A Season in Hell

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

The night

Whom the gods love die young, was said of yore,

And many deaths do they escape by this:

The death of friends, and that which slays even more

The death of friendship, love, youth, all that is,

Except mere breath; and since the silent shore

Awaits at last even those who longest miss

The old archer's shafts, perhaps the early grave

Which men weep over may be meant to save.

Byron, Don Juan/Canto the Fourth/XII

Admittedly, with fifty years, one is no longer young, and in the night from 08/25/2016 to 08/26/2016, I had already reached this advanced age.

Since the saving arrows of the early death had obviously missed me a long time ago, I played that night with the thought of at least lifting the anchor:

Ô Mort, vieux capitaine, il est temps! levons l'ancre!

Ce pays nous ennuie, ô Mort! Appareillons!

Si le ciel et la mer sont noirs comme de l'encre,

Nos cœurs que tu connais sont remplis de rayons!

Verse-nous ton poison pour qu'il nous réconforte!

Nous voulons, tant ce feu nous brûle le cerveau,

Plonger au fond du gouffre. Enfer ou Ciel, qu'importe?

Au fond de l'Inconnu pour trouver du nouveau !

Baudelaire, Les fleurs du Mal/La Mort

But my father, worried, called the police, so that around 04:30 a.m. that night several officials and my father demanded access to my house, threatening that they force themselves into it if I did not grant it.

I hospitably welcomed my friend and helper, who, less than five minutes later and without any aggression on my part, handcuffed my hands to my back.

In my pajamas, barefoot and bound, the officers led me into the street, where my vanity was suddenly offended: The police had only shown up in two ordinary patrol cars. (At least the cops in Baden-Württemberg drive stylishly Mercedes.) No team car with SWAT officers?

On the street, they determined my blood alcohol concentration: It resulted in a value of 0.3 ‰.

Thereupon it was explained to my father and me that they could not bring me into a hospital, but due to a mixed consumption of alcohol and neuroleptics - my regular medication - had to be sobered out first.

The sobering cell

They took me - always in my pajamas, barefoot and tied up - to a sobering cell at a police station where they thoroughly examined me: A police doctor looked into my underpants at the back and front. Additional diagnostic measures were not necessary: Only informed by the knowledge gathered there could this magician of the healing art determine my fitness for custody.

Consequently, the story that the police intervened to protect me became a farce:

For my possible death in the sobering cell was condoned. Since, in this context, an unrecognized severe poisoning or other life-threatening situation could have been present.

I wanted to speak to a lawyer: This request I was denied.

The guardians of the order on duty could not fulfill my wish to drink coffee and smoke a cigarette.

At some point, they handed me a telephone into the cell: At first, I thought my lawyer was on the phone. As it turned out later, it was probably a magistrate who granted me supposedly fair hearing in this way: However, the conversation ended after thirty seconds.

Anyway, I decided in the cell to postpone the anchor lifting for the time being - there was still unfinished work to be done: This posse had to be fought publicly.

The institution

Around noon, they released me from the sobering cell. I wanted to go home.

However, this intention was thwarted with the remark: "You are going to a psychiatric ward!"

My parents had, in the meantime, brought clothes and shoes to the police station, which I was allowed to use for a more or less presentable appearance in the public sphere.

An officer took me in a patrol car - without handcuffs! - to the Karlsruhe Municipal Clinic.

I repeated my request to the hospital staff responsible for admissions to go home. It was, however, explained to me that a district judge would enforce admittance if I would not sign the papers.

Coerced in this way, I signed but should have read the small print better: After a short time in the ward, I noticed that I had been accommodated in a closed department.

It is also possible that I refused to sign: I can't remember exactly.

After a few days, I managed to contact a lawyer via the Internet. I asked him to write to the clinic to protest against my imprisonment.

To my incredulous astonishment, I now learned that I stayed supposedly voluntarily in a closed ward and could leave at any time.

So I left. Immediately.

