One day, Beo got a call from a woman named Hain.
Mrs. Hain liked to bring dogs from the shelter to him. However, in her city apartment she had already received several complaints from her neighbors about noise pollution from barking dogs. She was looking for a solution and therefore approached Beo about a property. First, he suggested an undeveloped plot of land. Mrs. Hain refused. Since she liked the situation in Forsthub better and considered whether she wanted to build there, she finally decided on the developed property directly opposite the former forester's house 1890/8 Gem. Grub am Forst. Remark: In the judgment of the Bayreuth Adminstrative Court it says 1890/03, this designation was already outdated due to the division of the property.
A notarial contract for the use of the property was concluded, in which even a right of withdrawal was agreed upon, in case a development would not be possible for constructional reasons.
Beo erected a fence around the already fully developed plot of land with house number and set up a former construction kennel as dog accommodation. For this a price of 16.200, -€ was agreed upon. He received 15.000, -€. After several months of use, Mrs. Hain submitted a building permit to the Coburg District Office.
But instead of receiving the hoped-for building permit, Beo was unexpectedly reported by Mrs. Engel. The charge was "Selling a building plot even though the plot is forest."
As chief forestry inspector, he had to know what was forest and what was not!
So one can ask why an accusation is so justified here with a criminal offence. As chief forestry inspector, his studies also included law, for example, regarding land, forest, building land, clearing areas, etc. To formulate such a criminal accusation had to have a deeper reason.
The charge was not made by the allegedly cheated Mrs. Hain, who obviously did not feel cheated, but by the clerk of the District Office Coburg, Oberregierungsrätin Engel. A quick look at Google-Earth is enough to convince oneself that this property was, is - and will never be - a forest. And even if it had been forest, it could have been cleared at any time. A few years later a new house was even built on a plot of land further north at Gleisenauer Str. 8. Opposite the disputed property was Forsthub's former forester's house, and Beo's new house adjoined to the south.
Let us summarize once again:
1. the property was never forest
2. even if it had been forest, it could have been cleared because sufficient compensatory land was available
3. a building permit for the property had already been obtained before the Administrative Court.
4. the property had therefore been fully developed and already had a house number.
5. the former forester's lodge Gleisenauer Str. 5 stood opposite.
6. the agricultural yard Gleisenauer Str. 14 had also been built according to the decision of the Administrative Court.
7. in 2006, another house was built north of Gleisenauer Str. - between this house and the subject of the dispute are a maximum of two other plots of land.
8. a notarised purchase contract with the right of withdrawal was concluded. Question: a notary public is not liable if, as is claimed, a forest plot is allegedly fraudulently sold as building land?? So he certifies a criminal sales contract and collects money for it?
Beo, of course, thought about what might be behind it. He, as Chief Forestry Inspector, who MUST know what forest is and what is not, is accused of violating the forest law and committing fraud, even though the facts could not have been clearer.
So what was behind it? There was something not quite right about it. He already had a certain suspicion. Therefore he decided to record the whole trial on tape. So he already expected that this trial would never take place according to the rule of law.
Beo therefore invited everything that had legs and ears to the court hearing, Case No. 3 Ds 106 Js 7394/04 on March 30, 2006 at the Coburg District Court to be a witness to this trial (including the news magazine Spiegel, Focus, Stern, Süddeutsche, Amnesty International).
Case No: 3 Ds 106 Js 7394/04 on March 30, 2006 before the Coburg District Court
Indictment: Public Prosecutor Dr. Koch
Judge: Wolfram Bauer
present Public Prosecutor: Stopfel
Extracts from the minutes of the sound recording of the hearing:
Judge: Then to you, Mr. von Prince, I need your personal data: Your full name, please?
Defendant: Beowulf Adalbert
Witness Hain comes in: Hain, hello, good day.
Judge: Mrs. Hain, if you please wait outside, I'll call you.
Witness Hain: That's ok.
Judge: You were born where and when?
Defendant: December 27, 1953 in Ebern
Judge: The marital status is
Judge: You are by profession?
Defendant: Currently defendant.
Judge: All right, it's not a profession.
