Samstag, 14. Mai 2016
Freitag, 6. Mai 2016
Sonntag, 14. Juni 2015
Donate/Spenden Side
Please support my efforts against judicial authorities
Bitte unterstützen Sie meine Bemühungen gegen Justizbehörden
Related Links
http://constitutionalcomplaintgermany2015.blogspot.com/2015/03/verfassungsbeschwerde-deutschland-2015.html
http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/09/offener-brief-das-landgericht-munchen_11.html
http://abtmuc-myconception-ger.blogspot.de/2014/06/mein-selbstverstandnis-aufgrund-unserer.html
http://abtmuc-myconception-eng.blogspot.de/2014/06/my-self-conception-about-responsibility.html
http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/09/offener-brief-das-landgericht-munchen_8.html
http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/09/offener-brief-das-landgericht-munchen_11.html
http://abtmuc-myconception-ger.blogspot.de/2014/06/mein-selbstverstandnis-aufgrund-unserer.html
http://abtmuc-myconception-eng.blogspot.de/2014/06/my-self-conception-about-responsibility.html
http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/09/offener-brief-das-landgericht-munchen_8.html
http://openletter2judiciary.blogspot.com/2015/06/openletter2constitutionalcourtgermany20.html
http://openletter2judiciary.blogspot.com/2015/06/openletter2constitutionalcourtgermanyen.html
http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/02/veroffentlichen-eines-offenen-briefes.html
Petition2ConstitutionalCourtGermany_201506
Abe
Treiner * Leopoldstraße
124 *
D-80802
München
|
||
Bundesverfassungsgericht Postfach 1771 76006 Karlsruhe |
||
München,
14. Juni 2015
|
Die
Petition richtet sich an
Bundesverfassungsgericht
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
„Wir
sind nicht nur verantwortlich für das, was wir tun,
sondern auch für das, was wir nicht tun.“
― Molière
sondern auch für das, was wir nicht tun.“
― Molière
„So
läuft der Unterschied zwischen traditionellen und modernen Lügen
im
Grunde auf den Unterschied zwischen Verbergen und Vernichten hinaus.“
― Hannah Arendt
Grunde auf den Unterschied zwischen Verbergen und Vernichten hinaus.“
― Hannah Arendt
„Wenn
Unrecht zu Recht wird, wird Widerstand zur Pflicht!“
―
Berthold
Brecht
Sehr
verehrter Präsident des Bundesverfassungsgerichts,
Sehr
verehrter Herr Prof. Dr. Voßkuhle,
Sehr
verehrte Leser und im Anhang genannten Empfänger,
der
Grundgesetzgeber hat explizit aufgrund der Erfahrungen aus dem
Unrechtssystem den nach Art. 34 GG artikulierten Anspruch auf
unbehinderten Rechtsweg festgelegt. Der
Grund hierfür war zweifellos, dass nur mit diesem Anspruch ein
wiedererstehendes Unrechtssystem wirksam begegnet werden kann. Wenn
zur Verhinderung des Wiedererstsehens eines Unrechtssystem erst
unkalkulierbare Kosten in Kauf genommen werden müssten, dann wäre
ein solcher Anspruch von Beginn an zum Scheitern verurteilt.
Demzufolge
widersprechen Hürden zur Durchsetzbarkeit von Rechtsansprüchen bei,
von Rechts- und Ausführungsorganen verursachten, Rechtsfehler diesen
grundgesetzlichen Vorgaben. Der Grundgesetzgeber hat zudem die nach
Art.19 Abs. 2/4 Unantastbarkeit des Wesensgehalt von Grundrechten
manifestiert. Weiter hat der Grundgesetzgeber, ebenfalls aufgrund der
Erfahrungen aus dem Unrechtssystem, dem Verfassungsgericht die
Verantwortung und Kontrolle dafür übertragen, dass Kernbestimmungen
des Grundgesetzes unabdingbar gewahrt bleiben und damit für das
Verfassungsgericht einen Handlungszwang manifestiert, sobald es
Kenntnis von Verletzungen dieser Kernbestimmungen erhält.
Die
Weltgemeinschaft hatte einst die unterbundene Einklagbarkeit von, von
Rechts- und Ausführungsorganen verursachten, Rechtsfehlers als
Wesensmerkmal eines Unrechtssystem identifiziert. Im zugrunde
liegenden Verfahren wurde von einer Richterin des Landgerichts
München klar und unmissverständlich das Versagen der Vorinstanzen
und der involvierten Rechts- und Ausführungsorgane erkannt und
thematisiert. Die Richterin hatte nicht nur eine Missachtung des
Rechtsgrundsatzes 'keine Bestrafung ohne Tat' festgestellte sondern
auch die missbräuchliche Anwendung von Mechanismen angesprochen, die
zweifellos Assoziationen zum Unrechtssystems erkennen lassen.