On the website of the Clinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapeutic Medicine of the Municipal Hospital of Karlsruhe one can read at the time of publication of this blog post under the heading Information on admission :

When being admitted to a hospital, the necessary formalities have to be fulfilled. This is done by us in the admission, which takes place either at the gate of building P (Kaiserallee 10) or at the corresponding wards and day clinics.

Your personal data will be recorded there. We need this data for the documentation of the hospital treatment and the billing of the treatment costs. By signing the treatment contract, you give your consent to the necessary hospital treatment. Information about you and your illness is subject to the strict regulations of data protection and will, of course, be treated confidentially.

After the personal data have been collected, and you have not been admitted directly to a specific ward, the interview with the receiving physician usually takes place. The circumstances of admission are discussed in a calm and trusting atmosphere. The admission physician selects the clinic and ward that specializes in the clinical picture.

Please bring along to the admission:

Health insurance card from your health insurance company and/or clinic card from your private health insurance company or private supplementary insurance company
Identity card or passport
Prescription of medical treatment (admission)
List of current medications to be taken
health passports, e.g. allergy pass, X-ray pass
Supervisor card in case of supervision
For insured persons with statutory insurance: current exemption certificate for copayments, if applicable
if available: important medical records of previous stays.

I never had a conversation with a receiving physician but was taken directly to ward P10.

Based on the text quoted above, I conclude that I was admitted directly to ward P10.

Who ordered this referral or who was responsible for the decision of my accommodation on ward P10?

The order of the district court

On 12/29/2016 I found the following order of the District Court of Karlsruhe, allegedly issued on 08/26/2016, more than four months earlier , in my letterbox.

This order does not even get the date and time of my custody right: If engineers were to work as sloppily as the German judiciary, we would have to complain every day about plane crashes and other technical disasters.

The complaint against the order of the district court

I instructed a lawyer to complain against this order.

The order of the district court on the complaint

Here is an excerpt from § 28 of the Police Act (PolG) of the State of Baden-Württemberg:

§ 28

Custody

(1) The police may take a person into custody when

1. an imminent serious disturbance of public safety or order cannot otherwise be prevented, or a serious disturbance which has already occurred cannot be eliminated, or

2. custody is necessary for a person's own protection against imminent danger to life or limb and the person

a) requests detention; or

b) is recognizably in a condition excluding free will or otherwise in a helpless situation, or

c) wants to commit suicide; or

3. the identity of a person cannot be established by any other means.

The district court had based its original order on § 28 2. b). Now, however, my complaint had been received and the district court justified itself:

If the prerequisites for § 28 2. b) were not fulfilled, then at least those according to § 28 2. c).

Thus, the legal basis of the order is subsequently changed!

My complaint was not remedied by the district court, so it went to the regional court.

The order of the regional court

The Regional Court of Karlsruhe dismissed my complaint in an incontestable decision.

The Regional Court of Karlsruhe writes in its order:

Around 10:00 a.m., the person concerned was again brought before the police contract doctor Dr. Geßler. The doctor decided that the person concerned should be admitted to a psychiatric institution according to the PsychKHG. However, he asked that the person concerned be kept in custody until noon since the admission could only take place after the mixed consumption had sobered up, and a further attempt to take his own life was to be prevented until then.

By order of the same day, the district court found that the custody of the person concerned had been lawful. Furthermore, the district court confirmed the continuation of the custody of the person concerned until noon at the latest. In the statement of grounds, it stated, inter alia, that the custody had rightfully been ordered according to § 28 ¶ 1 no. 2b) Police Act BW. The continuation of custody until noon was also necessary and proportionate, considering the condition of the person concerned, in particular, his alcoholization and medication.

The affected person was then transferred to the Municipal Hospital, where he remained voluntarily until his discharge on 08/30/2016.

It says further down:

Even immediate admission to a psychiatric hospital in accordance with PsychKHG would not have been a milder means, since this is merely a special form of imprisonment, but also a deprivation of liberty.

I don't quite understand this text: Was a referral according to PsychKHG, decided by the police physician Dr. Geßler or was I voluntarily in the hospital?

In any case, I think that I should simply have been released home based on the order of the district court which allegedly was issued on 26 August 2016.

