... newer stories
Mittwoch, 29. September 2021
Neuer Versuch, danke an meinen Sohn Fabien
kasparhauser, 23:21h
Am 29.09.2021 um 15:44 schrieb Horst Murken:
> Dear Sir or Madam, On February 20th, 2008 I was illegally and sneakily
> attacked by plainclothes police officers and made a cripple:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/
>
>
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hb788o4yx0pr75e/IMG_20190817_134900.jpg?dl=0
I am a little proud to be on the front page of the BZ. After all, I have
fought ten years in vain for a publication.
I think that on Sunday there will be the letters to the editor. There I
am curious, what is written there.
> I am denied any help, which is also the case with others:
> https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/studie-gutachten-gericht-beeinflussung-wirtschaftliche-abhaenigigkeit/
>
>
>
>
>
> https://fragdenstaat.de/anfrage/polizeigewalt-und-unterlassene-hilfe-vom-staat/#nachricht-427575
>
>
>
>
Dear<< Salutation >>
my Freedom of Information Request "Police Violence and Failure to Assist
by the State" dated 08/26/2019 (#165026) was not answered by you within
the time required by law. You have now exceeded the deadline by 12 days.
Please inform me immediately about the status of my request.
Yours sincerely
Horst Murken
Inquiry no: 165026
Reply to: <>
Postal address
Horst Murken
> https://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/player/Y3JpZDovL25kci5kZS9iZDJmMmYyZi0zNDI5LTQ4MGMtYTk3Ny1jMmUxMzRlZGRkMGU/
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-60135151.html
>
>
The cover-ups
When victims of medical errors defend themselves, they often become
victims a second time. It is difficult for victims to get justice in
German courts, and experts play an inglorious role.
By Udo Ludwig
14.09.2008, 13.00 - from DER SPIEGEL 38/2008
Life has not been particularly kind to Gerhard Rose, 55, who was
diagnosed with tuberculosis at the age of 30. The disease destroyed lung
alveoli, and doctors then treated this emphysema with cortisone. The
cortisone gave him arthrosis and osteoporosis, which resulted in
terrible pain. That was fate.
Four years ago a doctor prescribed Vioxx. The drug helped, until the
evening of July 2, 2004, when Rose suffered a heart attack. Apparently,
the painkiller had also clogged his bloodstream. There are said to be
around 150,000 Vioxx victims worldwide; the American pharmaceutical
multinational Merck has since taken the drug off the market. That his
doctor had prescribed this drug of all things was bad luck for Rose.
He would have put up with it. But what happened afterwards, he says,
"screams to heaven." If Rose lived in the U.S., he probably would have
been compensated. Merck has agreed to pay out a total of $4.9 billion to
U.S. Vioxx victims.
Merck's German subsidiary MSD Sharp & Dohme, on the other hand, refuses
to make any payment and goes to court in each individual case. It is
quite possible that the approximately 7,000 German Vioxx victims will
never receive any money because there are no experts who can provide
unbiased expert opinions in the court cases.
In pilot proceedings before the Cologne Regional Court, 18 top-class
scientists have now dropped out. The professors from universities in
Berlin, Munich, Düsseldorf or Bochum have admitted, or it has been
proven to them, that they used to collect money from MSD Sharp & Dohme.
According to Berlin lawyer Jörg Heynemann, who represents many Vioxx
victims, it appears that the pharmaceutical multinational has
deliberately taken medical experts for itself in order to torpedo
impending proceedings.
The dispute over the expert witnesses in the Vioxx proceedings is a new
high point in the controversy over the role of physicians in legal
proceedings. To find out whether a drug has failed or a doctor has
bungled, the judiciary relies on expert witnesses. These "judges in
white," according to Roland Uphoff, a medical lawyer from Düsseldorf,
could "virtually explain to the court that the earth is a disc."
And often they do. Only rarely do the scientists side with the patients.
That's because many of these physicians are dependent on research
funding from industry. Medical specialists often know each other from
congresses or through joint publications. People prefer to keep peace
among themselves. Arno Krug, former chief physician of general surgery
at the hospital in Hof, Germany, has examined several expert reports and
discovered in them trivializing omissions, concealments or even lies.
Krug calls these expert reports by his colleagues "cover-ups".
Medical victims are generally in a bad situation. They have to sue a
doctor they trusted a moment ago. They have to get the information
needed to do so. And they have to prove that the doctors made a mistake.
Michael Vogt, 40, once an athletic man, became chronically ill a good 17
years ago after a tick bite. Vogt had himself examined by several
professors at Freiburg University Hospital, but no one could find the
cause of his growing knee pain. Doctors diagnosed the slender man with
obesity. Instead of interpreting and treating the symptoms of pain and
swelling as Lyme disease after a tick bite, valuable time passed. Today,
Vogt suffers excruciating bouts of pain and is an invalid.
Vogt's sister is a doctor. She tried to clarify what had gone wrong. Why
didn't any of the specialists who had been called in at an early stage
recognize the serious illness and fight it accordingly? She created
thick files with grievances and expert opinions. In the process, she
came across many inconsistencies and, by chance, also questionable
laboratory results from the Freiburg University Clinic.
At first, she was told that no so-called Westernblot test, which is
common when Lyme disease is suspected, had been done, although it had
been invoiced. Seven years later, the important lab results turned up
after all.
The family filed charges against four professors at the university
hospital. Vogt had not become fatefully ill, but had "not been treated
despite many indications of his illness, and his laboratory findings had
been hidden and later manipulated." But the public prosecutor's office
dropped the case within just ten days. There was "no sufficient initial
suspicion."
The Vogt family then fought for their rights before the civil chamber of
the Freiburg Regional Court. The professors and the university hospital b
> http://www.archeviva.com/massive-eingriffe-wie-gerichtsgutachter-familien-zerstoeren/
>
>
>
>
Massive Interventions: How court evaluators destroy families
It's not about the children, it's all about business
Andrea Christidis: "Guidelines for expert opinions trampled underfoot"
Weiler. "Court opinions always cause great damage, and they also cost
the victims dearly in financial terms. They can cost up to 15,000 euros,
yet they are often not worth the paper they are printed on."
Experts comment on court practices
Hair-raising expert opinions
Legal psychologist and psychotherapist Andrea Christidis (Andrea Jacob
in the film): "I have not yet had a single expert opinion that really
met all professional requirements ... ."
Experts earn, but they are not liable for anything
Attorney Thomas Saschenbrecker:
"... You can earn good money as an expert if you get along well with the
judge, get along well with the Youth Welfare Office, and it is no
obstacle ultimately to earn thousands and thousands of euros every year
and also every month. ... Expert witnesses earn, but they are not liable
for anything !"
There is no responsibility at all
Family judge a.d. Jürgen Rudolph:. There is no responsibility at all.
The judge entrenches himself, that one can say calmly in such a way
behind the expert's appraisal and the experts say rightly: I did not
decide. And that continues to be the intolerable situation."
See also 'Courage vs. Power'
When court opinions destroy families
> http://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/154014/Gerichtsgutachten-Oft-wird-die-Tendenz-vorhaben
>
>
>
>
The case of "Gustl Mollath" has triggered a heated discussion throughout
Germany. As a result of a psychiatric report, Mollath was classified as
"dangerous to the general public (. . .)" (1) and placed in a
psychiatric hospital for seven years (2). In August 2013, the
proceedings were reopened by order of the Nuremberg Higher Regional
Court (3). This and other cases led to a critical public debate about
the assessment system. A particularly sensitive point is the question of
the extent to which expert opinions are objective, independent and
neutral (4).
In order to provide a scientific basis for this discussion, a study on
"Appraisal medicine in Germany using Bavaria as an example" was
conducted in November 2013 as part of a dissertation at the Ludwig
Maximilian University of Munich (5), the results of which are presented
here in excerpts for the first time. In the course of the study,
questionnaires were sent to 583 medical and psychological experts in
Bavaria identified via the Internet. 548 letters were deliverable; 252
persons (161 physicians - including 55 psychiatrists -, 49 dentists, and
42 psychologists) participated in the survey. This represents a response
rate of 46.0 percent.
Of the 252 responses, only those from the 243 experts working in an
expert capacity were included in the subsequent analysis. Of these, 116
participated in the survey by name and 127 anonymously.
Of the 235 surveyors who responded, 53 (22.6 percent) stated that more
than 50 percent of their income came from appraisal work (table 1).
Of the 243 experts, 223 answered in the affirmative to the question, "Do
you do expert reports on behalf of courts?" Only these 223 experts were
included in the following questions. On average, 42.1 percent (n = 93)
reported doing more than twelve expert reports commissioned by a court
per year. Among dentists, 8.3 percent (n = 4) reported this, and among
psychiatrists, 82.4 percent (n = 42).
The survey went on to ask whether experts had "never", "in individual
cases" or "frequently" been signaled a tendency when commissioned by a
court to provide an expert opinion. 51 out of 219 experts stated that
they had received a tendency signal "in individual cases" when a court
commissioned an expert opinion. This represents an average of 23.3
percent. The dental and human medical groups were below average at 12.5
percent (n = 6) and 17.3 percent (n = 14), respectively.
Economic dependence
The psychiatrist group is above average at 28.0 percent (n = 14), and
the psychologist group is well above average at 42.5 percent (n = 17).
Overall, 24.7 percent (n = 54) reported having a tendency signaled in
expert reports commissioned by a court, either in individual cases or
frequently (Table 2).
Among the experts who were signaled a tendency in individual cases or
frequently in court-commissioned expert opinions, an average of 40.7
percent (n = 22) stated that they derived more than 50 percent of their
income from expert activities. At 61.1 percent (n = 11), this figure is
highest for psychological appraisers compared with the other
professional groups studied.
73 experts stated that they had heard from colleagues that a tendency
had already been mentioned in individual cases or frequently in the case
of a court order for an expert opinion. This corresponds to an average
value of 33.6% (Table 3).
The figures and statements published here are based on written
statements by physicians and psychologists who work as expert witnesses
for private individuals, insurance companies and courts in the German
state of Bavaria. It is a first evaluation of extensive data. The
publication of the complete evaluation results will follow shortly.
The high response rate and the numerous supplemented comments show that
the topic of the survey is highly topical. The results provide impetus
for discussion, particularly with regard to the frequency of trend
signaling as well as the comparatively high economic dependence of many
appraisers on appraisal orders.
In the survey, almost one in four experts working in the
medical/psychological field stated that they had received a tendency
signal in individual cases or frequently (few mentions) in an expert
opinion commissioned by a court. Among human medical experts, this was
stated by just under one in five, and among psychological experts by
almost one in two.
