The political persecution

In addition once again an excerpt from the letter to the mayor of Grub am Forst dated Febr. 07, 2012- continuation from chapter 10.

"As a local councilor and later as mayor, you know the essential procedures, but also from the letters I wrote to all district councils. You know that I have personally written to you and the local councils several times about these events. You know, among other things, I asked who would pay for the damage if I now executed the building permit I had obtained and my new neighbour later filed a lawsuit against me for illegal emissions. If necessary, I would have to reckon with the abandonment of my buildings, since the district office has agreed to the rededication of the existing buildings in favour of the new neighbour, from agricultural use to residential development, before I could start with my agricultural development.

Of course, the Grub local council was consulted, but also the ministry, the "Public Prosecutor's Office" and the Judge Dr. Krauß.

The latter did not want to answer this, although he allegedly convicted me of fraud for this reason. The court protocol was also falsified here......

….. The property located opposite Gleisenauer Str. No. 12, land register No. 1890/8 municipality Grub am Forst, Gleisenauer Str. No. 5, formerly classified as agricultural development according to the residential building regulations, converted to residential development according to the residential building regulations, was extended by the massive enclosure by 70 meters to the southwest and 90 meters to the southeast. No objections were raised to this?

Yes! The agricultural building permit for the land register No. 1890/8 municipality Grub am Forst!

With the rededication of the agricultural development of Gleisenauer Str. 5 into a residential development, an agricultural development of the land register No. 1890/8 municipality Grub am Forst = Gleisenauer Str. No. 12, possibly built with subsidies, is practically excluded, according to the information of the municipality.

I must know this. Finally, my intention to build on the land register No. 156/T municipality Zeickhorn was rejected with the reason that there is residential development there and it is to be extended.

This concern was lifted by the municipality in order to assert to me that it still exists.

The court decision of the Bavarian Administrative Court of Febr. 25, 1999, Case No. B 2 K 97.784 states:

The building project is located on the neighbouring plot to the west of the forester´s house Gleisenauer Str. 5 and connects to the centre of Forsthub.

Gleisenauer Str. 5 thus belongs to the Forsthub district. This has not been disputed.

Once again: This forester's house was converted into a residential area and, in addition, the approval of a massive fencing shifted the living area by about 80 meters to the outside area.

And now Gleisenauer Str. No. 12, embedded between Gleisenauer Str. 14 (residential development according to the Federal Land Utilisation Ordinance) and Gleisenauer Str. 8 (residential development according to the Federal Land Utilisation Ordinance) on one side of the street and Gleisenauer Str. No. 5 (residential development according to the Federal Land Utilisation Ordinance) is not to be built upon with a residential building, but with an agricultural building?

Subsidies that could have been claimed for the agricultural building permit in the past were no longer possible after this extension of the residential area of Gleisenauer Str. 5.

You and the District Office refer to the exterior area as shown in the land use plan in their rejection.

You and the District Office are actually overlooking about 10,000 square meters of surrounding residential buildings?

You must know

Section 226 BGB Prohibition of chicanery

The exercise of a right is not permitted if its only possible purpose consists in causing damage to another.

This means that even if the municipality invokes any planning rights, the municipality must prove to whom it benefits that the municipality exercises this right and places it above my guaranteed right of ownership (Art. 116 Constitution of the Free City of Danzig).

I, on the other hand, can also refer to the already quoted judgment of the Bavarian Administration Court of Febr. 25, 99, Case No. B 2 K 97.784 according to Section 157 BGB.

Section 34 of the German Building Code?

Development between existing buildings?

Are there before and after and opposite Gleisenauer Str. 12 the buildings at Gleisenauer Str. 8 and 14 and opposite Gleisenauer Str. 5?

So Mr. Mayor Bernreuther, now you explain to the Swiss authorities why not only am I not allowed to build, but I am also being prosecuted.

Because you must know what I must know. Because how can I know more about you and how the municipality will decide?

If you cannot explain this plausibly, you must know that the criminal offence of false suspicion Section 164 Criminal Code is fulfilled here.

Even as an electoral official, in fact precisely when you learn of a criminal offence, you must file a complaint (61 (4) BBG).

You have not done so, just as you did not do so in the case of my sewerage right.

It is therefore necessary to clarify here in the criminal law sense whether you and the municipality are guilty of instigation (Section 26 Criminal Code - is punished like the deed itself), in any case of aiding and abetting (Section 27 Criminal Code).

So why now the action for a declaratory judgment?

You can now prove that I had to know that the land register No. 1890/8 municipality Grub am Forst may not be built on with a residential building. With this all trouble (Beowulf von Prince) is out of the world.

But be careful, a false assertion immediately fulfills the facts of the constitutional high treason, because the illegal, inadmissible exception judges remain.

If the Permanent International Court of Justice finds that your statement is false, you will go to prison for constitutional high treason. The attempt is punishable.

You and the entire municipality and the District Office now have the opportunity to say, we are sorry, but we did not know exactly what else was going on and we declare ourselves no longer competent for real estate subject to the law of the Free City of Danzig.

Concretely: Since May 23, 2008 the properties are subject to the law of the Free City of Danzig, because we as a municipality cannot ensure that German laws are observed.