Die
Philosophin Hannah
Arendt
hat die Entstehung von Unrechtssystemen maßgeblich auf das
unreflektierte Handeln von Angehörigen der Rechts- und
Ausführungsorgane zurückgeführt. Es waren Angehörige der Rechts-
und Ausführungsorgane, die ermöglicht haben, dass Menschen wegen
willfähriger Äußerungen einer Vernichtung zugeführt wurden. Es
waren Angehörige der Rechtsorgane die durch ihr Handeln verhindert
haben, dass einstige Täter sich der Rechenschaftspflicht ihres
Handels entziehen konnten. Das Entstehen eines Unrechtssystem ist
demgemäß immer eine Folge des unreflektierten Handelns von Rechts-
und Ausführungsorganen. Die Missachtung einer bindenden Anwendung
und Einklagbarkeit von grundgesetzlichen Kernbestimmungen für
Geschädigte des Rechtssystem dokumentiert geradezu exemplarisch das
unreflektierte Handeln von Rechtsorganen wie im vorliegenden Fall des
Verfassungsgerichts und bestätigt, den von Hannah
Arendt
und Fritz Bauer artikulierte Unwillen des deutschen Rechtssystems,
sich der Verantwortung gegenüber der eigenen belasteten
Vergangenheit zu stellen.
Wir
erleben bereits heute wieder eine abnehmende Sensibilisierung
gegenüber Menschenrechtsverletzungen und dem Leid von Opfern (siehe
jüngste Vorkommnisse um Asylsuchende bei der Hamburger
Bundespolizei). Dies ist zweifellos eine Folge der Nichtwahrnehmung
von Verantwortung durch Verfassungs-, Rechts- und Ausführungsorganen.
Nehmen sie nun endlich, 70 Jahre nach der belasteten Vergangenheit
der Rechts- und Ausführungsorgane, ihre ethische und moralische
Verpflichtung an, den Mechanismen des Wiederentstehens eines
Unrechtssystem unabdingbar entgegen zu treten und nehmen sie die
Verantwortung wahr, welche ihnen von den Grundgesetzgebern mit einer
expliziten Verpflichtung übertragen wurde. Wenn diese Verpflichtung
vom Bundesverfassungsgericht nicht wahrgenommen wird, dann muss
zweifellos deren Daseinsberechtigung hinterfragt werden.
Die
Weltgeschehnisse verlangen eine klare und unmissverständliche
Stellungnahme zu ethischer und moralischer Verantwortungswahrnehmung.
Ich
ersuche das Verfassungsgericht die Zulässigkeit meiner
Verfassungsbeschwerde zu bestätigen und einer Entscheidung
zuzuführen.
Mit
freundlichen Grüßen
Abe Treiner
Nehmen Sie sich 30 Sekunden Zeit und unterschreiben Sie die Petition jetzt!
http://www.change.org/p/bundesverfassungsgericht-der-bundesrepublik-deutschland-ich-ersuche-das-verfassungsgericht-die-zulässigkeit-meiner-verfassungsbeschwerde-zu-bestätigen-und-einer-entscheidung-zuzuführen
Relevante
Links:
Petition2ConstitutionalCourtGermanyEn_201506
Abe
Treiner * Leopoldstraße
124 *
D-80802
München
|
||
Bundesverfassungsgericht Postfach 1771 76006 Karlsruhe |
||
München,
14. Juni 2015
|
This
petition is aimed to the
Constitutional
Court of the Federal Republic of Germany
„We are not only responsible for what we do but also for what we not do“
― Molière
„So is the
difference between traditional and modern falsehood
basically only on the difference between hiding and destruction.“
― Hannah Arendt
basically only on the difference between hiding and destruction.“
― Hannah Arendt
„When
injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.“
― Berthold Brecht
Dear
Mr Prof. Dr. Voßkuhle,
on
the experiences from the system of injustice the constitutional
lawmakers explicitly stated the claim on unrestricted legal process
based on article 34 GG. The reason for this was undoubtedly that the
re-establishment of an injustice system can be approached effectively
only by this standards. If the prevention of a re-establishment of an
injustice system would be only bounded by incalculable costs, then
such a claim would be doomed to failure from the beginning.