Presumably, however, the order does not originate from that day but was handed in later.

On this day probably no or another order was issued:

The lie that I voluntarily stayed at the Karlsruhe Municipal Clinic was introduced after the letter of my lawyer had been received there.

As a contrast to the brazenly stupid, law-abusive gibberish of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe, I am quoting here the order of the Regional Court of Freiburg from January 19, 2017, file number 4 T 10/16, with the guiding principle:

In the course of a judicial decision on custody according to § 28 ¶ 3 Sentence 3 Police Act Baden-Württemberg, which is to be obtained immediately after deprivation of liberty, the court does not have to decide ex officio on the lawfulness of the police custody already in effect, but only on whether the person concerned may be deprived of his liberty from the time of the judicial intervention.

The constitutional complaint against the order of the regional court

I had a lawyer lodge a constitutional complaint against the order of the regional court.

The order of the Federal Constitutional Court

The constitutional complaint was not accepted for decision.

The European Court of Human Rights

Finally, I had my complaint submitted to the ECHR.

The ECHR declared my complaint inadmissible in English and without a statement of reasons:

Welcome to the Federal Republic of Germany! Welcome to the Western community of values!

We teach the rest of the world lessons in the rule of law and human dignity! We know what is right and what is wrong, and you have to learn from us!

Das Land steht stolz im Feiertagsgewand

Die Zollbeamten sind schön aufgeputzt –

Sogar die Penner haben Ausgang

Und am Rand sind ein paar Unverbesserliche noch verdutzt!

Die alten Ängste, pittoresk gepflanzt

Treiben sehr bunte, neue Blüten

Die Bullen beißen wieder und der Landtag tanzt –

Endlich geschafft, ein Volk von Phagozyten!

Jetzt ist es allen klar, der Herr baut nie auf Sand –

Es herrscht wieder Frieden im Land!

Vereinzelt springen Terroristen über Wiesen

Wie schick! Die Fotoapparate sind gezückt!

Die alten Bürgerseligkeiten sprießen –

Die Rettung, Freunde, ist geglückt!

Die Schüler schleimen wieder um die Wette

Die Denker lassen Drachen steigen

Und Utopia onaniert im Seidenbette

Die Zeiten stinken und die Dichter schweigen!

Wie schön, dass sich das Recht zum Rechten fand!

Es herrscht wieder Frieden im Land!

Wecker, Frieden im Land

The order of the district court, which I received on 12/29/2016, bangs the date "08/26/2016" to our head as part of the title and does not mention it, as usual, casually in the text. We notice: To the author, this date matters, although it is quite irrelevant on 08/26/2016.

In the following text, however, another date is mentioned:

It is established that the detention of the person concerned on 10/26/2016 at 3.59 a.m. was lawful.

A simple typo? No, a Freudian slip of the tongue, because the decision of the regional court mentions the same date:

According to the regional court, the decision of the district court was allegedly made on 08/26/2016 before my dismissal:

By the decision of the competent on-call judge taken on the same day and before the release of the person concerned at 12.00 noon, this condition is met.

Accordingly, the district court writes before 12:00 noon in past tense about this future time-of-day:

Considering the condition of the person concerned, alcoholization and medication, the continuation of the detention until 12:00 was necessary and proportionate. At this time, the person concerned may again be presented to the police contract doctor for admission to psychiatry.

However, the district court could not know at that time how long the custody would last because one reads further above in the order:

2. The continuation of the custody of the person concerned is confirmed until

08/26/2016, 12:00 o'clock

at the latest.

3. if the reason for custody ceases to exist prematurely, the person concerned shall be released from custody immediately.

In addition, according to the regional court, the police doctor had already accomplished his work at 10:00 a.m..

Around 10:00 a.m., the person concerned was again brought before the police contract doctor Dr. Geßler. The doctor decided that the person concerned should be admitted to a psychiatric institution, according to the PsychKHG. However, he asked that the person concerned be kept in custody until noon since the admission could only take place after the mixed consumption had sobered up, and a further attempt to take his own life was to be prevented until then.

