16 October 2003

Complaint to the supervision authority against the German family judge Staubwasser
due to deliberate misuse of authority, deception in legal proceedings
under breach of official duty
in family law proceedings of access after international child abduction to Germany

Dear Mr. Wolfgang Thierse, president of the German parliament,
Dear Mrs. Marita Sehn chairwoman of the petition committee at the German federal parliament,
With the authorisation of the petitioner of the present petition proceedings at the German Federal Parliament Pet 4-14-07-301-050630 the herein documented events at the district court of Wilhelmshaven, under the moral and political directorship of Mr Kahlen and his deputy Mr. Schroeder, at the Children Welfare Office of Wilhelmshaven under the directorship of Mr Juerjens and his deputy Mr. Viering and the Immigration Office of Wilhelmshaven under the direction of Mr Janssen, as well as Mrs Kappe and Mr. Hofmann ( here the named officials are under the direct responsibility of the politically and morally responsible mayor Eberhard Menzel) those mentioned are indicated as further proof for the establishing of an independent enquête committee on the judiciary crimes against humanity by the practice of German family law jurisdiction.
1) Why are proceedings in child matters on international child abduction and the boycott of access that follows refused, delayed, and manipulated, e.g., by judicial, social and administrative officials of the city of Wilhelmshaven, while expeditious proceedings are presented to the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as a present in the legal matter of "alleged coloured hair" against the free press before the culminating point of the election campaign 2002 ?
2) Why are there written laws in Germany, which are valid respectively invalid for a certain population group due to sex, status, and nationality out of political motivation?

The present Online documentation is part of the :
Reporting of the judicial/political scientific field research on the situation of human rights, children rights, democracy and separation of powers in Germany to the European Institutions and to the United Nations.
Hereby the official complaint for integrating the existing online documentation (web page) on the respective judicial incident into the internet presence of the German federal parliament is entered.
Online-Documentation:http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/index.html  http://www.8ung.at/hickman index.html

Copies to the
FILE NUMBER
16 F 229/03 UG
District court of Wilhelmshaven

Dear Mr. Kahlen, director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
Dear Mr. Schroeder, deputy director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs from the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
With reference to the present explained reasoning, compare the explanations in this respect section 1, 1a), 1b), 1c), 1d), 1e), the demand for complaint to the supervision authority with disciplinary measures against the German family judge Staubwasser from the district court of Wilhelmshaven is directly entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven as well as to the politically and morally responsible director of the district court of Wilhelmshaven Mr. Kahlen on the grounds of deliberate misuse of authority, deception in legal proceedings under breach of official duty.
Furthermore, a psychological expert opinion on the German family judge Staubwasser is to be ordered (see also Section 1f).
For further substantiation the online documentation is to be taken into account (also consult Section 1e)

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 proceedings regarding access to children abducted to Germany contradicts himself:
01.03.02 The family psychological assessment in the matter of the regulation of access and custody in regards to the two children abducted to Germany in the case 16 F 605/00 UG, by the psychological expert Warhonowicz expresses the following:
The escalation in tensions of the past and the loss of contact to their father  does not conform with the best interest of the children. Ordered exclusion of access between the father and his sons does not serve the best interests of the children, as it would contribute to and to entrench the already evident alienation. Even a limited exclusion of access brings with it the danger that future parent child relationships will remain loaded with conflict and would probably end up in a permanent break in relations.
The refusal of one of the parents to work on the a process of reduction of tensions would be evaluated as an reservation on the competence of that parent to bring up the children. It is strongly recommended to postpone the deliberation on the matter of access and custody for a period of six months.  In the interim  parents are to attend the proposed family counseling and therapy which could possibly by then have produced reportable reductions in the tensions between the parties.
In the official minutes of the court hearing recorded by family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven held on the 04.09.2002 FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/ 00 UG about which the applicant is informed on 23.10.03  together with the decision of the hearing  FILE NUMBER 16 F 605/00 UG dated on 04.10.2003, the psychological expert Warhonowicz 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".

Analyzing the case study and proceedings history as effected by the German family judge Staubwasser, the ultimate aim of the German family judge Staubwasser is as documented to refuse self-correction and thereby the legal protection against the judge, which is clearly violating the democratic constitutional principles, as well as to hinder and prevent by all means possible the access with binational children brought to Germany, which clearly violates the national and international legal obligations.

