Abe's Open Letters to World: en_ResistTheBeginnings

RESIST THE BEGINNINGS!

NEVER FORGET!

NEVER AGAIN!

Online Version

[References of blocked Web pages with alternative URLs can be found at the end of the document]

Bending of laws, abuse of rights and pretended justice

Considering the background of our disastrous history a bending of laws as well as abuse of rights and pretended justice must wake up those civil courage in any responsible citizen of this country that once had prompted the protagonists of the German resistance to give their lives in order to overcome a system of injustice.

Once again, we face this threat to the rule of law by those institutions which normally should ensuring the rule of law.

Ostentatious defiance of European laws regulations

The European Court of human rights has repeated explained that the restriction of the human right of freedom of expression is only permitted for national security risks or for violations of personality rights for private individuals. The European Court of human rights has explicitly denied any justification of the use of injunctions to prevent freedom of expression. As well, the Court highlighted the illegality of any constraint attempts of the original intention of the proclamation of freedom of expression.

The human right of freedom of expression has been proclaimed to never again allow the violations of human rights by officials in enterprises, authorities, institutions, administrations and governmental organizations, which were responsible for the death of millions of forced laborers and prisoners in concentration camps at the time of the German system of injustice.

Despite these unique regulations of the European Court of human rights, these ostentatiously will be disregarded from the German (mostly Bavarian) judicial authorities. The proponents of those disregard of European human rights regulations obviously assuming that it will lack individuals on perseverance and it hardly will be able, to assert their claims in the last instance before the European Court of Justice. Nationally, judicial authorities has established already many mechanisms to systematically undermine the regulations of the European Court of human rights. These includes an illegal mandatory representation by lawyers before higher judicial courts, the undermining a liability claim by clients against lawyers and an unfounded non acceptance statement for constitutional complaints at the Federal Constitutional Court. And last but not least, the German judicial authorities has established "Watchdogs" at the European Court of Human Rights in order to "filter out complaint inputs" already in advance, which possibly compromises the German judicial system. So, we can not impressively resist, that decisions of the European Court of human rights only representing a relevance to the German judicial authorities if it is facing a public observation, otherwise they wipes it autocratically with pretended causality as junk from the proverbial desk.

[suspected way of thinking of German judicial authorities]

Quotes:
"We need no law. Who is against us will be destroyed."
"It should spoof rule of law. However, we must keep full control."
"A citizen has just as much right as we grant to him."

All this shows striking parallels to the legal history of the darkest German epoch, where faked jurisdiction has been applied within show trials against the world, with supposedly constitutional rituals, with the glow of a democratically legitimized principle of law, but however by its protagonists, Roland Freisler, the real diabolical nature of this legal system has been presented. The author is not able incessantly look beyond law abuse, bending of laws and pretended justice since it causes a spiral of escalation to the result, where it wouldn't be reversible anymore.

Perception of the human right of freedom of expression

Within underlying cases the author has published documentation about occurrences which undoubtedly have parallels with the initiation and establishment of the darkest chapter of German history. The documentation based solely on factual descriptions of actual occurrences and include neither slurs nor denigration about involved people. Also, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stated that no one has the right to be seen only positively in public, but also must accept critical comments of his acting, otherwise the fundamental principle of democracy and a liberal order would systematically be suspended and thus once again a system of injustice would be established. The author is sure that no lawyer of the people involved would intervene if a collection of prominent personalities would deal with the Web pages of the author and they would be mentioned. In retrospect to want undo an unethical behavior by blocking and deletion of contents of a documentation can not be harmonized with the claim of a liberal order.