Defendant: Yes, yes, what else should I do, when I have an item that's been in use for months, about which there has been haggling for months, about which I carry out a transaction through a notary, allow a right of withdrawal from this contract, what else should I do. Well, I think then I can do nothing else but be a defendant.
Judge: That is still no profession.
Defendant: Yes, but, what else can't be done. Not under these circumstances, then you are permanently in front of a criminal judge.
Judge: So, (unintelligible mumbling)...
Judge: Hm, self-employed
Then for 3 years I was not processed at all by the Coburg District Office for a building application. After 4 years it was determined, legally binding, I was, I was legally violated in my rights. The claim for damages is still pending, which amounts to € 1,15 million.
Defendant: Yes, after I had to stop my business here, I had branches in Poland, tree nursery, mushroom growing, I couldn't build any greenhouses here, I didn't get any more financing because the
business had stagnated, so I changed jobs and enrolled at the University of Applied Sciences here in Coburg for business administration as a student.
So I did another one or two semesters, but then I changed to the practice. First as an investment consultant and then as a management consultant.
Judge: That's you today.
Defendant: If I could, yes.
Defendant: May, yes, I have now made 900 letters in this matter in the last 2 years. With the lawyer alone, who was supposed to represent me here today, there is now a mountain of paper. The President of the Regional Court, Dr. Eichfelder, rejected my appeal because he thought that my lawyer had represented me sufficiently and that the complaint was without foundation. I was of the opinion that the lawyer had to refer to the relevant laws in order to defend me against this, so that I would not be sitting here. Yes, well, I have to pay my lawyer now, he is not here. So just from that alone. Here alone in this building history one won't find a lawyer who will represent one on legal aid. I've written to 30 lawyers. I have at least 10 bills for 10.000 € but nobody wants to represent me anywhere. That's the legal situation. And this is the situation, so... Now I had to work my way through the laws myself.
Judge: You are married since when?
Judge: Good. Mrs. Engel, please!
…….. Your personal details: Your first name?
Witness Engel: Petra Engel
Judge: Are how old?
Witness Engel: 41
Judge: and profession?
Witness Engel: lawyer
Judge: Where do you live or are you charging over?
Witness Engel: Via the District Office
Judge: Not related and not in-laws?
Witness Engel: no
Judge: I'm only concerned about one thing. There is a parcel of land 1890/... Does that mean anything to you?
Witness Engel: Yes.
Judge: There should have been a building application filed at some point.
Judge: But question to the witness.
Defendant: All right, I have received the accusation from the lawyer of the allegedly defrauded, the law firm Dr. Grün, that I had maliciously deceived Mrs. Hain, because a decision of the District Office, dated of May 25, a clearing permission according to Article 9 of the forest law, that is, only allowed. This decision, on which you are referring to, was preceded by the judgment of the Administrative Court of April 17, 2000.
You also reported here under execution of the forest law: Sells property as building site, although it is forest. And you're referring to this verdict. Is that right?
Witness Engel: No
Defendant: No? On what
Defendant: To what are you referring?
Witness Engel: That has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Judge: I don't understand the question and if I don't understand it, the witness can't answer it either, because it dosn´t ......... my judgement.
Defendant: All right: What I now officially have so far: Mr. Schuhmann, the policeman and the lawyer of the allegedly cheated party accuse me of selling a piece of land as building land, even though it is forest. That is why I am actually sitting here now. It's in the indictment, right? So, forest. And now we'll just follow up the question of why Mrs. Engel is coming to the case, because it was Mrs. Engel who filed the complaint, not Mrs. Hain, but Mrs. Engel. You sell a forest as a building site even though the forest law says you can't build there because it's a forest.
Witness Engel: The building law book says so. That's in the outer area.
Defendant: Then why are you reporting me under execution of the forest law and not under execution of the building law? Question? Is that a question?
Judge: That is a question.
Witness Engel: That is a question, but that was surely an oversight, the building law book is missing, so
Defendant: What was that?
Judge: It was an oversight. Further questions
Defendant: It was an oversight? I may point out that Mrs. Engel pushed in here after the police had been outside with me and I found out that this cannot quite be true, here the one about the forest. Then Mrs. Engel is pushing here, not the building law
Witness Engel: No, that is not true. I have……It doesn't matter.