As documented the German family judge Staubwasser is neither interested to find a solution to parental conflict, nor to strike a fair balance between the interests at stake nor to implement the children's right to both parents and the parental right to care and upbringing within his legal policy practice.

Political Persecution of the German family judge Staubwasser
In the decision of 165 F 605/00 UG of the 04.10.2002 made public by the German family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven makes the following statement about the applicant and foreign father:
Concerns expressed by the applicant in her presentation of the 18.12.2000 in connection with the competence of the applicant to conduct his own legal affairs have in the light of the expert opinion have not been evident and need not be 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. The family court judge Staubwasser proves with his working methods that the first psychological expert opinion was not useable in his political/ economic aims. Therefore he orders this background he awards a second psychological expert opinion to be made, with the goal of being able to to better manipulate file and proceedings, instead according to his official duty to care about the children and the wellbeing of the children.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven makes his decision public dated the 23.09.03 immediately after a number of official complaints have been made against him due to the undue delay of proceedings following the naming of the expert two months previously, the rejection of the expert on the grounds of the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to a hearing by the German family judge Staubwasser, as well as the inactivity complaint of the 22.09.2003 against the family judge Staubwasser at the higher regional court of Oldenburg.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German family judge Staubwasser renounces on 19.08.03 FILE NUMBER 16 F 229/03 UG to portray the petitioner and father of the child as "unable to conduct his proceedings" when the German family judge Staubwasser addresses the petitioner and father of the child with the request for information as to whether the applications with the headings "Legal demand to refrain from possible misuse of authority" out of the listed documents of the applicant "are to be taken as applications to reject the judge due to bias"

The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German family judge Staubwasser proves himself to apply now the accusation of "Incapability to conduct own proceedings" against the German family judge Staubwasser as an "Emergency Exit", immediately after the complaint about inactivity against the German family judge Staubwasser, in order to avoid the assumption of responsibility by the German family judge Staubwasser for his own incorrect proceedings.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German family judge Staubwasser is trying to portray the petitioner as "unable to conduct his proceedings" while the petitioner and foreign left-behind father has been contacted by Members of the European Parliament for arranging a hearing and meeting.

The district court of Wilhelmshaven documents that the German family judge Staubwasser uses pseudo-accusations against the foreign left-behind father in order to legalise international child abduction to Germany and the boycott of access that follows, whereas the German family judge Staubwasser is clearly contradicts himself within his strategy of pseudo-accusations.
On the one hand, the German family judge Staubwasser in the case 16 F 229/03 UG on the 24 September 2003 states that the foreign left behind father in not capable of handling his own legal affairs.
On the other hand, the same family judge Staubwasser in the case 16 F 357/03 on the same day the 24 September 2003 he accuses the foreign left behind father of wanting to organise international child abduction from Germany behind the backs of the very same German authorities that the left behind father turned to since the children were removed to Germany in 1995 with the request for help and assistance.
The German family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven deliberately does not explain how his accusation of organising international child abduction fits together with allegation of being incapable of conducting one's own legal affairs.
The only constant factor in the documented argumentation of the German family judge Staubwasser, is that the German family judge Staubwasser deliberately does not name the objective fact and the social reality that the German parent, here the German mother, abducts the binational children to Germany - and this more than once.

Conclusion of the documented behaviour and proceedings of the German family judge Staubwasser
The documented working methods in this case of international child abduction and the following boycott of access at the district court of Wilhelmshaven in particular the German family judge Staubwasser carry the characteristics of the "typically German political justice" which brings the constitutional democratic illusion into question.
These questionable working methods of a German family judge lead to the logical judicial consequence of the correct verification by means of the available legal proceedings. Hereby the legal demand is made to the district court of Wilhelmshaven to order a psychological evaluation of the family court judge Staubwasser to investigate his democratic inclination as well as his character profile.
Concerning the financial damages at a given point of time and at given competencies it will have to be verified by means of controlling and costs calculations what the documented incorrect proceedings of the German family judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven are costing to the tax payer.

