| 10 October 2003
Complaint against the decision 16 F 357/03 SO from 24.09.2003
in the case of international child abduction to Germany and
resulting boycott of access due to burking of documents and
falsifying of court documents 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 entered for the correction of
the decision 16 F 357/03 SO from 24.09.2003:
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.
Phase I
--- On the 29 November 1995, the children the common binational
and legitimate children, born and raised in South Africa are
abducted by the German mother from South Africa to Germany.
--- On the 4 December 1995, the city of Wilhelmshaven registers
the children abducted to Germany in Wilhelmshaven, Germany.
--- On 6 December 1995, the German parent of the children
enters a legal demand to the district court of Wilhelmshaven
for conferring sole custody to herself by an interim order.
Under the FILE NUMBER 16 F 931/95 the German mother of the
children produces an English letter to the court as evidence,
which the German mother interprets in the way, that the foreign
left-behind father would have allowed in a written statement
that the common children are brought to Germany. Curiously,
the German mother of the children who states that the foreign
father of the children would have given her the permission
to remove the children to Germany at the same time that the
address of the children in Wilhelmshaven, Germany, should
not be made known to the foreign father of the children.
--- The Social worker Rach of the Children Welfare Office
(Jugendamt) of the city of Wilhelmshaven reports that in the
present family matter on 27.12.1995 FILE NUMBER 51-20/06 to
FILE NUMBER 16 F 931/95, document number 10, that the German
mother has returned with the children to South Africa and
states that therefore "The legal demand will on these
grounds no longer processed on this side." The Children
Welfare Office, which describes itself as oriented on the
well-being of the child, does deliberately not explain what
the removal of the children born and raised abroad to Germany
by the German parent has to do with the well-being of the
child.
Phase II
--- On 21 January 1996, the German mother together with
the German grandmother of the children abducted the children
from South Africa to Germany.
--- On 28 January 1996, the German parent again contacts the
family court of the district court of Wilhelmshaven in the
application entered to FILE NUMBER 16 F 931/95, document Nr.11,
in which the German parent states that she has returned to
Germany and that she renews her application for conferring
sole custody to herself for the binational children.
--- While the district court of Wilhelmshaven later on deliberately
delay the proceedings on access even for three period of one
year, the German family judge Fasse is now taking the decision
within three days on 31.01.1996. The German family judge Fasse
from the district court of Wilhelmshaven decides to award
child abduction to Germany with conferring sole custody to
the German parent without contacting and hearing the foreign
left-behind parent. The German family judge Fasse from the
district court of
Wilhelmshaven deliberately ignores that the German parent
has already deceived the court ion PHASE I.
--- On 3 Mai 1996 in a letter FILE NUMBER 06 1996 102 to the
district court of Wilhelmshaven in the access proceedings
FILE NUMBER 16 F 321/96, the legal representation of the German
child abducting parent makes the following statements : "in
the face of the documentation presented there exists the acute
danger that the children will be take to South Africa against
the will of the mother, this has been expressed in the letter
presented. Evidence in case of dispute: 1. Presentation of
the documentation exchanged. 2. Information from the child
welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven." From this
point on, the formula and accusations that the foreign left-behind
parent would intend to engage in international child abduction
is propagated in the proceedings, whereas the objective fact
an social reality is, that the German parent has engaged as
documented twice in international child abduction to Germany.
The German family judge Fasse of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
deliberately does not clarify the contradiction, that the
district court of Wilhelmshaven for the first time in phase
I legalises child abduction to Germany using the argument
that the foreign father gave his permission. The second time
in phase II the district court legalises child abduction to
Germany and the resulting boycott of access with the argument
that the foreign father would like to himself take part in
international child abduction.
--- Report made by the child welfare office of the city of
Wilhelmshaven on the 12.06.96 file number 51-22/04 at the
request of the district court of Wilhelmshaven in the case
16 F 321/96 to regulate access to the children abducted to
Germany from South Africa in November 1995 and again in January
1996. The social worker involved, Mrs. Rita Eden-Reske reports.
The mother has huge fears that the foreign parent will kidnap
the children and take them to South Africa. She recommends
that access only takes place under supervision. The child
welfare office (Jugendamt) that portrays it's self as orientated
towards the wellbeing of the child, deliberately does not
clarify, what the renewed and second abduction of the children
born and raised abroad to Germany, in this instance by the
German mother and the German grandmother, has to do with the
wellbeing of the children. The child well fare office recommends
against the guidelines of the conference of Bad Boll ( we
are not a child abduction authority) to hinder and to exclude
contact between the binational children abducted to Germany
and the left behind foreign parent.
The child welfare office (Jugendamt) Wilhelmshaven justifies
and praises the behaviour of the German mother. At the same
time the child welfare office (Jugendamt) of Wilhelmshaven
accuses the foreign left behind father of having the intention
to abduct the children and that the foreign left behind parent
permanently and in increasing measures attempts via the German
officials to re-establish contact to his children abducted
to Germany.
