en_ABOLDieterMoeller

Dieter Moeller – President of Regional Labour Court Munich
If judicial authorities disregards the responsibility because of their burdened past.
Mr. Moeller represents obviously a point of view that the right to freedom of expression isn't determined by fundamental laws or general human rights, but is only a subject of his own definition. In addition, Mr. Moeller seems also to believe that members of judicial authorities are legitimized to discourage litigants from legitimate rights by intimidation. It seems that Mr. Moeller has not examined the essential requirements, namely the burdened history of his profession and therefore considers an unreflective and arbitrary acting against citizens and litigants as a legitimated dealing with them. Analogous occurrences from the time of the German injustice system have clearly shown that citizens were driven into emigration or into suicide, through such unreflektive behavior. Therefore parallels to the law interpretation of the injustice system can not be hidden, which effectively demonstrating that the German judicial system has drawn no lessons from its burdened past.
Unfortunately, a determined consistently unreflected acting by members of judicial authorities makes a public attention inevitable. The Author used the title 'Mein Kampf' for the documentation in order to use its worldwide reputation to ensure an increased public perception of the documentation. Readers of the documentation will realize that the title surely are not correlating with the conviction of the author. The author hopes at least to cause a thought-provoking for visitors, who were promised other documentation content because of the title. Those, who were only rudimentary concerned with our history, should be known the scientific evidence that the initiating and establishment of the worst injustice system of human history was not a consequence of suddenly arising monsters, but was caused mainly by the unreflected acting of members of the judicial and executive authorities. Due to this knowledge, the judicial and executive authorities of this country have a special obligation to consequently cover their perception of responsibility.
Such a perception of responsibility can not consist in a behavior of repeating the patterns of the system of injustice and supposedly showing oneself ignorant about occurrences with historical contexts. Analogous to the criminal principle of 'Ignorance does not protect against punishment', must be applied here the ethical, moral principle 'Ignorance and excessive demand of intellectuality does not protect against the obligation of the perception of responsibility'.
		As often stated from our current Federal President Joachim Gauck, we must not be silent because of our historical responsibility.
We must designate clearly today's culpable acting and their historical analogies.
We are committed to de-legitimize culpable acting today, as in the past as well as in the future. We owe this to the victims and resistance fighters of three German caused injustice systems. Culpable acting was undoubtedly that people who only followed their conscience had to suffer inappropriate sanctions.
Culpable acting was also if litigants were prevented to perceive a judicial evaluation. Culpable acting was as well if any proportionality in penal sanctions was disregarded and inappropriate opinions could lead to draconian punishment. Culpable acting was even if litigants were deferred from judicial evaluations by intimidation.
If today a litigant are calling the legality of the applied laws regulations by traceable derivations into question and this litigant will be therefore accused of a crime by members of judicial authorities then this issue is the same unreflected acting which was once identified by the philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt, confirmed by all historians, as the significant reason of the arising of the most worst chapter within the human history.
				Against this background, it can not be accepted that members of the judicial authorities are trying to undermine our historical commitment against the re-establishment of a system of injustice by encountering any criticisms to their acting by the competitive cudgel of a disparagement or slander complaint in order to cut away the ground of this constitutional obligation by a de facto way. At this point, it has to be reminded to the scientific cognition, that the unreflective acting by members of the judicial and executive authorities has been identified as main cause of the arising of the injustice system.
Due to this realization we can not assume, that today's members of the judicial and executive authorities will be extended by a nimbus while they are employed to civil services which might cause the exclusion of the possibility of the re-establishment of a system of injustice. The occurrences in recent years within the judicial and executive authorities should advise us the indispensability of our vigilance against the re-establishment of a system of injustice. But the occurrences must cause us to raise questions about the reasons, why it seems mainly to be visible in Bavaria. The author received only knowledge about cases of bending the law and abuses of law by the judicial and executive authorities which has been happened in Bavaria. Must we suspect a fertile breeding ground for the re-establishment of an injustice system as already in the past, or are we facing the phenomenon, which causes that people with undemocratic believing and ignoring of rules of law are gathering themselves mainly in Bavaria?
In the case of Gustl Mollath, human rights representatives discussed the unacceptable degrading treatment by judges against litigants and have referenced such occurrences directly to those show trials which once unmasked this inhuman practice of the judicial system to the world public opinion. The protagonists of this show trials Roland Freisler were attributed the sentence "We need no law, we will destroy everyone, who are against us". Our resulting awareness of responsibility must prompt us to holds up a mirror of Roland Freisler's abuses of laws as a chilling grimace to any attempts of violations of the letters of law by members of the judicial authorities. Without doubt will those, who manipulating law interpretations today depending on their preferences, tomorrow also practice those violations of human rights, which abomination cannot be hidden by our history. The criticism of a judicial system must have the claim to cause in advance the reflection of their acting for potential offenders. A criticism which causes only a back roll would lose its purpose and meaning and thus would only have the function of a later eyewash or palliation.
A disregarding of reflecting of the own acting must lead to consequences for individuals, which leaves no room for a belittling. All too often, we see that judicial authorities violating basic rights by rash decisions and trying to roll back the decision after a public outcry. Based on our history our claim to judicial and executive authorities must be a code of conduct, in which they reflect the impact of their doing prior to their application and acting accordingly.
