The political persecution

10. Order of summary punishment for alleged trespassing in Zeickhorn

A couple who had been employed by Beo for many years were to be given the opportunity to build their own home through the home ownership subsidy. Since the couple had no equity, the property 156/T in Zeickhorn was to be transferred to the couple as a personal loan. However, the credit institution that financed the home of their own wanted the couple to have no other creditors, but wanted to take over the entire financing. Therefore the property was sold to the couple, although there was no sewage system yet. It was contractually agreed that the seller would have to finance or take over all development costs that were still necessary. 


Contrary to expectations, the municipality made it a condition that an excavation permit for a sewer connection would only be approved if a bank guarantee of 150,000 € was provided. The costs for this amount to 12.000,- €. By way of comparison: € 75,000 was estimated for the development of the entire area. A lawsuit was of course filed. But the court did not decide whether the bank guarantee was too high, but that the area should not be developed. However, it was decided for a lot of money, through all authorities up to the government, that a mixed development should take place in the whole area.


In return for a purchase price, Beo acquired a sewerage right over the property of the neighbours, the Schneider brothers (Jacob plywood factory). The municipality wanted to wait until the right to lay its canal was entered in the land register before deciding to lay its canal.

When the entry was in the land register, a factory building was suddenly built by the Schneider brothers on the site where the canal was to be laid. Only a 1.5 metre wide strip remained between the foundations of the hall and the wall leading to the Schneider brothers' house. This revision shaft had been agreed upon with the municipality and the municipal overland services (Überlandwerke). The question arises as to when the Schneider brothers had submitted the building application for this. It is clear from the time span that this application for planning permission had already been submitted when Beo bought the right to build the sewer.  


Beo started laying the sewer before it was too late. 

The police came, threatening to stop the construction under threat of violence, because the exercise of the sewer rights was said to constitute trespassing. The canal was torn out again under police supervision and Mr. Schneider built a transformer station on the canal line right. Nor was it of any interest that Beo showed the policemen the land register entry about the right to lay a sewer.

Now no one can say where Beo is now going to exercise his sewer rights without actually trespassing.

He received a charge and penalty order for exercising his sewerage rights due to trespassing, Ref.: 3 Cs 106 Js 9505/07.

The complainant in the exercise of his right to drain the sewer was Dr Linse, who was appointed by the court to protect the interests of Beo's creditor banks. This constitutes party treason.

Damage from the denial of his sewerage rights - about 200.000, - €

In addition, an excerpt from a letter to the mayor of the community of Grub am Forst, to which Forsthub and Zeickhorn belong: 




"I remind you of my sewerage rights to my property 156/T Zeickhorn, bought by Mr. Schneider. The municipality wanted to wait with the determination of the laying of my canal until the canal pipe right is registered in the land register.


In the meantime, a factory building was built by Mr. Schneider on the site where the canal was to be laid. All that remained was a 1.5 metre wide strip between the foundations of the hall and the wall leading to Mr Schneider's house. The inspection shaft was agreed upon with the municipality and the municipal overland service (städtische Überlandwerke).

As you know, the police came, stopped the construction under threat of violence, because the exercise of my sewerage rights was supposed to constitute trespassing. My sewer was torn out again and Mr Schneider erected a transformer station on my sewer pipe right.

No one can now say where I should now exercise my right to drain my sewer without actually committing an act of trespass.

Because of the exercise of my sewerage rights, I received a criminal charge and an order of summary punishment for trespassing, Ref.: 3 Cs 106 Js 9505/07.

My objection was dismissed by the fact that an alleged judge Bauer, who had issued the order of punishment, will sentence me (professional hunter) to a penalty because of my licensed hunting weapons (tools), because of illegal possession of weapons (Ref.: 118 Js 181/08), where the trespass will not be of any importance anyway. The "illegal possession of weapons" was denounced by the clerk of the District Office in Coburg, Mrs. Jacob, relatives of the Schneider brothers, who put a factory building on my sewer pipe right.

(What about incitement to put the canal in the place proposed by the municipality? § 26 StGB Incitement. The instigator will be punished as the perpetrator.)


With the criminal charge for alleged trespassing, criminal offences such as § 164 False suspicion, § 339 Perversion of justice, § 303 Damage to property, § 305 Destruction of buildings, § 263 Fraud, § 240 Coercion, etc. are proven.

Since all state authorities act in concert, this is constitutional treason according to § 92 (2) 2 StGB.

If you are not involved, you must either be able to tell me where I should exercise my sewer pipe right now or file a complaint for the above-mentioned criminal offences (BBG § 61 (4)).


In the process, criminal proceedings for fraud have already been brought against me because I sold my worker Mr. Drjomin the FlNr. 156/1 Gem. Zeickhorn without a canal to the property. The complaint was made by Oberregierungsrätin Engel from the Coburg District Office.

In a letter which described the criminal offence of false certification in office (§ 348 StGB), Mr. Drjomin was summoned to testify under threat of imprisonment. He files a criminal charge with me for extortion of testimony (§ 343 StGB).⃰

Thereupon Mr. Drjomin's wife was summoned to testify under threat of arrest (by a false certified letter, allegedly from a public prosecutor) with the request to bring all contracts concluded with me. She did not sign the minutes.

In the Case of FlNr. 156/1 Gem. Zeickhorn, Oberregierungsrätin Engel from the District Office Coburg filed a criminal charge for: "Sold building site, although not developed. And if I want to carry out the development, it is prevented by state power.  



Charged with extortion of testimony:


Beo went with Drjomin to the Prosecutor's Office. In the first office, the secretary did not want to take the charge and she sent the two on to the Public Prosecutor. But the Public Prosecutor was also unable to accept the charge and obviously wanted nothing to do with it. Finally they ended up with the grey eminence in the background, the Chief Senior Prosecutor Rank, who had never made an appearance before. He addressed Beo undiminished with his name, although he hadn't even introduced himself...and shouted at him to leave his office immediately...


What happened to this trespassing charge? Judge Bauer, who had already been rejected on grounds of bias in the alleged fraud trial, already knew that he was the judge in the case of illegal possession of firearms (see next chapter) and trespassing.

He also already knew the penalty for illegal possession of weapons and therefore he will let the trespassing for minor offences go under the table.

The prejudiced Judge Bauer knew that he would always try the accused because the roster allocating court business is not laid out in a mutually rotating system in accordance with Article 101 of the Basic Law, but the cases are illegally allocated according to the alphabet.


A roster allocating court business must ensure that no one knows in advance which judge will be responsible for which case and no one can influence which judge will be assigned. This is being seriously violated in the state of Bavaria. Thus, there are no statutory judges in the Federal State of Bavaria. Thus, Bavaria violates EU law.


©2020 by Beowulf von Prince, Karin Leffer