The principle of
mandatory prosecution commits the German prosecution to investigate all
complaints on criminal activities. Besides, the European Court for Human Rights
commits all signatory states (Germany and Switzerland are among them) to follow
and investigate any suspicion of human trafficking. When such complaints are
submitted to the police, the police body is obliged to submit them to the
prosecution, which is the sole authority to decide on such complaints. In my
case BKA clearly violated this rule and did not submit my information to the
prosecution.
Having noticed that the
German authorities did not react on my blog and that the situation of the
Hungarians did not change, on December 22, 2011 I sent my complaints for
criminal activities against the Hungarian women and me to the Chief Prosecutor
of Germany and to the Prosecution of the province of Saxony. I needed them both
as BKA as a federal body is within the competence of the Chief Prosecutor. The
reason I approached not the prosecution in Leipzig (all actions in Saxony took
place in this city) but the superior Prosecution of Saxony is that by stopping
the investigation against me but not starting any investigation against Jens
Kottke this prosecution had clearly violated the law and its duties – if I had
not slandered I was right in my allegations about him and the situation of the
Hungarians. My complaint foresees all related to the happenings delinquencies
and is against the Hungarian pimp, Jens Kottke, Dietmar Schmidt, his partner,
their superiors, the high positioned person, related to BKA, who asked and
obtained my deprivation of my fixed monthly payment from the insurer, federal
chancellor Angela Merkel and strangers. I asked the prosecutors to investigate
whether the above persons have committed or participated in the range of
delinquencies specified in the pages 180a Exploitation of prostitutes, 181a
Pimping and 232 Human Trade for the purpose of sexual exploitation of the
German penalty code. With regard to Angela Merkel I asked on opinion whether
she committed obstruction of justice by not reacting on my letter to her from
November 21, 2010.
In order to avoid a
general answer like the one I got from BKA – that there are no evidences for
criminal activity I requested answers to some specific questions. I asked
whether Jens Kottke and the furniture trader are police agents, whether the
Hungarian pimp has registered his business in Germany as he is obliged to do
and whether he has ever filed tax returns and paid taxes. I asked whether BKA
officials are allowed to conduct informal meetings – without protocols etc.
with people making complaints and whether they may cheat such people as they
did with me with the fake Beat Humbel. I asked for an investigation on whether
BKA and Fedpol plotted my assassination before finding out that I had
approached a third country police representative. I put the question whether
BKA has the practice to tape the phone conversations and the meetings with
informants, how long they keep the records and whether my conversations with
BKA are available. I asked the prosecutors to track the phone conversations of
Jens Kottke for the periods November 18 – 21, 2009 and January 11 – 17, 2011,
of the furniture trader for the period June 20 – 27, 2010 and of Dietmar
Schmidt for the period April 12 2010 – June 2 2010. I asked for the testimonies
of Lili on February 7, 2011 and for Kottke’s complaint against me. I requested
information on whether an investigation is still going on against me. I asked
whether Kottke’s name was mentioned in the investigative report of the Saxony
counter-intelligence for corruption and connections between prostitution and
important public figures and magistrates, in what connection and whether any investigation
was conducted.
I requested the German
prosecution to approach the prosecutions of Hungary, Switzerland, USA and
Bulgaria on the issues of their competences. The last contact was necessary as
a Bulgarian woman had made a complaint to the police in Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria)
for being forced into prostitution and held and exploited in one of the flats
of Jens Kottke against her will.
Since the only response,
I got, was a letter from the Saxony prosecution saying that the case had been
transferred to the Leipzig prosecution I used a private trip to Leipzig in the
summer of 2012 to visit the Leipzig prosecution and find out what the status of
my complaint was.
On
July 23 I visited the Leipzig prosecution and got a visitor’s pass for room
217, where, judging by the table on the door, was the archive of Department
VIII. I guess this was the place where accused citizens were made familiar with
the accusations against them. After a while I was told by one administrator
that I would be received in the nearby room 2007, where I had already noticed
some activities. I went to the door and found out that this was the office of
the head of Department VIII and Ph.D. in Law Mr. Lieber.
