Declaration of my hunger strike

On August 9 I got a proposal from the judge Ines Walther for the cessation of the case based on Article 153 a of the German Code of Criminal Procedures. The deal was for me to pay just 1 000 euro to a nonprofit association (according to the penalty order I had to pay 17 500 euro) against keeping my criminal record certificate and the Federal Central Register clean from the sentence.

On August 11, after studying the article 153 a I declined the proposal on the grounds that for principal and as well as for pragmatic reasons I can not take on me a fault which I do not have. I added that I could consider eventual compromises only in connection with my future activities and only in connection with the release of my Hungarian contacts and the restoration of my right on private life.

The proposal confirmed my view that my trial is not about justice but about the deletion of my blog and that it has to end either with decision or sentence, imposing this deletion (in article 153 a it is called “removal of the public interest in prosecution” through “removal of the damage” and I realized that the judge is under pressure to deliver quickly and silently and the proposal was the best deal the sponsors of the trial were willing to offer me in order to avoid a main hearing. I knew that soon after my decline their next move would come. On September 6 I received the invitation for the main hearing to take place on October 28 at 10 a.m. Judge Walther had declined to order an investigation against human trade and thus violated the legality principle. The slaveholder state of Germany had decided to get my blog deleted at any price.

On September 13 I visited the Leipzig district court to review the newest file acts. To my surprise there was no single act beyond those I had already received or sent. Perceiving the cessation proposal on the ground of article 153 a as an evidence that the judge considers me guilty, I asked for the acts with which she and the prosecutor had rejected my defense statement and proofs. I was told that they had not taken yet stance on them. Formally this was true – in her proposal the judge wrote that she had taken my defense statement into knowledge, which is quite a neutral statement. However, I could not understand, how a judge, who has not taken stand on the defense statement and the proofs of an accused, could offer him to admit himself guilty against a milder punishment.  And if, as I was told, I learned on the very main hearing, on which the sentence is to be announced, that my proofs are not sufficient, how could I react in no time on the very hearing to make up? Besides, there was no consent of the prosecution for the made to me cessation proposal, and without such a consent the judge would not propose. The main issue is, that the appointment of the main hearing means that the judge has rejected the very base of my defense – the demand to cease the trial on the ground of the committed legal violations, however does not want to make her arguments for this known. I believe that when a judge declines a demand of the defence, she should give immediately the grounds for this. By failing to do so, judge Walther has violated article 6, par. 3, point  (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Convention”), which requires that the charged be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense.

I had to realize that the judge and the prosecutor had minimized their written correspondence with the consequence that although I was allowed to review the file acts, the case had become completely non-transparent to me, which is also a violation of article 6, par. 3 point (b) of the Convention. Obviously both preferred to work in darkness, while leaving me in darkness. By the way, similar method were used by the Nazi judges who conducted the trials against the members of the antifascist organization “The Red Orchestra” - the accused were given the file acts in the evening ahead of their main trials. It seems that the judge counts on the circumstance that  if I learn of her arguments for the rejection of my demand and proofs and am sentenced at the same hearing, the readers of my blogs will never become familiar with her “arguments”.

I find very disturbing the statement, made in the court to me that the court will not give me any asked by me information or documents during the trial, which also reflects the actual situation from the begin of the legal proceedings against me. I do not mean the protocols from the alleged control visits by the police along with the alleged lists with the women and copies of their personal data – it is clear that they do not exist as no control measures have been ever exercised as maintained by the chief of the Leipzig vice squad Martin Keetman and by his informant and major pimp in Leipzig Jens Kottke. But I have asked for other pieces of information, none of which has been provided without any explanations. Here I will mention just two of them.

First, these are the identities of the owners of Phönix GmbH – the company that owns the brothel flats managed by Jens Kottke. Already in his testimony, Kottke should have been asked whom the flats belong, in what capacity he runs them and to present his powers. This has not been done so that the powerful human traders behind Kottke remain anonymous. And the names, birth dates and addresses of the owners of a limited liability company in Germany are available in the owners lists, which are attachments to the company registry.

The refusal to provide me with the identities of the owners of Phönix GmbH is a rejection of any opportunity to exercise my right on independent and impartial judge and my right to decline a judge (regulated by article 6 of the Convention and by articles 22 – 32 of the German Code of Criminal Procedures). Eventual bias of the court is an acute problem in my case in view of the findings of the investigation, conducted by the Saxony counterintelligence against organized crime in the province about 10 years ago and causing the notorious Saxony Affair, according to which many magistrates of the Leipzig District Court were involved in prostitution (in fact human trade), in speculative real property deals and in organized crime. Most of the brothel flats, where the crimes against the Hungarians take place have been acquired through such speculative deals and the only person, known to me from the press to have acquired properties through such a deal is a former vice president of the Leipzig District Court. The keeping in secret of the acts from the Saxony Affair, the interruption of the investigation and the reprisals against the law-abiding investigators, conducted by the provincial authorities with the consent of the federal authorities represent a mass violation of the right on independent and impartial judges and on decline of judges by many accused persons in this court.  

