 |
|
|||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||
Gerson Liebl is discharged
Do you remember of my arrest in my apartment the 16.01.1998 for reason for expulsion, from where the senior police officers had beaten me and kicks had given me on the head. My complaint counters the senior
police officers for reason, aggravated assault was stopped. The public ministry had shown me in July 1998 for reason, resistance and other against the senior police officers. Judge Schiller of the
magistrates' court of Pirmasens had condemned me the 25.03.1999 to a sorrow of nine months detention with deferment. In the procedure of appeal, I am now discharged according to the judgement returned the
04.07.2001-file-NR: 4017 Js 1142/98 by the District Court of Zweibrücken. It was noted in this judgement that an offence for reason, resistance against the senior police officers was eliminated in
accordance with the paragraph from this law § 113 Abs.3 StGB, because forces it thrust force of the senior police officers in my apartment and my following arrest were illegal. Because according to article 13
ABS. 2 of the fundamental law, the order of legal searching necessary was not presented, and article 13 Abs.1 of the fundamental law determines the inviolability of the apartment, and that article 13 ABS. 2,
1. Halbs. fundamental law specifies that, the order of a searching basically is reserved only to the judge. The public ministry of Zweibrücken lodged a request for revision of the lawsuit in front of the Court
of Bankruptcy superior of Zweibrücken against this judgement and justifies that, in this case in front of this background, the senior police officers during my arrest of the 16.01.1998 had legitimately acts, in the
spirit of the law § 113 StGB. It occurs something here very curious. The 16.01.1998 before six o´clock of the morning came the senior police officers in my apartment.
Before six o´clock of the morning, the administration from abroad of the town of Pirmasens was not open. How would it be possible, if the request for assistance of execution of the
administration from abroad arrived D' access the 20.01.1998 at the direction of the police force of Pirmasens ? . My opinion is that, the 16.01.1998 senior police officers had neither the
warrant for arrest nor the request for assistance of execution. I await curiously, if the revision would be also accepted, when it is about the violation of the constitutional law ! After that, I will again request the public ministry of Zweibrücken to take again my returned complaint not place, counters the senior police officers for reason, aggravated assault. To follow....! |
||||||||
Finally I am definitively discharged by the Palatinat Court of Appeal of the town of Zweibrücken. Into the procedure of revision of the Attorney General of the town of Zweibrücken against the verdict of the 04.07.2001 of the District Court of the town of
Zweibrücken, was definitively rejected like non-founded the 14.12.2001 by the Palatinat Court of Appeal of the town of Zweibrücken. It is with a great success that I gained this penal procedure. The
senior police officers must also be judged in front of a correctional court, if article 3 of the German fundamental law guarantees all the subjects. Prudence ! Liebl counters the five senior police officers for reason aggravated assault and other
file-NR: 4017 Js 1701/98 My lawyer Mr. Karst addressed a letter the 15.01.2002 to the prosecutor of the town of Zweibrücken by asking for the reopening of the penal procedure against the five senior police
officers. Mrs the Thomann prosecutor rejected the 18.01.2002/KT this request for reopening of the penal procedure while justifying that no culpability of the senior police officers comes nevertheless in
consideration. My lawyer made the recourse the 30.01.2002 against this returned decision of the prosecutor, while justifying that because of their experiments, the senior police officers should recognize
the need for a search warrant and that of stop near a judge. I rather note that it is not a question here of an error on behalf of the senior police officers, these senior police officers were before very
conscious of their infringements. Precisely, they had acted here with premeditation by violating the laws of the German constitution. To follow.....! |
||||||||
No question to negotiate : Of course I have the
attitude of this procedure AZ.: 4017 Js 1701/98 rejected, when my defender said to me in discussion date to 30.04.2002 that the authority called him and me a remuneration to pay wanted, so that this procedure
becomes adjusted. This offer of the authority on the attitude of the current procedure through lawyer, the rejection of the letter of 18.06.2002, AZ. means meant here: 1 Zs 105/02 the chief public
prosecutor's office two-bridges after the inserted complaint of 30.01.2002 of my defender. Why did the accusation of the public prosecutor's office become two-bridges against me because of resistance among
other things against enforcement officer certified, while the announcement refunded by me because of bodily injury against five police officers was to be rejected now ? The impression could develop that those
supports chief public prosecutor's office also the authors, so that they were not condemned before court. I would like here that justice happens, because I do not want to be responsible an accomplice of the
unfairness. With letters of 18.07.2002 my defender requested a judicial decision in this connection before the Palatinat higher regional court Zweibrücken. At the same time I asked also with letters of
01.07.2002 this high court to make with best knowledge and certain, an appropriate and human decision in this connection so that this will be a theory for the authors and for other police officers, and not the authors
and other police officers to be further encouraged; because their decision will save also different victims, that are concerned with such a thing, because the high court is not to let the force over security for
this society triumph. The chief public prosecutor's office stated now that it itself here around a mistake of the accused ones of, a so-called prohibition mistake acts, while it is here around a pure violation
of human rights. I believe that the high court will issue a fair decision, so that this procedure before court is accomplished otherwise this criminal action will not legally correctly treat.