This documented strategy and behavioural patterns of the German
officials are according to the child welfare office (Jugendamt)
of the city of Wilhelmshaven are applied "to protect
the wellbeing of the children"
--- Decision of the District court Wilhelmshaven dated the
30 July 1996 file number 16 F 321/96 made by family judge
Lindeke. In the case 16 F 289/96 no decision was made as to
the regulation of custody. The children welfare office (Jugendamt)
of the city of Wilhelmshaven represented by Mrs. Rach recommended
that the foreign parent only have supervised contact to the
children because is could not be guaranteed that the foreign
parent would not kidnap the children and take them to South
Africa.
--- The recommendation of the child well fare office (Jugendamt)
of the city of Wilhelmshaven of the 29 August 1996 to the
district court of Wilhelmshaven produced by Mrs Rach and Mrs.
Eden-Reske recommends the transfer of sole custody to the
German mother. The child well fare office (Jugendamt), that
portrays it's self as oriented towards the best interests
of the child, deliberately does not clarify what the renewed
and now the second abduction of the children born and raised
abroad to Germany, in this instance by the German mother and
the German grandmother, has to do with the wellbeing of the
children. The child well fare office (Jugendamt) of the city
of Wilhelmshaven portrays the faithful caring German mother,
has enrolled the children in school after the second abduction
to Germany. According to the statement of the child well fare
office (Jugendamt) only mothers and children have a close
emotional attachment to one another, but not children to their
father. The child well fare office recommends in contradiction
to the guidelines of Bad Boll ( we are not a child abduction
authority) to reject the application of the foreign father
to exercise joint custody of his children and to recommend
sole custody to be awarded to the German mother as a reward
for abducting the children to Germany.
In contradiction to the guidelines of Bad Boll ( we are not
a child abduction authority) the child well fare office (Jugendamt)
of Wilhelmshaven does not report the boycotting attitude of
the German mother as a criteria of parental responsibility
and parental capability, but uses the boycotting attitude
and refusal of the German mother as grounds for the awarding
of sole custody to the German mother.
--- Court hearing of the 3 December 1996 i the case 16 F 321/96
at the district court of Wilhelmshaven with the German family
judge Fasse. Mrs Rach representing the child well fare office
of the city of Wilhelmshaven said the following: I can not
deny that a emotional relationship exists between the children
and their foreign parent. I can not agree with the application
of the foreign parent as it can not be excluded that he would
take the children to South Africa. The German parent declared
that it is to be reckoned with that the foreign parent will
kidnap the children as he has obtained South African passports
for the children.
---Court decision of the 10 December 1996 file number 16 F
321/96. The German family judge Fasse, grasps the unverified
and ungrounded charges of the German abducting parent and
the representative of the child welfare office Mrs: Rach and
repeats them in his decision: it must be reckoned with that
the applicant will use his visitation rights to abduct the
children. This intention is clear to deduce from his letter
to his son, JXXX-MXXX dated the 20.03.96. Instead of ending
the boycott of access being carried out by the German parent,
the German family judge Fasse decides the following: The foreign
left behind father will no further be allowed telephonic access
to his children once per week on Sundays. The foreign left
behind parent will not be granted the right to access to his
children abducted to Germany as requested between the 20.12.96
and the 05.01.97, as there exists the danger that foreign
parent will misuse his right to access to kidnap his children
to South Africa, as recorded in his letter dated the 20.03.96
--- Court hearing in case 16 F 298/96 with the family judge
Moenkediek on the 5 August 1997 to decide over custody and
access. The German mother gets sole custody of the children.
The exclusion of access of the German family judge Fasse of
the district court of Wilhelmshaven is not altered.
Phase III
--- Whereas the district court of Wilhelmshaven legalises
child abduction to Germany and boycott of access in phase
I with the argument that the foreign farther gave his permission
and the district court legalises child abduction to Germany
and boycott of access in phase II the district court uses
the argument that the foreign father intended to abduct the
children, in phase III the district court of Wilhelmshaven
uses the argument to legalise child abduction to Germany and
boycott of access, that the foreign father engages himself
in political and legal initiatives as well as in media work
and public relations against child abduction and boycott of
access.
---Application to the district court of Wilhelmshaven of the
19.05.2003 file number16 F 229/03 to retract the decision
of the Judgement 16 F 298/96 of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
of the 12.08.1997 (decision 16 F 931/95 of the 31.01.96) to
check the evidence presented in the letter of the 20.03.1996
as well as to hear the parties.
--- Court hearing of the 21.05.2003 at the district court
of Wilhelmshaven in the case 16 F 229/03 UG. The application
on page 82 figure 1 was discussed. The court drew attention
to the fact that a new proceeding would be registered.