Second is my unanswered question whether Jens Kottke is a police informant. I have clarified the issue with the help of the acts but the official confirmation can come only through the court. When a police informant files a legal complaint he and his superiors in the police should be aware and accept that his status has to be clarified during the trial. And when it turns out that Kottke is a police informant, then not only the results of the investigation of the vice squad will be null and void (they are null and void even now, as the vice squad has been blamed by me for participation in human trade and should not take part in the investigation) but his chief Martin Keetman, and the police officer in charge of the informant Kottke (if different from Keetman) should be directly responsible for the crimes, committed by Jens Kottke against the East European sex-slaves in Leipzig.

Both asked by me pieces of information are important for the proof of the correctness of my statement that the policemen, I met and the pimp Jens Kottke belong to the same system – the system of human trade. 

The judge denied my right according to article 6, par. 3, point (d) of the Convention to examine witnesses against me and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on my behalf. I understood in the court that only the judge, a representative of the Leipzig prosecution (the same prosecution which refused to investigate against human trade as well as against slander by Jens Kottke on me and thus twice deprived me of my right of justice) and me ( I am not sure about Kottke's lawyer) will take part in the main trial. I had planned to ask Dietmar Schmidt, Ralf Oberndoerfer and Jens Kottke various questions, but the court has deprived me of this opportunity. In her proposal to me the judge referred to her concern about the costs of the trial but I believe she should have thought of these costs when she signed the penalty order against me. 

. I insist on my right to defend myself according to article 6, par. 3, point (c) of the Convention, which is more important for me than the costs of a law-violating trial, designed to destroy by blog, which is an important evidence for the mass crime human trade, committed by the German and other Western decision makers and by the controlled by them law-enforcing authorities and Organized Crime. My opponents get anything, they want from the authorities while when I insist on my basic rights, I am reminded of the costs of the trial. I give here an example of this. As in her proposal the judge has mentioned that some of the witnesses I wanted to call could not be available to testify I asked in the court whom she had meant. I was surprised to here that she had meant “Lili”. I had never intended to involve the victims of human trade in the trial – first, there are plenty of material evidences in this case and second, I did not want to get them in trouble. But I had to find out that if I wanted to call “Lili” as a witness, she would not be summoned, while when the human traders wanted her to testify against me, the BKA asked for her ID the Hungarian authorities, who provided it, after which BKA submitted it to the vice squad in Leipzig. The chief of this vice squad instructed Jens Kottke to arrange her “voluntarily” appearance in the police for testimonies. And all her ID and contact details are in the file. The West is best characterized by its double standards and hypocrisy – for his cruelty and brutality one has to dig more, as I have successfully done with my German blog, for which reason its deletion is wanted. 

My remark on “Lili” is not the only evidence that the court does not care about what I write or say. In my defense statement I made references to my complaint against human trade and slander from December 22, 2011. Almost three months later, the complaint was not in the file, so I had to email it again. I have no grounds to believe that my statements at the main hearing will receive more attention than my obviously fully neglected written defense statement and proofs. Yes, there will be a protocol of the main hearing, 
but no signature i.e. approval of the Charged/Convicted is needed for it and there will be only what the court wants to be – I know this from personal experience. The total dieregard of my defense activities by the court amounts to denial of my right on defense.

Now I want to share what I find most disturbing in the file – the very management of the acts and particularly of those of them I have submitted to the court. I have not seen any of them in any table of content, which keeps the option for their removal or replacement opened. The copies, I received from the court do not bear any court stamp or signature (except for the first page), which also allows for eventual abuse. I have no guarantees whatsoever, that the acts I have submitted to the court, including my defense statement and proofs, are integral part of the case file.  The situation is deteriorating by the fact, that there is no single comment made either by the judge or the prosecutor, pointing out at what I have written in my defense statement – and I believe this is intentionally.

For the adequate perception of my concerns I need to explain that in Germany a judge can be accused of perversion (obstruction) of justice only if one can prove such an intention by the judge, which is quite difficult. Only the disregard of the contents of fundamental for the case acts – exactly like the defense statement and the proofs of the accused, can be considered as evidences for such an intention. This is also the explanation, why in my case my opponents preferred to avoid a main trial. And why the vice squad and the Leipzig prosecution maintained in the acts to have conducted an investigation against human trade well knowing that they have not done so. Exactly like the German lawmakers have granted to the German brothel bosses the full freedom to deal with the sex-slaves from Eastern Europe, they have granted the German judges the full freedom to protect these brothel bosses and to use justice terror against anyone who opposes the modern slavery.