Accordingly
for errors of law caused by judicial and executive authorities, the
barriers to the enforcement of legal claims contradicts those
constitutional requirements. The constitutional lawmakers also
manifested with chapter 19 para 2/4 GG the inviolability of the
essence of the constitutional rights. Even because of the experiences
with the system of injustice, the constitutional lawmakers delegated
the responsibility and control of the core constitutional rights to
the Constitutional Court in order to ensure that these basic laws
will be absolutely safeguarded by this institution. Thus the
constitutional lawmakers manifested a compulsion to act to the
Constitutional Court as soon as it becomes aware of violations of the
core constitutional rights.
The
world community identified once as being characteristic of a system
of injustice the fact of preventing the enforcement of legal claims
for errors of law caused by judicial and executive authorities. In
the underlying proceedings was the failure of the courts of lower
instances and involved judicial and executive authorities recognized
and clearly and unequivocally addressed by the judge of the District
Court of Munich. The judge identified not only a disregarding for the
law principle 'no punishment without crime' but addressed also the
abusive usage of mechanisms which let undoubtedly detect associations
with the system of injustice.
The
philosopher Hannah Arendt
has ascribed the establishment of injustice systems on largely
unreflected acts by members of the judicial and executive
authorities. It were members of the judicial and executive
authorities, who had supplied people to annihilation for
non-assimilated statements. It were members of the judicial
authorities which have prevented by their acts, that former culprits
could escape the accountability of their doings. The establishment of
a system of injustice is accordingly always a result of unreflected
actions by judicial and executive authorities. The disregarding of a
binding implementation and enforceability of core constitutional
regulations for victim of the legal system documenting almost
exemplarily the unreflected actions by legal institutions such as in
this case the Constitutional Court and confirmed the reluctance of
the German judicial authorities taking responsibility towards their
own burdened history stated by Hannah Arendt
and Fritz Bauer.
We
are experiencing today again decreasing awareness of violations of
human rights and the suffering of victims (see recent occurrences of
asylum seekers within the Hamburg-based German Federal Police). This
is undoubtedly due to the non-perception of responsibility of the
constitutional, judicial and executive authorities. Please perceive
finally now, 70 years after the burdened history of the judicial and
executive authorities, your ethical and moral obligation, to counter
effectively the mechanisms of the re-establishment of a system of
injustice and accept the responsibilities which was given you by the
constitutional lawmakers with an explicit obligation. If this
obligation is not perceived by the Federal Constitutional Court, then
the reason of its existing must be definitely a case of a critical
analysis.
The
world affairs requiring a clear and unequivocal statement of ethical
and moral responsibility perceptions.
I'm
asking the Constitutional Court to confirm the acceptation of my
constitutional complaint and to lead the matter to a decision of a
judicial nature.
Abe Treiner
Take now 30 seconds and sign the petition!
http://www.change.org/p/constitutional-court-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-i-m-asking-the-constitutional-court-to-confirm-the-acceptation-of-my-constitutional-complaint-and-to-lead-the-matter-to-a-decision-of-a-judicial-nature
Related
Links:
OpenLetter2ConstitutionalCourtGermanyEn_201506
Abe
Treiner * Leopoldstraße
124 *
D-80802
München
|
||
Bundesverfassungsgericht Postfach 1771 76006 Karlsruhe |
||
München,
14. Juni 2015
|
Open-Letter to
Constitutional Court of Germany
Dear
Mr Gaier,
Dear
Mrs König,
Dear
Mr Paulus,
Dear
Mr Landau,
Dear
Mrs Kessal-Wulf,
Dear
Mr Schluckebier,
in
this country we arrogate to call for rule of law in other countries,
when we receive knowledge of occurrences, which we consider to be
incompatible with our moral concepts. These, our superciliousness can
only be maintained by us if we fully complying our constitutional
obligations and ensuring that common occurrences in this country
which also disregarding the rule of law, will be transferred to an
essentially lawful inspection.
The
fully compliance with this constitutional principle was bequeathed us
by the writers of the constitutional law as obligatory duty after the
experiences of the system of injustice. This means that for judicial
authorities and in particular for the ultima ratio instance of the
Constitutional Court a compulsion to act exists if faults in the
legal system are detected, which has to be transferred to a public
clarification and future prevention in order to avoid a repetition of
our history. The violation of these principle have been resulted to
the monstrous occurrences of our history. This awareness must
determine our ethical and moral standards.
