The tax assessment of a businesswoman was not signed by the officials of the Tax Office. There was only the last name in block letters. However, since the businesswoman, for her part, is forced to sign her previous tax return, she did not understand this behaviour of the officials. She declared that she would only pay her income tax if the tax assessment was also legally signed by the responsible officials.
The Tax Office then sent the bailiff. The Tax Office also blocked and seized the savings bank account. In order to clarify whether the savings bank had anything with a legally valid signature at all, the businesswoman visited the savings bank with witnesses. Although the banks in particular know exactly how signatures are to be provided, because that is their daily bread, the savings bank continued to refuse to open the account, although there was nothing legally bindingly signed.
Several attempts to clarify the matter in a personal meeting at the Tax Office also failed. At the last attempt on Jan. 07, 2009, several people from our association Bund für das Recht were present as witnesses. Since in the FRG only personal and private liability exists, it was requested that the persons should identify themselves and that they should give their private address for possible claims for damages. The present head of the tax office and his clerk refused to identify themselves and instead called the police for alleged trespassing.
The witnesses also called the police and filed a complaint of coercion and demanded that their personal details with private address be established.
The police enforced the group to leave the Tax Office and promised to secure the personal data of the tax officers. The group then went to the police station to file a report of coercion in writing.
On the right you can see the letter from the Bamberg Public Prosecutor's Office for the investigation of coercion. You have to keep in mind that the police officers did, after all, accept the report of these officers for trespassing. On the letters from the Tax Office, you can read the last names of the officers.
So the Public Prosecutor's Office really wants us to believe that the clerk in question and the head of the Forchheim Tax Office cannot be investigated? Of course, the Senior Public Prosecutor Petrat does not sign this.
When Beo, along with other members of the Bund für das Recht and the Free State of Danzig, paid the Public Prosecutor a visit in order to obtain an explanation for the appointment and pointed out the missing signature, they were told in reply that the Public Prosecutors are not always right about everything that happens here either….
So the proceedings for coercion were dropped, but the charge of trespassing was pursued (see document right column and below).
Some time later, Beo learned through the Coburg District Court that proceedings were pending against him at Forchheim District Court. He had never received anything. So he wrote to the Forchheim District Court and enquired. He was then sent the order of summary judgment and claimed that he had appealed with his inquiry.
Case No. Cs 106 Js 4964/09, allegedly committed on Jan. 07, 2009
Beo wrote the following letter to the Forchheim District Court:
Beowulf von Prince Jan. 27, 2011
Lange Gasse 54
CH 3954 Leukerbad
Forchheim District Court
D-91301 Forchheim 0049/9191 710 101
Ref: 1 Cs 106 Js 4964/09
here: your terminally void administrative act ("Decision") of Jan. 19, 2011, served on Jan. 25, 2011
Dear Mrs. Judicial Employee notary civil servant of office, Hartl,
if one no longer know whether one is employed or a civil servant, it is better to stay at home, then one do not serve incurably void administrative acts (VwVfG Section 45) at the taxpayer's expense
I have learned from the Coburg District Court that the Forchheim District Court keeps files on me of which I know nothing and have not been heard. Allegedly because of criminal proceedings.
I enquired in writing on Nov. 09, 2010, sent a reminder on Dec. 01, 2010, sent another reminder by telephone on Dec. 09, 2010 and again requested documents in writing.
Finally, on Dec. 15, 2010, I sent a complaint for a declaratory judgment against the head of the District Court and now you are sending me this void administrative act, which you are overwriting with a copy, instead of informing me what is actually involved.
At the end of the letter, read in block letters:
Judge at the District Court
For the consonance of the copy with
Forchheim, Jan. 19, 2011
Hartl, Judicial employee
Notary Civil Servant of the office"
After Hartl, Judicial employee is a well legible signature Hartl to read.
A Judicial employee as Notary Civil Servant of the office is not authorized to make decisions. And what then should "Schneider Judge at the District Court" mean?
What you are doing is deception in legal relations, punishable under Criminal Code Sections 263!
It is not only that you claim to send the copy of a legally binding decision. You go even further and attach an instruction on legal remedies which says: "Against this decision the appeal of immediate appeal is admissible. The appeal must be lodged within one week."
So you want me to appeal against your incurably void administrative act, since I don't know what this is all about.
