 |
 |
Witness number 1
Of course I brought the actualness to the light in the negotiation of 25.03.1999 before the district court Pirmasens, concerning the strong hand the enforcement officer of
16.01.1998 in our dwelling. After this the state State of Zweibrücken accused me of wrong statement. Then my defender requested the suspension of this negotiation up to the final procedure of my husband, in whom this because
condemned by the district court Pirmasens already. God is thanks that my husband was finally acquitted. As said, I asked my lawyer to request now the resumption of my criminal procedure. Now my lawyer surprised me, in whom he
wants to withdraw me averaged, the public prosecutor´s office Zweibrücken with my agreement their accusation and stop this thing. This I rejected this doubtful comparison and I want that Justice happens, because I want to be also
rehabilitated. I am reliably that I am also acquitted, I ask myself again and again, why the district court Pirmasens refuses itself taking over the costs those hat my husband during its process which went now finally to end, although the
Palatinat higher regional court Zweibrücken determined that its displays would habe be returned by the national law cash. If my husband must take a further lawyer in the mentioned affair, the costs go carrying out the court.
Continuation follows.......!
Nobody escapes the justice
I have been witness and I
am accused now, because I have alleged made a wrong statement, from where I must appear the 03.12.2002 at 08 o´clock in front of the district court of Pirmasens, file NR: 4017 JS 3501/99. 1 Ds.
I check all the correspondences with the magnifying glass, because it is here about a penal procedure. My lawyer Karst received the 04.11.2002 a decision no dated
from the district court of Pirmasens which reached me on the 11.11.2002. My former lawyer, Robert Münch is quoted in the aforementioned decision as my defender, whereas I gave up this last approximately two years
of that, and that my current lawyer had informed this court for my Defence. In this connection, I addressed the 11.11.2002 a letter to the district court of Pirmasens by confirming it my gives up of the Münch
defender and to appoint the lawyer Karst as my duty defender. I recalled to this district court, that I am not a criminal person, because the district court had mentioned in his decision no dated by accused me
to a crime, accordance to paragraph § 140 subparagraph 2 of the code of the German penal procedure (appointment of a defender for the accusation of a crime). I hope that justice will be happen here, because the truth is the
honesty of the men. Continuation follows…… !
Their declarations became the chameleon, because each time they change!
I was condemned the 03.12.2002 in the procedure NR: 4017 JS 3501/99 front the magistrates' court of Pirmasens as follows:
1) the defendant is guilty for not-sworn in misrepresentation This is false, because judge Schiller of the magistrates' court of Pirmasens had put to me under-oath during the hearing of the 25.03.1999.
My lawyer of office, main Karst stopped twice this hearing of the 03.12.2002 and said to me, that judge Dexheimer of the magistrates' court of Pirmasens asked him, that he would like to stop this procedure, but only with my
approval. I always refused this, and I wish that this court give a judgement concerning this case. Then my lawyer Karst was annoyed and said to me that judge Dexheimer will condemn me, if I do not accept his
proposal, and this is the case. I again confirmed my first declaration the 24.01.1998. My husband was the only person who was put under-oath during this hearing, the other witnesses: the senior police officers and the
firemen were not at all under-oath. Declarations of these witnesses: the senior police officers and the firemen became the chameleon; because they change each time. It does not act any more during this hearing, which I
had remained in a close part when the senior police officers struck my husband in our room to be laid down, as they had confirmed in the bill of indictment of the 09.08.1999. They are now during this hearing through the promulgated
judgement given the 03.12.2002 that the witnesses said, that I left two to three recoveries our apartment and that I do not have anything considering, when the senior police officers struck my husband in our room to be laid down.
Which of these declarations is reality ? During the hearing of the 25.03.1999, NR: 4017 JS 1142/98, in which my husband was shown for resistance against the other and senior police officers, judge Schiller of the
magistrates' court of Pirmasens had pronounced that I lied and that I was not present in our apartment, rather than I was in another part, when the senior police officers were with my husband in our room to be slept. The
senior police officers and the firemen did not say the truth and this judgement was based on the misrepresentations of these witnesses. First of all I made the recourse the 03.12.2002 against the judgement of the 03.12.2002
and the 08.01.2003 I also asked for the Court of Bankruptcy of Zweibrücken to absolutely order another hearing in front of the aforementioned court concerning this judgement which is significant for me, so that all these witnesses
are again heard. Consequently I also requested this court to grant a legal hearing to me according to article 103 subparagraph 1 of the German fundamental law, because which one can lie only on one died person, but that is
impossible on alive; because I still live and I will never accept this pure lie to weigh on me, even if I am African, who do not have a valid residence permit. As can one believe in these witnesses, when they always change their
declarations; because in this life, a man must maintain his word. To follow….. !
2) the judgment is excluded
3) the defendant will pay the costs of proceedings,
(regulations applied of paragraphs 153, 157 StPO)