Formalities
The district court of Wilhelmshaven already documents that within the present proceedings on international child abduction and boycott of access online documents are used and that thereby the Internet as the new media is accepted as court document apart from print documents within the pending proceedings.
In conformance with the points given by the German family judge Staubwasser and the district court of Wilhelmshaven, hereby the official legal demand to the district court of Wilhelmshaven is entered for correctly integrating the present online documentation into the proceedings of the complaint to the supervision authority.
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 :
English:
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/eng/case_study/case_study.html
The direct web page address for the updated version of the overview pages on the behavior and proceedings of the German judicial, social and administrative authorities are available on the Internet under the following URLs:
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/deu/judicial/judicial_index.html
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/deu/social/social_index.html
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/deu/admin/admin_index.html

The direct web page address for the updated version of the overview page on the behavior and proceedings of the district court of Wilhelmshaven is available on the Internet under the following URL:
English
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/eng/judicial/ag_whv.html

The direct web page address for the updated version of the overview page on the political-judicial admissibility and validity of the present proof and reference material is available on the Internet under the following URL:
Online-Documentation:
http://www.josah-sehpferd.de/hickman/general_docs/vaild/valid_index.html

Psychological expert opinion on the German family judge Staubwasser
With reference to the present explained reasoning, compare the explanations in this respective sections 1, 1a), 1b), 1c), 1d), 1e), the demand is entered for ordering a psychological expert opinion on the German family judge Staubwasser.
In as far and in accordance to the previously mentioned explanation of the documented working and working methods of the German family judge Staubwasser the impression can certainly be gained, that the actions of the German family judge Staubwasser are based in the first line on a particular perception of his own person in a privileged position of power, in which the German family judge Staubwasser intends to prove that in his interpretation of law and trespassing of interpretation he is not bound to comply with the innerstate and the international legal guidelines and against under German law he would not be legally liable for his incorrect working methods.
It would appear that for some time the battle of the German family judge Staubwasser has become focused on the purpose of self-interest. The documented events at the district court of Wilhelmshaven under the responsibility of the family judge Staubwasser lead to the conclusion that the family court judge currently does not have the ability to understand and to place himself in the world of the child. Whereas the German judge out of political motivation and the German jurists' caste spirit covers the incorrect working methods of his jurist colleagues, the German family judge seems to rigorously avoid the assumption of responsibility for his own incorrect working methods at all costs.
As documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven the German family judge Staubwasser has particular political and economic interests to promote the intensification and continuation of the parental conflict, instead of striking a fair balance for the interests at stake in accordance with his official duty.
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 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.
The German family judge Staubwasser ignores as documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven on the one hand, the official demands made by the foreign left behind parent to substantiate and define the well being of the child and the call for mediation for working towards the solving of a conflict.
The German family judge Staubwasser as documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven on the other hand, deliberately does not mention the repeated rejection and boycott of access attitude by the German parent, here the German mother, in regards to efforts to reduce the conflict.
As documented at the district court of Wilhelmshaven the German family judge Staubwasser undertakes no constructive efforts to bring about father-child reunion and to respect and maintain the father-child relationship but repeatedly applies destructive measures.
In the matter of access 16 F 229/03 UG the German family judge Staubwasser reacts two months after the rejection of the psychological expert Dr. Winterscheid of the state psychiatric hospital Wehnen on the 22.07.2003 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 as on the grounds of the two months delay as entered on the 28.07.2003 and again as a reminder on the 08.08.2003.
The German family judge Staubwasser rejected the application for the rejection of the psychological expert on the 24.09.2003. In the access matter 16 F 29/03 UG the German family judge informs about the qualifications and competence of the appointed psychological expert in accordance to the official demand of the 22.07.2003 requiring clarification of the qualifications and competence of the appointed psychological expert Dr. Winterscheid of the state psychiatric hospital Wehnen.
The German family judge Staubwasser in disregard of the official legal demands does not inform about the qualifications and competence of the appointed psychological expert in PAS and in regards to international child abduction.
The German family judge contradicts himself, on one hand the German family judge Staubwasser says that Dr. Winterscheid "has been appointed on the grounds of his psychiatric training so as to be able to ascertain the ability of the applicant to conduct his own legal affairs" on the other hand the German family judge Staubwasser says that there would be no "legal politicy background" for the appointment of the psychological expert, although the German family judge is steering the focus of the layout for psychologist expert opinion away from his own documented incorrect working methods and away from the binational children removed to Germany onto the focus of the applicant and foreign father.
Hereby the German family judge Staubwasser puts himself and his working methods in question because if there was "no legal policy background" in accordance with the statement given by the German family judge Staubwasser, the German family judge Staubwasser would not be wanting to establish the ability for the applicant and father of the children to conduct his own legal affairs but could correctly and in accordance with the best interests of the children direct his attention on the children which this after all is what this is about.

Respectfully
 
Michael Hickman


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