As
well the disregarding of these principle of the rule of law shows
today again the consequences which making the reconstruction of a
system of injustice not unrealistic. As examples should be mentioned
the abuses of police violence, the recognizable entanglement of
judicial and executive authorities within NSU3
activities and the recent occurrences of inhuman treatment of
asylum-seeker34
by policemen which seems to cover occurrences from concentration
camps with a similar dimension of inhuman treatment.
Nearly
15000 abuse cases of police violence has been identified in the
period from 2009 to 2011 by respectable institutions, such as
Süddeutsche
Zeitung
and Amnesty International. Extrapolated until today, nearly 50000
cases must be considered in its whole extent. Such increasing can't
be no longer determined as regrettable isolated cases.
3 NSU-Morde
7 Michael
Siegel
10 Volksgerichtshof
16 People's
Court Germany
25 Bundesarchiv
Bild 151-39-23 Volksgerichtshof
In
my constitutional complaint underlying proceedings, was the failure
of the courts of lower instances and involved judicial and executive
authorities recognized by the judge Mrs Ehrl
of the District Court of Munich clearly and unequivocally addressed. The
judge Mrs Ehrl
identified not only a disregarding for the law principle 'no
punishment without crime' but addressed also the abusive usage of
mechanisms which let undoubtedly detect associations with the
'Treachery Act'12
14
of system of injustice. The judge Mrs Ehrl
was almost appalled that such mechanisms will be considered again by
unreflected practice from judicial and executive authorities
regarding its burdened history. If this doesn't cause a need for
reconnaissance and disposal of this system error (identified within
our legal system) then there will be no doubt that we are already
standing on a one-way street to a system of injustice, which may have
reached already an irreversible stage. The constitutional lawmakers
have stated for such a constellation explicitly section 20 subsection
4 GG and thus unequivocally committed to perceive our and specially
the Constitutional Court's responsibility. This perception of our
responsibility committed us more than ever, if courts acting
seemingly by constitutional rituals trying to convey an image of rule
of law. The criterion for the classification of a system of justice
or a system of injustice can only be based on a binding
implementation and enforceability of core constitutional regulations.
The guiding principle of the constitutional lawmakers was without a
doubt to become manifest a compulsion of acting to the Constitutional
Court, whenever the potential of a re-establishment of an injustice
system may not be disqualified by acts from judicial and executive
authorities essentially. A perception of this responsibility by the
Constitutional Court definitely cannot be abandoned, because the
scientific historical research has identified the unreflected acting
of judicial and executive authorities as significant cause of all
injustice systems established on German territory.
12 Treachery
Act of 1934
Everywhere
in the world a prevented justiciability of legal faults caused by
judicial or executive authorities will be regarded as characteristics
of a system of injustice. These by the Constitutional Court ignored
constitutional standards shows unfortunately until today those
mechanisms of reluctance of the German legal system to taking over
responsibility towards their own burdened history, substantiated by
the philosopher Hannah Arendt8
9
and the jurist Fritz Bauer1
2.
This refusal of acceptance of responsibility by judicial and
executive authorities and their disregard of binding constitutional
terms bequeath the impression of a mockery of the victims of the
system of injustice as it conveys a hopelessness to proceed
effectively against a re-establishment of a system of injustice. The
refusal of accepting of verifiability of legal faults caused by
judicial and executive authorities conveys an impression that the
Constitutional Court would consider similar occurrences within the
system of injustice as legitimated, only misinterpreted procedures
which are consistent with the constitution. This is intolerable and
shows once again the arrogant self-righteousness of German Jurists,
which once were paraded within show trial by judges in the system of injustice
before the eyes of the people of the world. The people of the World
had once identified the practice of prevention of legal hearings for
victims as core characterization of an injustice system. If the
Constitutional Court applying today the same approach, then it still
shows the since 70 years lasting sustained missing ability of
reflecting their own behavior which will not be whitewashed by
performances with red flowing robes.
