On November 22, 2019, I filed disciplinary/professional supervision
complaints and a criminal complaint according to § 348 for false
certification in office against
Police intendent Beilmann, Karlsruhe Waldstadt police station
Police superintendent Sakatsch, Karlsruhe Waldstadt police station
The public prosecutor's office replied with a letter dated December 3,
2019.
Against this decision, I filed a complaint in a letter dated December 16,
2019.
Also on November 22, 2019 I filed a criminal complaint according to § 348
for false certification in office against
Dr. Schwirblat, Judge at the district court
The public prosecutor's office replied with a letter dated November 29,
2019.
Against this decision, I filed a complaint in a letter dated December 13,
2019.
In a letter dated December 30, 2019, the Public Prosecutor's Office
replied to my disciplinary/professional supervision complaints with
Karlsruhe Police Headquarters.
By letter dated January 9, 2020, the General Prosecutor's Office replied
to my complaint of December 13, 2019.
On November 29, 2019, I filed criminal charges according to § 239 StGB
(deprivation of liberty) and § 263 StGB (fraud, insurance fraud) against
all persons responsibly involved in my custody on August 26, 2016, with
subsequent involuntary stay from August 26, 2016, until August 31, 2016,
in the clinic for psychiatry and psychotherapeutic medicine of the
Municipal Hospital Karlsruhe.
The public prosecutor's office in Kalrsruhe replied in a grotesque letter
dated December 5, 2019.
The treatment contract submitted by the complainant (document 23) refers
to optional services that are not covered by statutory health insurance
companies. However, such were, according to the argument of the
complainant, not charged. The obligation to reimburse the expenses of
the treating party by statutory health insurance results from public
law, irrespective of the conclusion of a contract for optional services.
For these reasons, there was no investigation procedure to be initiated.
A brazen lie!
Translation:
You are the victim of state crime and should seek asylum in a state which
honors the rule of law!
By letter dated December 20, 2019, I lodged a complaint.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Am 29.11.2019 erstattete ich Strafanzeigen nach § 239 StGB
(Freiheitsberaubung) und § 263 StGB (Betrug, Versicherungsbetrug) gegen
alle an meiner lngewahrsamnahme am 26.08.2016 mit anschließenden
unfreiwilligen Aufenthalt vom 26.08.2016 bis zum 31.08.2016 in der Klinik
für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapeutische Medizin des Städtischen Klinikums
Karlsruhe verantwortlich beteiligten Personen.
Die Staatsanwaltschaft Kalrsruhe antwortete mir mit einem grotesken
Schreiben datiert zum 05.12.2019.
Der von dem Anzeigeerstatter vorgelegte Behandlungsvertrag (AS 23)
bezieht sich auf Wahlleistungen, die nicht vom Versicherungsschutz der
gesetzlichen Krankenversicherungen umfasst sind. Solche wurden nach dem
Vorbringen des Anzeigeerstatters jedoch nicht abgerechnet. Die
Erstattungspflicht der Aufwendungen des Behandelnden durch die
gesetzliche Krankenversicherung, ergibt sich aus öffentlichem Recht
unabhängig vom Zustandekommen eines Vertrages über Wahlleistungen.
Aus diesen Gründen war daher kein Ermittlungsverfahren einzuleiten.
Eine dreiste Lüge!
Übersetzung:
Sie sind das Opfer eines Staatsverbrechens und sollten sich um Asyl in
einem Rechtsstatt bemühen!
Mit Schreiben datiert zum 20.12.2019 legte ich Beschwerde ein.
Am 22.11.2019 erstattete ich
Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde/Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde und Strafanzeige nach §
348 wegen Falschbeurkundung im Amt gegen
PK Beilmann, Polizeirevier Karlsruhe Waldstadt
POK Sakatsch, Polizeirevier Karlsruhe Waldstadt
Mit Schreiben datiert zum 03.12.2019 antwortete mir die
Staatsanwaltschaft.
Gegen diesen Bescheid legte ich mit Schreiben vom 16.12.2019 Beschwerde
ein.
Ebenfalls am 22.11.2019 erstattete ich Strafanzeige nach § 348 wegen
Falschbeurkundung im Amt gegen
Dr. Schwirblat, Richter am Amtsgericht
Mit Schreiben datiert zum 29.11.2019 antwortete mir die
Staatsanwaltschaft.
Gegen diesen Bescheid legte ich mit Schreiben vom 13.12.2019 Beschwerde
ein.
Mit Schreiben datiert zum 30.12.2019 antwortete mir die Staatsanwaltschaft
auf meine Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde/Fachaufsichtsbeschwerde beim
Polizeipräsidium Karlsruhe.
Mit Schreiben datiert zum 09.01.2020 antwortete mir die
Generalstaatsanwaltschaft auf meine Beschwerde vom 13.12.2019.
On 08/01/2019 I wrote by email to the following email address
KARLSRUHE-WALDSTADT.PREV@polizei.bwl.de (Police station Karlsruhe
Waldstadt)
under the subject: Criminal complaint against unknown persons on suspicion
of attempted skimming fraud:
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I hereby file a criminal complaint against unknown persons at TOTAL petrol
station, Karlsruherstraße 82, 76139 Karlsruhe, Germany, on suspicion of
attempted skimming fraud and file a criminal complaint for all possible
offences.
This is based on the following facts:
On 07/26/2019 I went to the TOTAL petrol station, Karlsruherstraße 82,
76139 Karlsruhe, around 02:20 a.m., to supply myself with drinks and
cigarettes.
When I wanted to pay at the night desk with my girocard, it was said that
this was not possible this night: The necessary device had failed.
I didn't have any cash with me, so I asked if it would be possible to pay
later by depositing my identity card.
The lady at the counter refused, but offered me to do the payment herself
by handing over my PIN and my girocard if I trusted her.
I provided her with PIN and girocard and after about two minutes waiting
time, at about 02:23 o'clock, I received my goods, a bill -
see photo in the appendix - with correct prices and my girocard back.
In addition, I demanded the paper back on which I had noted my PIN - in
blue letters -
see photo in the appendix - for the lady. On this piece of paper there is a second PIN, allegedly
from a customer to whom the same had happened before.
At home I disabled my girocard at 02:43 via my smartphone.
I noticed that I had not received any notification of the payment that had
just been made:
However, these notifications normally arrive within a few minutes at the
latest, as my bank, ING-DiBa AG, confirmed in a telephone conversation.
When exactly I do not know, but it must have taken hours, the notification
arrived with a time stamp of 02:26 o'clock, 07/26/2019.
I suspect that I was to become a victim of a skimming attack: see - also
for the criminal appreciation in the documents linked there:
You can view it directly in the browser in edit and presentation mode.
I have also more or less literally set the notes in the PowerPoint
presentation to voice. The audio and the videos in the presentation are
played automatically when viewed as a screen presentation.
The summary and concluding remarks from my PowerPoint presentation are
given here:
An order at Amazon is processed 99% by a computer system:
The EDP system receives the order, assigns it a unique code and decides
which logistics centers will deliver the ordered goods.
Employees, in some cases also robots, in the selected logistics centers
are informed by the IT system about the new order and the ordered goods,
retrieve the ordered goods from shelves and place them in baskets which
are identified by a machine-readable bar code containing the code issued
by the IT system for the order.
The baskets, in which the ordered goods were placed, are brought together
mechanically, controlled by the EDP system.
The contained goods are packed by employees and the package is provided
with the bar code.
The order is always identified by this bar code: The employees do not know
to whom the order goes.
The parcel is then placed on a conveyor belt, where it is weighed, and the
address label is affixed to it by a machine connected to the EDP system
using the bar code.
Machines controlled by the computer system transfer the parcel into a
container, which is transported by an external logistics company or Amazon
Logistics, in trucks - or even aircraft - to a distribution center near
the customer.
From there, the parcels are delivered to the customer by delivery vans.
In this process, the EDP system generates technical records, data or a
record of events, of the order and parcel status.
Among other things, it records when the order arrived, when the order left
the logistics center and, in the case of delivery by Amazon Logistics,
when and where the parcel passes through Amazon locations until it finally
reaches the customer.
These records are partially visible in the parcel tracking and machine
sent e-mails.
The records, labels and data generated by the EDP system are
evidence-relevant data: they document the order, its processing and the
route of the parcel to the customer in a legally binding manner.
The authenticity of this machine-generated evidence-relevant data depends
on the proper, manipulation-free operation of the EDP system.
In manipulation-free operation
this computer system does not label a package several times without this
being recorded in some form that can be viewed and communicated by
Amazon Customer Service,
this EDP system does not create the label on the package delivered to me
on 15.10.2018,
this EDP system does not send any e-mails from
shipment-tracking@amazon.de after confirmation of dispatch if delivery
is made by Amazon Logistics,
the EDP system lists the email messages sent by me via the contact form
in the Message Center under "Sent Messages",
as I explained in my PowerPoint presentation.
Therefore, the EDP system was wrongly influenced and technical records and
evidence data were falsified.
§ 268 protects the security of the information acquisition by technical
devices as well as the confidence in the origin of the recordings free
from manipulations.
§ 269 protects in accordance with §§ 267 and 268 the security and
reliability of the legal and evidence exchange concerning the handling of
evidence relevant data.
§ 270 contains an equal treatment clause for the wrongful manipulation of
data processing for all facts which presuppose the characteristic "for
deception in legal transactions" (§ 152a ¶ 3, §§ 267, 268, 269, 271, 273,
281).
Without this protection, I can understandably have no confidence in the
authenticity of the package delivered to me on 10/15/2018, allegedly from
Amazon, because the Amazon customer service is not able to tell me when,
where, why and by whom the package was re-labeled.
Yours sincerely,
Andreas Pfefferle
I had already contacted the police before, seeking help in this matter.
The first contact was an email, which I sent on 10/26/2018 to the
following email addresses
KARLSRUHE-WALDSTADT.PREV@polizei.bwl.de (Police station Karlsruhe
Waldstadt)
under the subject: Computer crime/cybercrime: Suspicion of unauthorized
access to my Amazon account:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My name is Andreas Pfefferle and I live in Eichbäumle 18 in 76139
Karlsruhe.
On October 20, 2018 I contacted Amazon at 17:50 by phone under the German
support number 0800 3638469.
The usual recorded announcement switched by support service providers was
played.
However it was announced - I quote from memory:
"Conversations are recorded for training purposes. If you don't want this,
please press the number two button."
Other options were not offered.
This seems strange to me:
Only one option? So why choose the number two key for this option?
I pressed the number two key.
(I have enabled two-factor authentication on my Amazon account.)
The support employee who allegedly needed access to my account wasn't able
to access my account at first - which seems implausible to me.
I was sent an SMS with the code of the second factor. The support
representative asked me to read it out. I complied with this request.
I was not asked for the first factor, the password.
The support employee asked me on the phone to write an email to
impressum@amazon.de for further information.
I also received an email with this request, which I quote below literally.
Of course, impressum@amazon.de is not a support email address.
Therefore, and because of all the anomalies of the phone call, I suspect
that someone has gained unauthorized access to my Amazon account and my
conversation partner was not an Amazon Support employee.
I therefore urge you to start an investigation. If you need or want to
speak to me personally, we can make an appointment.
stuttgart.lka@polizei.bwl.de (State Criminal Police Office of
Baden-Württemberg)
under the subject: Criminal complaint for deprivation of liberty:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
with this email message I am filing a criminal complaint for deprivation
of liberty according to § 239 German Penal Code against the person
mentioned in the order of 07/03/2017 of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe,
file number 11 T 52/17
Dr. Geßler, police doctor on contract.
For the reasons I refer to my blog post under the link:
There you will find the complete context to the order of 07/03/2017 of the
Regional Court of Karlsruhe, file number 11 T 52/17, the order itself, as
well as the letters of the lawyer who represented me in this case.
To sum up, I mention here:
The Regional Court of Karlsruhe writes in its order of 07/03/2017, file
number 11 T 52/17:
The father of the 51-year-old affected person contacted the police
station Karlsruhe - Waldstadt on 08/26/2016 at 4.40 a.m. and asked the
police officers for help because his son was mentally ill and had
thoughts of suicide running around the house screaming that he would
kill himself.
The police officers who appeared on the scene were able to determine
that the affected person had cuts on his wrists which apparently did not
bleed. The affected person informed the police that he was terminally
ill and could not be cured. He was also mentally ill and took
antidepressants. In the course of making contact, a mixed consumption
turned out to have taken place. An ENVI TEC alcohol test carried out at
04.48 a.m. showed a breath alcohol content of 0.35 permille.
After consultation with the police contract doctor Dr. Geßler, it was
decided that the person concerned was currently not fit to be admitted
to a psychiatric institution according to PsychKHG but should first
sober up. The affected person was taken into police custody and taken to
a sobering cell.
Around 6:30 a.m., the on-call judge in charge heard the affected person
by telephone. He informed the judge that he had the right to take his
own life and that he was taking medication. However, he did not want to
specify it.
Around 10:00 a.m. the person concerned was again brought before the
police contract doctor Dr. Geßler. The doctor decided that 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 12:00 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.
The affected person was then transferred to the Municipal Hospital,
where he remained voluntarily until his discharge on 08/30/2016.
(The subordinate clause
where he remained voluntarily until his discharge on 08/30/2016
is part of a botched cover-up attempt.)
Accordingly, the police contract doctor Dr. Geßler decided on 08/26/2016
to arrest me in a psychiatric institution in accordance with PsychKHG,
after he had me imprisoned for about eight hours in a sobering cell to
"sober up" 0.35 permille.
Both the imprisonment in a sobering cell and the admission according to
PsychKHG lack any legal basis.
This results already from the fact that the admission according to
PsychKHG was to be hushed up, after I had put in a protest over a lawyer
against the imprisonment in the psychiatric facility:
Suddenly it was said that I was voluntarily on a closed ward, and in the
order of the District Court of Karlsruhe on the incidents of 26.08.2016,
business number 710 XIV 777/16 L, which was sent to me on 12/29/2016, the
admission according to PsychKHG is not mentioned at all.
I would therefore ask you to open an investigation and to inform me of the
outcome of the investigation.
stuttgart.lka@polizei.bwl.de (State Criminal Police Office of
Baden-Württemberg)
under the subject: Criminal complaint for denial of justice:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
With this email message I file a criminal complaint for denial of justice
according to § 339 German Penal Code against the signatories of the order
of 07/03/2017 of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe, file number 11 T 52/17:
Tauscher, Chairman Judge at regional court
Dr. Meyer-Spasche, Judge at regional court
Suchecki, Judge
and against the signatory of the order of the District Court of Karlsruhe,
business number 710 XIV 777/16 L:
Wermann, Judge at district court.
For the reasons I refer to my blog post under the link:
You will find there the entire context of these orders, the orders
themselves, as well as the letters of the lawyer who represented me in
this case.
To sum up, I mention here:
I have lodged a complaint against the order of the District Court of
Karlsruhe, business number 710 XIV 777/16 L which was not remedied, so
that the Regional Court of Karlsruhe had to decide on my complaint.
The regional court rejected my complaint. The Federal Constitutional Court
and the European Court of Human Rights did not accept my complaint for
decision.
The decision of the regional court is thus provisionally final.
Among other things, the regional court cites as reason for rejecting my
complaint:
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 delivered to
me on 12/29/2016, was not issued on 08/26/2016, as the regional court also
knows.
To justify this assertion I refer to my blog post quoted above: The orders
of the district court and the Regional Court are contradictory in
themselves and contradict each other. Every textual examination of these
two documents by competent experts will come to the result I maintain.
((I do not know whether the files have been falsified in the meantime. I
have been waiting in vain for weeks for access to the files and have now
decided to file a criminal complaint without this access based solely on
the - grotesque - documents available.)
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 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 constitute a criminal offence of denial of justice.
I would therefore ask you to open an investigation and to inform me of the
outcome of the investigation.
