Criminal complaint against unknown persons and the operators of the De-Mail system

Criminal complaint against unknown persons and the operators of the De-Mail system, initially at 1&1 De-Mail GmbH, Mentana-Claimsoft GmbH and procilon IT-Solutions GmbH, according to §§ 268, 269, 270 StGB and all other relevant criminal offenses

For months, even years, I have been trying to report crimes committed against me to the state investigation authorities: By email, by post as a standard letter, by registered letter with advice of receipt, by fax, by lawyers: In vain, as you can read above in the cover letter and the other attached criminal complaints.

Finally, I wanted to try De-Mail:

https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Themen/DigitaleGesellschaft/EGovernment/DeMail/DeMail.html

Now I am a customer of 1&1 De-Mail GmbH with a P.O. Box andreas.pfefferle@amp-e.de-mail.de.

After the Attorney General at the Federal Court of Justice, whom I had written to by De-Mail registered letter, declared himself to be not competent, I turned to the Karlsruhe Public Prosecutor's Office on 05/25/2020, again by De-Mail registered letter, under the address sta- karlsruhe@egvp.de - mail.de.

To my De-Mail registered letter, I immediately received a dispatch confirmation from the De-Mail system via versandbestaetigung@sec.de-mail.de:

This confirms that the message was sent to the recipient with the following information.

The confirmation was sent by sec, http://www.sec.de-mail.de.

(By the way, the URL http://www.sec.de-mail.de leads into digital nirvana.)

However, I have not received an acknowledgment of receipt for my De-Mail registered letter until today.

Therefore, I contacted the customer service of my De-Mail provider, 1&1 De-Mail GmbH, first by phone and then by email.

At first, I received an utterly pointless answer: You only receive confirmations of receipt if you select the option “registered mail“, which I had done and paid for.

After I had complained to the 1&1 customer service about this nonsense, I received a new explanation:

You only receive a confirmation of receipt if you choose the option “Personal and confidential“ – I have no idea what is technically behind this option and what the 0.24 € per message are supposed to buy me – and thus, if you succeed to comply with all legal formalities. The courts have a traffic light system that only permits the admission of De-Mail messages that have been confirmed by the sender – that is, sent with the option “Personal and confidential“.

In contradiction to this, however, I received a standard post office letter, allegedly from the Public Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe, dated 06/02/2020, which refers to my De-Mail registered letter and does not mention any legal formal error on my part.

Because of these discrepancies, I suspect that the De-Mail system operators are cheating me and that my messages never reach their destination.

Therefore, I sent my message again to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Karlsruhe on 06/19/2020 at 08:24 pm, as a registered letter and this time with the option “Personal and confidential“ mentioned by the customer service, taking one hundred and three other public prosecutor's offices of the Federal Republic of Germany on Cc.

I immediately received a dispatch confirmation from sec, http://www.sec.de-mail.de, and/or versandbestaetigung@sec.de-mail.de, and also in the period of approximately three minutes, between 08:26 pm and 08:29 pm, about twenty confirmations of receipt from fp-demail.de, http://www.fp-demail.de, and/or eingangsbestaetigung@fp-demail.de.

Further confirmations of receipt from fp-demail.de, http://www.fp-demail.de, and/or eingangsbestaetigung@fp-demail.de, were received between 08:47 pm and 21:46 pm.

According to my current technical understanding, the company procilon IT-Solutions GmbH maintains a De-Mail mailbox at Mentana-Claimsoft GmbH, a subsidiary of Francotyp-Postalia, to which all De-Mail messages are sent that are indirectly addressed via the De-Mail address to electronic court and administration mailboxes (EGVP).

The company procilon IT-Solutions GmbH then distributes the messages, which have ended up in the collective account at Mentana-Claimsoft GmbH, to the EGVP participants.

Presumably, Mentana-Claimsoft GmbH generates confirmations of receipt immediately when the message is deposited in the De-Mail collective mailbox of procilon IT-Solutions GmbH, although the message has not yet reached the actual EGVP recipient.

Obviously, in this system, the sender can never know whether his message has actually been delivered to the addressed EGVP participant.

Maybe my current technical understanding is wrong.

Irrespective of this, it is extremely worrying that for some registered De-Mail messages acknowledgments of receipt were generated several times and with different time stamps.

For example, I have received four confirmations of receipt from the Augsburg Public Prosecutor's Office through fp-demail.de, http://www.fp-demail.de, or eingangsbestaetigung@fp-demail.de:

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 08:57:12 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta-augsburg@egvp.de-mail.de'. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 08:59:00 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta-augsburg@egvp.de-mail.de'. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 09:12:05 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta-augsburg@egvp.de-mail.de'. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 09:39:04 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta-augsburg@egvp.de-mail.de'. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

And from the Karlsruhe Public Prosecutor's Office I have received three confirmations of receipt through fp-demail.de, http://www.fp-demail.de, and eingangsbestaetigung@fp-demail.de:

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 08:57:02 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta - karlsruhe@egvp.de-mail.de '. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 08:58:50 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta - karlsruhe@egvp.de-mail.de '. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

Hereby it is confirmed that the message with the metadata listed below was received on 06/19/2020 at 09:11:54 pm in the mailbox of the recipient 'sta - karlsruhe@egvp.de-mail.de '. The message was deposited in the collective mailbox of the recipient procilon IT-Solutions GmbH.