For explanation a compressed summary of one of the underlying cases. The author was promised a transfer of his employment to a fixed, permanent employment after half of a year of his temporary employment. Despite weekly reminders the promises was never implemented, but also never revoked. Through this unfulfilled promise and the hope of the author on implementation, he was compelled unilaterally to compensate 13 external contractors and working over years from 6:00am to to 11.00pm without overtime compensation by covering a multiple workload comparing to the internal staff. Similarly, it has to be noticed that during the period, where a permanent position for the author was denied, at the same time 15 permanent positions has been implemented, where the author had to cover often the purview of these employees due to their lack of expertise. The overload ultimately resulted in occurrences where the author had to survive two life-threatening emergency medical missions where a permanent damage stayed back from the latter one. After the author tried to make the promises claimed on the ordinary courts, the employment relationship was terminated by the contractor and his temporary employer. The labor court rejected the claim of the author as not enough substantiated without hearing from witnesses but with unilateral conspiracy between opposing lawyer and the judge, although the claim of the author has been prepared by attorney support. This has nothing in common with rule of law and contradicts also the requirements of a fair trial of the European Court of human rights, especially as the court illegally decided a mandatory obligation of a lawyer for the following instance, which means a systematic undermining of legal claims for less wealthy individuals such as the author. A retired lawyer, who reviewed the claim of the author, confirmed the substance of the author's claim and commented the interpretation of the labor court judge with the words: "The judge's incompetent assessment lets only suspect an exam management on basis of the pool from Junker Jörg L., otherwise it would be incomprehensible."

In a second case of the underlying causae, the author had a workload average of 500 hours per month, which could be proven by the time recording system of the employer beyond reasonable doubt. In Germany are time tracking systems subject of a statutory 10-year retention and accountability. This statutory retention and accountability thus induced a same regulatory evaluation coercion such as, for example, the evaluation of recording devices after accidents in public transport systems such as the air and rail transport. A non-perception of a compulsory state supervision must be considered as disregarded responsibility against the burdened past, as abuses of such supervisory duties were undoubtedly identified by the scientific historical research as major causes of initiating and establishing of the worst humanitarian catastrophe.

In summary, the underlying documentation are addressing violations of human rights, which calls for an unequivocal determination of position from every responsible citizen due to the proven causality of the greatest human catastrophe which is absolutely protected by the human right of freedom of expression, so that the man is not forced to attack as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, as articulated within the Universal Declaration of human rights. The Universal Declaration of human rights therefore implies a justification for the use of the last resort, if judicial authorities undermining human rights ostentatiously or by pretended judgments.

The documentation includes the following human rights violations:

Application of exclusions relating to age, social and ideological circumstances
Application of psychological terror through bullying
Undermine the state mandatory supervision
Undermining of the right to be heard
Refusal of the constitutional right of a fair trial
Undermine the debt liability of lawyers
Undermining the claim for compensation of abuses of intellectual property rights
Destruction of evidence by access prevention (censorship)
Application state tyranny by intimidation and repression
Establishing state bullying by unlawful application of interim disposal
Elimination of the human right of freedom of expression
State-approved civil defamation by unlawful application of NAZI Treachery Act

Protection of freedom of expression by the German Basic Law

To emphasize his opinion contains the documentation of the author characteristic quotes from well known personalities from the past and from present as well as poetic verses of Holocaust survivors with the claim of a real German perception of responsibility. Thus, the documentation are protected by the German Basic Law by the article regarding freedom of art as well as by the articles regarding freedom of science because the documentation reflect only secured findings of the scientific historical research. In all democratic societies are critical blogger affirmed with a status of press organs, because they mostly are the only one who addresses rights violations and abuse of rights. This fact is well known from any injustice systems of the past, where only individuals opposed against the injustice system, while all other institutions a failed function has to be attested, including those from which a controlling function was been expected. Thus, the documentation of the author are as well protected by the German Basic Law by those articles referring freedom of press.

In spite of unquestionable protection claim of the documentation in terms of the General Declaration of human rights, the European Convention on human rights and of the German Basic Law, the adversaries of the author and judicial authorities sabotaged the documentations with mechanisms, which had disregarded any democratic and constitutional principles. So, service partner of the author who have provided essential functions for the documentation were caused with false accusations to cease the service without informing the author. The false allegations were reasoned on alleged infringement of copyright, on alleged dissemination of malicious software as well as alleged spreading of other inappropriate content such as child pornography or other salacious content. This shows without doubt those mechanisms from the injustice system, where during Aryanization also third party have had seen their justification to sabotage and undermine the perception rights of victims in order to drive ultimately the victims into emigration or into suicide. We can here not close our perception that in this country obviously until today judicial authorities haven't learned anything from their burdened past and considers mechanisms as still appropriate which were identified by all historians as the cause of the initiating and establishment of the worst humanitarian catastrophe. The sabotage mechanisms still comprises deletions of documentation content of the author, blocking of Web pages, as well as hacker attacks on his websites. Also a disable of the PayPal donations buttons on the Web pages of the author was caused by the lawyer of his opponents. As some years ago a German bank biased towards the company's situation of a media group commented, it was universally regarded as inappropriate opinion of a financial services company. A comparable situation by PayPal must be exposed as reprehensible and unethical behavior which also demonstrates analogies to reprehensible behaviors during the Aryanization of the injustice system. On top of that the opposing lawyers discredited the author by insinuate a paranoid personality disorder to him and attempting to submit him into closed psychiatric establishment.

