheid of the State psychiatric
hospital Wehnen, who had been rejected on the 22.07.03 on
the grounds of the violation of the right to a fair trial
and the right to be heard by the German family judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, as well on the grounds
of the two month delay of proceedings entered, with reminders
being entered on the 28.07.2003 and 08.08.2003 respectively.
The German family judge Staubwasser rejected the rejection
of the expert. In the access matter 16 F 229/03 UG the German
family judge Staubwasser informs as to the qualifications
and competence of the appointed expert in accordance with
the official application of the 22.07.2003 requesting a detailed
illumination of the qualifications and competence of the appointed
expert Dr. Winterscheid of the state psychiatric hospital
Wehnen. The German family judge Staubwasser contradicts himself.
On one side the German family judge Staubwasser says, that
Dr. Winterscheid " he was appointed on the grounds of
his psychiatric training, to access the ability of the applicant
to conduct his own legal affairs" on the other hand the
German family judge Staubwasser states, that there is no "legal
political background" for the choice of the expert, in
reality the German family judge in the wording of the contract
to make an assessment he has taken the focus away from the
binational children who had been abducted to Germany and has
focussed it on the foreign father. The German family judge
puts himself and his working methods in question, then if
it had no "legal political background" in accordance
with the statement of the German family judge Staubwasser,
then he need not have ordered the ability of the applicant
and father to conduct his own legal affairs to be established,
but should have ordered that the expert work correctly and
to orientate himself towards the wellbeing of the children
giving then his attention , which is in effect what the matter
is all about.
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 pursued
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 whether 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 incorrect 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 and in accordance with the first psychologist
expert opinion the German family judge Staubwasser had already
judge the petition as able to conduct his own proceedings.
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 better manipulate
file and proceedings, instead according to his official duty
to care about the children and the wellbeing of the children.
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).
In addition the higher regional court of Oldenburg as documented
deliberately does not process the complain regarding inactivity
of the 23.09.03 and therefore acts with inactivity to a complaint
of inactivity.
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).
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 to integrate the present online documentation
in future court decisions.
Online-Documentation
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
http://www.8ung.at/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 :
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 addresses for the updated versions
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
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 (why must we hunger here)-
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.
Hereby the official demand is entered at the higher regional
court of Oldenburg, to take disciplinary action against the
judges Bartels, Schubert, Kuhlmann and to relieve them of
office.
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.
As documented the higher regional court of Oldenburg reacts
to the inactivity complaint against the family judge Staubwasser
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven with inactivity of
it's own.
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 (why must we hunger here)-
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 (why must we hunger here)-
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
|