The following Text is a detailed Case showing the unfair Rules on German
Incapacitation Procedures. Short Version in the Form of a rejected
Express Application to the European Court of Human Rights.
This Case shows many Violations of the European Convention on Human
Rights and is still unsuccessful.
Contradiction to enforcement of paying 1.740 € to my Neigbour Nachbarin-X.
I request that the
Court is stopping the Federal Republic of Germany following
administrative action: The current execution of a payment of
1740 euros at the latest September 15, 2016
Important: Please send me an Email-Adress.
Then i can send you two PDF-Documents in English and German
with Links to my two Websites concerning my case.
Sorry for my incomplete English. Also there is
no time to translate the whole Application in English. I also sent you the whole Application in German.
I. Justifications of the
otherwise the false statements of the opposite party will be
(Neighbours x and y Nachbarn-X, Lawyer
.......... birthname .........)
Against these false statements I defend myself without
success since 2009 with various legal and other activities.
Causes of my legal failures:
The following German
FGG-RG Gesetz zur Reform des Verfahrens in Familiensachen
und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit od.
FGG-Reformgesetz. In Kraft seit 1.9.2009
Law to reform the process in
Family Matters and in Matters of Voluntary Jurisdiction The law has been in force since 01/09/2009
FamFG Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und
in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit vom 17.
Dezember 2008 (BGBl. I S. 2586), zuletzt geändert durch das
Gesetz vom 22. Dezember 2011 (BGBl. I S. 2255
Law on Proceedings in Family Matters and in matters of
FGG: Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen
Gerichtsbarkeit , abgelaufen am 1.9.2009
Law on Matters of Voluntary Jurisdiction The law has been expired on 01/09/2009
For incapacitation procedures initiated before 1.9.2009, it
should still valid. In August 2009 the District Court Lörrach (Amtsgericht
Lörrach) initiated a judicial incapacitation procedure to me.
This judicial procedure against me in 2009 was
contrary against the European Convention on Human Rights and
continues until 2016.
Prohibition of torture (psychological
Rigth to a fair trial
Right to respect for private and
Right to an effective remedy
I have created an accurate timing and content of documentation as evidence.
The documentation is after about 7 years so extensive
that it can not be attached to this urgent Application.
I would be able to send you three Parcel (about
23 kg !!!)
with time-ordered file copies and topical document copies
until July 2015.
I also would be able to send you a DVD.
My file names have the structure Date, person or institution
In January 2015 the Chamber of
Lawyers Freiburg (Rechtsanwaltskammer Freiburg)
made an application about Lawyer
Anwalt 7, Ort-x, to the General Prosecution Karlsruhe.
Basis: Nearly the whole correspondence between me and the lawyer.
I have received only the Case File Number 9 EV 1/15 on
05/01/2016. Presumably, the application was rejected.
With approximately the same
documents as the Chamber of Lawyers i made an application about
Lawyer Anwalt 7 to the Public Prosecution Ort-x
(Staatsanwaltschaft Ort-x) . The
application was rejected on 29/12/2014. CFN Js 16983/14.
On 23/10/2014 i submitted
nearly the whole correspondence between me and the lawyer to the
Magistrates Court (Amtsgericht Lörrach).
I wanted to prove that he has deceived me.
Court forced me, so copy the correspondence twice for my
and their lawyer.
(CFN 2 C 1446/14)
The Magistrates Court should have recognized this criminal
case and then initiate a criminal application.
During the Appeals Process (CFN
3 S 24/15) the District Court (Landgericht
Freiburg) also got aware of these documents.
Also the District Court ignored the correspondence or didn't
recognized the crimal case.
Anwältin 10, who is also
responsible for criminal law, also got the correspondence and
did nothing for me.
Anwältin 11, Ort-x, who
is also responsible for criminal law, also got the
correspondence und more of my case files. Three Weeks later she
refused being my lawyer.
LawyerAnwalt 12, who is also
responsible for criminal law, also got the correspondence and
did nothing for me.
On 08/02/2016 I was for a first
consultation to lawyer 13 (Anwalt
13). The mean reason was the letter from lawyer Anwalt 12 dated 04/02/2016.
But I also told him the behavior of lawyer Anwalt 7.
From this lawyer I learned that
Anwalt 7 is one of the most well-tested trial lawyers.
Therefore I have against him no chance of success.
Example 2: Lawyer
........................... (Online: Anwalt 12)
Due to a
terrible, alarming letter from 04/02/2016 I reported on
13/02/2016 criminal charges of coercion against Lawyer Anwalt 12. On 07/04/2016 I
added the crime to the State prosecutor Lörrach.
Dated 07/04/2016, the lawsuit was rejected. Case file number
82 Js 1826/16.
From my legal expenses insurance I could take legal action
against Anwalt 7, against
the lawyer Anwältin 10
and against the lawyer Anwalt 12.
There are hardly any lawyers who act against lawyers. If they
do, with hourly fees of 200 to 250 euros. But the assurance pays
only according to the Lawyer Fee Law (Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz).
Hourly fees would also be an unpredictable risk with probably
very high cost in my long case time .
My case has become so extensive since 7 years that no
lawyer can be incorporated in a reasonable time and at
Therefore, I try achieve justice without a lawyer.
The incapacitation procedure was initiated by the police report
commissioned by Nachbarin-X
and the District Office Lörrach. In March 2013 I want the help
from the Petitions Committee in the state of Baden-Württemberg.
My petition was
numbered and was complemented with more letter during the
following days. They promised me to check also the supplements.
In July 2013, the petition was rejected and published on the
But it was not my individual petition. It was only a
summary of submitted documents that should be checked.
In this Summay there is the information that the district
administration (Landratsamt Lörrach)
has destroyed all the case files to the incapacitation procedure.
In February 2016, the District Office (Landratsamt
Lörrach) fent shortly before the hearing at the
Administrative Court Freiburg (Verwaltungsgericht
Freiburg) documents of 2009, unkown to me. I knew
nothing about these documents at the hearing. I got them late
the next day.
The published petition contains this false information. That
is a proof that the Committee on Petitions did not checked my
case, but created only a summary of submitted documents.
I was shocked because in my opionion my petition was not
checked according to the guidelines.
Therefore i published a new site on my Case-Homepage
www.gerichtlichesbetreuungsverfahren.de with the Topic "National
Socialist tendencies in German incapacitation System"
(The Original of this site is no more online)
Although petitions to the European Court are not relevant,
my one should be noted:
Both, the police (Ministry of Interior) and the district
administration (Landratsamt Lörrach) are using the "Fake"-Petition
They gave the "Fake"-Petition to the Administrative Court
(Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg) und this court accepted this.
Also this Court (Verwaltungsgericht
Freiburg) did nothing for me.
So no witnesses were interviewed, as I had requested.
Initiation of criminal
proceedings due to threats against me in Summer 2013
Because of my Internet-Site "National Socialist tendencies in
German incapacitation System" filed among other things the
opposing lawyer lawsuit aganinst me because of threat.
The criminal case was indeed initiated against me and later
discontinued for lack of offense (CFN86 Js 7931/13).
Still, it was a punishment for me because it was the first
criminal case in my life to me. This was very distressing. Lawyer Fees 1.840,69 €.
On the question of which file number and from which part of the
text is the proof of a threat according to the Criminal Code
(Strafgesetzbuch), I got no response from the prosecutor's
office (Staatsanwaltschaft Lörrach) and the Attorney General
Injured Convention rights:
Article 6 Rigth to a fair trial
Article 10 Freedom of expression
Article 13 Right to an effective remedy
proceedings without the right to witnesses and without the right
to evidence of the false statements in the police report.
In the following years the informer Nachbarin-X supplemented
Lawyer Anwalt 7 should complaining for me at the
District Court (Amtsgericht Lörrach).
With documents can be proved that he has reportedly filed a
lawsuit. After about 2 months, I noticed that he did not do it.
