|
08 November 2003
Rejection of the judges at the higher regional court
of Oldenburg Bartels, Schubert, and Kuhlmann and rejection of the declaration
of non-bias
FILE NUMBER / AKTENZEICHEN 14 WF 266/03
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 an
independent enquête committee on the judiciary crimes against humanity
by the practice of German family law jurisdiction.
Dear Mrs. Astrid Vockert, Vice president of the Parliament
of Lower Saxony,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs at the Parliament of Lower Saxony,
The document presented is to be entered to the official petitions PET 00447/08/15
PET 05816/11/14 as well as to open new petition procedures at the Parliament
of Lower Saxony as requested.
Dear Dr. Busch, Mrs. Bakker, Mr. Wessels, Mrs. Ballnus,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs at the Justice Ministry of Lower Saxony,
The document presented is to be entered to the official complaint cycle under
the complaint numbers 4121 E -S4. 54/03 and 3700 E - 204.37/03 at the Justice
Ministry of Lower Saxony.
FILE NUMBER
14 WF 266/03
Higher regional court of
Oldenburg
Dear President of the higher regional court of Oldenburg,
Dear Madams, Dear Sirs from the higher regional court of Oldenburg,
The attempt of the judges Bartels, Schubert, Kuhlmann documented by the higher
regional court of Oldenburg as documented on the 03 November under case file
number 14 WF 266/03 to declare themselves as unbiased is positively and correctively
rejected.
The document presented is the timeously entered statement in reply to the
letter from the higher regional court of Oldenburg dated 03 November 2003
with the case file number 14 WF 266/03.
The rejection of the statement of the judges, Bartels, Schubert, Kuhlmann
of the higher regional court of Oldenburg declaring themselves as unbiased
is based on the following substantiated grounds:
Grounds
In particular in the light of the background of the history of international
child abduction to Germany and boycott of access, as well as in the light
of the official statement of the German Federal Government, that the German
judges are specially trained and work correctly, the judges Bartels, Schubert,
Kuhlmann of the higher regional court of Oldenburg deliberately without substantiated
explanation deny their documented incorrect working methods.
Compare the previous submissions to the higher regional court of Oldenburg
as well as the accompanying online documentation at Hickman‘s "Resource centre"
HRC-URL
http://www.michael-hickman.org
German history of international and innerstate child abduction and boycott
of access - URL :
http://www.michael-hickman.org/eng/german_history/german_history.html
Higher regional court of Oldenburg :
http://www.michael-hickman.org/eng/judicial/olg_oldburg.html
The higher regional court of Oldenburg documents that
the judges Bartels, Schubert, Kuhlmann of the higher regional court of Oldenburg
have deliberately not answered or explained the following questions put to
them as to the facts and the background of case history in the case presented
to them.
How is it to be explained that the district court of Wilhelmshaven in the
German judicial reality, family court proceedings in respect to access following
international child abduction to Germany are deliberately delayed for a period
of one year?
How is it to be explained, that the district court of Wilhelmshaven in the
German judicial reality that the court ordered access was deliberately not
enforced for a period of one year?
How is it to be explained, that the district court of Wilhelmshaven in the
German judicial reality with private money and with tax payers money has
financed family court proceedings over the period of one year in which were
delayed and court decisions were not enforced? Which ground for existence
arrise out of such behaviour by a German official in a democratic constitutional
state with the duty to deliver a fair trail?
How is it to be explained, that the German family judge Staubwasser of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven arbitrarily excludes access for the period
for half a year on top of access that did not occur, whereas immediately
previously for a period of one year court ordered access was deliberately
not enforced?
How is it to be explained, that the German family judge Staubwasser of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven who gives as reasoning for his arbitrary
exclusion of access that he had followed the recommendation made by the psychological
expert, so as not to endanger the well being of the children, at the end
of the period of exclusion of half a year, deliberately does not protect
and ensure the well being of the children?
How is it to be explained, that the German family judge Staubwasser of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven as documented repeatedly delayed the proceedings
regarding access which has followed international child abduction to Germany?
How is it to be explained, that the judges of the higher regional court of
Oldenburg Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann can declare themselves as not biased,
when the judges of the higher regional court of Oldenburg Bartels, Schubert,
Kuhlmann deliberately cover the incorrect working methods of their judge
collegue, in this instance the German judge Staubwasser of the district court
of Wilhelmshaven?
How is it to be explained, that the judges of the higher regional court of
Oldenburg Bartels, Schubert and Kuhlmann can declare themselves as not biased,
when the judges of the higher regional court of Oldenburg Bartels, Schubert,
Kuhlmann have previously made a decision on the 01,09.2003 regarding a complaint
of their judge collegue, here the German judge Staubwasser of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven, after they had deliberately ignored a charge of bias
against them in violation of the German civil legal process regulations?
Conclusion
The higher regional court of Oldenburg documents that the judges of the higher
regional court of Oldenburg Bartels, Schubert, Kuhlmann direct their focus
of interest in regard to the incorrect working methods in the documented
pratice of decision making in regard to their German judge collegues out
of the tradition of German chaste spirit and of political motivation, to
cover his incorrect working methods instead of consentrating on the content
of the case back ground of the international child abduction and the boycott
of access.
The higher regional court of Oldenburg documents that the judges of the higher
regional court of Oldenburg Bartels, Schubert, Kuhlmann in their declaration
of being unbiased, deliberately do not present details of their training
and advanced training in the family legal matter of international child abduction
and boycott of access.
Demands to the higher regional court of Oldenburg
The judges at the higher regional court of Oldenburg Bartels, Schubert, Kuhlmann
are to be rejected on the grounds of being biased.
The case presented is to be handed on to other uninvolved judges at another
sentate of the higher regional court of Wilhelmshaven.
The absence of bias of these judges is to be correctly determined before
the begin of the proceedings.
Proof of the training and advanced training of the new judges to be appointed
must be correctly put forward by the higher regional court of Oldenburg.
The judges of the higher regional court who are to be appointed have to correctly
and substantiated to answer the questions posed above in thier declaration
of being unbiased.
One week is given to deliver a response.
The president of the higher regional court of Oldenburg is legally responsible
for the correct processing of the demands presented.
Respectfully
Michael Hickman
Voluntary Independent Special Rapporteur
on the situation of
Human Rights in Germany
to the United Nations and
to the European Institutions
|