In total I have received one hundred and fifteen confirmations of receipt for the one hundred and four De- Mail registered messages sent: From some public prosecutor's offices none at all, from some, one, two, three, or four.

Obviously, the De-Mail system is not working correctly: I claim that this computer system has been tampered with.

When I call up the URL https://de-mail.1und1.de, I am redirected to a login page. In the source code of that page I found this tag:

<script type="text/javascript" src="_files/demail-providers.js"></script>

The file _files/demail-providers.js had the following content on 06/24/2020 at 02:22 am:

var deMailProviders = ["web.de-mail.de", "gmx.de-mail.de", "drv-bund.de-mail.de", "polizei-herford-nrw.de-mail.de"];

About forty minutes later, at 03:03 am on June 24, 2020, the contents of the file _files/demail-providers.js had changed as follows:

var deMailProviders = [];

Consequently, someone must have changed the contents of this file between 02:22 am and 03:03 am on June 24, 2020.

The content of the variable deMailProviders is used in the source code of the application to determine valid De-Mail addresses. The source code checks if this variable is defined and changes its behavior accordingly.

The obviously optional presence of the file _files/demail-providers.js, which can be used to influence the behavior of the 1&1 De-Mail web application, corroborates my suspicion that the system has been manipulated.

This suspicion is further confirmed by the initially completely pointless mentioning of the Herford Police in the source code of the 1&1 De-Mail web application and the modification of the file _files/demail- providers.js file at nighttime.

Criminal complaints at the Attorney General at the Federal Court of Justice

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

On 05/13/2020 I filed criminal charges with a letter to the Attorney General of the Federal Court of Justice in order to initiate the legal evaluation of my decades of persecution on fascist motives.

On 05/19/2020 I found the following letter in my mailbox:

The the Attorney General of the Federal Court of Justice declares itself to have no jurisdiction.

On 07/02/2020 and on 07/24/2020 I sent an extended version of my letters with criminal complaints, which I had filed with public prosecutors, to police authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Criminal complaint for fraud against the lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

Criminal complaint for fraud (§ 263 StGB) and all other relevant criminal offenses against the lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah

Dear Sirs,

with this letter, I, Andreas Pfefferle, born on 10/23/231965 in Karlsruhe, residing at Im Eichbäumle 18, 76139 Karlsruhe, identity card number L8RYVHWVG, file a criminal complaint against the

• lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah, Kantstraße 4, 76137 Karlsruhe and unknown persons

for fraud (§ 263 StGB) and all other relevant criminal offenses.

Please confirm receipt and provide me with the relevant file number.

Justification:

The PDF documents mentioned below can be found at:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GVWqzWbb8vdV-H-xn1vThDBqRs1TkAmn?usp=sharing

On the night of 08/26/2016, I was, against my will, taken by the police with 0.3 ‰ blood alcohol concentration into a drunk tank and then from there, again against my will, taken by the police to a psychiatric hospital, where I was placed in a closed ward against my will, and according to the patient file (Patientenakte.pdf, page 29), which was perhaps partly falsified, without a treatment contract.

On December 29, 2016, an unauthenticated copy of a decision of the District Court of Karlsruhe, dated August 26, 2016, with the reference number 710 XIV 777/16 L - obviously a violation of the file regulations, as there is no department 710 at the District Court of Karlsruhe - by the judge Wermann (AG-Beschluss-26-08-2016.pdf) was allegedly officially delivered to me.

I asked the lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah to appeal against this (AG-Beschwerde-Dr-Schneider-Addae-Mensah-29-01-2017.pdf).

Later, I received an undated copy of a decision by the District Court of Karlsruhe on this complaint, dated 01/30/2017, from the judge Dr. Schwirblat (AG-Beschluss-30-01-2017.pdf).

This letter, which was not signed by the judge Dr. Schwirblat, should have

1. been delivered formally
2. been delivered to my attorney, Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah, instead of me
3. been in certified copy instead of drawn up

Since the decision of the District Court of Karlsruhe from 01/30/2017 did not remedy my complaint, the matter allegedly went to the Regional Court of Karlsruhe.

From my lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah I later received a decision of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe in uncertified copy and without signatures of the judges, which rejects my complaint in an unappealable decision (LG-Beschluss-03-07-2017.pdf).

I then instructed my lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah to lodge a constitutional appeal against this decision of the Regional Court (BVG-VB-Dr-Schneider-Addae-Mensah-10-08-2017.pdf).