Defendant: That's right. That is what you have in the documents, since Mrs. Engel points out here that this plot of land was a forest and also includes a site plan.
Judge: Yes, that might be all.
Defendant: Aha, that doesn't matter.
Defendant: It doesn't matter why I am charged.
Judge: What? It interests whether you have committed a fraud or not. It doesn't matter if you have been reported or not.
Defendant: Right. So I am supposed to have deceived somebody, what have I deceived somebody about? The Forest Law?
Witness Engel: About the development of the land
Judge: Facts please, facts
Defendant: Why am I being reported by the clerk? The fact is that I am denounced by the clerk under execution of the forest law and not under execution of the building laws. Why am I reported by the clerk under execution of the forest law and not under execution of the building laws. Let's first clarify what is also contained in the indictment, Forest
Judge: Mr. von Prince, either you will now take up a customary behaviour in civil circles or I will have to go to the administrative offence.
Defendant: Then please let me ask my questions, which are justified here.
Judge: Questions which are provided for in the rules of procedure, Mr von Prince
Defendant: If in the indictment
Judge: Not to make speeches, so
Judge: That's clear too, right? You can ask the witness for the facts
Judge: So, you have asked a question, it has been answered.
Judge: By repeating it, it will not be different
Defendant: That is not answered
Judge: Of course it is answered.
Defendant: I asked, please note my question in the minutes
Judge: What she writes in the minutes is for me to decide, not you.
Defendant: Please write my question in the minutes: I am asking the specific question here: Why am I being charged under the execution of the Forestry Act and not under the execution of the building laws?
Judge: It was an oversight. Next question
Defendant: The next question was concrete: Why, if this was an oversight, why does Mrs. Engel here follow up the letter in which she presents the site plan. Surely it can't be an oversight for Mrs. Engel to present the map to the police with the remark that this is forest. That can't be an oversight. Is it an oversight?
Public Prosecutor: You sold it as building land, whether it was forest, field, or whatever, is completely uninteresting. Whether it was building land or not, that is the decisive question, nothing else.
Defendant: We will come to the question of the building law first. Let's first clarify the first thing, which is,…why do you write "forest" in your indictment? You wrote that, right?
Judge: That's completely silly.
Defendant: No, no, no. Now I have to ask stupidly: Do you want here, Why shouldn't this be discussed now, when half of your files consist of the Forest Act?
Judge: Mr von Prince, listen to me for a second.
Judge: Yes? Mr. von Prince, you said you wouldn't comment on the matter.
Defendant: For the time being, no. First of all, the matter will be clarified before I..
Judge: It would have made more sense if we had talked about it. What you mention here is completely indifferent and has nothing at all to do with the fraud accusation. You are accused of having sold a plot of land with the proviso that it is building land, with the proviso that a building application is to be submitted. This building application has been submitted with a right of withdrawal. This right of rescission has been exercised, you have received money for it and have not repaid it after exercising the right of rescission. That's the point. Whether it's building land or you sold the Rocky Mountains doesn't matter.
Defendant: Well, first of all, here's the thing: The contract states that there is the right to rescind after four weeks, after the final decision has been made. We haven't decided that yet. We have not yet fulfilled the contract, so there is no reason to pay back anything now. If I pay back now, it says that I'm a cheat or I tried to cheat. That's libel, slander. If I'm right now, is it true? Then it stays in the room. Is that true? Then the room stands still, I would have fooled someone.
That's what the room says. It just is.
Defendant: Now we haven't fulfilled the contract at all, where we are talking about a repayment, or, do you have the notary contract there? Please take a look at what it says. Do we have a notarized contract
Prosecutor: .........that this is not building land, that's the point.
Defendant: We are not yet, not by a long shot at building land. We are here first
Judge: Mr. von Prince,
Defendant: We are, do you seek to suppress a crime?
Judge: Mr. von Prince, I don't want anything, I want...
Defendant: Well, then let me briefly, we can discuss here for another half hour or work through the forest topic in short, precise questions, yes? So...
Judge: Mr. von Prince, I am still running the trial and not you.