Why doesn't one read anywhere in the decision of the district court that the police contract physician Dr. Geßler ordered an admission to a psychiatric institution according to the PsychKHG around 10:00 a.m.?

The decisions of the district court and the regional court mentioned in this section are contradictory in themselves and contradict each other.

I also find it odd that the business number constructed by the district court - 710 XIV 777/16 L - is partly indicated by hand on the decision of the district court - hardly legible and thankfully deciphered by the regional court.

On the website of the District Court of Karlsruhe one reads at the time of the publication of this post under on-call duty :

Outside office hours, a standby service is set up for matters that are so urgent that it is not possible to wait until the district court is back on regular duty. This on-call service is available on non-working days from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., on all other days from 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (Fridays: 3:30 p.m.) to 10:00 p.m..

If you have such an urgent request, please contact the police. They will put you in touch with the on-call service of the district court.

May I conclude from this that the decision delivered to me on 12/29/2016 was made either between 6:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.?

Special thanks are also due to the Regional Court of Karlsruhe for the unambiguous clarification and helpful instruction once again cited in context here:

The contested order is also not to be annulled on the ground of procedural irregularities.

Pursuant to § 28 ¶ 3 Sentence 3 Police Act, a judicial decision on the custody is to be brought about without delay. The word "without delay" is to be interpreted as meaning that the judicial decision must be made without any delay, which cannot be justified on objective grounds (cf. BVerfG, order of 05/07/2009 - 2 BvR 475/09, NVwZ 2009, 1034).

By the decision of the competent on-call judge taken on the same day and before the release of the person concerned at 12.00 noon, this condition is met. A judicial on-call service in the night hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. has not been established in the District Court of Karlsruhe district, so that the decision could not be made before the custody. The fact that the decision was made in the course of the morning before the measure was completed is sufficient, especially as the law in § 28 ¶ 3 Sentence 3 Police Act also provides for cases in which a judicial decision is not required if it can be assumed that the decision would only be made after the reason for the custody has ceased to exist.

However, the sentence

By the decision of the competent on-call judge taken on the same day and before the release of the person concerned at 12.00 noon, this condition is met.

is a lie, because the order of the district court, which was sent to me on 12/29/2016, is not from 08/26/2016, as also the regional court knows.

The regional court writes further down:

Also, the decision was immediately set down in writing and substantiated under § 28 ¶ 4 Sentence 6, Half-Sentence 2 Police Act. This follows from the order of the competent on-call judge of 10/26/2016 (AS 17), according to which the decision was to be passed on to division XIV in writing for further initiation. The fact that the decision was only delivered to the person concerned a few months later, on 12/29/2016, is not significant for the legality of the custody. The late delivery also did not shorten the rights of the person concerned since the period for lodging a complaint does not begin until the date of reception. Moreover, the judicial decision becomes effective upon issuance; it does not need to be announced to the person taken into custody in order to become effective (§ 28 ¶ 4 Sentence 5 Police Act).

On the website of the C. H. Beck publishing house one reads at the time of the publication of this post in a note from the attorney with the BGH Dr. Guido Toussaint, Toussaint & Schmitt, Karlsruhe under Practical reference :

A court decision does not already exist and have effect as such if it has been made by the judge or the formation of the court in accordance with §§ 192 et seq. GVG. Rather, it only becomes existent (and thus - in contrast to a mere draft decision - binding on the court) when it is "issued", i.e. has left the inner area of the court with the direct purpose of being made known to the parties (cf. for example BGH NJW-RR 2004, 1574 with further evidence); it only becomes effective vis-à-vis the concerned party when it has been made known to it in the form prescribed by procedural law (cf. only BGH NJW 2005, 3724 [ 3725 ] with further evidence). For the issuing of court decisions, the ZPO provides for three different forms (for defects in remission, see, for example, BGH BeckRS 2016), 20153 with further evidence):