Neutrality is endangered
In principle, experts should prepare their reports uninfluenced. The
signaling of a tendency with placing of order by the client stands
against this. If an economic dependence of the expert of appraisal
orders comes in addition, which is to be assumed with a portion of more
than 50 per cent appraisal fees of the total incomes, the demanded
neutrality is endangered.
The legislator is called upon to ensure the independence and neutrality
of the expert system in order to maintain confidence in the expert
system and in the functioning of our legal system.
Benedict Jordan
Prof. Dr. med. Ursula Gresser
> https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/archiv/2013/operentschaedigung101.html
>
>
Without mercy: How victims of violence are harassed by authorities
by Tina Soliman
Germany has established a compensation fund for victims of violent acts.
But all too often, victims who file an application under the Victims'
Compensation Act (OEG) begin an odyssey that leaves them even more
traumatized and powerless in the end than they were immediately after
the violent act.
"It's almost worse than the act itself, what the Hamburg supply office
is doing to me," says Wilfried W., for example. On December 28, 1993,
the then 50-year-old is beaten up completely unexpectedly during a
concert. A drunk man hits him in the face, pushes his head down and rams
his knee into his face again, so violently that Wilfried W. loses
consciousness. His right eye hangs only by a few muscles and tendons,
slips out of the shattered eye socket into the maxillary sinus. In the
blink of an eye, his life has changed completely. He sees everything
twice, has panic attacks, hardly dares to leave the house - until today.
He can no longer work in his profession as a heating engineer.
Wilfried W. applied for victim compensation. 12 years and 17 expert
opinions later, he is awarded a small pension; his so-called "degree of
injury consequences" was rated at 40 percent. "After 12 years, the
pension office was ordered to pay a pension of 160 euros. It only took a
few months, then they already started to stop the payment again, to
cancel the pension.
After 12 years everything starts all over again
Then the chaos started all over again, and I've been doing this for a
total of 19 years now," says Wilfried W. He calls the authority's
approach a "repetition of the crime for 19 years. How is one supposed to
come to a conclusion if one has to deal with the event over and over
again? Psychiatrists and therapists warn against repeatedly confronting
victims of violence with the crime. This could lead to retraumatization.
The Hamburg pension office claims, contrary to several expert and court
decisions, that Wilfried W.'s condition has improved. As a result, six
further expert reports are drawn up. The renowned and experienced expert
Dr. Helmut Kropp, neurologist and psychiatrist, examined Wilfried W.
twice and subsequently found that W. still suffers from a chronic
post-traumatic stress disorder. The occurrence of double vision is also
still present, confirmed the doctors of the University Hospital
Eppendorf. Dr. Kropp can no longer understand the behavior of the
authorities. Once again, judges must decide whether Wilfried W. will
receive compensation.
Futile fight for compensation
Gunda Gerlach also fought for a pension from the Victim Compensation
Fund. Her daughter Vasthi Gerlach was beaten to death on March 18, 2010.
The 23-year-old worked as a caregiver in a home for the mentally ill. A
resident there with multiple convictions forced his way into her room at
night with a stolen key and beat her to death. "He hit her head 10 times
with the cow's foot, with this crowbar, her arms were broken. And then
he took the knives and stabbed through the rib cage, twice, and cut the
throat with a so-called boning knife." Since then, Gunda Gerlach has
been depressed, overanxious and listless. She had to give up her job.
She hoped for a pension from the victims' compensation fund, and had
herself examined for five hours.
At the time, the expert came to the conclusion that her degree of damage
was 60 percent. However, the responsible pension office in
Schleswig-Holstein assessed her depression - without assessing her
personally - as less serious and halved the degree of damage to 30
percent. A degree of damage of 60 percent could not be justified. Gunda
Gerlach exhibited "described lively facial expressions with laughter and
smiles" and had indicated "social contacts" in the expert report. She
does not suffer from a "severe mental disorder", but rather from a
"moderately severe mental disorder". There would only be 30 percent for
that.
Gunda Gerlach fell ill with cancer and wanted to fight against the
decision. It cost her energy. Energy that she actually needed to fight
the cancer. But with a small pension of around 360 euros, it would have
made a big difference whether she had received 127 euros or double that
as compensation. Again and again she emphasized that her daughter could
still be alive if the state had not failed in its duty of supervision.
The money from the victim compensation fund would have been an
acknowledgement of her suffering and would have made her everyday life a
little easier. After all, her daughter Vasthi was "100 percent dead."
"And the victims have a life sentence," Gunda Gerlach said in the interview.
The pension offices see no problems
They do not want to tell Panorama why the pension offices are having
such a hard time. They do not see any problems in processing
applications, and they are processed as quickly as possible. The Federal
Ministry denies that positive decisions are rare and refers to a study
that does not support this statement. The unpublished study is available
to Panorama.
In it, Prof. Bernhard Villmow, a criminologist at the Hamburg Faculty of
Law, clearly states: "Very few people even apply for victim
compensation. And it is only a minority who receive a positive decision,
and of those who receive a positive decision, it is only a minority who
receive pensions.
Gunda Gerlach no longer needs the pension today. She died on February 3,
2013, and her family told Panorama that her mother had wanted the
feature to be aired.
> http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/gerichtsverfahren-gerichte-
>
> ents-gutachtern-haeufig-tendenzen-vor-1.1881878
>
> Government criticizes reviewer:
> http://www.nzz.ch/international/aktuelle-themen/abschiebungen-in-deutschland-regierung-wirft-aerzten-zweifelhaft-atteste-vor-ld.118264
>
>
>
>
Government accuses doctors of dubious certificates
09/22/2016, 6:43 pm
Bookmark
Print
Share
(Reuters) The German government accuses doctors of using dubious
certificates to prevent deportations. A "large number of certificates
are submitted that are conspicuous because the same doctors repeatedly
certify inability to travel with the same content or lack of
well-founded justification," according to an advance report in the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Friday edition) in the government's
response to a small question from the Left Party. A large number of such
certificates often contain phrases such as "suspected diagnosis" right
at the beginning of the explanations, followed by the statement that "no
deportation should be forced".
The medical profession rejected the reproaches. The president of the
German Medical Association, Frank Ulrich Montgomery, told the newspaper
that his chamber had no statistics on medical reports in deportation
proceedings. "Even on the part of the federal government, no nationwide
figures could be given that would substantiate accusations of favorable
opinions in deportation proceedings," Montgomery continued. "Instead of
speculating about possible favoritism in expert opinions, it must be
ensured that the requirements for expert opinions are correct." Doctors
need sufficient time for a thorough diagnosis of physical and mental
illnesses, he said. The professional qualification of the experts is
also important, Montgomery continued. For this reason, the medical
association has created a "curriculum with standards for the
qualification of experts." A few weeks ago, Interior Minister Thomas de
Maiziere had already come under criticism because he had accused
physicians of issuing too many certificates with which rejected asylum
seekers allegedly avoid deportation.
> Arbitrariness in the judiciary:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muzpJt4Jef0
>
>
> RA on the "separation of powers":
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nF8xdcelA&fbclid=IwAR1EmzY7wD2-TAHZYBwnSPMQoDJ1f8qnIf4EQNfjpJBs8-t9w9K-M1uXLbkho
>
>
>
>
>
> The Berlin Regional Court ignored all of my lawyer's requests for
> evidence, but at least found that I was not at fault:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3besa6ypzbb8eux/Landgericht%202015.pdf
> Page
> 18ff.
>
> Nonetheless, the Higher Regional Court gave me almost all of the guilt,
> without any discussion in writing or in two oral hearings, a clear
> surprise verdict:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2715363/
>
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jxwqofv5bvqwkzq/190215%20Urteil_Kammergericht.pdf
We had two oral hearings and in the first one my lawyer had made it
clear that I was not at fault. The Court of Appeal avoided discussing
this, probably the verdict was already fixed at that time.
This has nothing to do with law and justice, take a closer look. These
judges let us discuss and present what we wanted and ignored everything.
This has nothing to do with a legal hearing and fair proceedings.
Therefore, I hope for support and dissemination.
> BGH rejected my submissions without justification, a lack of chances of
> success were merely alleged, without any evidence:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2732614/
>
>
Friday, August 2, 2019
The BGH, III ZA 7/19 has rejected the PKH because of lack of prospects
of success.
kasparhauser, 12:54h
The hearing appeal was also rejected without valid arguments:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tlq6nxdpie09987/14-Aug.-2019%2017-52-49.pdf
My hearing appeal today:
B G H
IIIZA 7/19
By fax
Berlin, August 3, 2019
HEARING APPEALS
REMINDER
AND ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE
Dear Sir or Madam,
Your decision of July 25, 2019 intolerably violate my sons and me in our
rights.
You clearly violate Article 3 of the Basic Law, Article 6 of the ECHR by
denying PKH and thus refusing to give me the same rights as a wealthy
person who can assert his rights without PKH.
Furthermore, you violate these articles of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights:
- Article 3, the attack of the policemen violated my right to life and
security. Characteristic for this "constitutional state" is of course
that the public prosecutor's office Berlin with support of the policy
refused to investigate against the policemen even. Thereby the crimes of
bodily harm, persecution of innocent people and false statements before
the social court were evident. Here is the summary with the
corresponding links and my letters to the senator of justice and the
governor
- Article 5, it is White Torture as we have been fighting for our right
for over eleven years in vain. Here an insider/whistleblower says that
this has a system and was ordered by the government (at the very top):
https://www.openpr.de/news/1046773/Bremen-Niedersachsen-Landesbeamter-gesteht-Behinderte-Menschen-werden-mit-falschen-Gutachten-geprellt.html
This obviously applies not only to people with disabilities, but also to
HartzIV recipients and anyone who makes claims against the state.
- Article 6, I lose my legal capacity because I am dependent on PKH.
This is more humane in other legal systems:
http://www.rechtslexikon.net/d/prozesskosten/prozesskosten.htm.
- Just the Americans are exemplary there.
- Article 7, All people without distinction are entitled to equal
protection of the law.
- Article 8, effective legal remedies were taken from me and my lawyer
in all instances and ignoring §§ 138f ZPO and §§ 273ffZPO. The judges
at the Kammergericht were clearly biased and should have been replaced.
We were also entitled to a default judgment, § 331 ZPO.
- Article 10, there is probably no fair trial in Germany before an
independent and impartial court, see VG Wiesbaden 6 K 1016/15.WI of
28.3.2019.
- Article 16, my family is not protected, but shamelessly exploited by
this state, as my sons care for me - still unlawfully without payment.
- Article 22, we have been deprived of the possibility of free
development since the incident on 2/20/2008. This is especially true for
my sons, who have to take care of me and therefore can hardly establish
social contacts (i.e. girlfriend).