This would have the consequence that the personnel sovereignty actually already existing in the Federal Republic of Germany would become generally valid ...".

After all, all this would be bearable, if one did not also seize the legally protected, unseizable early retirement (due to an occupational accident), the health insurance contributions and alimony payments/assets of the wife.

This forced Beo to take unusual measures to survive.

The person responsible for this is Mr Jackermeier from the Regensburg pay office.

It should be noted that applications and complaints to the Labour Court and Social Court regarding these unlawful seizures were also rejected without a public hearing, or did not take place.

Beo was a forestry official and as such worked in the Coburg Domain Fund and thus for the benefit of the population of the Coburg district.

Already in the first year of his assumption of office he earned a surplus of about 600.000, - DM, compared to the comparable districts, with an income of about 40.000, - DM per year. After the windthrow in 1990/91 he saved the district fence costs of about 20 kilometres by increasing the roe deer shooting by about 500%, which again means a financial advantage of about 500.000, - DM.

Due to the processing of 60 year old care residues, Beo suffered a slipped disc in the cervical spine. (The marking of trees leads to this. In the last 10 years of his work at the Coburg Domain Fund, he carried out this activity about 500,000 times).

Since then, Beo has been chronically ill and is 40% disabled.

There was enough property available. Share package, land etc.. There was simply no reason for seizures or auctions.

As long as Beo was still in Germany, Ansbach was responsible for paying his pension. The disputes with this office alone because of the unlawful seizures fill entire folders. From his stay in Switzerland, Regensburg was responsible. There, too, correspondence gradually filled up folders.

One seized his pension up to 645, - €/Monat. Of this amount, 400,- € alone are to be paid in health insurance contributions and then the maintenance to his wife.

Beo is spared a list of the criminal offences that have been committed here.

The reduced payment of his pension to well below the level of social welfare payments was initially reversed step by step, and the Director of the Coburg District Court promised, among other things, that at least his pension would be paid out in the amount of the social welfare payments.

However, this was soon disregarded again.

Garnishments are of course normally not punishable. If, however, seizures are made which go far below the legally protected seizure limits, especially because of an occupational accident, especially legally protected early retirement or early retirement, this seizure aims at the destruction of the civil existence and thus seriously violates human rights. This is forbidden under the Hague IV. Convention, and is therefore punishable under the IMT Statutes and under the Control Council Act No. 10, as well as under the Rome Statutes.

A further instrument to destroy the economic existence was the withdrawal of the brokerage license. This was done briefly and succinctly - of course also by the District Office:

"We hereby revoke your brokerage license. There is no appeal against this."

Beo had received a summons from the bailiff in Coburg to make the affidavit.

A sworn affidavit is a statement against himself. Blackmailing something like this is not permitted even in a courtroom. The accused has the right to remain silent. Even close relatives have the right to refuse to testify in the courtroom if it would incriminate the accused. Therefore the affidavit is a dubious instrument.

The second point is also not considered. In German law, only a judge may take an oath. A bailiff is not entitled to do so.

The third point is that one may not be imprisoned for debts and is not even obliged to repay debts if one has got into the situation through no fault of one's own (Section 275 BGB). The BGB is therefore in accordance with the UN Charter!

So Beo defended himself against making this affidavit. He only took the appointment with one witness. So Günther and Beo made their way to the appointment and Katja also followed them in her car.

To be continued...

While the authorities contradict each other in their assessment of the development of his properties and all the specialist lawyers within a radius of 100 kilometres are unanimously unaware of the basic rights to do so, Beo's rights have thus been violated, the Enforcement Court auctioned off his property at a ridiculous price, even though fraud proceedings were reported against the operating bank for miscalculations, among other things, and no decision has been made on this to date.

When the auction began under official with certain judicial powers (Rechtspfleger) Welsch, Beo complained that, under the 2.Act to Adjust Federal Law, the Courts Constitutional Act, the Code of Civil Procedure under which the auctions take place, had been repealed and that there was therefore no longer any legal basis for auctions (see Chapter 9).

Mr. Rechtspfleger Welsch replied to this in the courtroom in front of the public as follows: "We here in Coburg have established that these laws apply."

Again an excerpt from the letter to the mayor of Grub am Forst dated Febr. 07, 2012 - (Chapter 10).

".....You were present at the auction of my 2001/2 built house, where I presented the miscalculations of the DSL Bank and thereupon the Mr. Rechtspfleger let me lead out of the courtroom.

You know with this letter:

The manager of the forced sale, Mr. Welsch, has, on my advice, denounced himself for violation of the Rome Statutes Article 8 2 a iv.

Among others, Mrs. Geier, judicial clerk, and Mrs. Göring, judicial secretary, have reported themselves for false certification.

Mrs. JOS (higher justiciary secretary), as Bailiff Wagner, has received confirmation from her superior that she has committed criminal offences against me in the event of a seizure.

As a result, none of the 6 local competent bailiffs want to seize against me. There is always a never competent bailiff Neubauer used and no "normal" policemen, but special task force, POM Gebert."

Beo wanted to see the signatures of the banks, under the application for auction. Thereupon, bailiff Welsch had Beo removed from the courtroom by prison officer Grosch.

To be continued...

©2020 by Beowulf von Prince, Karin Leffer