The pronouncement in oral proceedings (cf. BGH NJW 2015, 2342 with comment Kaiser NJW 2015, 2343 and comment Elzer FD-ZVR 2015, 369436 ) is prescribed for judgments (§ 310 I ZPO; exceptions: § 310 III ZPO, see immediately) as well as for decisions issued on the basis of oral proceedings (§ 329 I ZPO).
This promulgation is replaced by delivery ("in lieu of promulgation") in the case of recognition judgments and judgments by default rendered in the written (preliminary) proceedings as well as judgments which reject an objection to a judgment by default or an enforcement order pursuant to 341 II ZPO (§ 310 III ZPO).
For the rest, i.e. in the case of all resolutions not adopted on the basis of oral proceedings), informal notification to the parties is sufficient in principle (§ 329 II 1 ZPO; cf. also § 41 FamFG); however, in certain cases delivery is prescribed as a form of notification (cf. in particular §§ 329 II 2, 544 IV 3 ZPO).

When exactly a decision that has not been promulgated (but instead delivered or - if necessary by delivery - communicated) has become legally existent is not answered uniformly: Sometimes, the focus is on the completion of the act of delivery or communication (cf. e.g., BGH NJW 2004, 2125 [ 2125 ]; Prütting/Gehrlein/Lemke, ZPO, 9th edition 2017, § 516 marginal 5), but correctly the initiation of delivery or notification by the office should suffice - as a withdrawal comparable to the promulgation (e.g. in addition to the decision discussed here, BGH NZM 2017, 147 marginal 12 with further evidence). Up to this point in time, the court must still observe the written submissions of the parties and their procedural acts.

Accordingly, the order of the district court, business number 710 XIV 777/16 L, was issued at the earliest on 10/26/2016, the date of the ordinance (AS 17).

Therefore, the contested order had to be annulled by the regional court, at least due to procedural errors and should never have been issued by the district court.

After the legal process in this matter has ended without correction of the order, both the deliberate issuing of an invalid order and the deliberate rejection against better knowledge of my complaint against an invalid order fulfill the criminal offense of denial of justice.

Access to the files

Through a lawyer I requested access to the files:

The files support the claims I made in this blog post,

that the order of the Local Court, dated August 26, 2016, does not originate from that date, since it was issued - at the earliest - on October 26, 2016
and I did not stay voluntarily in the closed psychiatric ward, but - according to the files and without a court order - was forcibly admitted according to PsychKHG.

According to document 19 in the file, it is to be assumed that the order of the district court, reference number 710 XIV 777/16 L, dated August 26, 2016, went to the Registry for Custody Matters of the District Court of Karlsruhe in December 2016 and was thus also issued.

I wanted to have this confirmed with a request for information from the Registry for Custody Matters:

Instead of the court clerk, I had written to, Dr. Schwirblat, judge at the district court, replied:

Custody proceedings are being conducted under case number XIV. This is meant by "department XIV". I am not able to say when the decision reached the registry office.

I consider both pieces of information to be implausible.

Judge Wermann had written in document 17:

Order in writing to the District Court of Karlsruhe, department XIV, for further action.

I suspect: Department XIV is not only a file number but actually a department of the court - the number of the department is part of the file number.

It would follow from the assigned file number (710 XIV 777/16 L) that in 2016 department XIV was responsible for custody proceedings.

However, this is not the case:

Both in the business distribution plan of the District Court of Karlsruhe for the year 2016

as well as for the year 2017

Dr. Schwirblat was responsible for custody matters in department C 10:

C 6 Judge at district court Wermann

Single judge for criminal and fine proceedings against adults, unless the exclusive competence of division C 1 is established per letter c or d there; without judicial acts in preliminary proceedings, except for decisions under §§ 111 a, 153 - 153 b of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) according to the rotation regulated under III C of the additions to the business distribution plan - see also table sheet Rotation+Representation -

C 10 Judge at district court Dr Schwirblat

a. Single judge in criminal and financial penalty proceedings against adults, unless the exclusive competence of division C 1 is established per letters b or c there; without judicial acts in preliminary proceedings, except for decisions under §§ 111 a, 153 - 153 b of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO).

b. Processing of cases from the area of police custody in accordance with the Police Act of Baden-Württemberg and the Federal Police Act

C 14 Judge at district court (waR) Piepenburg

In fact, the decision of the district court of January 30, 2017, which rejects my complaint against the original decision to place me in custody, has also been signed with Schwirblat, judge at the district court.