So we have to recognize a behavior pattern here, where German judicial authorities doesn't let recoil from measures, which evokes in any reflective people an imagination of the sinister German period, where citizens were supplied to physical and psychological destruction only due to nonconformist opinions.

Blocking of websites for evidence destruction

It is assumed that the lawyer of the adversary of the author only with the approval and support of judicial authorities could cause a blocking of Web pages of the author. All the more should be with dismay noticed that German judicial authorities classifies quotes by George Orwell, Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein and further prominent personalities, as well as poems from Holocaust survivors as inappropriate posts which needs to be withheld before the German public. Obviously, the German judicial authorities considers those universally respected personalities as subversive elements, whose thoughts must be eliminated. And again, we have to perceive an analogy to the darkest epoch of German history. Those, who prevents spreading of ideas, will at some point also destroy the people behind the thoughts as recognized beyond reasonable doubt on the examples of the burning books of the injustice system. It is assumed without doubt that the blocking of Web pages of the author was pursued with an intention to destroy evidences or to make it inaccessible in order to be able to paint a purported threat with false claim to the wall which should justify an unlawful intervention. Therefore it must be also assumed that the lawyer of the adversary of the author as well as involved judicial authorities have had pursuing an intention of a physical destruction of the author in order to justify the unlawful interference with abstruse claims. This behavior of judicial authorities can be equated only to an extreme affinity for fascist thinking with the core ideas of human destruction. There is no doubt that we encounter here a blatant attempt of the re-establishing of an injustice system, which spreads fear and physical as well as psychological threats by incorporating in its calculus the destruction of people. Because of this behavior from judicial authorities an intention of physical liquidation of the author can not be excluded by a following claim that the author were identified as an ISIS-Activist, who wore the star of David and a Kipah only for reasons of camouflage.

A citizen, who perceives only fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, has in a country following the rule of laws the claim to be spared by governmental and judicial repression. An inundation with interim disposal (in the case of the author are it hundreds), with threats of arrests and exorbitant fines pursued undoubtedly an intention to spread panic fear among affected persons in order to force them to waiver on fundamental rights or to push them into a final decision of the suicide. An individual, which is constantly confronted by harassing with a threat of fear of death, will hardly be able to finish a projects which has already begun. To take advantage of this fact and to abuse it is obviously the intention of judicial authorities and the attorney of the author's adversaries. The application of such mechanisms were in all ever existing injustice systems an intention to bring critics to silence in order to pour them alive in a proverbial concrete block at a mental level. A legal system, which draws such mechanisms also only into consideration, can be characterized at best as legal system with pretended rule of law instead of a system following the rule of law by the meaning of the words. Such ambitions opposes diametrically any constitutional and democratic claim and demonstrate unequivocally a continuity in the way of thinking between our today's legal system and the injustice system. The Judge of the Federal Court Thomas Fischer confirmed by his note undoubtedly the slumbering high criminal energy within of his profession, which should be controlled by ethical and morally claims as well as by a given oath. Seemingly Mr Fischer have had the Bavarian judicial authorities as a negative example of his critical examination, which regularly exceeds ethical and morally limitations and thus presents itself to the public always again as a legal system without any ethics, without any moral, but with an affinity to the mindset of Roland Freisler.

Quote Thomas Fischer, judge at the Federal Court:

"Let us not fool ourselves: from German imprisonment to Guantánamo, it is only a small step. Our certainty, not to go this step is based on the trust, that those who have sworn an oath have understood the limits and that it will be controlled at least as carefully as any security gate."