8 Hannah
Arendt
9 Hannah
Arendt
1 Fritz
Bauer
15 Bundesverfassungsgericht
18 Federal
Constitutional Court of Germany
19 Portrait
Gaier
20 Portrait
Paulus
21 Portrait
Schluckebier
22 Portrait
Kessal-Wulf
23 Portrait
König
As
I'm seeing myself confronted with inappropriate actions from
executive authorities with this matter repeatedly, I may prompt the
Constitutional Court to prevent the re-establishment of a system on
injustice by discharging its responsibility. Therefore I'm requesting
the Constitutional Court to accept the constitutionally mandatory
claim for clarification and reviewing of the legal fault by verifying
the matter against the conformity with constitutional core terms. The
initiators of the constitutional rules had the expectations that the
Constitutional Court should be committed of the compliance with the
constitutional core terms and not to comparatively lapidary topics
such as the 'headscarf ban for teachers in public schools'. If
judicial and executive authorities especially the last instance of
the Constitutional Court not perceiving their responsibility because
of their own burdened history, then this refused responsibility
perception must be covered by all others. This we owe it to the
victims of three German injustice systems and must be and stay for
all eternity our obligatory guiding principle. As a result of the
postulate of my perception of a historical responsibility an
unjustified refusal of my constitutional complaint cannot be accepted
by me. In this case, my perception of responsibility would be to
bring the hazard of a reincarnation of a German injustice system by
the unreflected activities from judicial and executive authorities
before the world's eyes. It's always terrifying and shocking at the
same time how members of those organizations which have had once
significantly contributed to the establishment of the system of
injustice seem to argue out against their consequent responsibility
and obviously seem to be strive to relativize, trivialize, minimize
and to whitewash the activities of judicial and executive authorities
which undoubtedly comes to the potential of a re-establishment of an
injustice system.
I
assure you that I have the Lutheran's determination to oppose to
seemingly overpowering opponents. Also it's my unwavering guiding
principle never idly standing by, while an injustice system will be
re-established and demanding an absolute perception of responsibility
by protagonists of such ambitions. If
the fate of Sophie Scholl5
6,
the count of Stauffenberg13
17
or Georg
Elser4
11
should me catching up, then I've provided already arrangements, to
make the background of the case aware to a world public opinion.For this case, I would like already now to put an inquiry to the
President of the Federal Republic of Germany to disengage my German
citizenship posthumously. I
would not like to be perceived after my life as a member of this
State, for which I felt ashamed because of the non-perception of its
historical responsibility during whole of my life.
5 Sophie
Scholl
6 Sophie
Scholl
13 Claus
von Stauffenberg
17 Claus
von Stauffenberg
4 Georg
Elser
Abe
Treiner
Picture and document references
1) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Bauer
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Bauer
3) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSU-Morde
4) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser
5) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl
7) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Siegel
8) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt
9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt
10) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksgerichtshof
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Elser
12) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treachery_Act_of_1934
13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg
14) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimt%C3%BCckegesetz
15) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesverfassungsgericht
16) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Court_%28Germany%29
17) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Schenk_Graf_von_Stauffenberg
18) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court_of_Germany
19) Portrait_Gaier Bundesverfassungsgericht lorenz.fotodesign, Karlsruhe
20) Portrait_Paulus Bundesverfassungsgericht lorenz.fotodesign, Karlsruhe
21) Portrait_Schluckebier Bundesverfassungsgericht lorenz.fotodesign, Karlsruhe
22) Portrait_Kessal-Wulf Bundesverfassungsgericht lorenz.fotodesign, Karlsruhe
23) Portrait_König Bundesverfassungsgericht lorenz.fotodesign, Karlsruhe
24) Portrait_Landau Bundesverfassungsgericht lorenz.fotodesign, Karlsruhe
25) Bundesarchiv_Bild_151-39-23,_Volksgerichtshof,_Reinecke,_Freisler,_Lautz
26) Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R99542,_München,_Judenverfolgung,_Michael_Siegel
27) http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2013/07/offenerbrief-zum-thema-wennsich.html
28) http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/02/veroffentlichen-eines-offenen-briefes.html
29) http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/09/offener-brief-das-landgericht-munchen.html
30) http://openletter2ragregorrose.blogspot.com/2014/05/offener-brief-rechtsanwalt-gregor-rose.html
31) http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2013/08/offener-brief-das-amtsgericht-munchen.html
32) http://abtmuc-myconception-eng.blogspot.de/2014/06/my-self-conception-about-responsibility.html
33) http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/09/offener-brief-das-landgericht-munchen_8.html
34) http://abtmuc-myconception-ger.blogspot.de/2014/06/mein-selbstverstandnis-aufgrund-unserer.html
35) http://openletter2amtsgermuc.blogspot.com/2014/09/offener-brief-das-landgericht-munchen_11.html
36) http://constitutionalcomplaintgermany2015.blogspot.de/2015/03/verfassungsbeschwerde-deutschland-2015.html
37) http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/hannover_weser-leinegebiet/Fluechtlinge-in-Polizeizelle-erniedrigt,misshandlung136.html
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)