I, therefore, wonder why the order went to division XIV instead of division X.

Furthermore, there is no indication in the file of how the order left division XIV and went to the registry for Custody Matters.

Because document 19

Original file to the Disctrict Court of Karlsruhe / Registry for Custody Matters / Ms Brecht

is again signed with Wermann, judge at the district court (according to the business distribution plan, division C 6).

In a letter from my lawyer dated 09. October 2019, I requested official statements from persons involved in the proceedings in order to clarify my questions:

The District Court of Karlsruhe rejected my request by letter dated 14. October 2019:

Since the proceedings had already been concluded with legal effect, there were no grounds for requesting official statements.

Again, Dr. Schwirblat, who himself was responsible for custody matters in both 2016 and 2017 in department C 10 and X respectively claims that department C 14 and XIV were responsible:

A brazen lie.

Why is Dr. Schwirblat lying?

Incidentally, we learn that department XIV is not only a file number, as Dr. Schwirblat had claimed in the above-mentioned letter of September 25, 2019 to me, but is actually a department of the court.

Finally, on December 9, 2019, I had a late and shocking epiphany:

I am not a lawyer and have never had anything to do with the judicial or administrative system in my life.

Therefore it took a little longer.

Quoted from the Wikipedia article on file number (Germany):

The judicial file number is used to identify a document and goes back to the File Regulation (AktO) of November 28, 1934, and its predecessors.

In the field of justice, the register code has a similar thematic function as the file number in the field of administration. One formal difference is that the register number consists of letters (or, in the case of voluntary jurisdiction, Roman numerals), whereas the administrative file number is usually based on an Arabic-numerical marking according to the decimal system.

XIV stands for:

Accommodation (§ 312 FamFG) and deprivation of liberty (§ 415 FamFG) in civil jurisdiction at the district court (care court)

And department XIV is the department responsible for register code XIV, i.e. the corresponding department of the district court/care court.

The joke is that lawyers, including my lawyers, with whom I discussed the topic "file number XIV/department XIV" and also obtained official statements on this matter for me and at my expense, must have known immediately what XIV means, but let me puzzle further.

What nonsense is Dr. Schwirblat talking:

"At the District Court of Karlsruhe, all custody cases are conducted under file number XIV."

That would violate the file regulations.

Apparently I am being cheated and lied to from all sides.

Several times I requested a copy of my patient file from the Karlsruhe Municipal Hospital.

After initially evasive answers, I finally received a copy of my patient file in a letter dated November 8, 2019 - here is an extract:

According to the patient file, I refused to sign the treatment contract - contrary to the assertion that I had voluntarily stayed at the Karlsruhe Municipal Hospital.

The patient file also contains a fax from police superintendent Sakatsch, which contains among others the following text - literally quoted:

The person concerned was picked up on August 26, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. from the central custody and was then presented directly to the psychiatric clinic of the Karlsruhe Municipal Hospital (police superintendent Sakatsch/police superintendent Stapf).

A renewed involvement of a contracted police physician was waived in consideration of the overall circumstances.

On request, we attended the interview conducted by Dr. S. Krömer. Mr. Pfefferle could finally be convinced of the necessity of a voluntary inpatient stay and was left in psychiatric care.

However, only one police officer, who told me in conversation that he was from the federal police, took me in a patrol car to the Municipal Hospital. This officer was not present during any interview: Of course not, because police officers have no place in a medical consultation.

In the file, which was handed over to me by the District Court of Karlsruhe, there is no mention of a police superintendent Sakatsch, nor of an end of custody at 09:30 a.m.:

So the file is incomplete.

What were those present overall circumstances that were acknowledged and led to the waiver of a further involvement of the contracted police physician?

In any case, according to this fax, the police superintendent Sakatsch disregarded the decision of the district judge Wermann, who had ordered, allegedly for my protection. custody until 12:00 o'clock as recommended by the police physician.