| |
For the European Court
|
Part 6
(Attachments L, 6, 7) |
Attachment L
Gertrud Moser,................. Binzen, Tel.
076...............
|
Municipal administration Binzen
79589 Binzen |
District Office Lörrach
Construction law and commercial
Palmstraße 3
79539 Lörrach |
29/08/2016 |
Public parking situation in the Johann-Peter-Hebel-Str. No. 1 to
10 Direct and indirect file numbers (not completely)
1030-10-03 |
192-10-03 |
21-0532.3-10 / 428-E |
184-09-03 |
1030-10-03 |
691-09-03/632.6 |
692-09-03 |
092.3 |
3.5.2012 without CFN of District Administrator |
Dear Madam or Sir,
In July 2009, I have raised because of the new building of the
builders x and y Nachbarn-X,........(address) , objections due to possible lack of parking spaces. And I have
also asked whether the existing commercial Nachbar-X is
allowed.
Instead of answering in writing to me a letters, I was
unfortunately invited to a personal discussion, in which I,
among others it was recommended that my opposition to withdraw.
That is what I did.
In retrospect, I think it's an impertinence from the District
Office, the procedure was against me.
I withdrew the contradiction without sufficient informations. I
did not know that a large tax consulting company moves in and
thus to an increased volume of traffic and availability of
public parking in the Johann-Peter-Hebel-Street leads. In order
for the redemption of my opposition is ineffective.
It was also distracted from the actual problem.On my instructions to not be permissible commercial
was not
followed. Only when I hired a lawyer, the District Office
pretended to have no knowledge of the commercial. I had thus
unnecessary legal costs that were not reimbursed me until today.
This may be impossible because the mayor of Binzen also knew of
the commercial and was in correspondence with involved.
The company Nachbarn-X has also least once involved in Binzener
crafts exhibition in the spring.
|
I.
|
Following Problems have been created:
|
1. |
Increased Traffic |
|
The volume of traffic in the above part of the
Johann-Peter-Hebel-Street was from around 2005 through 2010
largely due to the trade of Nachbar-X.
After completion of the new a tax consulting firm drew with
relatively many employees inside and customers. Thereby the
level of traffic increased in the residential area.A few years ago the practice of the family doctors of Binzen
moved from another Road into the building of the senior home,
official Hauptstr. No. 2,
factually Johann-Peter Hebel-Str. 2. This also increased the
traffic, but I don't want to criticize, because a general
practice is an important positive part of a community.
|
2. |
Occupation of public parking places
mainly through family Nachbarn-X
|
a) |
Unfair parking regulations for House No. 8 Even before the creation of the new building was laid down that
the tax consulting firm ...x.................. moves in. Thus, it was
known that the number of employees and the number of clients is
relatively high. Accordingly, there parking place requirements.
Officially it was a residential building with office for a free
professional. Then there would be additional parking spaces for
the residential building.
Around the house a special, reasonably solid gravel was applied
and planted trees. There are no parking markers. So then
sometimes park each 3 cars behind each other in two rows, which
is very inconvenient if the front 4 cars ready to take off in a
hurry. More 2-3 parking places can be used directly from the
street, but are uncomfortable because of this gravel covering.
Therefore, some employees park regularly on the border of my
property. So during business hours possible visitors for me
cannot use these parking spaces.
The next parking places are in another street.
|
b) |
Unfair parking regulations for House No.
...... (x and y Nachbarn-X)
They own 3 or 4 cars and a camper.
The only parking place is no longer used by a wooden porch.The cars and the Caravan of house
no. ....... are mostly parked on the
property no. ....... or directly on the street on public spaces,
sometimes in house no. ........
Some time ago, there was a shortly parking visitor from me at
the entrance of house no. ...... Nachbar-X pointed out to him
that he has parked wrongly. This has once again showed me that
family Nachbarn-X any consideration refuses to me. But from me
they expect very much consideration since 2005. And they still
charged me to with false statements to the police, the public
prosecutors and the civil courts.
Therefore, the following problem solutions would be possible:
|
|
1) |
Nachbar-X would be forced to remove the wood building,
so he can regulary use one place for a parking car. Then nobody
is allowed to park in front of it. |
|
2) |
I get an approval from the municipality or the District
Office that about once a month my park potential visitors may
use this parking place when the other remaining spaces are
occupied by tenants, customers or em-ployees of the tax office.
This right I would probably take very rarely claim.
|
c) |
Unfair parking regulations for
House No. ....
(Nachbarn-X-Block of flats with 3 Apartments)There is only one parking space beeing used by the apartment
building, so that tenants park in public spaces. Earlier, the
basement was used for a car of a tenant. But that is a long time
ago.
In my objections on 24/09/2010 to a balcony construction and use
changes in a "Angrenzerbenachrichtigung" (alert) on 14/09/2010 I
have unsuccessfully noted. (Point 4 Far too little parking
places for the apartment building Johann-Peter-Hebel-Str. ..... )
|
d) |
Parking Place Reality
Nr. ...... Family Nachbarn-X Senior)
The two groups are occupied by one or two cars.
