Munich judge Bassler would like to inform the ECHR that she can assure impartiality even despite a "triple coincidence" (Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy)

The Munich Court just does not seem to be able to muster any sort of allegiance to decisions made by a higher court, such as the European Court of Human Rights. The reason could be the geographical distance to Strasbourg in France. The same France where the Treaty of Versailles with its onerous terms was signed on 28 June 1919 and consisted of 440 Articles setting out the terms for Germany's punishment. The treaty was greeted with shock and disbelief in Germany. That could certainly be a reason for disdain for this Southern bucolic province of a federal Germany, but still proudly indulges in being the "Free State of Bavaria". Take that Strasbourg!

Still, it could as well be that peculiar dislike of Bavarian authorities in anything remotely insubordinate. Having an own opinion is A-OK for a Bavarian court as long as it's theirs, at least pretty much close to it. However, it is this ilk of some bloggers who diverge from the accepted way of thinking and expressing themselves that really gets a Bavarian judge fuming and it is here that some of them tend to lose all their moral and ethical professional bearings (if they ever granted themselves that luxury in the first place).

By which I have elegantly closed the circle and would now like to introduce Munich judge Mrs Bassler (Landgericht München I). She seems to indulge in a certain fondness of me in that she so far was the judge in all three cases against me. To be sure, I like persistence in a woman but only when the feelings are mutual and, being a sportsman, the playing field is level.

Anyway, below is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the

Case  of  Ferrantelli  and  Santangelo  v.  Italy

The  case  is  numbered  48/1995/554/640

Here the excerpt of the Court's decision (emphasis added):

59.          Like  the  Commission,  the  Court  notes  that  in  the  instant  case the  fear  of  a  lack  of  impartiality  derived  from  a  double  circumstance. In  the  first  place,  the  judgment  of  2  June  1988  of  the  Caltanisetta Assize  Court  of  Appeal,  presided  over  by  Judge  S.P.  (see  paragraph  26 above)  contained  numerous  references  to  the  applicants  and  their respective  roles  in  the  attack  on  the  barracks.    In  particular,  mention was  made  of  the  "co-perpetrators"  of  the  double  crime  and  of  "the precise  statement  by  G.V.  that  G.G.  together  with  Santangelo  had  been responsible  for  physically  carrying  out  the  murders",  and  it  was affirmed  that  Mr  Ferrantelli  had  helped  to  search  the  barracks  and  to transport  material  belonging  to  the  carabinieri.    Secondly,  the judgment  of  the  Juvenile  Section  of  the  Caltanisetta  Court  of  Appeal of  6  April  1991  (see  paragraph  30  above)  convicting  the  applicants cited  numerous  extracts  from  the  decision  of  the  Assize  Court  of  Appeal concerning  G.G.    In  the  Juvenile  Section  it  was  once  again  Judge  S.P. who  presided  and  indeed  he  was  the  reporting  judge.

 60.          These circumstances  are  sufficient  to  hold  the  applicants' fears  as  to  the  lack  of  impartiality  of  the  Juvenile  Section  of  the Caltanisetta  Court  of  Appeal  to  be  objectively  justified. 

There  has  accordingly  been  a  breach  of  Article  6  para.  1 (art.  6-1)  on  this  point.

It appears the term "double coincidence" has to be amended to "triple coincidence" grâce à le Tribunal de Munich and the eminent judge Bassler. Do not ever say there is no innovation coming out of the province, er, Free State Bavaria. You may as well call it what it is, a Kangaroo Court.

More good is to come about my court hearing with this judge.