He
received me politely and advised that “actually” there was an investigation
going on against me. As proof of this he showed to me from a distance a folder,
where I could only see a file number, which I wrote down. I asked about the
accusations against me and my host replied that “some people did not consider
what I had written at the beginning of my blog sexsklaverei.blogspot.com to be
true”. Since writing something, which
some people find untrue does not constitute a criminal offence itself I asked
for more explanations but did not get them. I asked for my accusers and heard
BKA and than after some prolonged hesitation the name of Jens Kottke. This was
the only information I could obtain from Mr. Lieber on the complaint against
me. Although he had justified the delay with my reception (I had waited about
30 minutes) with the necessity to become familiar with my file, nothing in his
performance revealed that he really new something about my investigation. When
I suggested that the prosecutor working on my file should join us to help Mr.
Lieber replied that this prosecutor was on vacation. When I asked about the name – I had more than
two weeks to stay in Leipzig, he did not say anything. His lack of knowledge
did not prevent him from inviting me to give testimony – the microphone was on
the table and he was ready to begin however I declined. I do not know whether
asking an accused to testify without having presented to him the accusations is
legal but I am sure it is not ethical.
Article
136 of the German Criminal Procedure says that the accused should be made
familiar with the accusations against him during the first meeting so that he
is given the chance to repel them. If a prosecutor so outright violates this
article, there must be a good reason for this. The main reason for this
violation is that the Criminal Procedure entitles me to demand collection of
evidences in my defence and this is the last thing the prosecution would like -
in my case there are plenty of evidences just to mention the SMS of Lili.
However, as long as I do not know the accusations I can not ask for anything specifically.
My
failure as accuser turned out to be even bigger as the one I suffered as
accused. Mr. Lieber denied knowing anything about my complaint. This was
strange because both investigations – the one against me and the one I had
initiated had to consider the rightness of my allegations.
I
asked Mr. Lieber to comment the 16 and 24 hours workdays of the Hungarian women
but he behaved as if he had not heard me.On
my question on the legality on the side of BKA to conduct informal meetings
with informants he replied with the typical for him modesty that he could not
comment this.
Realising
that the purpose of the meeting was to deprive me of any relevant information I
expressed my understanding that officials have to follow the instructions of
their superiors and left. At the exit I asked the staff to check in the system
for the investigation on my complaint, they checked and told me that it had
been stopped.
In
my German blog I published my visitor’s pass as evidence for my visit to the
prosecution and for the fact that I was directed to room 217, however never
entered it, i.e. I was denied the information I was entitled to get by law.
Two
days later I visited again the prosecution in connection with my other
complaint – for the theft of my mobile phone. It was also stopped but I got the
setting decision, on the back of which I asked whether the suspect was a police
informant. However
when I asked also for the setting decision on my complaint for human
trafficking I was denied it. I asked for the reason and I was told that the
prosecutor in charge had decided so. This outright violation of the law - a prosecution is obliged to provide setting
decision to the accuser when the investigation is stopped, has also its good reason.
The setting decision allows the accuser to bring and contest this decision to a
higher authority and if he is a sufferer he is even entitled to a judicial
review of his complaint. By not giving me the setting decision the Leipzig
prosecution denied me any access to justice on the issue.
The
Chief Prosecutor of Germany never bothered to reply my complaint.
When
human trafficking is concerned there are no laws in Germany.
Upon
my return to Canada I published an article describing my experience with the
Leipzig prosecution and having decided to give them a second chance to comply
with the law (they seemed to be surprised with my visit) I asked them to send
me the information and the setting decision I had requested before.
As expected, they did not react and I have drawn the conclusion, which I present
here, that the Leipzig prosecution violated the laws to deny me access to
justice in order to protect the organized crime, the slavery, the brutality and
crimes against the East European women.
The
appearance of the prosecution justifies the threats made by Jens Kottke and his
followers in their comments after my first article in the blog
sexsklaverei.blogspot.com with my punishment from the “state of law” –
obviously the German “state of law” is designed to protect organized crimes and
its crimes, including human slavery, and to prosecute the opponents to these
crimes.