Reflection of an ethical / unethical acting legal system

We can imagine the difference between an ethical and an immoral acting legal system on the comparison of the legal systems of the States of Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany.

The legal system of the Israeli victims people has proclaimed for themselves a "Code of ethics for judges" whereas the legal system of the German perpetrator people considers such a manifestation as absolutely unnecessary. The Israeli legal system has articulated the proclamation of this codex certainly not due to misconduct among its own ranks, but from the knowledge of the German history, which served us as eye-opener how fast a legal system can slip to barbarism without mandatory self-obligating ethics. The many excesses of a troubled out of control legal system straight from Bavaria, which clearly not represent isolated cases but the tip of an iceberg, illustrate effectively how urgently the legal system of this country would need to follow a mandatory code of ethics.

A disregard for ethical and moral principles is illustrated also by the behavior of the involved judicial officer. After breaking into the apartment of the author, the following dialogue took place.

JOWimmer:

"Hopefully you know how was dealt with yours equals 70 years ago?"

Author:

"Will you even threatening me?"

JOWimmer:

"Yes, I want to threaten you so that you understand that there exists possibilities
available for me, of which the public has no idea and you will wish to have this
never experienced!"

Author:

"I will not be intimidated by you, since I have only claimed the fundamental right
of freedom of expression!"

The judicial officer has left unspecified on which classification he thought as he characterized the author with his comment "Yours equals". Even the judicial officer has not closer itemized, whether he pursuing an intention to encourage the author to moral courage with his comment on possible measures.

The sequence of the dialogue but suggests other considerations, which the authors tries carefully to avoid a concretion since it might offer reasons for libel suits or claims of false accusations and insulting accusations in the supposedly democratic Germany.

Like so much of the injustice system, also the continued existence of the Treachery Act with a differing nomenclature was over rescued to the present and offers until today ways for judicial authorities to getting rid of unwanted critics.

Fundamental issue of coming to terms about the burdened past

The basic problem of the German legal system is the never coming to terms with the own burdened past and thus it causes a continuum of thinking with the injustice system. Also this issue can be beyond any doubt proven on current examples and examples of the past. Since the time of the injustice system, the German legal system maintains a complicity with offenders. So neither companies and their managers were held accountable, which were responsible for the death of millions of forced laborers, nor companies and their manager were held accountable, which were involved in euthanasia programs, nor companies and their managers were held accountable, which were responsible for the Thalidomide disaster. A current example is the VW exhaust scandal. The fraudulent handling of exhaust measurements between real and test mode was known in Germany for decades. The German legal system and German supervisory authorities saw no need for decades on the reason to go for these manipulations. American supervisory authorities have seen a reason on acting, since they has brought 20 million deaths in conjunction with the unacceptable particulate matter emission. Obviously, 20 million deaths seems to be a negligible size for the German legal system and German supervisory authorities, because from the burdened own past they are familiar with quite different dimensions.

With the VW exhaust scandal we can assume that the German legal system would have afflicted a possible German whistle-blower with illegal interim disposal in a manner, which would allow him only in suicide a way out of an intolerable life situation. So the VW exhaust scandal are showing almost exemplary the difference between a State which feels obligated following the rule of law and such States which tries to hide their diabolical and fraudulent nature behind pretended rules of law. Therefore, it can be no uncertainty about the cognition, that the worst crime against humanity could only happen in this country and it leaves also a defeatism in us, that even the next, everything putting in the shade, disaster will consequently come again from this country, which even would let appear the worst atrocities from ISIS only as marginal notes.

Non-application of the statutory supervisory duty

The non-perception of the constitutional duty of supervision by German supervisory authorities is addressed also in the documentation of the author. So, it is even hardly surprising that blocking was applied by the German legal system also for this topic. The documentation of the author include also treatises, which deal from his point of view with the illegality of procedural provisions, such as the mandatory lawyer representation for higher court instances. The author has the claim of an unambiguous refutation of a possible fallacy of his chain of evidence, against a legal system which purports to follow the rule of law. A claim from the sides of the legal system, we have to accept simply the applied procedural provisions without any critics, without any objections and without any justification and without any review, is clearly a reminiscence of the injustice system and lacks therefore any justification in a democratic, constitutional law system. The fact that even those pages were blocked which deals with the illegality of procedural provisions proves undoubtedly that the reasoning of the author about the regulation has still sufficient substance in scope and depth in order to induce a prevention of attention for other critical citizens by the legal system. With similar occurrences within foreign countries we are often very fast to claim the violations of human rights in those countries and to emphasize Germany arrogant as prime example of a country which indispensable respects human rights. The reality however proves the contrary, that among all Western-oriented States the German legal system probably is that which most often sacrifices human right violations to a discretionary principle.

