Section 169 Courts Constitution Act (GVG)
The hearing before the adjudicating court, including the pronouncement of judgments and rulings, shall be public. Audio and television or radio recordings as well as audio and film recordings intended for public presentation or for publication of their content shall be inadmissible.
German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)
Section 31 Lay judges, registry clerks
(1) The provisions of this chapter shall apply accordingly to lay judges as well as to registry clerks and to other persons assisting as recording clerks.
(2) It shall be for the presiding judge to decide. In a grand criminal division and a criminal division with lay judges, it shall be for the judicial members of the bench to decide. If a recording clerk has been assigned to a judge, the latter shall decide on his challenge or disqualification.
Section 168a
(4) The record shall be signed by the judge as well as by the recording clerk. If the content of the record has been recorded in full or in part by means of a tape recorder and without involving a recording clerk, the judge and the person who produced the record shall sign it. The latter shall sign, making the addendum that he confirms the accuracy of the transcript. Proof of inaccuracy of the transcript shall be admissible.
Section 273
(1) The record must indicate the course and the results of the main hearing in essence and shall indicate that all essential formalities have been observed, including a designation of the certificates* read out or the certificates the reading out of which was dispensed with pursuant to section 249 (2), as well as the applications filed during the course of the hearing, the decisions given and the operative provisions of the judgment. The record must also include the course and content, in essence, of a discussion pursuant to section 257b.
(3) If it is important that an occurrence at the main hearing or the wording of a testimony or of a statement be registered, the presiding judge shall, ex officio or upon application by one of the parties to the hearing, order that a complete record be drawn up and that it be read out. If the presiding judge refuses to make the order, then, upon application by one of the parties to the hearing, it shall be for the court to decide. It shall be noted in the record that the reading out took place and that approval was given or which objections were raised.
* until Jan. 1, 2018 written papers
Since it is well known that the keeping of minutes in Germany is not compatible with EU law, § 273 (2) was extended on Jan. 1, 2018. It was added as an optional provision that the recording of individual witness statements on tape can be ordered by the presiding judge. This is of course completely insufficient!
(2) The presiding judge may order that instead of recording the essential results of individual examinations an audio recording of individual examinations in order of sequence be added to the files. Section 58a (2) sentence 1 and sentences 3 to 6 shall apply accordingly.
According to § 273 (3) StPO the judge has the duty to have everything on which he wants to base his judgment written down in full in the minutes.
Furthermore, he even has to have what is written in the minutes read out in the courtroom under the eyes of the public. The public serves to control the justice system. Since the introduction of the GVG, ZPO and StPO in 1871 there are no more secret proceedings in camera (except in civil proceedings for divorce, i.e. in the private sphere, etc.).
The application for a reading under § 273 (3) StPO is rejected without foundation.
Evidence A3: Minutes of the hearing at Coburg District Court
of March 30, 2006, Ref. 3 Ds 106 Js 7394/04
and for comparison tape recording and transcription, confirmed by
witnesses and several criminal charges, including to the Office for the
Protection of the Constitution
The request for the inclusion of a witness statement in the minutes is rejected.
The judge uses the words, "I decide what goes on the minutes."
What is written down, however, is by law incumbent on the keeper of the minutes, because he is an independent official in the court proceedings, since according to § 31 StPO (Code of Criminal Procedure) he can be rejected on application. The keeper of the minutes takes responsibility with his signature according to § 168 StPO. The judge has nothing to dictate to him!
With this sentence, the judge already indicates that a falsification of the minutes follows through him, because he simply has to have written down what was said in the courtroom without omitting details and distorting the meaning.
Evidence A3: Minutes of the hearing at the Coburg District Court
of March 30, 2006, Ref. 3 Ds 106 Js 7394/04
and for comparison tape recording and transcription, confirmed by
witnesses and several criminal charges, including to the Office for the
Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz)
If, in first instance proceedings at the District Court, the witness statements are not recorded verbatim in the minutes but only as dictated by the judge to the keeper of the minutes or, if there is no keeper of the minutes, dictated on the tape, no witness statements at all are recorded at first instance proceedings at the Regional Court.
The minutes then only say: ...The witness by name....... was called in and questioned. The witness by name.... ...made a statement.
This leaves the defendant with no chance at all to prove that the verdict is wrong. The judge, in turn, has the possibility to write into the verdict what he wants, or rather what he should decide according to instructions.
Evidence: Minutes of the Weißwasser District Court of April 6, 2006,
Case No. 5 Ds 110 Js 15864/05 from the book: "Do your duty"
The requests for corrections to the minutes were rejected.
Evidence: several requests for correction of the minutes in the proceedings
Ref. 3 Ds 106 Js 7394/04
Rejection of the correction to the minutes of July 4, 2006
According to § 168 StPO, the minutes must be signed by the keeper of the minutes and the judge. As with judgments, no signed minutes are served. As with the judgments, the certifications are wrongly executed.
Evidence: Minutes of the Weißwasser District Court, dated April 6, 2006,
Case No. 5 Ds 110 Js 15864/05 from the book: "Do your duty
If you want to protect yourself against falsification of the minutes, you have to make a record yourself. This has already been practised. A tape protocol has been made. If you would ask a German lawyer, you would get the prompt answer that tape recording is prohibited in the courtroom. But if you look into the law, § 169 GVG, it says something completely different, namely that tape recordings are only prohibited for the purpose of publication - see above.
On Febr. 27, 2007, all persons who wanted to attend the hearing at the Coburg Regional Court, Case no. 2 Ns 106 Js 7394/04, were searched with metal detectors and barriers on behalf of the judge, their pockets were rummaged through and the mobile phones were collected with the addresses of the respective owners. Reason: There would probably have been a tape recording in the first instance, Ref. 3 Ds 106 Js 7394/04.
Also in the book "Tue Deine Pflicht" the publication of the confiscation of an MP3 player in the proceedings on Oct. 02, 2008 at the Coburg District Court, Case no. 118 Js 181/08.
Press release in the Frankfurter Allgemeine of September 23, 2019 on the keeping of minutes and the incompatibility with EU law:
...among the 28 member states there is a similar regulation as in Germany only in Greece and Belgium, but according to the law of these two countries a minute-taker at least prepares a summary of the contents of the hearing. Margarete von Galen, criminal defence lawyer in Berlin: "If Germany were to join today, the judicial system would be investigated and it would be objected that there is no documentation of the main hearings."
Continue to: Absence of second instance
The arbitrariness in the FRG
Table of contents:
1. International law with regard to legal, independent and impartial courts
2. Domestic laws of the FRG on legal, independent and impartial courts
3.1 Dependent judges in the FRG
3.1.1 Parliamentary election
3.1.2 Election of judges
3.1.2.1 Statements
3.1.2.2 Appointment of judges by an authority
3.1.2.3 Judges are subject to a political authority in disciplinary proceedings
3.3 Unlawful judges in the FRG
1. Legal provisions
2. The roster allocating court business
4. The consequences of dependent judges
4.1 The missing signatures of these judges
4.1.1 Legal provisions
4.1.2 False authentications
4.1.3 False stamps
4.1.4 Who is liable?
4.2 Falsifying of court records
4.2.1 Legal provisions on keeping minutes
4.2.2 Absence of witness testimonies
4.2.3 The reality in the courtroom and in the court record
4.2.4 Conclusion
4.3 Absence of second instance
4.3.1 Legal provisions
4.3.2 Conclusion - the FRG is not in conformity with EU law
5. Conclusion - the FRG acts as German Reich
Beowulf von Prince
Schweizer Str. 38
AT-6830 Rankweil
Österreich