In 2018, attorney Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah sent me a copy of a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, not certified and not signed by a judge, in which my complaint is not accepted for decision (BVG-Beschluss-05-10-2018.pdf).

Thereupon I arranged for the lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah to submit my complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (EGMR-Dr-Schneider-Addae-Mensah-18-01-19.pdf: Attorney Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah states 12/18/2019 as the date of his signature, although the complaint was allegedly filed on 01/18/2019).

In 2019, I received from the lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah a decision of the ECHR in English in uncertified copy, which cannot be found anywhere in the publicly accessible databases of the ECHR (EGMR-Beschluss-14-03-2019.pdf).

It follows that the lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah never filed an appeal against the decision of the District Court of Karlsruhe (AG-Beschluss-26-08-2016.pdf), dated 08/26/2016, reference number 710 XIV 777/16 L, and that the matter could therefore not be referred to the Regional Court of Karlsruhe, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and the European Court of Human Rights.

However, I paid for the services of the lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah: The invoices are available as evidence:

The human rights lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah probably cheated me. My attempt to litigate was apparently thwarted by the lawyer I had hired.

At the request of the lawyer Andreas Thomalla, Apothekergässchen 4, 86150 Augsburg, I was granted access to the files for reference number 710 XIV 777/16 L at the District Court of Karlsruhe - see document Akte.pdf.

This document is obviously forged in whole or in part because it contains unsigned and uncertified judicial decisions. However, the falsified file contains allegedly received pleadings from the lawyer Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah.

In December 2018, I received an allegedly certified but unsigned letter from the District Court of Karlsruhe (care matters) - see AG-BG-07-12-2018.pdf. I asked Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah to prevent the appointment of a supervisor for me.

The entire correspondence - AG-BG-Dr-Schneider-Addae-Mensah-16-01-2019.pdf, AG-BG-Beschluss-19-02.2019.pdf - is obviously forged, since the decision of the district court is presented drawn up instead of in certified copy.

In the matter of a parcel sent to me, allegedly from Amazon, which seems suspicious to me, I had initially contacted the police by email seeking help. Only today, I know that my Internet traffic is manipulated and that my criminal charges may never have reached their destination. By request of Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah, I wanted to obtain access to the file. The file (Akte-Amazon.pdf), which Dr. David Schneider-Addae-Mensah later presented to me, is probably a forgery.

I would therefore ask you to initiate an investigation and inform me of the result.

Yours sincerely,

Andreas Pfefferle

Criminal complaint for false certification in office

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

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.

Criminal complaint for deprivation of liberty and insurance fraud

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

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.

Criminal complaint against unknown persons for suspicion of skimming credit card fraud

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

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:

Wikipedia: Credit card fraud - skimming

I would therefore like to ask you to initiate an investigation and to inform me of the outcome of the investigation.

Yours sincerely,

Andreas Pfefferle

Criminal complaint against unknown persons at Amazon

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

On 12/10/2018 I wrote by email to the following email addresses

• KARLSRUHE-WALDSTADT.PREV@polizei.bwl.de (Police station Karlsruhe Waldstadt)
• KARLSRUHE.KD.FUEGR@polizei.bwl.de (Police headquarters Karlsruhe)
• stuttgart.lka@polizei.bwl.de (State Criminal Police Office of Baden-Württemberg)
• karlsruhe.kd.k5@polizei.bwl.de
• christoph.knappich@polizei.bwl.de
• schmietenknop@cvs-kanzlei.de

under the subject: Criminal complaint against unknown persons at Amazon on the basis of §§ 268, 269, 270 German Penal Code:

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

With this email message I am filing a criminal complaint against unknown persons with Amazon on the basis of §§ 268, 269, 270 German Penal Code.

Please see my PowerPoint presentation at the following link to explain my complaint

Shared OneDrive folder

in the file Amazon.pptx.

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)
• KARLSRUHE.KD.FUEGR@polizei.bwl.de (Police Headquarters Karlsruhe)

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.

Yours sincerely,

Andreas Pfefferle

Criminal complaint for deprivation of liberty

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

On 08/11/2019 I wrote by email to the following email addresses

• KARLSRUHE-WALDSTADT.PREV@polizei.bwl.de (Police station Karlsruhe Waldstadt)
• KARLSRUHE.KD.FUEGR@polizei.bwl.de (Police headquarters Karlsruhe)
• 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:

A Season in Hell

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.

Yours sincerely,

Andreas Pfefferle

Criminal complaint for denial of justice

Diesen Blog-Beitrag in deutscher Sprache lesen

On 08/10/2019 I wrote by email to the following email addresses

• KARLSRUHE-WALDSTADT.PREV@polizei.bwl.de (Police station Karlsruhe Waldstadt)
• KARLSRUHE.KD.FUEGR@polizei.bwl.de (Police headquarters Karlsruhe)
• 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:

A Season in Hell

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.

Yours sincerely,

Andreas Pfefferle