Because I found no other lawyer, I complained myself in October,
2014. CFN 2 C 1446/14.
Later i got the answer to the complaint from the opposite lawyer.
I turned to a new lawyer because the answer to the complaint
contained misstatements and suspected false statements.
I gave the lawyer a document with the corrections.
I lost the process. Only after process end, I learned about an
online research that one again be able to reply within 14 days
to a statement of defense. I did not know and the lawyer did not
use my counterarguments nor used ithem during the hearing. (Lawyer
For me, the hearing was not a fair trial because the judge asked
the defendant Nachbarin-X only one unimportant question.
Nachbarin-X answered false. There were no witnesses proposed
by me charged.
Analogue happened on the appeal before the
District Court Level 2 (Landgericht Freiburg) (CFN 3 S 24/15) with Lawyer Anwalt 12. I lost the process.
First I had complete confidence to Lawyer
Anwalt 12 because he
already had many years of professional experience.
He then turned on my behalf to the Administrative Court
(Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg) with proceedings against the
police (Ministry of Interior) and the district-including (District
Gradually, I became suspicious because of his behaviour. Finally, I deprived him all authorizations.
By this he did not keep. He made without authorizations inputs
at the District Court Lörrach and the District Court Level 3
Karlsruhe (CFN 6 VA 17/15). Finally, I was able to him with a
restraining order (CFN 6 C 472/16) stop.
At the Administrative Court of Freiburg i got unexpected costs,
unexpected behaviour of Lawyer Anwalt 12 and not a single legal
He is currently trying to sue me, also because of claims that
have arisen after my proxy withdrawal. The district court
Lörrach has its input initially rejected. (CFN 3 C 909/16).
In this case he also included the district court Level 2 Freiburg
(CFN 3 T 191/16)
charges for false statements from neighbour
online: Button "Staatsanwaltschaft")
First criminal complaint on 04/10/2009 for false accusation
(CFN 85 Js 9229/09) at of the public prosecution
Because the first lawyer Anwalt 1 did nothing against the
police report, I wrote in October 2010 myself a criminal
complaint. It was the first one in my life. It was refused, for
instance with the remark, that the prosecutor does not have to
adhere to my determination requests.
Then i complaint unsuccessfully at the General Prosecution
Karlsruhe (CFN3 Zs 2606/09) and in 2010 at the Ministry of
Justice (CFN E-1402.2010 / 884).
During an inspection in 2012,
I discovered that the prosecutor parts of incapacitation File
XVII 9635 had copied including the medical report. The Copies
were used as second case file.
Again my complaints had been rejected.
Due to various letters from the opposing lawyer with false
content I wrote criminal complaints that were all rejected.
(Content see online)
Second criminal complaint on 21/08/2013 because of compulsion
(CFN 400 Js 24286/13) to the prosecutor Freiburg
He referred the procedure to Loerrach.(Staatsanwaltschaft)
On 18/10/2014 it was rejected (CFN 82 Js 8808/13).
Third criminal complaint on 11/12/2013 because of defamation
for instance in the threat case against me (CFN 86 Js 7931/13).
On 05/02/2014 it was rejected by the prosecution Lörrach..
(CFN 80 Js 1317/14)
Fourth criminal complaint on 28/09/2015 due process fraud
On 19/11/2015 it was rejected by the prosecution Lörrach
(CFN 95 Js 12341/15)
No experiences with
the police, the courts and the public prosecutor. Since 2009
many Case numbers
Before this legal case since 2009 I have
never had to do with a court or with the public prosecution.
According to information from the country's data protection
officer: The police report commissioned by Nachbarin-X was
the only known report.
I had no experience, to defend myself immediately and
As a result of the problems with my neighbours Nachbarn X an
extensive Case number list has been created.
This demonstrates once again that this case law since 2009
is dominating my life and is burdening me greatly.
Article 3 Prohibition of torture (Psychological
Article 6 Right to a fair trial
Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life
Article 13 Right to an effective remedy