- Article 25, there is no question of welfare and protection of my children.
- Article 28, by the unfounded denial of PKH, the BGH also fails against
international and national law. In the letter of 25.2. on the PKH
application, I had also raised the question of the extent to which the
ECtHR judgment 20579/15 of 15.2.2018 applies in Germany. This question
alone would make the appeal necessary.
PKH must of course be granted and the proceedings must be conducted for
the above reasons to establish the rule of law in Germany. This is the
only way to end the white torture to which my sons and I are subject.
Since the BGH has dispensed with any justification, it cannot even be
examined whether it is overstretching its requirements for the granting
of PKH. There are numerous and clear rulings on this matter by the
Federal Constitutional Court.
I ask you to replace the word "default judgment" with the word "surprise
judgment" in the second line of my letter of March 6, 2019 to the
Kammergericht.
I was assured by a BGH lawyer that the BGH will definitely let the file
come, so I also refer to my protocol complaint of Feb. 1, 2019.
It had already become apparent in advance that the judges at the
Kammergericht want to bend the law. I do not understand that the BGH
does not intervene.
With kind regards
Horst Murken
Here is the letter from the BGH:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8feo2pauv87mh4w/02-Aug.-2019%2017-13-32.pdf
This has nothing to do with the rule of law, so what kind of system do
we have?
B G H
Herrenstrasse 45 A
76133 Karlsruhe
Berlin, February 25
PKH-APPLICATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE REVISION/NON-ADMISSION
COMPLAINT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A BGH-ATTORNEY-AT-LAW YET TO BE NAMED
THE PLAINTIFF IS HORST MURKEN ON 9 U 85/15 CHAMBER COURT BERLIN
against
the State of Berlin,
represented by the Senate Department for Finance
represented d.d. Polizeipräsident in Berlin,
Klosterstraße 59, 10179 Berlin,
- Defendant, appellant and appellee -
Attorney at law I. and II. Instance:
Attorney-at-law Dr. Ulrich Franz
Kurfürstendamm 59, 10707 Berlin
(Case No. 18-4-1)
Interveners for the defendant, appellant and appellee:
1. Vivantes - Netzwerk für Gesundheit GmbH,
Aroser Allee 72-76, 13407 Berlin
2. the physician Dr. Hagen Hofmann,
Aroser Allee 72-76, 13407 Berlin
for damages
II. Instance: Court of Appeal - 9 U 85/15 -
I. Instance: Regional Court Berlin - 86 O 515/11 -
Dear Sir or Madam,
The above-mentioned judgment is legally untenable, as it is based on
speculations of the court, which has no relation to reality. Facts were
not established and judicial references, which are mandatory by law,
were omitted.
Thus, there were two dates for the oral hearing and never was the issue
of personal negligence addressed. On the contrary, at the district court
and also at the social court (because of victim's pension), it was
clearly stated that I had no contributory negligence. First, I could
believe the orthopedist who had overlooked the fracture in the hospital
Neukölln. Secondly, already on the second day an improvement had set in,
I could do without painkillers. Third, I had no reason to see a doctor,
but even if I had, what could a general practitioner have found? In 2008
it was still the case that you had to go to your family doctor first and
needed a referral from him. Fourthly, I was unable to walk and could not
even go to the toilet without the help of my sons in the first three
weeks, we had helped ourselves with glass bottles, which my sons had to
empty in the morning. Fifthly, it is of course to be asked what would
have happened if I had behaved as the Kammergericht demands afterwards
and an aggravation would have occurred as a result, since precisely no
general practitioner could even suspect a hernia under the impression of
what was certified by the orthopedist at the hospital. Therefore, the
assertion on p. 8 of the judgment is unworldly and cannot be justified
by anything. It is quite overwhelmingly likely that the hernia would not
have been discovered and that there would have been an aggravation.
And why this should lead to my being denied all further claims is not
clear either. I suspect that this is also contrary to already existing
law and therefore needs to be clarified on appeal. If the defendants are
to participate in 4 of 7 parts of the compensation for pain and
suffering, why not also in the consequential damages and the household
management damage and the loss of earnings?
Regarding the verdict chronologically: I had not refused to show my ID.
It is rather correct that I first wanted to know who I was dealing with,
because the policemen were in civilian clothes and could not be
recognized as policemen. One of them showed me something, which he
immediately closed again and I could not recognize what it was, because
he had held it right in front of my eyes. At the time, a series was
running on RTL or RTL II warning against fraud and urging us citizens to
take a close look at IDs and the like, such as badges. So I complied
with the advice of the Kripo.
Moreover, the request for my ID card was made without justification,
which was only added later. However, as was worked out before the SG,
they already knew at that time that no brothel was given here. The
actual operation had been completed and the papers had been checked - so
there was no reasonable reason to call me in. The operation was
completed. The lies before the SG were made out of self-protection, as
my lawyer worked out, 3rd protocol towards the end.
I am not asking for a monetary pension, but for household management
damages, since I have to be cared for by third parties. Also in the case
ECtHR 20579/15 of 15.2.2018 the victim of violence was granted this
assistance. However, my lawyer had mislabeled this as 14.5.2018. It
would have been the task of the Chamber Court to clarify this, but the
Chamber Court did not take any preparatory actions and did not respond
to our letters. This violation of my fundamental right to a fair hearing
and a fair trial should be grounds for appeal. The ECtHR based its
calculation on 412 days per year, while I applied for 13 monthly
payments of 2000 euros each.
We were and are of course entitled to a default judgment, since the
opposing parties did not have valid powers of attorney on the date of
14.9.2018, BGH V ZR 110/60 of 4.4.1962, see attachment. The default
judgment should have been issued ex officio. Here, therefore, the
Kammergericht deviates far from the BGH case law, so that there is
likely to be a further ground for appeal here.
As already explained above, I am not at all guilty of contributory
negligence. Here, the judges of the Kammergericht are fantasizing,
although it is their duty to investigate facts if this is possible, cf.
the Metzler case, which my lawyer cited in the complaint against the
denial of PKH by the Regional Court. This should also be a good ground
for appeal.
My lawyer has picked out the following: the question of contributory
negligence has been raised several times in the exchanged pleadings.
Avoiding their reproduction, I refer instead to the questioning of the
expert Prof. Dr. Sparmann in the hearing before the LG Berlin on
22.4.2015 (see minutes attached) there page 2, as well as to the
extensive explanations on this in the judgment of the LG of 22.4.2015
(see attachment), there pages 10f., 20 and in particular page 21. The
Kammergericht has not indicated that it wants to deviate from this,
another ground for appeal if a high court ignores established facts.
(I attach the appendix)
At least the Kammergericht also recognizes that the actions of the
police officers were unlawful.
In no case do I have a "claim-excluding contributory negligence" - also
in this regard the Court of Appeal has dutifully not determined
anything, but makes factual assertions here that are not based on facts.
This must be assessed in the appeal. In this context, it should be in
the general interest to determine the extent to which the ECHR ruling is
binding for Germany and how the violation of the prohibition of inhumane
treatment is dealt with in this country.
It is not possible to speak of "careless neglect of one's obligations to
mitigate damages"; as has been shown, there is no investigation of this.
However, this is probably only claimed in order to undermine the cited
judgment of the ECHR and thus not to apply the highest law. However, it
should be another ground for appeal.
The claims about alleged lack of improvement are also pure speculation
without the facts having been established. In any case, I was able to do
without painkillers on the second day, which is an improvement. And in
no case did an aggravation occur. Even if it had, I could at best have
called the emergency doctor, and it is questionable what he would have
been able to determine. Probably he could have given me only
painkillers, because with his means he would never have been able to
discover the fracture at the head of the tibia and would also have
relied on the discharge report of the specialist.
The officials also did not think they could "erroneously" establish my
identity. They already knew at this point that there was neither a
brothel nor anything comparable here, see above, the operation was over,
the situation was clarified. Again, assertions contrary to the
established facts.
I take the liberty of posting this link instead of a lot of paper, under
which are also the three protocols from the SG:
https://polizeigewalt.blogger.de/stories/2503531/
The question raised by the Kammergericht, to what extent the European
Convention on Human Rights requires a higher, than the immaterial
compensation provided under German civil law, is to be clarified in the
appeal in the public interest and equality of law in all European countries.
Under the impression of the ECHR ruling, we indeed demanded 4 million
euros in compensation for pain and suffering, but limited this to
500,000 euros after receiving the full ruling. The Frenchman was
probably worse off than I was. However, he was promptly helped by two
state funds, while the state refused me any help. The refusal must lead
for educational reasons to a clearly higher compensation for pain and
suffering. This is also a point for revision. See also the attached
expert opinion and the remarks on the preventive function of the pain
and suffering compensation.
Of course, the Kammergericht also speculates incorrectly about possible
late effects. Thus, a deterioration of the right knee has been
determined in my case already in 2016, which is due to the lack of movement.
Regarding 3. a), it must be said that there is no indication of the
court in this regard, § 139 ZPO.
The denial of PKH was also based on false speculations and without any
clarification of the facts. Thus it is not at all "conceivable" - at
least not if one knows the facts of the case - that it would have
remained in the end with losses. The losses occurred in the initial
phase due to the construction of the advertising media. When these are
up and running, they usually bring profits for decades. Here, too, there
is a lack of clarification of the facts and judicial guidance, as is
required in advance of an oral hearing to clarify the facts.
I think we have presented enough on the household management claim that
the court ignored or should have actively sought to clarify. My sons
worked for me, but not for the perpetrators, so they are entitled to 13
x 2000 euros per year, see above. In addition also the witness
statements of my two sons, which the court received by FAX. This is
simply suppressed by the court.
P. 15: "Incidentally, it is a matter of course, not to be claimed as
damage, that the sons living in his household have to participate in the
housework."
This was one of the main reasons with which I was denied PKH. My
complaints against it remained without reaction, although I had sent the
expert opinion on the household management damage, which is also
attached here, to the court.
It is settled case law of the Federal Constitutional Court that judges
must abide by the law, e.g. 2 BvR 794/95 of 20. 3. 2002, in particular
RZ 65, 75 and 121. The Court of Appeal turned away from this in an
unjustifiable manner, did not ascertain any facts and ignored everything
that my lawyer and I had presented and proved or documented.
Incidentally, it is unclear whether what I received has any validity at
all. It is already unclear whether it is a judgment, an order or
anything else. I have no idea whether something like that is admissible.
Furthermore, it is not signed by the judges, but § 315 ZPO makes this
mandatory. In any case, my copy must also be signed, since it has an
external effect. Furthermore, I have only received a copy, not certified
and I am probably entitled to a "copy", BGH XII ZB 132/09 of 9.6.2010.
Also, I had filed bias motions against all three judges in the first
hearing. This was rejected, but in disregard of the rules stated in the
literature, so I had also filed a motion of bias against the three
judges who processed the bias motion on 19.10.2018, which has not yet
been processed. Again, the BGH should clarify in an appeal whether this
is admissible or not.
I think I have shown enough for any reasonable person, that the judgment
of the Court of Appeal and also probably the Regional Court are to be
set aside, because they violate the "prohibition of inhumane treatment".
Further arguments are left to my BGH lawyer. I would like to point out
that I am a layman and may have submitted something incorrectly or
incompletely. Therefore I am grateful for any advice from the BGH.
Yours sincerely
Horst Murken
> My appeal against it was also dismissed without any justification,
> despite ECHR 20579/12 of February 15, 2018, where the case was similar
> to mine. The BVerfG also rejected my appeal without giving any reason:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2742299/
>
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
BVerfG rejects my complaint without justification
kasparhauser, 08:44h
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nl315xexrkk12o6/2019.11.05%20BVG%201BvR%202132.19.pdf
Like the BGH before, the Federal Constitutional Court did not give
reasons for its decision.
Does anyone here have the impression that we are a constitutional state?
I was made a cripple by police officers almost twelve years ago and this
state refuses to help me.
What kind of state system do we have?
> The ECHR accused me of violating the law without any justification, but
> my complaint is still open:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2787917/
>
Friday, November 27, 2020
ECTHR
kasparhauser, 16:30h
Here is my complaint against the ECtHR:
ECTHR
15433/20
By fax
Berlin, 20 Dec. 2020
URGENT
REMINDER
HEARING ATTORNEYS
COUNTER-APPEAL
AND ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE
DEPARTMENTAL COMPLAINT AGAINST LADO CHANTURIA
Dear Sir or Madam,
I was unlawfully assaulted and crippled by police officers in Germany on
20.2.2008: https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/.
All courts have confirmed that this attack was unlawful: Social Court
Berlin - even after hearing witnesses, Regional Court Berlin and also
the Superior Court Berlin.
So there is clearly a violation of:
https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/
is present. Why the judge does not recognize and consider this, he may
explain - or he is incapable to speak right. At least, as far as
fundamental and human rights are concerned.
By the way, the decision of 22.5.2020 was received here only on
27.11.2020. So when it is said that the file will be destroyed after one
year after the decision, this has nothing to do with rule of law
behavior, if half a year passes after creation....
In the matter itself, I have presented everything relevant. It is
strange that the ECtHR does not criticize that the BGH and the BVerfG do
not give reasons for their decisions and thus violate the Basic Law and
international law, where the right to a legal hearing and a fair trial
are guaranteed.
International law is also clearly violated here:
In addition to national law, it violates the ECHR,
Directive 2012/29 EU of 25.10.2012, document E/CN 4/2000/62 of the
Commission on Human Rights of 18.1.2000, the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the
European Union, GRC, International Covenant on Civil Rights,
ICCPR, ICESCR, CRPD, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Thus, it engages in white torture and violates the prohibition of
inhuman treatment.
Is this what the ECHR wants to accept? I have been crippled and continue
to be denied any help. Even from the ECtHR.
With kind regards
Horst Murken
Here is my complaint:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1gv4eivdidn6anw/2020-11-27_ECHR-Beschwerde16-03-2020.pdf
The BGH did not give reasons for its decision.
The BVerfG did not give reasons for its decision.
The ECtHR did not give reasons for its decision.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h5vbaxsm29u3m8c/2020-11-27_echr_15433-20%2027-Nov-2020%2016-05-07.pdf
> Many offices that are actually supposed to help victims turned away, did
> not respond or responded by ignoring the topic:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/
Saturday, July 17, 2021
My Petiton
kasparhauser, 12:56h
is accepted, if I understand this so correctly.
I ask other affected people to join the petition, otherwise it will
probably be interpreted as an individual case.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e719qvwknvuaf3f/2021-07-15_petitionsausschuss_3-19-11-84-038705.pdf?dl=0
... link (0 comments) ... comment
Sunday, July 11, 2021
The left, Mrs. Wissler
kasparhauser, 19:58h
Dear Ms. Wissler,
I would now like to draw your attention to something that concerns many
people, but which
hardly plays a role in the public discussion. This is the way
of this state with victims of terror and violence. We are not individual
fates,
but have no supporters.
I was crippled on 20.2.2008:
https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/.
I am denied any help, laws are broken, bending of law is committed. But
help I do not get
I do not, as well as some others who have not yet given up.
If this topic interests you, I would be happy to send you more materials
and to
connect other victims with you.
Many greetings
Horst Murken
P.S.: This letter goes covertly to my supporters, so don't be surprised if
you see it in other media.
... link (0 comments) ... comment
Thursday, July 1, 2021
Federal Ministry of Justice
kasparhauser, 15:51h
Dear Sir or Madam,
I hereby submit
Official supervision complaint
Complaint for supervision
Legal supervisory complaint
against the Federal Minister of Justice and her aforementioned employees
for violation of fundamental and human rights as well as the Charter of the
European Union: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_de.pdf
and international agreements:
So what kind of state do we have, if such a clear deviation from Article
20 III GG and international law is allowed?
In addition to national law, it violates the ECHR,
Directive 2012/29 EU of 25.10.2012, document E/CN 4/2000/62 of the
Commission on Human Rights of 18.1.2000, the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the
European Union, GRC, International Covenant on Civil Rights,
ICCPR, ICESCR, CRPD, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
https://www.un.org/depts/german/gv-60/band1/ar60147.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/germany/news/20200325-aktionsplan-menschenrechte-demokratie_de?fbclid=IwAR0tOvTLDqhQvTEairTJu6FF1BA1HvfskBYUVkYh-bE6HvYLd_84O_IhwLI
Victims' Rights:
https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF/Berichte/MPI_Gutachten_Uebertragung_opferschuetzender_Normen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1&fbclid=IwAR35wkU8hIT1byzQtLcE6-Om9l_cWXvytIRGCiEQgQ9ShV77Vn2jNeAjgdg
Thus, it engages in white torture and violates the prohibition of
inhumane treatment.
I was unlawfully and insidiously assaulted and crippled on 20.2.2008:
https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/
Although this is a violation of Art. 2 GG and international conventions,
for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible, nothing happens.
This was already the case under Mr. Maas and Ms. Barley. Ms. Lambrecht I
had in August 2019 in writing and verbally (at her open day)
informed about these abuses and also asked several times by mail for
'results. Answers came none.
Thus, it is clear that the Federal Ministry of Justice violates the
Basic Law and international agreements without any legal basis.
This is to be punished still before the election.
With kind regards
Horst Murken
Diesel road 15
12057 Berlin
> There are plenty of other materials. But I think that is enough to give
> the impression that Germany is not a constitutional state. I am writing
> this way because you can easily open the links.
>
>
> With best regards
>
> Horst Murken
> Dear Sir or Madam, On February 20th, 2008 I was illegally and sneakily
> attacked by plainclothes police officers and made a cripple:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/
>
>
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hb788o4yx0pr75e/IMG_20190817_134900.jpg?dl=0
I am a little proud to be on the front page of the BZ. After all, I have
fought ten years in vain for a publication.
I think that on Sunday there will be the letters to the editor. There I
am curious, what is written there.
> I am denied any help, which is also the case with others:
> https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/studie-gutachten-gericht-beeinflussung-wirtschaftliche-abhaenigigkeit/
>
>
>
>
>
> https://fragdenstaat.de/anfrage/polizeigewalt-und-unterlassene-hilfe-vom-staat/#nachricht-427575
>
>
>
>
Dear<< Salutation >>
my Freedom of Information Request "Police Violence and Failure to Assist
by the State" dated 08/26/2019 (#165026) was not answered by you within
the time required by law. You have now exceeded the deadline by 12 days.
Please inform me immediately about the status of my request.
Yours sincerely
Horst Murken
Inquiry no: 165026
Reply to: <>
Postal address
Horst Murken
> https://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/player/Y3JpZDovL25kci5kZS9iZDJmMmYyZi0zNDI5LTQ4MGMtYTk3Ny1jMmUxMzRlZGRkMGU/
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-60135151.html
>
>
The cover-ups
When victims of medical errors defend themselves, they often become
victims a second time. It is difficult for victims to get justice in
German courts, and experts play an inglorious role.
By Udo Ludwig
14.09.2008, 13.00 - from DER SPIEGEL 38/2008
Life has not been particularly kind to Gerhard Rose, 55, who was
diagnosed with tuberculosis at the age of 30. The disease destroyed lung
alveoli, and doctors then treated this emphysema with cortisone. The
cortisone gave him arthrosis and osteoporosis, which resulted in
terrible pain. That was fate.
Four years ago a doctor prescribed Vioxx. The drug helped, until the
evening of July 2, 2004, when Rose suffered a heart attack. Apparently,
the painkiller had also clogged his bloodstream. There are said to be
around 150,000 Vioxx victims worldwide; the American pharmaceutical
multinational Merck has since taken the drug off the market. That his
doctor had prescribed this drug of all things was bad luck for Rose.
He would have put up with it. But what happened afterwards, he says,
"screams to heaven." If Rose lived in the U.S., he probably would have
been compensated. Merck has agreed to pay out a total of $4.9 billion to
U.S. Vioxx victims.
Merck's German subsidiary MSD Sharp & Dohme, on the other hand, refuses
to make any payment and goes to court in each individual case. It is
quite possible that the approximately 7,000 German Vioxx victims will
never receive any money because there are no experts who can provide
unbiased expert opinions in the court cases.
In pilot proceedings before the Cologne Regional Court, 18 top-class
scientists have now dropped out. The professors from universities in
Berlin, Munich, Düsseldorf or Bochum have admitted, or it has been
proven to them, that they used to collect money from MSD Sharp & Dohme.
According to Berlin lawyer Jörg Heynemann, who represents many Vioxx
victims, it appears that the pharmaceutical multinational has
deliberately taken medical experts for itself in order to torpedo
impending proceedings.
The dispute over the expert witnesses in the Vioxx proceedings is a new
high point in the controversy over the role of physicians in legal
proceedings. To find out whether a drug has failed or a doctor has
bungled, the judiciary relies on expert witnesses. These "judges in
white," according to Roland Uphoff, a medical lawyer from Düsseldorf,
could "virtually explain to the court that the earth is a disc."
And often they do. Only rarely do the scientists side with the patients.
That's because many of these physicians are dependent on research
funding from industry. Medical specialists often know each other from
congresses or through joint publications. People prefer to keep peace
among themselves. Arno Krug, former chief physician of general surgery
at the hospital in Hof, Germany, has examined several expert reports and
discovered in them trivializing omissions, concealments or even lies.
Krug calls these expert reports by his colleagues "cover-ups".
Medical victims are generally in a bad situation. They have to sue a
doctor they trusted a moment ago. They have to get the information
needed to do so. And they have to prove that the doctors made a mistake.
Michael Vogt, 40, once an athletic man, became chronically ill a good 17
years ago after a tick bite. Vogt had himself examined by several
professors at Freiburg University Hospital, but no one could find the
cause of his growing knee pain. Doctors diagnosed the slender man with
obesity. Instead of interpreting and treating the symptoms of pain and
swelling as Lyme disease after a tick bite, valuable time passed. Today,
Vogt suffers excruciating bouts of pain and is an invalid.
Vogt's sister is a doctor. She tried to clarify what had gone wrong. Why
didn't any of the specialists who had been called in at an early stage
recognize the serious illness and fight it accordingly? She created
thick files with grievances and expert opinions. In the process, she
came across many inconsistencies and, by chance, also questionable
laboratory results from the Freiburg University Clinic.
At first, she was told that no so-called Westernblot test, which is
common when Lyme disease is suspected, had been done, although it had
been invoiced. Seven years later, the important lab results turned up
after all.
The family filed charges against four professors at the university
hospital. Vogt had not become fatefully ill, but had "not been treated
despite many indications of his illness, and his laboratory findings had
been hidden and later manipulated." But the public prosecutor's office
dropped the case within just ten days. There was "no sufficient initial
suspicion."
The Vogt family then fought for their rights before the civil chamber of
the Freiburg Regional Court. The professors and the university hospital b
> http://www.archeviva.com/massive-eingriffe-wie-gerichtsgutachter-familien-zerstoeren/
>
>
>
>
Massive Interventions: How court evaluators destroy families
It's not about the children, it's all about business
Andrea Christidis: "Guidelines for expert opinions trampled underfoot"
Weiler. "Court opinions always cause great damage, and they also cost
the victims dearly in financial terms. They can cost up to 15,000 euros,
yet they are often not worth the paper they are printed on."
Experts comment on court practices
Hair-raising expert opinions
Legal psychologist and psychotherapist Andrea Christidis (Andrea Jacob
in the film): "I have not yet had a single expert opinion that really
met all professional requirements ... ."
Experts earn, but they are not liable for anything
Attorney Thomas Saschenbrecker:
"... You can earn good money as an expert if you get along well with the
judge, get along well with the Youth Welfare Office, and it is no
obstacle ultimately to earn thousands and thousands of euros every year
and also every month. ... Expert witnesses earn, but they are not liable
for anything !"
There is no responsibility at all
Family judge a.d. Jürgen Rudolph:. There is no responsibility at all.
The judge entrenches himself, that one can say calmly in such a way
behind the expert's appraisal and the experts say rightly: I did not
decide. And that continues to be the intolerable situation."
See also 'Courage vs. Power'
When court opinions destroy families
> http://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/154014/Gerichtsgutachten-Oft-wird-die-Tendenz-vorhaben
>
>
>
>
The case of "Gustl Mollath" has triggered a heated discussion throughout
Germany. As a result of a psychiatric report, Mollath was classified as
"dangerous to the general public (. . .)" (1) and placed in a
psychiatric hospital for seven years (2). In August 2013, the
proceedings were reopened by order of the Nuremberg Higher Regional
Court (3). This and other cases led to a critical public debate about
the assessment system. A particularly sensitive point is the question of
the extent to which expert opinions are objective, independent and
neutral (4).
In order to provide a scientific basis for this discussion, a study on
"Appraisal medicine in Germany using Bavaria as an example" was
conducted in November 2013 as part of a dissertation at the Ludwig
Maximilian University of Munich (5), the results of which are presented
here in excerpts for the first time. In the course of the study,
questionnaires were sent to 583 medical and psychological experts in
Bavaria identified via the Internet. 548 letters were deliverable; 252
persons (161 physicians - including 55 psychiatrists -, 49 dentists, and
42 psychologists) participated in the survey. This represents a response
rate of 46.0 percent.
Of the 252 responses, only those from the 243 experts working in an
expert capacity were included in the subsequent analysis. Of these, 116
participated in the survey by name and 127 anonymously.
Of the 235 surveyors who responded, 53 (22.6 percent) stated that more
than 50 percent of their income came from appraisal work (table 1).
Of the 243 experts, 223 answered in the affirmative to the question, "Do
you do expert reports on behalf of courts?" Only these 223 experts were
included in the following questions. On average, 42.1 percent (n = 93)
reported doing more than twelve expert reports commissioned by a court
per year. Among dentists, 8.3 percent (n = 4) reported this, and among
psychiatrists, 82.4 percent (n = 42).
The survey went on to ask whether experts had "never", "in individual
cases" or "frequently" been signaled a tendency when commissioned by a
court to provide an expert opinion. 51 out of 219 experts stated that
they had received a tendency signal "in individual cases" when a court
commissioned an expert opinion. This represents an average of 23.3
percent. The dental and human medical groups were below average at 12.5
percent (n = 6) and 17.3 percent (n = 14), respectively.
Economic dependence
The psychiatrist group is above average at 28.0 percent (n = 14), and
the psychologist group is well above average at 42.5 percent (n = 17).
Overall, 24.7 percent (n = 54) reported having a tendency signaled in
expert reports commissioned by a court, either in individual cases or
frequently (Table 2).
Among the experts who were signaled a tendency in individual cases or
frequently in court-commissioned expert opinions, an average of 40.7
percent (n = 22) stated that they derived more than 50 percent of their
income from expert activities. At 61.1 percent (n = 11), this figure is
highest for psychological appraisers compared with the other
professional groups studied.
73 experts stated that they had heard from colleagues that a tendency
had already been mentioned in individual cases or frequently in the case
of a court order for an expert opinion. This corresponds to an average
value of 33.6% (Table 3).
The figures and statements published here are based on written
statements by physicians and psychologists who work as expert witnesses
for private individuals, insurance companies and courts in the German
state of Bavaria. It is a first evaluation of extensive data. The
publication of the complete evaluation results will follow shortly.
The high response rate and the numerous supplemented comments show that
the topic of the survey is highly topical. The results provide impetus
for discussion, particularly with regard to the frequency of trend
signaling as well as the comparatively high economic dependence of many
appraisers on appraisal orders.
In the survey, almost one in four experts working in the
medical/psychological field stated that they had received a tendency
signal in individual cases or frequently (few mentions) in an expert
opinion commissioned by a court. Among human medical experts, this was
stated by just under one in five, and among psychological experts by
almost one in two.
Neutrality is endangered
In principle, experts should prepare their reports uninfluenced. The
signaling of a tendency with placing of order by the client stands
against this. If an economic dependence of the expert of appraisal
orders comes in addition, which is to be assumed with a portion of more
than 50 per cent appraisal fees of the total incomes, the demanded
neutrality is endangered.
The legislator is called upon to ensure the independence and neutrality
of the expert system in order to maintain confidence in the expert
system and in the functioning of our legal system.
Benedict Jordan
Prof. Dr. med. Ursula Gresser
> https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/archiv/2013/operentschaedigung101.html
>
>
Without mercy: How victims of violence are harassed by authorities
by Tina Soliman
Germany has established a compensation fund for victims of violent acts.
But all too often, victims who file an application under the Victims'
Compensation Act (OEG) begin an odyssey that leaves them even more
traumatized and powerless in the end than they were immediately after
the violent act.
"It's almost worse than the act itself, what the Hamburg supply office
is doing to me," says Wilfried W., for example. On December 28, 1993,
the then 50-year-old is beaten up completely unexpectedly during a
concert. A drunk man hits him in the face, pushes his head down and rams
his knee into his face again, so violently that Wilfried W. loses
consciousness. His right eye hangs only by a few muscles and tendons,
slips out of the shattered eye socket into the maxillary sinus. In the
blink of an eye, his life has changed completely. He sees everything
twice, has panic attacks, hardly dares to leave the house - until today.
He can no longer work in his profession as a heating engineer.
Wilfried W. applied for victim compensation. 12 years and 17 expert
opinions later, he is awarded a small pension; his so-called "degree of
injury consequences" was rated at 40 percent. "After 12 years, the
pension office was ordered to pay a pension of 160 euros. It only took a
few months, then they already started to stop the payment again, to
cancel the pension.
After 12 years everything starts all over again
Then the chaos started all over again, and I've been doing this for a
total of 19 years now," says Wilfried W. He calls the authority's
approach a "repetition of the crime for 19 years. How is one supposed to
come to a conclusion if one has to deal with the event over and over
again? Psychiatrists and therapists warn against repeatedly confronting
victims of violence with the crime. This could lead to retraumatization.
The Hamburg pension office claims, contrary to several expert and court
decisions, that Wilfried W.'s condition has improved. As a result, six
further expert reports are drawn up. The renowned and experienced expert
Dr. Helmut Kropp, neurologist and psychiatrist, examined Wilfried W.
twice and subsequently found that W. still suffers from a chronic
post-traumatic stress disorder. The occurrence of double vision is also
still present, confirmed the doctors of the University Hospital
Eppendorf. Dr. Kropp can no longer understand the behavior of the
authorities. Once again, judges must decide whether Wilfried W. will
receive compensation.
Futile fight for compensation
Gunda Gerlach also fought for a pension from the Victim Compensation
Fund. Her daughter Vasthi Gerlach was beaten to death on March 18, 2010.
The 23-year-old worked as a caregiver in a home for the mentally ill. A
resident there with multiple convictions forced his way into her room at
night with a stolen key and beat her to death. "He hit her head 10 times
with the cow's foot, with this crowbar, her arms were broken. And then
he took the knives and stabbed through the rib cage, twice, and cut the
throat with a so-called boning knife." Since then, Gunda Gerlach has
been depressed, overanxious and listless. She had to give up her job.
She hoped for a pension from the victims' compensation fund, and had
herself examined for five hours.
At the time, the expert came to the conclusion that her degree of damage
was 60 percent. However, the responsible pension office in
Schleswig-Holstein assessed her depression - without assessing her
personally - as less serious and halved the degree of damage to 30
percent. A degree of damage of 60 percent could not be justified. Gunda
Gerlach exhibited "described lively facial expressions with laughter and
smiles" and had indicated "social contacts" in the expert report. She
does not suffer from a "severe mental disorder", but rather from a
"moderately severe mental disorder". There would only be 30 percent for
that.
Gunda Gerlach fell ill with cancer and wanted to fight against the
decision. It cost her energy. Energy that she actually needed to fight
the cancer. But with a small pension of around 360 euros, it would have
made a big difference whether she had received 127 euros or double that
as compensation. Again and again she emphasized that her daughter could
still be alive if the state had not failed in its duty of supervision.