Previously, two pitches.
Therefore, there are no objections or issues about "parking
place".
|
3. |
Similar chicane measures of District Offices in cooperation
with the mayor of ...... Binzen towards me
|
a) |
Instead of regulate properly the mentioned parking place and
the commercial situation I was bullied.
|
|
After my letter of complaint from 08/07/2009 reached the
district office Lörrach, the office started a case file act for
me. Because i had a private tutoring in small scale i was forced
to a second parking place. Also the district office attacked me
that my private tutoring is not allowed without a application
for change of use for the concering room. In the next time there
was an obviously unnecessary correspondence. Result: I don't
need a second parking place and i don't need a application for
change to use my tutorial room. Meanwhile my neighbour Nachbar-X could continue his not
allowed Commercial with much traffic und occupying puplic
parking places.
The Behaviour of he mayor and the Districe office was that they
didn't know that a private tutoring is not a commercial. And the
ignored the actual existing commercia of my neighbour. I can't
believe this.
(New Translation Version for the European Court to understand
the Problem or perhaps the corrupt behaviour of the mayor and
the district office)
For me it was a bullying behaviour from the District Office,
to distract from the illegal trade and the unjust parking
regulations.
|
b) |
False statements of
Nachbarin-X to the police. On 08/07/2009 in the morning i brought my letters to the
community and the District Office.
In the afternoon Nachbarin-X made their false statements to
the police.
While there was further correspondence with the mayor and the
District Office, the police report arrived on 14/07/2009 the
police at the District Office, probably also at the municipality
Binzen and thus to the mayor. But i was not informed about the
police report.
From this fact I learned much later on 03/08/2009 during my
access to the case files at the district court Lörrach. There I
learned that I have got into a judicial declaration of
incapacity due to this police report and the forwarding letter
from the District Office.
Nachbarin-X told the police a horror story about me so that i
get into the judicial incapacity procedure. The resulting
police report is, in fact still kept on more years in the
so-called care Act or actual in the incapacitation of Act.
Until today I have no rights to counter-evidences, for example,
Questioning witnesses. Nachbarin-X has made more false
statements and disparaging statements about me over the years.
Recently the police and the district office refuses evidences at
the Administration Court Freiburg.
|
c) |
By the behaviour of the mayor and the District Offices can
not be excluded that the forwarding letter from the District
Offices had the purpose, a possible incapacitation of me. So
they could stop me to uncover the obvious construction and trade
law deficiencies.
|
II.
|
My Expectation: Detailed reports
|
1. |
Parking Place Rules for House
No. .... and
the possible change or adjustment to legal requirements.
|
2. |
Parking Place Rules for House
No. .... and
the possible change or adjustment to legal requirements.
|
3. |
Parking Place Rules for House
No. .... and
the possible change or adjustment to legal requirements.
|
4. |
Parking Place Rules for House No.
2
I don't want the possible change or adjustment to legal
requirements.
The existence of a general medical practice is very important
for the community. |
|
Basically I create structured and numbered letter to state
institutions. In such cases i got very often a short answer,
ignoring the individual points.
This then means that individual concerns no response is given.
I would therefore also a structured reply. |
III. |
Proposal of the District Offices to
Amount of compensation for me,
|
|
because its unjust, illegal and inhumane practices have
contributed significantly to the many financial and
psychological burden for years.
The community Binzen can take part in it also.That unfortunately I have chosen wrong, incompetent and
fraudulent lawyers,
can not be held against me.
In Attachment 1 is a current, incomplete list of expenses
incurred by me by the behaviour of family Nachbarn-X, the police,
the District Office, the District and Regional Courts, the
Prosecutor's Office, the Committee on Petitions BW, the
Administrative Court Freiburg and my lawyers.
In Attachment 2 is a donation receipt. In protest against the
injustices and multiple false statements of
Nachbarin-X I
donated the opponent's legal fees and am now i am in a
foreclosure process in which I have to pay € 1,740 until 15
Sept. 2016th.
Sincerely (?)
G. Moser |
Attachment 6
Gertrud Moser,........................ Binzen, Tel.:
07....................
Gertrud Moser, 79589 Binzen, Johann-Peter-Hebel-Str. 9
Deutscher Bundestag
Sekretariat des Petitionsausschusses
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin
20/07/2016
Petition 63006
Dear Madam or Sir,
as you inform me by a letter the above mentioned petition is
according to online display in progress.
Unfortunately, the implementation of my desired concern would be
just a drop a the bucket.
2012 and 2014, you have denied to public my public petitions and
thus the opportunity to vote of others for them. Your reasons
were inadequate to me. You mentioned general information about
care law (incapacitiy law) so that your are not concerning my
arguments.
Meanwhile, i think that perhaps the lawyer and professional
caregivers lobby is against im-provements in care law, de facto
incapacitation law. Who owns property, the legal guardian must
pay by himself. In such cases, lawyers or professional
caregivers are employed.
My petitions arose from my personal experiences.
