|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact Deutsch | ||
|
The Phantom in the District Court – The New Series on Pro7Sat1RTL... uh... in Bürgerstimme!A phantom is roaming the Weißenfels District Court. It has been seen multiple times. I have even spoken with it myself. But the name? Nobody knows, right? 
I had already written about my experience at the Weißenfels District Court on November 25, 2024. In my opinion, the judge simply wanted to push through a fine procedure without question. No appeal allowed! I had requested that three police officers be summoned. I wanted to question them. However, the judge said that one was completely sufficient. The way the proceedings were conducted was utterly unacceptable. I filed a motion for recusal (bias objection). The judge demanded (coerced me) to immediately provide a written justification. Without writing materials, that’s nearly impossible. Then came another coercion: the written justification had to be submitted the same day by 1:15 PM. But the judge refused to accept it. Instead, he forced me to read out the nearly 23 pages. He refused to give his name. The judge set another date for a third oral hearing. Legally, this is not allowed, since a judge against whom a recusal motion has been filed can only carry out those procedural acts that are urgent. The judge did not care. By phone, I learned that the same judge actually held another oral hearing on December 2, 2024. I had understood the appointment to be on December 4, 2024. Since there was no protocol of the previous oral hearings nor a written summons, the hearing on December 2, 2024, took place without me. The Friday before, November 29, 2024, I had faxed another recusal motion due to the judge’s conduct during the 1:15 PM hearing to the district court. Another reason why the December 2, 2024 hearing should not have happened. Both recusal motions were also sent the same day as complaints of judicial misconduct to the public prosecutor’s office. The Naumburg public prosecutor was able to identify the judge’s name and wrote that they were not responsible for this case and forwarded it to the prosecutor’s office in Halle. So far, there has been no response. To this day, the protocols of the three hearings have not been delivered. Normally, this should happen within 14 days, although there appear to be no fixed deadlines. The Statement of the Phantom in the District CourtHowever, on December 31, 2024, I did receive a letter with a statement regarding my recusal motions. The wording is as follows:Official statement regarding the applicant’s motion The course of the main hearing was essentially accurately described by the applicant. During the main hearing, I adhered to the provisions of the StPO and OWiG. If the accusation is made that I failed to observe procedural rules or deliberately misapplied them to harm the applicant, this is absurd. Obviously, the applicant fails to recognize that the case against him concerns the allegation of speeding and not the investigation of possible misconduct by the police officers present at the control. Since the accusation of incorrect procedural application by me and/or the insinuation that I committed criminal acts would make a recusal motion inadmissible, the accusation remains that I harassed the applicant through my conduct in the hearing. In this respect, I refer to the above statement. Weißenfels, December 19, 2024 What Can Be Taken from This Statement?The judge declares that my description of the main hearing is correct. However, he claims that he followed the legal requirements. Interesting, isn’t it? No proper opening of the hearing, he did not state his name. The protocol was not read out to correct any inaccuracies. Basics a judge should really know. For this judge, that seems unimportant.He wants to focus solely on condemning me, the offender. Illegal actions, criminal offenses by the police officers, false statements in their protocol – all acceptable to him and not worth mentioning. He assumes that his conduct in the hearing would not justify suspicion of bias. According to §24 StPO and §42 ZPO, rejecting a judge is indeed possible. Both say: "A rejection takes place due to the suspicion of bias if there is a reason capable of justifying distrust against the impartiality of a judge." The way the proceedings were handled is reason enough for me never to have this judge again before me. I have serious concerns that this very judge is biased. He himself does not consider his coercion harassment. Aha! What is it then? He considers the recusal motion inadmissible. I wonder if I should also consider the fine notice inadmissible. I mean, it can’t be that a few km/h too fast is enough to have to pay a fine when the judge’s conduct is supposedly beyond reproach, right? What Did I Find Fault with in This Statement?The first recusal motion was nearly 23 pages, the second nearly 21. I cited laws and court rulings demonstrating that what the judge did had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the rule of law. The judge did not mention a single law or ruling. Apparently, he is not interested. He does not cite a single paragraph to support his view.If, for example, a German teacher demanded from students a statement on a 43-page document and a student handed in something like this, it would probably get no more than a grade 5 (fail). But hey, a judge doesn’t have to write that much, right?! The Phantom in the District CourtOne thing is remarkable about this statement: Nowhere on this piece of paper is the judge’s name. Also, there is no signature from which the name could be inferred. There is something called a parafe, but I don’t know what that means. And even in the court’s cover letter, it’s not clear who the statement came from. Did the judge without a name, the phantom in the district court, really write it himself, or was it an apprentice? I don’t know.In a lawful procedure, it is important that the parties know who is making the decision in their case. The judge’s name ensures that the procedure is personal and comprehensible. This is meant to strengthen trust in the judiciary and means that the rule of law requires this transparency. So if the judge repeatedly refuses to give his name, how should that be interpreted? What does it say about his attitude toward the rule of law? I faxed a few lines (pages) as a statement in response to the judge’s statement to the court. I wrote that the judge’s statement should be rejected. One doesn’t even know whether it actually comes from this presiding judge. Also, I would like him to address the recusal motions. I think it’s important that a judge who wants to decide on administrative offenses first and foremost strictly follows the law. Otherwise, I have to assume that laws are irrelevant—which would surely also apply to speed limits. Equal rights for all, right? I wrote that I ask for the restoration of the rule of law because I want a fair trial. Let’s see how things develop with the phantom in the district court. I’m curious. Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 08.01.2025 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Information Event Sheds Light on the Catastrophic Situation in Eastern Ukraine – “Alliance for the Future of Donbass” Provides Humanitarian Aid for 10 YearsOn March 14, 2025, an information event organized by the association “Alliance for the Future of Donbass e.V.” took place in Langendorf. In a small gathering, Iwana Steinigk (a... zum Artikel |
 | There Are Only People Left You Don’t Want Anything to Do With – Just Because They Have a Different Opinion.Sabine Saupe and Hartfried Pietz in conversation about their view of things, their experiences during the COVID era, the division in society, current politics, the climate ...... zum Artikel |
 | Bureaucratic Terror: The Matryoshka of Madness - 5 Years in Prison for a Wooden Souvenir from Russia?Imagine this: You receive a small parcel from Russia. Inside: a tea bag, some chocolate – and a tiny, harmless Matryoshka doll, that classic wooden Russian souvenir. And what hap... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |