He insisted on checking the pictures on the replaced flash disk himself,
deleted them after examination claiming they wouldn’t prove anything
while printing out the one relevant picture, falsified evidence, to show it
to my mother.
Fortunately I was able to restore the pictures.
From the behavior of my mother, brother, wife and son, I must
equally conclude that my mother, brother, wife and son were probably
murdered just like my father.
My family may perform a play with me to cover up the murder of my entire
family.
And to claim things about me in public I ignore since I am entirely isolated
here:
Reddit is a pseudonymous community, and revealing or threatening to
reveal someone’s personal, private, or confidential information is not
allowed. This includes sharing links to someone’s public Facebook page
or LinkedIn account, or sharing screenshots where the person’s name or
personal information is viewable. We also don’t tolerate posts or
communities that coordinate, encourage, or participate in
investigations aimed at finding and revealing private, personal, or
confidential information about others.
Before participating in Reddit further, make sure you read and
understand Reddit’s Content Policy, including what’s considered
sharing personal or private information.
If you’re reported for any further violations of Reddit’s Content
Policy, additional actions including banning may be taken against your
account(s).
This is an automated message; responses will not be received by Reddit
admins.
I re-post my stuff which was removed for no sane reason whatsoever.
Sorry, my native language is German. Please excuse mistakes in my use of
English.
Legally I am being accused of nothing. This is completely criminal. They
don't want to take this to court.
First they wanted to kill me by suicide or take care of me in an
institution depriving me of all my rights:
No longer being able to speak in court they would have ruined my family
driving them to suicide.
I didn't do them the favor.
So they are looking for other means and they will find them.
What can you do if a state or some other criminal agent with vast
resources wants to kill you?
I openly admit that I have troubles.
I call it a nervous disorder. But I am neither schizophrenic nor
paranoid.
My name and address:
Andreas Pfefferle
Im Eichbäumle 18
76139 Karlsruhe
Germany
I am married and I have an eighteen year old son. My parents live next
door.
None of them can or want to help me in this matter.
They wanted to commit the perfect crime exterminating my whole family
but I spoiled the party.
This is the end game.
Now they will certainly kill me if this doesn't go viral.
If I were simply delusional, paranoid or schizophrenic they would put me
in an institution by court order.
But they can't because I have documents and hardware to prove that I am
right.
It is possible that I am a public person locally or globally without
knowing:
My family's access to news is filtered and manipulated:
For this purpose they even installed additional dedicated telephone and
TV lines.
Believe it or not they print a customized newspaper for us and criminal
contact persons we thought were our friends so they can speak with us.
They claim or are going to claim that I am a perverse pedophile.
Probably I have also raped dozens of women.
All this is complete nonsense:
I have never committed a crime in my life according to the German Penal
Code.
Now the post:
Picture fake or staged: They wanted to kill me making it appear a
suicide and then frame me thereby exterminating my whole family by
suicide
This picture, supposedly taken by my surveillance camera on 07/27/2021,
is either fake as photo-shopped or lying as staged.
The guys in police uniform, probably real police officers, are criminals
who either were never at my home or never with me at my home. In the
second case, the person, supposedly me, sandwiched between the uniformed
rascals, is in fact not me but somebody else impersonating me.
Because of an incident on 07/27/2021 involving four uniformed morons,
three men, and one woman, who the surveillance camera should have
captured, I wanted to check the camera around 01:00 am on 07/28/2021: It
was gone. I entered and searched my house with suspicions, noting a
missing cell phone. Alarmed, I decided to spend the night at my
parent's. Around 06:00 am on 07/28/2021 the surveillance camera was
back. A check revealed the replacement of the flash disk by another one,
where I found the above-mentioned fake or lying photo. Later I
discovered the missing cell phone in my house in the living room under
an armchair.
My only explanation for all of this is, that somebody had illegally
taken the cell phone from my house and the surveillance camera from my
garden to criminally manipulate them quickly before bringing them back,
a plain falsification of evidence.
Unfortunately, I thwarted their hopes of nobody noticing.
The police or some other criminal agent with vast resources wanted to
frame me after killing me that day/night making it appear like a suicide
thereby exterminating my whole family by suicide with false allegations
about me.
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.
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.
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.