That is the slogan of the criminal action: punished or acquited;
Court order of the procedure NR: 4017 Js 1701/98 In the legal procedure, the Court of Palatinat Appeal of the town of Zweibrücken
assure me the reception of my letter of the 17.07.2002 by its letter of the 24.07.2002, NR: 1 Ws 361/02. Justice must be done here, because the Court of Palatinat Appeal is convinced To follow…… ! |
||||||||
Now it is too late here for …...! Concerning the searching and the seizure of my apparatuses by the senior police officers in my apartment on
05.05.1999 according to the decision of the 29.03.1999, NR: Gs 338/99
of the magistrates' court of the town of Zweibrücken, the magistrates' court of the town of Pirmasens had refused for the real reasons the opening of this procedure according to the decision of the 18.08.2000, NR: 4017 Js 3345/99.1 Ds.
The bill of indictment of the 21.12.2000 was confirmed that it is me which had faxed this famous letter the 25.03.1999 with the magistrates' court of the town of Pirmasens by insulting judge
Schiller . By the decision of the 21.09.2000, NR: 4017 Js 3345/99 from the Public Prosecutor of the town of Zweibrücken had required of me to make the request for compensation within deadline a
six months. Naturally my former lawyer Mr. Beckert had asked for me a compensation of an amount of 200 DM (102,26€.) near this administration, concerning the apparatuses of occasion which I had necessarily
bought. Unfortunately I never obtained until now this compensation. I received the 29.07.2002 the decision of the 19.06.2002, NR: 4220 E-32/00 of the general Public Persecutor of the town of
Zweibrücken. This decision refused my application of compensation which the Public Persecutor of Zweibrücken had recommended to me to make according to the decision of the 21.09.2000, NR: 4017 Js
3345/99. It was as confirmed in this decision of the 19.06.2002, as my former lawyer Mr. Münch had asked for the 21.09.2000 a compensation for an amount of 762,58 DM (389,90€.) for me, whereas this last
until now never informed me of that. I will make here the recourse near the higher magistrates' court of Zweibrücken, because the general Public Prsecutor of Zweibrücken gave me a three months deadline.
I carried felt sorry for the 11.02.2002 against judge Schiller of the magistrates' court of Pirmasens for reason: distort indictment with premeditation and abuse of power and I also carried
felt sorry for against the four senior police officers and the municipal civil servant of Pirmasens for reason: illegal seizure and violation of my apartment near the Public Persecutor of Zweibrücken. A few weeks later I had requested my lawyer Mr. Karst to again ask for to me this compensation of an amount of 200DM (102,26€.) near this administration, and this was unfortunately without success. With
through my maintenance of the 30.04.2002 with my lawyer Mr. Karst in his cabinet, this one said to me that, the senior police officers of Pirmasens had brought my apparatuses seized to its absence in its cabinet, and he
asked me to bring back them at home. I refused this and I asked him to immediately return these apparatuses to the police force of Pirmasens, and it would be responsible for this as a long time as
these apparatuses would remain at its disposal. I as immediately let know the office of the Public Persecutor of the town of Zweibrücken as I will take again my seized apparatuses that, when this
business would be cleared up. I received the 23.05.2002 the decision of the 21.05.2002 of the Public Persecutor of Zweibrücken, which made me share that such a decision of the 29.03.1999, NR: Gs 323/99
which ordered this searching and this seizure of my apparatuses on 05.05.1999 in my apartment. It is too late now, because the senior police officers had not given me this be-saying decision of the 29.03.1999,
NR: Gs 323/99 before penetrating in my apartment, and this decision never also existed during this procedure. This decision of the 29.03.1999, NR: Gs 323/99 was not at all that which was given to me
by the senior police officer. I have the impression that this decision of the 29.03.1999, NR: Gs 323/99 was made after the searching and the seizure of my apparatuses, because the senior police
officers had not given it to me. Mrs. the Thomann prosecutor rejected my complaint introduced against judge Schiller and the senior police officers by the decision of the 16.07.2002, NR:.
4017 Js 002050/02 while justifying that the officers and the municipal civil servant had legally carried out the searching and the seizure according to the decision of the 29.03.1999, NR: Gs 323/99. She
as confirmed in the latter as a written presentation of a search warrant is not necessary according to the law. Article 13 subparagraph 1. of the constitutional laws guarantees the inviolability of the
apartment, because the order of a judge is very urgent. The senior police officers again illegally abused me and this must absolutely again be cleared up. I believe that my apartment is
not with the mill so that no matter who comes any time to do what good seems to him, or, me I am not protected by the German laws ? I also believe that I am not the only person who was condemned by judge
Schiller during this period. How judge Schiller could show me without any palpable proof, as soon as he had received this famous Fax ! Why one had not suitably inquired the number from
where the Fax came ?, whereas judge Schiller had informed me during the audience of the 25.03.1999, NR: 4017 Js 1142/98 that I will go immediately in prison, when I am again marked.
I have the impression here which one already very planned against me. I made the recourse the 31.07.2002 against the stop of the lawsuit on 16.07.2002, NR: 4017 Js 002050/02 of the Public Persecutor of
Zweibrücken, near the general Public Persecutor of the town of Zweibrücken, because my current lawyer Mr. Brück gave up the 30.07.2002 to make me this recourse, whereas I gave him a power of attorney since the
23.07.2002, from where the time will expire the 01.08.2002. I believe here that the accused must be condemned, because they had cut me of any connection of communication with the world during this period, from
where my apparatuses were illegally seized. To follow.....! |
||||||||