I therefore i point again to my case website:
www.gerichtlichesbetreuungsverfahren.de: Here i show how the
lack of the caring law, in fact the incapacitation law, has
changed my life radically negative.
With my proposed improvements such case would be never
happening.
also i point once again to my second information website:
www.gerichtliches-betreuungsverfahren.de.
There I included a lot of information including videos from TV
program.
I therefore expect from you that you finally publish the
mentioned Petitions in the Attachment and actually work within
the meaning of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Sincerely
G. Moser |
Attachment
2014
|
20/07/2014 |
1. Petition: 53648; |
Pet 4-18-07-312-009146 |
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
Immediate right to witnesses, if there are legal consequences by
a police report, which is caused by the statements of a third
person.
If a police report causes a judical procedure, then every German
court and / or the prosecutor shall immediately take appropriate
measures to verify the statements.
|
20/07/2014 |
2. Petition:
Betreuungsrecht: 53655 |
Pet
4-18-07-315-009048 |
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
A judicial declaration of incapacity must be canceled or
interrupted, if the person in the process indicated that it was
initiated as a result of false statements.
The court then should
give priority to conduct an audit of the statements for their
truth, as with the help of witnesses. The person concerned shall
be granted the rights contained in Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights
|
25/07/2014 |
6. Petition: 53772 |
Pet 4-18-07-312-009150 |
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
The prosecution has to obtain the consent from the person
concernd if they want to obtain a medical report from a civil
court. This is especially important for the case that the person
concerned has lodged a criminal complaint and / or criminal
complaint against another person.
|
26/07/2014 |
7. Petition: 53781 |
Pet 4-18-07-4034-009068 |
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
A Court Letter initiating a judicial declaration of incapacity
for the person has to be understandable, justified and written
in a decent language.
In addition, the putative legal
consequences must be accurately specified and provided with
typical examples, for example, Limiting the full legal capacity
to the limited capacity, no free choice of residence.
|
23/09/2014 |
8. Petition: 54960 |
|
Right to a public defender during legal incapacitation procedure
analogous Criminal Procedure § 140 The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
Right to a public defender during legal incapacitation procedure
analogous Criminal Procedure .
If the potential legal incapacitation can not be detected as a
matter of urgency, the person concerned shall be given a
reasonable time to find a suitable lawyer.
|
2012
|
12/05/2012 |
1. Petition: |
Pet 4-17-07-4034-037530 |
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
For the proposal and beginning of legal incapacitation procedure
there must be procedural requirements.
The person concerned must be informed in advance so that she/he
can avoid a trial.
|
23/05/2012 |
2. Petition: Betreuungsrecht: |
Pet 4-17-07-4034-037254 |
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
Before and during a legal incapacitation procedure for adults
the Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights must
be suitable and compelling adhered.
|
23/06/2012 |
3. Petition: Betreuungsrecht: |
Pet 4-17-07-4034-037530 |
= 1. Petition with particulary other arguments.
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
For the proposal and beginning of legal incapacitation procedure
there must be pro-cedural requirements.
The person concerned must be informed in advance so that she/he
can avoid a trial. |
Proposed from
Gertrud Moser, x--straße Nr. x, 79589 Binzen,
Tel.: ......
Case-Homepage
www.gerichtlichesbetreuungsverfahren.de
Information-Homepage
www.gerichtliches-betreuungsverfahren.de
|
Attachment 7
Only the Translation, Copy see German Version
Answer by the German Bundestag
German Bundestag Committee on Petitions
Mrs
Gertrud Moser
Johann-Peter-Hebel-Str. 9
79589 Binzen
Berlin, July 22, 2016
Reference: your E-mail by July 20, 2016
Unit 4 Pet
BMAS (Arb.), BMW, BMZ
Upper Office Employee B............ N...................
Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin
Phone: +49 30 227 -.....
Fax: +49 30 227 -........ before .................. @
bundestag.de
Care Law, actual Incapacity Law
Pet 4-18-07-4034-028795 (Please specify all correspondence)
Dear Ms Moser,
|
on behalf of the Chairman of the Petitions Committee of the
German Bundestag I acknowledge receipt of your letter, with
which you complaint the non-publication of your petitions from
the years 2014 and 2012. For this I refer to the already present you justifications for
the respective refusals. In addition, I would like to discuss
further the following:
Even if it is the desire of the Committee on Petitions to
provide as many entries to the Internet, it is not possible even
in the face of their large numbers, comply with all disclosure
requirements. Clarity and focus on the essentials are just in
the interests of users and users of our discussion forums.
Thus, the decision to publish according to uniform standards is
carried out, the Committee has developed in paragraphs 3 and 4
of its policy for the disclosure of petitions to criteria.
After the procedural principles of the Committee including the
"Guidelines for the treatment of public petitions" that you
accepted when submitting your petition, with regard to the
publication of a rigorous assessment standard is applied. In
this context, also pointed out that no legal right to a
publication is.
Regarding your current petition for guardianship law under the
above Case number you receive as soon as possible further
information
Best regards
B.......... N......................
|
|