--- On the 30.06.2003 the legal representation of Dr. Uwe
Biester with attorney Lange file number 16 F 357/03 SO to
defend the German mother in legalising child abduction to
Germany and boycott of access makes the following statement,
the letter that was presented as evidence was by way of it's
content clearly attributed to be from the applicant, whereas
in phase II it was stated that this letter is clearly from
the foreign father: obviously the mother did not falsify the
letter of the 20.03.1996. This letter was sent to her and
due to it's content it could clearly be seen that it had been
written by the applicant. The applicant had possibly had the
help of third parties to translate it into German, if he wrote
the text himself can not be determined with absolute certainty.
--- On the 15.07.2003 the legal representation of Dr. Uwe
Biester with attorney Lange file number 16 F 357/03 SO states
that it is a translation of the original letter (which was
written in German), without naming the author.
"It is only a translation of the original letter of the
time. From the original letter it would without further consideration
be obvious that the translation is in it's content correct
in particular where the applicant says that he would bring
his son JXXX-MXXX back and thereby documented his intention
to take his son JXXX-MXXX against his will and against the
will of the mother".
Anträge an das Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg
The legal matter is to be returned to the district court
of Wilhelmshaven.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven is to provide legal protection
from the judge and must insure that he works correctly to
engage in self correction.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven is to correctly ensure
the right to a fair court hearing to ensure the right to a
fair trail in the case in question.
Help is to be given to protect against the pre-democratic
working methods of the 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
Burking of documents and falsifying of court document
by the German family judge Staubwasser
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the
German family judge Staubwasser deliberately burks documents
and thereby engages in deliberate falsification in his decision
of the 24.09.2003 file number 16 F 357/03 SO.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German
family judge Staubwasser deliberately ignored the following
legal demands
Hereby the legal demand to the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
to have a hand writing examination made at the cost of the
opposing party.
Hereby the official demand to the district court of Wilhelmshaven
for the legal representation of the opposing party Dr. Uwe
Biester to deliver in regard to the "letter sent"
the following information. The exact origin of the letter,
the original writer, how it got into the file and any other
information relevant to the case.
Hereby the official demand to the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
to commission a scientific study at the cost of the opposing
party to determine the identity of an author according to
text presented.
Hereby the legal demand is made to the district court to present
the opposing party represented by dr. Uwe Biester with a series
of texts and to ask them to positively identify the author.
Hereby the legal demand is made to the district court of Wilhelmshaven
that the officials responsible for legal protection correctly
bring about order in the diffuse incomprehensible working
methods and accusation strategy of Dr. Uwe Biester who in
his letter of the 18 June 2003 quotes "amateurs"
file number 16 F 229/03 UG.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German
family judge Staubwasser deliberately lies and makes false
statements in his decision of the 24.09.2003 file number 16
F 357/03 SO.
Whereas the German family judge Staubwasser says:
The application was to be rejected because the letter dated
the 20.03.1996 to which the applicant refers, does not belong
to the file 16 F 298/96 and 16 F 931/95 so it therefore could
not have been used as the basis for the decision taken.
The case history documented at the district court shows clearly
that the letter of the 20,03,1996 lays the basis for the decision
taken in the case file number 16 F 298/96 made on the 12.08.1997
over a year later. The district court of Wilhelmshaven in
this way shows the lies and false statements of the German
family judge.
As is documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven the
German family judge Staubwasser manipulates proceedings and
files and thereby denies the applicant legal protection due
to the following motivations:
--- Cultural discrimination by giving advantage to the German
parent over the foreign parent out of political motivation.
--- Gender discrimination by giving advantage to the mother
over the father out of political motivation.
---Criminal conspiracy together with the German family judge
Fasse of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, who deliberately
based his legalisation of child abduction to Germany and boycott
of access on falsified evidence out of the motivation of judicial
brotherhood
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German
family judge Staubwasser shows these motivations, in that
the German family judge Staubwasser violates the right to
a hearing and the right to a fair trial in refusing to have
a hearing.
By the documented strategy of the German family judge Staubwasser
to refuse the right to establish the facts to carry out his
manipulation strategy the German family judge Staubwasser
contradicts himself
Whereas the German family judge Staubwasser documents his
complaints against the political and legal initiatives as
well as the media work and public relations work of the left
behind foreign father against child abduction and boycott
of access, the German family judge continues to uphold the
false allegations that the foreign left behind father wanted
to engage in child abduction.
Rejection of judges of the higher regional court of Oldenburg
on the ground of 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).
The higher regional court of Oldenburg deliberately refuses
to process the inactivity charges of the 23.09.2003 and therefore
as documented reacts to charges of inactivity with it's own
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
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 measures and dismissal
from office of the judges, Bartels, Schubert, Kuhlmann.
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 German family judge
Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven with inactivity.
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
|