The money from the victim compensation fund would have been an
acknowledgement of her suffering and would have made her everyday life a
little easier. After all, her daughter Vasthi was "100 percent dead."
"And the victims have a life sentence," Gunda Gerlach said in the interview.
The pension offices see no problems
They do not want to tell Panorama why the pension offices are having
such a hard time. They do not see any problems in processing
applications, and they are processed as quickly as possible. The Federal
Ministry denies that positive decisions are rare and refers to a study
that does not support this statement. The unpublished study is available
to Panorama.
In it, Prof. Bernhard Villmow, a criminologist at the Hamburg Faculty of
Law, clearly states: "Very few people even apply for victim
compensation. And it is only a minority who receive a positive decision,
and of those who receive a positive decision, it is only a minority who
receive pensions.
Gunda Gerlach no longer needs the pension today. She died on February 3,
2013, and her family told Panorama that her mother had wanted the
feature to be aired.
> http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/gerichtsverfahren-gerichte-
>
> ents-gutachtern-haeufig-tendenzen-vor-1.1881878
>
> Government criticizes reviewer:
> http://www.nzz.ch/international/aktuelle-themen/abschiebungen-in-deutschland-regierung-wirft-aerzten-zweifelhaft-atteste-vor-ld.118264
>
>
>
>
Government accuses doctors of dubious certificates
09/22/2016, 6:43 pm
Bookmark
Share
(Reuters) The German government accuses doctors of using dubious
certificates to prevent deportations. A "large number of certificates
are submitted that are conspicuous because the same doctors repeatedly
certify inability to travel with the same content or lack of
well-founded justification," according to an advance report in the
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Friday edition) in the government's
response to a small question from the Left Party. A large number of such
certificates often contain phrases such as "suspected diagnosis" right
at the beginning of the explanations, followed by the statement that "no
deportation should be forced".
The medical profession rejected the reproaches. The president of the
German Medical Association, Frank Ulrich Montgomery, told the newspaper
that his chamber had no statistics on medical reports in deportation
proceedings. "Even on the part of the federal government, no nationwide
figures could be given that would substantiate accusations of favorable
opinions in deportation proceedings," Montgomery continued. "Instead of
speculating about possible favoritism in expert opinions, it must be
ensured that the requirements for expert opinions are correct." Doctors
need sufficient time for a thorough diagnosis of physical and mental
illnesses, he said. The professional qualification of the experts is
also important, Montgomery continued. For this reason, the medical
association has created a "curriculum with standards for the
qualification of experts." A few weeks ago, Interior Minister Thomas de
Maiziere had already come under criticism because he had accused
physicians of issuing too many certificates with which rejected asylum
seekers allegedly avoid deportation.
> Arbitrariness in the judiciary:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muzpJt4Jef0
>
>
> RA on the "separation of powers":
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nF8xdcelA&fbclid=IwAR1EmzY7wD2-TAHZYBwnSPMQoDJ1f8qnIf4EQNfjpJBs8-t9w9K-M1uXLbkho
>
>
>
>
>
> The Berlin Regional Court ignored all of my lawyer's requests for
> evidence, but at least found that I was not at fault:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3besa6ypzbb8eux/Landgericht%202015.pdf
> Page
> 18ff.
>
> Nonetheless, the Higher Regional Court gave me almost all of the guilt,
> without any discussion in writing or in two oral hearings, a clear
> surprise verdict:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2715363/
>
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jxwqofv5bvqwkzq/190215%20Urteil_Kammergericht.pdf
We had two oral hearings and in the first one my lawyer had made it
clear that I was not at fault. The Court of Appeal avoided discussing
this, probably the verdict was already fixed at that time.
This has nothing to do with law and justice, take a closer look. These
judges let us discuss and present what we wanted and ignored everything.
This has nothing to do with a legal hearing and fair proceedings.
Therefore, I hope for support and dissemination.
> BGH rejected my submissions without justification, a lack of chances of
> success were merely alleged, without any evidence:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2732614/
>
>
Friday, August 2, 2019
The BGH, III ZA 7/19 has rejected the PKH because of lack of prospects
of success.
kasparhauser, 12:54h
The hearing appeal was also rejected without valid arguments:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tlq6nxdpie09987/14-Aug.-2019%2017-52-49.pdf
My hearing appeal today:
B G H
IIIZA 7/19
By fax
Berlin, August 3, 2019
HEARING APPEALS
REMINDER
AND ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE
Dear Sir or Madam,
Your decision of July 25, 2019 intolerably violate my sons and me in our
rights.
You clearly violate Article 3 of the Basic Law, Article 6 of the ECHR by
denying PKH and thus refusing to give me the same rights as a wealthy
person who can assert his rights without PKH.
Furthermore, you violate these articles of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights:
- Article 3, the attack of the policemen violated my right to life and
security. Characteristic for this "constitutional state" is of course
that the public prosecutor's office Berlin with support of the policy
refused to investigate against the policemen even. Thereby the crimes of
bodily harm, persecution of innocent people and false statements before
the social court were evident. Here is the summary with the
corresponding links and my letters to the senator of justice and the
governor
- Article 5, it is White Torture as we have been fighting for our right
for over eleven years in vain. Here an insider/whistleblower says that
this has a system and was ordered by the government (at the very top):
https://www.openpr.de/news/1046773/Bremen-Niedersachsen-Landesbeamter-gesteht-Behinderte-Menschen-werden-mit-falschen-Gutachten-geprellt.html
This obviously applies not only to people with disabilities, but also to
HartzIV recipients and anyone who makes claims against the state.
- Article 6, I lose my legal capacity because I am dependent on PKH.
This is more humane in other legal systems:
http://www.rechtslexikon.net/d/prozesskosten/prozesskosten.htm.
- Just the Americans are exemplary there.
- Article 7, All people without distinction are entitled to equal
protection of the law.
- Article 8, effective legal remedies were taken from me and my lawyer
in all instances and ignoring §§ 138f ZPO and §§ 273ffZPO. The judges
at the Kammergericht were clearly biased and should have been replaced.
We were also entitled to a default judgment, § 331 ZPO.
- Article 10, there is probably no fair trial in Germany before an
independent and impartial court, see VG Wiesbaden 6 K 1016/15.WI of
28.3.2019.
- Article 16, my family is not protected, but shamelessly exploited by
this state, as my sons care for me - still unlawfully without payment.
- Article 22, we have been deprived of the possibility of free
development since the incident on 2/20/2008. This is especially true for
my sons, who have to take care of me and therefore can hardly establish
social contacts (i.e. girlfriend).
- Article 25, there is no question of welfare and protection of my children.
- Article 28, by the unfounded denial of PKH, the BGH also fails against
international and national law. In the letter of 25.2. on the PKH
application, I had also raised the question of the extent to which the
ECtHR judgment 20579/15 of 15.2.2018 applies in Germany. This question
alone would make the appeal necessary.
PKH must of course be granted and the proceedings must be conducted for
the above reasons to establish the rule of law in Germany. This is the
only way to end the white torture to which my sons and I are subject.
Since the BGH has dispensed with any justification, it cannot even be
examined whether it is overstretching its requirements for the granting
of PKH. There are numerous and clear rulings on this matter by the
Federal Constitutional Court.
I ask you to replace the word "default judgment" with the word "surprise
judgment" in the second line of my letter of March 6, 2019 to the
Kammergericht.
I was assured by a BGH lawyer that the BGH will definitely let the file
come, so I also refer to my protocol complaint of Feb. 1, 2019.
It had already become apparent in advance that the judges at the
Kammergericht want to bend the law. I do not understand that the BGH
does not intervene.
With kind regards
Horst Murken
Here is the letter from the BGH:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8feo2pauv87mh4w/02-Aug.-2019%2017-13-32.pdf
This has nothing to do with the rule of law, so what kind of system do
we have?
B G H
Herrenstrasse 45 A
76133 Karlsruhe
Berlin, February 25
PKH-APPLICATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE REVISION/NON-ADMISSION
COMPLAINT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A BGH-ATTORNEY-AT-LAW YET TO BE NAMED
THE PLAINTIFF IS HORST MURKEN ON 9 U 85/15 CHAMBER COURT BERLIN
against
the State of Berlin,
represented by the Senate Department for Finance
represented d.d. Polizeipräsident in Berlin,
Klosterstraße 59, 10179 Berlin,
- Defendant, appellant and appellee -
Attorney at law I. and II. Instance:
Attorney-at-law Dr. Ulrich Franz
Kurfürstendamm 59, 10707 Berlin
(Case No. 18-4-1)
Interveners for the defendant, appellant and appellee:
1. Vivantes - Netzwerk für Gesundheit GmbH,
Aroser Allee 72-76, 13407 Berlin
2. the physician Dr. Hagen Hofmann,
Aroser Allee 72-76, 13407 Berlin
for damages
II. Instance: Court of Appeal - 9 U 85/15 -
I. Instance: Regional Court Berlin - 86 O 515/11 -
Dear Sir or Madam,
The above-mentioned judgment is legally untenable, as it is based on
speculations of the court, which has no relation to reality. Facts were
not established and judicial references, which are mandatory by law,
were omitted.
Thus, there were two dates for the oral hearing and never was the issue
of personal negligence addressed. On the contrary, at the district court
and also at the social court (because of victim's pension), it was
clearly stated that I had no contributory negligence. First, I could
believe the orthopedist who had overlooked the fracture in the hospital
Neukölln. Secondly, already on the second day an improvement had set in,
I could do without painkillers. Third, I had no reason to see a doctor,
but even if I had, what could a general practitioner have found? In 2008
it was still the case that you had to go to your family doctor first and
needed a referral from him. Fourthly, I was unable to walk and could not
even go to the toilet without the help of my sons in the first three
weeks, we had helped ourselves with glass bottles, which my sons had to
empty in the morning. Fifthly, it is of course to be asked what would
have happened if I had behaved as the Kammergericht demands afterwards
and an aggravation would have occurred as a result, since precisely no
general practitioner could even suspect a hernia under the impression of
what was certified by the orthopedist at the hospital. Therefore, the
assertion on p. 8 of the judgment is unworldly and cannot be justified
by anything. It is quite overwhelmingly likely that the hernia would not
have been discovered and that there would have been an aggravation.
And why this should lead to my being denied all further claims is not
clear either. I suspect that this is also contrary to already existing
law and therefore needs to be clarified on appeal. If the defendants are
to participate in 4 of 7 parts of the compensation for pain and
suffering, why not also in the consequential damages and the household
management damage and the loss of earnings?