Judge Ines Walther not only did not remove the violations against me, mentioned in my defense statement but denied me all my rights as accused and defendant I wanted to use in this trial thus denying me the right on defense. With this and with her denial to remove the violations committed during the investigation she denied me totally the right on a fair trial according to Article 6 of the Convention.

I would like to share two more impression from the file acts – that the trial is actually managed not by the court but by the prosecution and that in this trial I am not treated as subject and party to the trial but just as an object. Legally, as accused and defender I am equal to the prosecution and the judge has to be neutral and follow the laws but this is impossible under the criminal dictatorship in Germany. I shall illustrate both impressions with one example. Last February the judge wanted to appoint a defendant for me but after disagreement from the prosecution she dropped the idea. I myself have never been asked on the matter.

I have presented already my view on the German lawyers in general and backed it with the famous Reichstag brand trial in 1933. Besides, German lawyers are not bound to the instructions of their clients and they are free to abuse their trust. Actually days after I rejected the penalty order I have approached a lawyer in Leipzig to consult me on the legality of the actions taken by the authorities against me and left the file with him for a couple of days. During the conversation the lawyer told me that the legality of actions, undertaken by the authorities against me, can not be an issue during the trial and started actively to convince me to accept his services for the trial. He mentioned that he knew very well the judge, told me some things about her and started considering how much money Jens Kottke could have at his disposal. He presented to me his defense strategy, which to my mind would only ensure my conviction and insisted that I do not interfere in his defense actions. I said I would think about his proposal and paid what he demanded for his “consultation” - I had big difficulties in finding a flat for me in Berlin and knew that unless the powerful human traders did not find me to be an easy prey for them in the trial, I would not get any. Nevertheless I took my defense in my hand and few days after I moved to the flat I presented my first written statement to the court. In fact, under the criminal dictatorship in Germany no lawyer can afford to defend me. The best role, a lawyer can play in a trial like mine, is that of an intermediary. But I do not need an intermediary because I do not see a sense in any negotiations with this court. They want the deletion of my blog, which I shall never do – this blog embodies the cause of my life in the last years, for which I have paid an enormous price. Besides, this blog is my only defense against the powerful and criminal German top and deleting it would be the most stupid thing I could do.

I think, when the judge wanted to appoint a defender to me, she meant exactly and intermediary – she would much rather do her proposal to me through such a defender than  in written form and formally, as she had to do it.  

Some days ago I informed the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the violations against me and asked for monitoring of my case. I had read about the protection, the ECHR rendered to Akhmed Chatayev, who seems to stand behind the terror act at the airport in Istanbul, due to his status as refugee. I hope that the ECHR has done so only by legal and not political motivations and hope that this court will intervene in defense of the victims of human trade and of me. Let's see.

In my defense statement I have made clear that unless the violations in this trial against me are not removed, I will not take part further in it. I do not want to participate in an illegal trial, the purpose of which is through justice terror to force me to destroy evidences for the mass and brutal crime human trade and for the participation of the tops of the West and of their authorities in this crime.

From the morning of October 10 I start a permanent hunger strike with the following demands:  

1.    A thorough and complete investigation of my complaint from December 22, 2011, of all my information and allegations and of the depicted by me cases of mistreatment of Hungarian women in Leipzig in full compliance with the international investigative standards. No accused in my blogs officials and structures should take part in this investigation.

2.    The right periodically (like the lawyer of Jens Kottke) to take review of the investigation acts against commitment on my side that as long as the investigation is conducted professionally not to publish anything on it or to undertake any kind of information distribution. By opinion differences on the conduction of the investigation there should be the opportunity to seek the opinion and the services of investigators from third countries.

3.    The Hungarian women should receive guarantees for their security fully in line with the international treaties in this area, whereby from the very beginning international or third countries female organizations should take care of them

4.    Disclosure of the identities of all shareholders of Phoenix GmbH as of January 1, 2010 and as of July 27, 2015. This should be done within the framework of the investigation in 1) but I put it here separately because I will need these identities to check for eventual bias of the participating in the court proceedings persons and institutions.

5.    Removal of all violations on my rights as accused in criminal case 204 Cs 817 Js 21379/11.

6.    Restoration of my right on private life, i. e. of all my Hungarian contacts and establishment of contacts to the women, whose mistreatment I have depicted in my blogs.

7.    Restoration of my rights as EU citizen, residing in Germany.

I will undertake my hunger strike alone, in my flat and without medical assistance.

My hunger strike is an appeal against the established after the Cold War in Eastern Europe collective new colonialism  of the Western powers and in particular against its most  extreme consequence and manifestation – the human trade with East Europeans, mainly with young women, managed by the Western rulers and their authorities and assisted by the colonial regimes in Eastern Europe.  

A Modern Slave Market in Berlin

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.