But if I were to lodge an appeal against your sham decision now, I would accept the whole proceedings.
BGB Section 141 Confirmation of a void legal transaction
(1) If a void legal transaction is confirmed by the person who undertook it, the confirmation is to be seen as a renewed undertaking.
(2) If a void contract is confirmed by the parties, then in case of doubt they are obliged to grant to each other what they would have granted if the contract had been valid from the beginning.
You shall therefore invite me to lodge a complaint against a proceedings which was invalid from the outset, so that I thereby recognise that invalid proceedings as legally valid.
If I were not trained by the criminal actions of authorities and lawyers, I would, as an ordinary layman, fall for this perfidious deception and lodge a complaint.
Therefore, you certify that no one is responsible for this action. You expressly confirm that the original of your copy is not signed by anyone and therefore no one is responsible for the proceedings..
Do you seriously want to claim that you do not know what you are doing?
Do you know that this trial is intended to send me to prison for life even though I am proven innocent?
Are you aware of Criminal Code Section 113, resistance to law enforcement officers?
StGB § 113 resistance against execution officers.
(3)... is permissible if the official act is not lawful.
Do you know StGB § 344 enforcement against innocent people?
You support § 344 StGB and authorize me to use all necessary force against police officers who want to force me to serve the alleged sentence.
What you are doing is not only deception in legal relations, it is the deliberate deprivation of my rights to due and proper, impartial legal proceedings. This is not only forbidden according to VStGB § 9, but according to the Rome Statutes Art. 8 (unfair trial) it is a war crime.
According to StGB § 113 (3), it is already my right to resist all necessary force to serve my sentence in these proceedings, in which I still do not know what it is all about.
If I were to succumb to your deliberate deception, you would be jointly responsible for a manslaughter that might have been committed in a justifiable state of emergency.
Do you understand, then, why your action would be considered a war crime?
I hereby give you the opportunity to obtain extenuating circumstances by filing a self-denunciation, as I will definitely file a complaint about this.
PS. If a due process of law had been intended, at least a copy of the evidence that a legally effective letter (VwVfG § 43 (3), 44) had been handed over in this matter would have been enclosed. Thus, one confirms that the conduct of proceedings worthy of punishment was intentional.
You write: The Defendant's appeal against the order of the Forchheim District Court of May 14, 2009 is dismissed as inadmissible.
The order of summary judgment was served on the Defendant on May 16, 2009, according to the certificate of service which is on file.
The assertion that I had received an order of summary judgment would simply be a lie. But one does not claim this. Just that there's something in the files.
One is obviously aware that I have been in Switzerland since the end of April 2009 and the Swiss Post will confirm that it has not served anything to me.
You write that I lodged an objection on Nov. 09, 2010. This is again a lie. I inquired on Nov. 09, 2010, because this is the first time I have ever heard of an alleged penalty order and I asked to be informed about what is going on.
So you lied again.
Astonishingly often, for such a bit of writing.
How many sentences in there are not lies?
Is there one?
In the right column you will find the penalty order... and what do we see on it?
Oh, there they are, the two tax officials, listed as witnesses in the penalty order, which the Public Prosecutor's Office allegedly cannot investigate? Wolfgang Eder and Wolfgang Sander!
Against those who refuse to sign responsibly, the charges are dropped.
But Beo will be charged with trespassing...
For what? For demanding the signature on a tax assessment...
One more thing about all this:
It was not without reason that the businesswoman had taken such vigorous action against the missing signature on her tax bill. In a case from 2007, the Munich Tax Office sent a tax assessment for 2 billion euros to a woman with a sausage stand. Only 108 € and 82 cents would have been due.
Because the Tax Office did not change this horrendous tax assessment, she had to file an objection against the correspondingly immense advance payment with the help of a tax consultant within the deadline. The tax consultant's fee for his simple letter to the Tax Office, however, is calculated according to the applicable scale of fees based on the amount in dispute in this matter. Because of the billions demanded, she would have had to pay her tax consultant more than 2.5 million euros.
Who will pay for the damage if there is no signature
and as confirmed in Chapter 13 F Mr Michelbach, Member of the Bavarian Parliament, there is no state liability but only personal liability?
©2020 by Beowulf von Prince, Karin Leffer
Beowulf von Prince
Schweizer Str. 38