Regarding the verdict chronologically: I had not refused to show my ID.
It is rather correct that I first wanted to know who I was dealing with,
because the policemen were in civilian clothes and could not be
recognized as policemen. One of them showed me something, which he
immediately closed again and I could not recognize what it was, because
he had held it right in front of my eyes. At the time, a series was
running on RTL or RTL II warning against fraud and urging us citizens to
take a close look at IDs and the like, such as badges. So I complied
with the advice of the Kripo.
Moreover, the request for my ID card was made without justification,
which was only added later. However, as was worked out before the SG,
they already knew at that time that no brothel was given here. The
actual operation had been completed and the papers had been checked - so
there was no reasonable reason to call me in. The operation was
completed. The lies before the SG were made out of self-protection, as
my lawyer worked out, 3rd protocol towards the end.
I am not asking for a monetary pension, but for household management
damages, since I have to be cared for by third parties. Also in the case
ECtHR 20579/15 of 15.2.2018 the victim of violence was granted this
assistance. However, my lawyer had mislabeled this as 14.5.2018. It
would have been the task of the Chamber Court to clarify this, but the
Chamber Court did not take any preparatory actions and did not respond
to our letters. This violation of my fundamental right to a fair hearing
and a fair trial should be grounds for appeal. The ECtHR based its
calculation on 412 days per year, while I applied for 13 monthly
payments of 2000 euros each.
We were and are of course entitled to a default judgment, since the
opposing parties did not have valid powers of attorney on the date of
14.9.2018, BGH V ZR 110/60 of 4.4.1962, see attachment. The default
judgment should have been issued ex officio. Here, therefore, the
Kammergericht deviates far from the BGH case law, so that there is
likely to be a further ground for appeal here.
As already explained above, I am not at all guilty of contributory
negligence. Here, the judges of the Kammergericht are fantasizing,
although it is their duty to investigate facts if this is possible, cf.
the Metzler case, which my lawyer cited in the complaint against the
denial of PKH by the Regional Court. This should also be a good ground
for appeal.
My lawyer has picked out the following: the question of contributory
negligence has been raised several times in the exchanged pleadings.
Avoiding their reproduction, I refer instead to the questioning of the
expert Prof. Dr. Sparmann in the hearing before the LG Berlin on
22.4.2015 (see minutes attached) there page 2, as well as to the
extensive explanations on this in the judgment of the LG of 22.4.2015
(see attachment), there pages 10f., 20 and in particular page 21. The
Kammergericht has not indicated that it wants to deviate from this,
another ground for appeal if a high court ignores established facts.
(I attach the appendix)
At least the Kammergericht also recognizes that the actions of the
police officers were unlawful.
In no case do I have a "claim-excluding contributory negligence" - also
in this regard the Court of Appeal has dutifully not determined
anything, but makes factual assertions here that are not based on facts.
This must be assessed in the appeal. In this context, it should be in
the general interest to determine the extent to which the ECHR ruling is
binding for Germany and how the violation of the prohibition of inhumane
treatment is dealt with in this country.
It is not possible to speak of "careless neglect of one's obligations to
mitigate damages"; as has been shown, there is no investigation of this.
However, this is probably only claimed in order to undermine the cited
judgment of the ECHR and thus not to apply the highest law. However, it
should be another ground for appeal.
The claims about alleged lack of improvement are also pure speculation
without the facts having been established. In any case, I was able to do
without painkillers on the second day, which is an improvement. And in
no case did an aggravation occur. Even if it had, I could at best have
called the emergency doctor, and it is questionable what he would have
been able to determine. Probably he could have given me only
painkillers, because with his means he would never have been able to
discover the fracture at the head of the tibia and would also have
relied on the discharge report of the specialist.
The officials also did not think they could "erroneously" establish my
identity. They already knew at this point that there was neither a
brothel nor anything comparable here, see above, the operation was over,
the situation was clarified. Again, assertions contrary to the
established facts.
I take the liberty of posting this link instead of a lot of paper, under
which are also the three protocols from the SG:
https://polizeigewalt.blogger.de/stories/2503531/
The question raised by the Kammergericht, to what extent the European
Convention on Human Rights requires a higher, than the immaterial
compensation provided under German civil law, is to be clarified in the
appeal in the public interest and equality of law in all European countries.
Under the impression of the ECHR ruling, we indeed demanded 4 million
euros in compensation for pain and suffering, but limited this to
500,000 euros after receiving the full ruling. The Frenchman was
probably worse off than I was. However, he was promptly helped by two
state funds, while the state refused me any help. The refusal must lead
for educational reasons to a clearly higher compensation for pain and
suffering. This is also a point for revision. See also the attached
expert opinion and the remarks on the preventive function of the pain
and suffering compensation.
Of course, the Kammergericht also speculates incorrectly about possible
late effects. Thus, a deterioration of the right knee has been
determined in my case already in 2016, which is due to the lack of movement.
Regarding 3. a), it must be said that there is no indication of the
court in this regard, § 139 ZPO.
The denial of PKH was also based on false speculations and without any
clarification of the facts. Thus it is not at all "conceivable" - at
least not if one knows the facts of the case - that it would have
remained in the end with losses. The losses occurred in the initial
phase due to the construction of the advertising media. When these are
up and running, they usually bring profits for decades. Here, too, there
is a lack of clarification of the facts and judicial guidance, as is
required in advance of an oral hearing to clarify the facts.
I think we have presented enough on the household management claim that
the court ignored or should have actively sought to clarify. My sons
worked for me, but not for the perpetrators, so they are entitled to 13
x 2000 euros per year, see above. In addition also the witness
statements of my two sons, which the court received by FAX. This is
simply suppressed by the court.
P. 15: "Incidentally, it is a matter of course, not to be claimed as
damage, that the sons living in his household have to participate in the
housework."
This was one of the main reasons with which I was denied PKH. My
complaints against it remained without reaction, although I had sent the
expert opinion on the household management damage, which is also
attached here, to the court.
It is settled case law of the Federal Constitutional Court that judges
must abide by the law, e.g. 2 BvR 794/95 of 20. 3. 2002, in particular
RZ 65, 75 and 121. The Court of Appeal turned away from this in an
unjustifiable manner, did not ascertain any facts and ignored everything
that my lawyer and I had presented and proved or documented.
Incidentally, it is unclear whether what I received has any validity at
all. It is already unclear whether it is a judgment, an order or
anything else. I have no idea whether something like that is admissible.
Furthermore, it is not signed by the judges, but § 315 ZPO makes this
mandatory. In any case, my copy must also be signed, since it has an
external effect. Furthermore, I have only received a copy, not certified
and I am probably entitled to a "copy", BGH XII ZB 132/09 of 9.6.2010.
Also, I had filed bias motions against all three judges in the first
hearing. This was rejected, but in disregard of the rules stated in the
literature, so I had also filed a motion of bias against the three
judges who processed the bias motion on 19.10.2018, which has not yet
been processed. Again, the BGH should clarify in an appeal whether this
is admissible or not.
I think I have shown enough for any reasonable person, that the judgment
of the Court of Appeal and also probably the Regional Court are to be
set aside, because they violate the "prohibition of inhumane treatment".
Further arguments are left to my BGH lawyer. I would like to point out
that I am a layman and may have submitted something incorrectly or
incompletely. Therefore I am grateful for any advice from the BGH.
Yours sincerely
Horst Murken
> My appeal against it was also dismissed without any justification,
> despite ECHR 20579/12 of February 15, 2018, where the case was similar
> to mine. The BVerfG also rejected my appeal without giving any reason:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2742299/
>
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
BVerfG rejects my complaint without justification
kasparhauser, 08:44h
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nl315xexrkk12o6/2019.11.05%20BVG%201BvR%202132.19.pdf
Like the BGH before, the Federal Constitutional Court did not give
reasons for its decision.
Does anyone here have the impression that we are a constitutional state?
I was made a cripple by police officers almost twelve years ago and this
state refuses to help me.
What kind of state system do we have?
> The ECHR accused me of violating the law without any justification, but
> my complaint is still open:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2787917/
>
Friday, November 27, 2020
ECTHR
kasparhauser, 16:30h
Here is my complaint against the ECtHR:
ECTHR
15433/20
By fax
Berlin, 20 Dec. 2020
URGENT
REMINDER
HEARING ATTORNEYS
COUNTER-APPEAL
AND ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE
DEPARTMENTAL COMPLAINT AGAINST LADO CHANTURIA
Dear Sir or Madam,
I was unlawfully assaulted and crippled by police officers in Germany on
20.2.2008: https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/.
All courts have confirmed that this attack was unlawful: Social Court
Berlin - even after hearing witnesses, Regional Court Berlin and also
the Superior Court Berlin.
So there is clearly a violation of:
https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/
is present. Why the judge does not recognize and consider this, he may
explain - or he is incapable to speak right. At least, as far as
fundamental and human rights are concerned.
By the way, the decision of 22.5.2020 was received here only on
27.11.2020. So when it is said that the file will be destroyed after one
year after the decision, this has nothing to do with rule of law
behavior, if half a year passes after creation....
In the matter itself, I have presented everything relevant. It is
strange that the ECtHR does not criticize that the BGH and the BVerfG do
not give reasons for their decisions and thus violate the Basic Law and
international law, where the right to a legal hearing and a fair trial
are guaranteed.
International law is also clearly violated here:
In addition to national law, it violates the ECHR,
Directive 2012/29 EU of 25.10.2012, document E/CN 4/2000/62 of the
Commission on Human Rights of 18.1.2000, the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the
European Union, GRC, International Covenant on Civil Rights,
ICCPR, ICESCR, CRPD, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Thus, it engages in white torture and violates the prohibition of
inhuman treatment.
Is this what the ECHR wants to accept? I have been crippled and continue
to be denied any help. Even from the ECtHR.
With kind regards
Horst Murken
Here is my complaint:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1gv4eivdidn6anw/2020-11-27_ECHR-Beschwerde16-03-2020.pdf
The BGH did not give reasons for its decision.
The BVerfG did not give reasons for its decision.
The ECtHR did not give reasons for its decision.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h5vbaxsm29u3m8c/2020-11-27_echr_15433-20%2027-Nov-2020%2016-05-07.pdf
> Many offices that are actually supposed to help victims turned away, did
> not respond or responded by ignoring the topic:
> https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/
Saturday, July 17, 2021
My Petiton
kasparhauser, 12:56h
is accepted, if I understand this so correctly.