Abusive exploitation of personality rights

Contrary to the requirements of the European Court of human rights relies the German legal system on purported personality rights of involved people and disregards thereby the higher valued legal claim of victims to uncover their tortures and their polluter. The purported claim of the protection of personality rights of involved people undermines the right of victims because it allows perpetrator to conceal their doings. Moreover, in the German legal system has established a practice, which pursues an instrumentalized intention to conveys victims a subtle inappropriateness of their claim on explaining the suffer happened to them. This instrumentalized, unfair practice of the offender / victim reversal must be exposed as that central mechanism which has caused that perpetrators of the Holocaust were never held accountable. We constantly lament the failure of the German legal system in dealing with the injustice of the sinister chapter of German history but nevertheless we ignore constantly that instrumentalized mechanism which is the fundamental cause of this failure as stated above. Through these instrumentalized, unfair practice, were victims exposed a second time to the degradation on inhumane levels and the explanation of the perpetrators accountability has been prevented. In addition, this mechanism must be attributed without doubt as THE fundamental cause of the initiating and establishment of the worst crime of humanity. Each historian describes this mechanism by the non-perception of the suffering of victims as well as those mechanisms which atrocities had made possible without any explicit arrangements. The atrocities were made possible because lower ranks could implicitly rely on upper ranks respectively on the law system not to be held accountable for their crimes and vice versa upper ranks could implicitly rely on the acting of lower ranks in the desired direction.

So, we must recognize with this instrumentalized, unfair practice even an assumption of the re-establishment of an injustice system. Also today we experiencing again and again at judicial and executive authorities, that lower ranks can rely on upper ranks or on the law system not to be held accountable for their misuses. As an example, the occurrences at the federal police in Hanover should be called, where Muslims were forced to eat contaminated pork mett from the floor by members of the executive authorities. We must keep in mind, that this happen is tantamount to a situation, where a Muslim would be forced to perform sexual intercourse with his mother. Every historian recognizes herein an almost coincident time witnesses description about degrading occurrences from concentration camps. After the case was anyway only occasionally mentioned in the local press, the author ultimately got cognizance about a clandestine setting of the case. As a result of the German history, the author would have expected a social outcry of 'Never again', instead we must take again note about the German peculiarity of 'Looking away' and thus an imaginable repeating of the unimaginable. Unfortunately, it has to be assumed, that even an internal commendation was awarded to involved offenders and thus an impression stuck, according to which the degradation of sub-human is a legitimate claim of members of a master race.

[suspected way of thinking of German judicial authorities and executive authorities]

Disregard of historical reasons evokes relapse in the disaster

If we consider the European history then we have to notice that not only the worst crime against humanity, but even nearly 90 percent of all ever happened disasters in Europe, ranging from pogroms of the middle ages, about witch burnings, Inquisition, religion wars (which alone reduced the European population by 2/3), to the disasters of the first and second world war, were caused by this country respectively from its predecessor empires. At all of those fatal occurrences were judicial and executive authorities not infrequently these institutions which were significantly involved in the disasters. Thus, these institutions have a special responsibility of avoiding a disastrous repetition of history.

This perception of responsibility cannot recognize the author, if a legal system allowed a lawyer an opponent by means, which undoubtedly show analogies to the disastrous German epoch, to literally drive into a possible suicide. A legal system which takes its historical responsibilities, should call to reason such lawyer and must withdraw the permission to the practice of his profession. A lawyer, who considered for himself the constitutional requirements as irrelevant, represents without doubt a threat to the liberal order and democracy.

An approach which follows the rule of law would have been, if the lawyer would have called the European Court of human rights for its clientele in order to confirm a favor of his point of view against the fundamental human right of freedom of expression.

