Complaint Letter regarding Police Officer Carstens of Kriminaldezernat 4, Kommissariat 44, München

Polizeipräsidium München
Ettstraße 2
80333 München

Nov. 21, 2016

Complaint Letter regarding Police Officer Carstens of Kriminaldezernat 4, Kommissariat 44, München

To whom it may concern,

I would like to lodge a complaint about police officer Carstens for failure to commit to his responsibility of due diligence concerning the case BY 8644-000804-15/7. This complaint is written in English as this is one of the official languages at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to which it will be submitted as part of my Complaint No. 35285/16.

Allow me to elaborate the underlying details of my complaint in concise form.

On May 7, 2015 a criminal complaint was sent by email to the Bavarian Police from the IP address 217.253.91.237 under a FALSE NAME according to the police report. This was dealt with in a rather peculiar fashion.

After turning his attention studiously to my blog, police officer Carsten's verdict is condensed in his report of June 24, 2015. It transpires an impressive level of intellect which can be summed up thus: nascetur ridiculus mus, and it also confirmed to an extent my serious doubts about the validity of Darwin's theory.

The report suggests that police officer Carstens applied an interested, prejudiced and very selective form of reading, garnished with an uncanny ability to wilfully misunderstand paragraphs of blog posts and, it is to be assumed, whole blog posts.

There is indication of an excellent rapport between the police and the Jobcenter Munich and in particular the still unmarried Ms. Martina Musatti, former CEO of the local Jobcenter. The report oozes of bias and it can be more than assumed, going by past experience, that a plot was being hatched to put further severe financial harm on a critical blogger with the intent of getting him prosecuted, fined, thereby implicitly rendered bankrupt and ultimately sent to jail.

Despite the fact that the online criminal complaint was submitted under a false name, police officer Carstens did nothing to establish the true person behind the false name! He was rather occupied to do everything to shut down a blogger, who incidentally happens to be me.

This impression is reinforced by the fact that the online criminal complaint covered a blog post that featured an obviously photoshoped caricature of the CEO of Yahoo Mrs. Mayer dressed in a Nazi uniform with swastika. The image reads "Work from home? Nine!"

The image was posted on the internet years ago when the CEO decreed that work from home was to be discontinued. See for example Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2013/02/26/4-reasons-marissa-mayers-no-at-home-work-policy-is-an-epic-fail/#70b134906c74) of February 2013.

Upon my questioning police officer Carstens during the court hearing on June 22, 2016 as to which context this image was related to, Mr. Carstens pleaded innocence. My further question as to how my blog post could be construed as hate speech elicited an interesting twist in that Mr. Carstens mused that hate speech "can be interpreted" (sic!). I am not sure if this is explicitly mentioned in the court's protocol as the court refused my request to send me a copy of it! That leaves room for interpretation. It is of further importance here to mention the fact that Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann refused the attendance of my daughter as a witness well into the trial!

I would like to add that in a civilized country with free speech, such as the United States with its First Amendment, this case would have been thrown out by a judge right away. However, this Bavaria.

If this would indeed constitute hate speech, then it might be a good idea for Germany to quit using the internet altogether. This suggestion is further reinforced by the fact that for example the Ministry of Justice under the able leadership of Mr Heiko Maas, who by the way never worked a single day as a lawyer, has harnessed the services of the deeply questionable Amadeu Antonio Foundation under leadership of a former Stasi member and which is funded to a good extent by the Ministry of Family Affairs to impede free speech under the guise of fighting so-called hate speech!

Having said that, let me get back to my initial complaint which is at the heart of this letter. The neglect of police officer Carstens to actively pursue to establish the true identity of the complainant despite the fact that the IP address was known to him!

I would like to draw the attention to some paragraphs of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg by referring to the CASE OF SCHATSCHASCHWILI v. GERMANY (Application no. 9154/10). BTW, yet another case of a violation of fair trial in Germany!

120.   In  cases  concerning  a  witness’s  absence  owing  to  unreachability, the  Court  requires  the  trial  court  to  have  made  all  reasonable  efforts  to secure  the  witness’s  attendance  (see  Gabrielyan  v.  Armenia,  no.  8088/05, §  78,  10  April  2012;  Tseber  v.  the  Czech  Republic,  no.  46203/08,  §  48, 22  November  2012;  and  Kostecki  v.  Poland,  no.  14932/09,  §§  65  and  66, 4  June  2013).  The  fact  that  the  domestic  courts  were  unable  to  locate  the witness  concerned  or  the  fact  that  a  witness  was  absent  from  the  country  in which  the  proceedings  were  conducted  was  found  not  to  be  sufficient  in itself  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  Article  6  §  3  (d),  which  require  the Contracting  States  to  take  positive  steps  to  enable  the  accused  to  examine  or have  examined  witnesses  against  him  (see  Gabrielyan,  cited  above,  §  81; Tseber,  cited  above,  §  48;  and  Lučić  v.  Croatia,  no.  5699/11,  §  79, 27  February  2014).  Such  measures  form  part  of  the  diligence  which  the Contracting  States  have  to  exercise  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  rights guaranteed  by  Article  6  are  enjoyed  in  an  effective  manner  (see  Gabrielyan, cited  above,  §  81,  with  further  references). Otherwise,  the  witness’s  absence is  imputable  to  the  domestic  authorities  (see  Tseber,  cited  above,  §  48,  and Lučić,  cited  above, § 79). 

I would deem the following paragraph of particular interest:

121.   It  is  not  for  the  Court  to  compile  a  list  of  specific  measures  which the  domestic  courts  must  have  taken  in  order  to  have  made  all  reasonable efforts  to secure  the  attendance  of  a  witness  whom  they  finally  considered to be  unreachable  (see  Tseber,  cited  above,  §  49).  However,  it  is  clear that  they must  have  actively  searched  for  the  witness  with  the  help  of  the  domestic authorities  including  the  police  (see  Salikhov,  cited  above,  §§  116-17; Prăjină  v.  Romania,  no.  5592/05,  §  47,  7  January  2014;  and  Lučić,  cited above,  §  79)  and  must,  as  a  rule,  have  resorted  to  international  legal assistance  where  a  witness  resided  abroad  and  such  mechanisms  were available  (see  Gabrielyan,  cited  above,  §  83;  Fąfrowicz,  cited  above,  §  56; Lučić,  cited  above, § 80;  and  Nikolitsas,  cited  above, § 35). 

Unfortunately, it becomes blatantly clear that police officer Carstens failed on all counts of what one would expect from a police officer of a democratic country. As I mentioned before, this is Bavaria where standards are rather bucolic.

Thank you for granting me the privilege of your attention.

Sincerely,