The underlying case is that the author of this website pursued a legal claim as a litigant to represent himself an affair on the higher labor court. Due to the following causality of the underlying law regulations there is no doubt that the practice of applying § 78 ZPO in Germany violates European and constitutional laws. The relevant regulations of the law are as follows: Article 6 Section 3 Letter c ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) Right to a fair trial 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; Article 14 Section 3 Letter d ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; (d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it; Chapter VI Article 47 Charta (Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union) Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice. Article 25 GG (Constitutional law of Germany) Primacy of international law The general rules of international law shall be an integral part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws and directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory. The causality of these mandatory law regulations indicating undoubtedly that the injunction of a lawyer at district courts according to § 78 ZPO is illegal. In Article 25 GG it is unequivocally stated that rules of the international law taking precedence over national law regulations. An exclusive application of the causality on the criminal law only would violate Article 14 of the ECHR. Thus it is out of the question that the causality covers an universal validity.
If this unequivocal causality will be still swept under the carpet and thus will be ignored by members of the judicial authorities, then we may no longer expect a constitutional practice in Germany, but we would have to apply those criteria of an injustice system, which would be recognized undoubtedly by all historians without the knowledge of the time-frame where the occurrences happened. We must not belittle or trivialize law manipulations - certainty, we must not accept again mechanisms where litigant should be prevented to pursue their legal claim by using inappropriate penalties through intimidation. An acceptance of such conditions, would be equal to those mechanisms, which once caused citizens looking away from wrong occurrences in order to evade the possible impact of such perception of responsibility. We must notice in the underlying case that the author explicitly pointed the Labor Court in the first instance proceedings to the related decision and reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights where it was stated that public documentation of abuses can not be prevented by an interim disposal. Despite knowledge of relevant case of the ECtHR, the Labor Court has nevertheless decided not to take notice about the case law of the EctHR. To properly classify the scope of this process, we need to be aware that a German labor court hereby brought to expression, that a court decision of the European Court of Human Rights has a similar relevance for their own rulings like an issue which is based on a fallen bicycle in the far away China. Due to this disregard of fundamental European jurisdiction, the author saw no other way to implement his documentation without legal protection. The disregarding of supreme court decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the first instance proceedings, as well as the illegal lawyer disposal in follow-up processes showing unquestionably the intention of denial a fair trial to a litigant. If the President of the higher labor court would have provided the mentally and intellectual requirements of his mandate and would have not given his preferences to gluttony, platitudes and banalities, as it might be supposed by the neglected impression of the available photos, then he would come surely to the same conclusion as our Federal President, who stated "We must designate clearly today's culpable acting and their historical analogies". Not comparing the bending of laws within underlying cases against the historical occurrences of Roland Freisler would mean, that we would risk the continuity of an injustice system and this would be contrary to our constitutional obligation of preventing the re-establishment of a system of injustice. If the President of the higher labor court would have provided further the mentally and intellectual requirements of his mandate, then it wouldn't be also unaware to him, that the scientific historical research doesn't assume, that a establishment of the system of injustice could be prevented by friendly persuasions or gentle admonitions. He would then also come to the believe that such a claim can only be countered by relentless disclosure of the abuses. As a result it might be appropriate that the President of the higher labor court would recognize the deficits to cover his mandate and trying to eliminate this lack as soon as possible. Covering the mentally and intellectual requirements of his mandate it might be necessary to renounce on amenities, at least for a time, in order to get sufficient leeway to appropriating the essential needs of his mandate. We unfortunately repeatedly determine a strange understanding of rule of law in our judicial system (more precisely in the judicial system of the State Bavaria). On the one hand, the members of this guild claiming the right to mistakes or misunderstanding issues with cases of bending the law in order to whitewash, trivialize or relativize such occurrences. On the other hand, this guild evaluates the identical facts for litigant, such as the derivation of an illegality of applied law regulations, as criminal acting, which must be addressed as denigration or slander complaint. Manifestly the members of judicial authorities have not faced in this country until today, that law regulations requires an unquestionable evidence chain in a constitutional state in order to gain legal force. The mere disposal of a mandatory representation by lawyers referring § 78 ZPO which ignores the previously presented evidence and the insistence on the abuse of these rights shows clearly an adverse relationships of the German judicial system to the rule of law, which has been classified by leading philosophers and political theorists such as Hannah Arendt as the major cause of our disastrous history. It is time to put this knowledge into practice, and transfer never again power to people whose moral, ethical and intellectual maturing doesn't meet the requirements of a mandate. If this country only remembers on periodic anniversaries its responsibility and otherwise pays homage to a practice of complacent and unreflective acting, then we must recognize that without doubt this country would have drawn no lessons from its disastrous history. We should recognize as well that this country is evident in the obviously lurking position to a renewed system of injustice. There is no question that the worst injustice system was only possible against the background of a German nature. Without a doubt we consequently should recognize as well that a re-establishment of a system of injustice will only be possible against this background of the German nature. We taking responsibility to prevent a disastrous repetition of history - we have to accept our responsibilities and to oppose pro active the deeply rooted German nature which has made possible our disastrous history. The author asked taking note of the relevant links of his legal demands as well as the links of the criminal complaint of the President of the higher labor court against the author. In addition, the author points out that the criminal complaint of the President of the higher labor court violates the human right of freedom of expression and the constitutional law of freedom of science as it prevents to explain the scientifically researched and evidenced facts about our history. We must therefore once again determine that this judicial system has drawn no lessons from its involvement in the system of injustice and it representing therefore an incomparable danger for a re-establishment of a system of injustice.
Relevante Links: http://perceptionofresponsibility.blogspot.de/2015/11/entheissuetmjp.html http://www.zeit.de/2013/27/richter-kritik-justiz/komplettansicht https://justizunrecht.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/anwaltszwang Relevant decision of the ECtHR:
German Version			English Version
Rechtssache Brosa ./. Deutschland			Judgment Brosa v. Germany