That the lawyer has not passed this step, proves undoubtedly his insight of a failure of this endeavor. This hopelessness of his legal standpoint then still with means of vigilantism converting to accomplished facts, shows a frightening understanding of rule of law and strongly reminiscent to occurrences, where facts were created by causing people to shovels pits in order to subsequently carry them with attached shot in the neck in those pits.

A legal system which allows such practices, tolerates or let it happen, can never be ascribed by a constitutional predicate, but towards our historical responsibility must be clearly designated as injustice system.

A legal system which makes documentary evidences inaccessible by blocking in order to deprive a possibility attention by third parties, pursued beyond reasonable doubt a goal of the destruction of evidences. These are without any doubt mechanisms that we associating with totalitarian injustice systems, but never with jurisdictions with constitutional claims. A legal system, which draws such mechanisms also only into consideration must be clearly designated as injustice system towards our historical responsibility.

A legal system which applies intolerable repression through hundreds of injunctions against respectable citizens, who only takes advantage of the human right of freedom of expression, disregards the fundamental principle of democracy and the liberal order and must be clearly designated as injustice system towards our historical responsibility.

The underlying occurrences demonstrate clearly that in this country the worst crime against humanity, as documented by the scientific historical research, would be repeated in an identical way. As once, judicial authorities would strive to bring critics of the system by intolerable repression to silence, to undermine an acknowledgment of their thinking by third parties. How once also, would executive authorities and judicial officers without hesitation comply the unethical instructions from judicial authorities to pass to repression to victims with the intention to intimidate them, to drive them into emigration or into suicide. So we must note again, that those organizations which were once significantly responsible for the worst crime against humanity, haven't still learned any lessons from their entanglement into the system of injustice and actually are the inspiration for an ominous repetition of our fatal history.

Again must a man with moral sense risk his life to postulate human rights and rule of law in this country

Analogous to the former heroes of the German resistance, the author faces now a life situation where he is exposed to almost intolerable repression caused by judicial and executive authorities with prison sentences and exorbitant fines, only because he followed his conscience by claiming the basic and human right of freedom of expression.

As well as the heroes once at that time can and wants the author not renounce on the fundamental right of freedom of expression and is facing therefore against the ultimate decision either to accept oppression and lack of freedom or to advocate with his life for the adherence to freedom of expression.

The author has decided himself for civil courage and fortitude against the repression of legal system. The initiators of the repression might think that the blocking of the author's Web pages would cause an inaccessibility of his evidence in order to cover thus their bending of laws. But they may be assured that the author will find ways and means to put to the attention to the world opinion on this throwback of a legal system into barbarism.

Appeal to the incumbent
President of the Federal Republic of Germany

From our history should we be aware that people by inappropriate repression on the part of the judicial authorities, have felt threatened, in a way, in order to see only in suicide a salvation of an unbearable situation.

Should this fate also be granted to the author due to the repression by judicial authorities, so he is asking the incumbent Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany, for a posthumous confinement from the German citizenship.

The author does not want to remain in memory as a member of a people, where he was countless times unfounded pressured by judicial authorities in a manner, which caused repeatedly suicidal thoughts for him.

The author would prefer to stay as stateless person for those in memory who would like to commemorate to him. But the author does not want being exposed of the danger to be taken over by the dishonest of all peoples, the German people.

The author asking the acting Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany urgently not to refuse his last will, if this would be an acute need.

If the author should yet survive this biggest crisis of his life, he will do everything to leave this anti-Semitic country. The author is ashamed being born in this country, belonging to this country and have spent as long as useless energy to this country and not previously have turned his backs from this hated country.

Appeal to potential supporters

If there are lawyers among readers who correlating to the ethical demands of the author, then the author would be extremely grateful for support by such lawyers.

The author would be even interested on contacts requests, if there among readers someone with relationships to Web- and storage providers which shares the ethical demands of the author and are able to guarantee protection against blocking, deletions and elimination of access on their systems.

Please use following details for contact requests:
mail: Abe[at]treiner[dot]net | fax: +49(0)32221419153

References to blocked Web sites and alternate URLs

Alternate URLs

Über mich

Freitag, 7. Oktober 2016

en_ResistTheBeginnings_20161008