I ask other affected people to join the petition, otherwise it will
probably be interpreted as an individual case.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e719qvwknvuaf3f/2021-07-15_petitionsausschuss_3-19-11-84-038705.pdf?dl=0
... link (0 comments) ... comment
Sunday, July 11, 2021
The left, Mrs. Wissler
kasparhauser, 19:58h
Dear Ms. Wissler,
I would now like to draw your attention to something that concerns many
people, but which
hardly plays a role in the public discussion. This is the way
of this state with victims of terror and violence. We are not individual
fates,
but have no supporters.
I was crippled on 20.2.2008:
https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/.
I am denied any help, laws are broken, bending of law is committed. But
help I do not get
I do not, as well as some others who have not yet given up.
If this topic interests you, I would be happy to send you more materials
and to
connect other victims with you.
Many greetings
Horst Murken
P.S.: This letter goes covertly to my supporters, so don't be surprised if
you see it in other media.
... link (0 comments) ... comment
Thursday, July 1, 2021
Federal Ministry of Justice
kasparhauser, 15:51h
Dear Sir or Madam,
I hereby submit
Official supervision complaint
Complaint for supervision
Legal supervisory complaint
against the Federal Minister of Justice and her aforementioned employees
for violation of fundamental and human rights as well as the Charter of the
European Union: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_de.pdf
and international agreements:
So what kind of state do we have, if such a clear deviation from Article
20 III GG and international law is allowed?
In addition to national law, it violates the ECHR,
Directive 2012/29 EU of 25.10.2012, document E/CN 4/2000/62 of the
Commission on Human Rights of 18.1.2000, the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the
European Union, GRC, International Covenant on Civil Rights,
ICCPR, ICESCR, CRPD, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
https://www.un.org/depts/german/gv-60/band1/ar60147.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/germany/news/20200325-aktionsplan-menschenrechte-demokratie_de?fbclid=IwAR0tOvTLDqhQvTEairTJu6FF1BA1HvfskBYUVkYh-bE6HvYLd_84O_IhwLI
Victims' Rights:
https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF/Berichte/MPI_Gutachten_Uebertragung_opferschuetzender_Normen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1&fbclid=IwAR35wkU8hIT1byzQtLcE6-Om9l_cWXvytIRGCiEQgQ9ShV77Vn2jNeAjgdg
Thus, it engages in white torture and violates the prohibition of
inhumane treatment.
I was unlawfully and insidiously assaulted and crippled on 20.2.2008:
https://rechtsstaat12.blogger.de/stories/2722621/
Although this is a violation of Art. 2 GG and international conventions,
for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible, nothing happens.
This was already the case under Mr. Maas and Ms. Barley. Ms. Lambrecht I
had in August 2019 in writing and verbally (at her open day)
informed about these abuses and also asked several times by mail for
'results. Answers came none.
Thus, it is clear that the Federal Ministry of Justice violates the
Basic Law and international agreements without any legal basis.
This is to be punished still before the election.
With kind regards
Horst Murken
Diesel road 15
12057 Berlin
> There are plenty of other materials. But I think that is enough to give
> the impression that Germany is not a constitutional state. I am writing
> this way because you can easily open the links.
>
>
> With best regards
>
> Horst Murken
... link (0 Kommentare) ... comment
Mittwoch, 8. September 2021
Alle arbeiten gleich - und gegen Menschen
kasparhauser, 16:18h
Als Normalbürger wird einem eine Petition bei der UN sogut wie unmöglich gemacht. Interessant ist auch, daß die Schreiben von denen nicht unterschrieben sind. Wovor haben die Angst?
Dear Sir,
We hereby acknowledge receipt of your communication.
Please note that the individual complaint procedures under the United Nations Human Rights Treaties require that certain preliminary criteria are satisfied before the relevant Treaty Bodies (Committees) can proceed with the examination of a complaint.
After having carefully reviewed the content of your complaint, we have noted that the following preliminary criteria do not appear to be met:
1. Domestic judicial or administrative remedies do not appear to have been exhausted. The requirement that domestic remedies must have been exhausted usually means that the claim must first be pursued through the local court system up to the highest available instance, unless there is sufficient evidence that proceedings at the national level have been unreasonable prolonged or would be plainly ineffective. In order to substantiate that you have exhausted domestic remedies please note that the copy of all documents in relation with national judicial proceedings in the original language along with a translation or alternatively with a fairly detailed summary in one of the official UN languages must also be provided.
2. Your petition does not provide sufficient details as to the alleged violations, facts and points of law relating to your case, in particular how your rights under the relevant treaty have been violated. Your petition should identify the treaty under which you wish to submit your complaint, as well as the provisions that have been violated together with an explanation as to why you consider that these provisions have been violated. You should also specify the State party against which you wish to submit your complaint.
3. Your complaint is being examined or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, i.e. by the European Court of Human Rights.
May you wish to resubmit your complaint, please take them into account, as the Petitions Unit will not be able to treat your communication unless it complies with these requirements. Please also note that only communications presented in one of the official United Nations languages (English, French, Russian and Spanish) can be accepted.
As these requirements do not appear to be met, your complaint is being returned to you. For more information, please consult our Fact Sheet attached to this complaint.
We apologize for not being able to respond to you in a more positive manner.
Sincerely,
cid:image002.jpg@01D63E52.933C47D0
Petitions and Urgent Actions Section
Human Rights Treaties Branch
Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
E-mail: petitions@ohchr.org
Web: www.ohchr.org
Address: Palace of Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10 Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 9179008
Twitter: UNHumanRights
Facebook: unitednationshumanrights
Dear Sir,
We hereby acknowledge receipt of your communication.
Please note that the individual complaint procedures under the United Nations Human Rights Treaties require that certain preliminary criteria are satisfied before the relevant Treaty Bodies (Committees) can proceed with the examination of a complaint.
After having carefully reviewed the content of your complaint, we have noted that the following preliminary criteria do not appear to be met:
1. Domestic judicial or administrative remedies do not appear to have been exhausted. The requirement that domestic remedies must have been exhausted usually means that the claim must first be pursued through the local court system up to the highest available instance, unless there is sufficient evidence that proceedings at the national level have been unreasonable prolonged or would be plainly ineffective. In order to substantiate that you have exhausted domestic remedies please note that the copy of all documents in relation with national judicial proceedings in the original language along with a translation or alternatively with a fairly detailed summary in one of the official UN languages must also be provided.
2. Your petition does not provide sufficient details as to the alleged violations, facts and points of law relating to your case, in particular how your rights under the relevant treaty have been violated. Your petition should identify the treaty under which you wish to submit your complaint, as well as the provisions that have been violated together with an explanation as to why you consider that these provisions have been violated. You should also specify the State party against which you wish to submit your complaint.
3. Your complaint is being examined or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, i.e. by the European Court of Human Rights.
May you wish to resubmit your complaint, please take them into account, as the Petitions Unit will not be able to treat your communication unless it complies with these requirements. Please also note that only communications presented in one of the official United Nations languages (English, French, Russian and Spanish) can be accepted.
As these requirements do not appear to be met, your complaint is being returned to you. For more information, please consult our Fact Sheet attached to this complaint.
We apologize for not being able to respond to you in a more positive manner.
Sincerely,
cid:image002.jpg@01D63E52.933C47D0
Petitions and Urgent Actions Section
Human Rights Treaties Branch
Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
E-mail: petitions@ohchr.org
Web: www.ohchr.org
Address: Palace of Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10 Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 9179008
Twitter: UNHumanRights
Facebook: unitednationshumanrights
... link (0 Kommentare) ... comment
Sonntag, 29. August 2021
Meine heutige Version der Petiton
kasparhauser, 00:55h
Dear Sir or Madam,
on February 20th, 2008 I was illegally and sneakily attacked by plainclothes police officers and made a cripple.
I never got any care allowance, victim pension or other support. Any help I asked for was denied.
Based on a study of the German professor ?Dr. Ursula Gresser? from the university ?LMU Munich? It seems
that in Germany many medical appraisers are economically dependent on the result of a process. This causes
that the medical assessment outcome of the medical appraisers are based on the judge?s mood rather than of
the healthy conditions of the patient.
The Berlin Regional Court ignored all of my lawyer's requests for evidence, but at least found that I was not at
fault. Nonetheless, the Higher Regional Court gave me almost all of the guilt, without any discussion in writing
or in two oral hearings, a clear surprise verdict. BGH rejected my submissions without justification, a lack of
chances of success were merely alleged, without any evidence. My appeal against it was also dismissed without
any justification, despite ECHR 20579/12 of February 15, 2018, where the case was similar to mine. The BVerfG
also rejected my appeal without giving any reason.
The ECHR accused me of violating the law without any justification, but my complaint is still open. Many offices
that are actually supposed to help victims turned away, did not respond or responded by ignoring the topic.
Despite my complaint the court proceedings were closed by the EGMR.
Furthermore, every complaints against a judge of the BVerfG were declined or never processed by the EU.
This is clearly against the Document E/CN 4/2000/62 of the human rights commission from 18th January 2000.
Based on this documents the government should help any victim of violence directly and efficiently. But they denied
any help for me since 13 and a half years.
There are plenty of further materials. But I think that is enough to give the impression that Germany is not a
constitutional state. I am writing this way because you can easily open the links.
With best regards
on February 20th, 2008 I was illegally and sneakily attacked by plainclothes police officers and made a cripple.
I never got any care allowance, victim pension or other support. Any help I asked for was denied.
Based on a study of the German professor ?Dr. Ursula Gresser? from the university ?LMU Munich? It seems
that in Germany many medical appraisers are economically dependent on the result of a process. This causes
that the medical assessment outcome of the medical appraisers are based on the judge?s mood rather than of
the healthy conditions of the patient.
The Berlin Regional Court ignored all of my lawyer's requests for evidence, but at least found that I was not at
fault. Nonetheless, the Higher Regional Court gave me almost all of the guilt, without any discussion in writing
or in two oral hearings, a clear surprise verdict. BGH rejected my submissions without justification, a lack of
chances of success were merely alleged, without any evidence. My appeal against it was also dismissed without
any justification, despite ECHR 20579/12 of February 15, 2018, where the case was similar to mine. The BVerfG
also rejected my appeal without giving any reason.
The ECHR accused me of violating the law without any justification, but my complaint is still open. Many offices
that are actually supposed to help victims turned away, did not respond or responded by ignoring the topic.
Despite my complaint the court proceedings were closed by the EGMR.
Furthermore, every complaints against a judge of the BVerfG were declined or never processed by the EU.
This is clearly against the Document E/CN 4/2000/62 of the human rights commission from 18th January 2000.
Based on this documents the government should help any victim of violence directly and efficiently. But they denied
any help for me since 13 and a half years.
There are plenty of further materials. But I think that is enough to give the impression that Germany is not a
constitutional state. I am writing this way because you can easily open the links.
With best regards
... link (0 Kommentare) ... comment
... older stories