Why was the clarification of the question whether the property was forest important and why did the judge not allow this question?
How did Beo know that an unfair trial would take place here and that witnesses were more important than the best lawyers?
The Forest Act does not preclude any planning permission, especially if adjacent compensation areas are available.
As a result, the accusation has been changed to: "Had to know that this land could not be built on."
Why didn't Mrs. Engel give reasons for her complaint in the same way?
Judge Bauer did not allow such questions at the hearing on March 30, 2006.
The judge: "I won't allow this question, because it doesn't fit into my ruling."
This is proven by audio transcripts, witness lists and press reports.
Moving on to the transcript:
Judge: Oh, the 16,000 wasn't paid?
Defendant: No, it has not been paid.
Judge: Let's talk about that, at least we have something reasonable
Defendant: No, no, we are talking about the forest now, that we are sitting here.
Judge: No! I don't allow any more questions!
Defendant: Then I have to charge you with suppressing a crime
Judge: What do you need to do?
Defendant: Yes, probably charge you.
Judge: Well, do so sometime.
Defendant: No, I'll do that right now.
Judge: Yes please, but not during my hearing. ….
Defendant: Mr. Prosecutor, here we have a perversion of justice, committed by Mrs. Engel, I don't know now whether it was a Mr. or a Mrs,..
Judge: ..... I am now cut you short,
Defendant: You know, you also have to look, why did I come to a crime, why did I do something.
Note: According to the penal code, 3 points must always be determined for a criminal accusation: 1. the motive, 2. the time of the crime and 3. the place of the crime.
The motive is important for the amount of the penalty:
Example: If someone has died, then it must be determined whether it was a planned crime (murder), whether it was committed in the heat of passion (manslaughter), or whether it was perhaps an accident. So if someone had a motive for murder, or if it happened out of sudden anger, or if it was neither - there was no motive at all.
So before a judge allows an indictment, the prosecution must have determined the motive in order to clarify what is to be tried. Whether there was an error about the circumstances of the crime, whether it was a justifiable state of emergency or self-defense.
Further on in the minutes:
Judge: Mr von Prince, I know very well what I have to do.
Defendant: You must see whether
Judge: No, you have to look,
Defendant: whether or not you can attribute extenuating circumstances to me. And for that you must know why I came to proceed as I did and why not otherwise.
Judge: Yeah, I'll figure that out.
Defendant: If you don't let me ask, you won't find out. Good, I will now make a statement about the forest. On record?
Judge: Yes, just a little moment. So then, the witness can be dismissed. On the subject
Defendant: No, no, we wanted to or did
Judge: This questioning is concluded, Mr. von Prince.
Defendant: All right, then I have summoned the Presiding Judge of the Bayreuth Administrative Court as a witness on the subject of construction, because he is competent.
Judge: You did not summon him, but you requested that he be summoned and I did not summon him.
Defendant: What witness do we have on the subject of construction?
Defendant: On the subject of building law, on the subject of building, on the subject of building law? Do we have no witness?
Judge: I am running the trial and not you.
Judge: You can listen here, you can do whatever you want, but the trial will be running by me.
Defendant: All right, so now I'm going to make a statement
Judge: Mrs. Hain, please.
Defendant: Now I'll make a statement.
Judge: Now you make a statement.
Judge to witness Hain: Just a moment, he's going to make a statement. Please.
Defendant: Well, in the indictment as well as by police chief commissioner Schumann and by the lawyer of Mrs. Hain, I was accused that I had sold a building land, although it is forest, which
would be reforested. You also have in your documents the corresponding protocol to the fact that (turned to the minute-taker) Do you write down? That Mrs. Hain was asked by the Senior Director
Engel to reforest her property. This afforestation has no basis whatsoever. The property was practically 90% not a forest, will never be a forest, and even if it was designated as an avalanche
forest, one could build on it. Good. So, this report from the person in charge of forests, who has written here herself and has the mountain of files herself, would have reported me by
oversight under execution of the forest law and not by oversight under reference to the building law, is simply a lie. Underlying, underlying for Mrs. Engel, what is not to be treated and
explained here now and may not be, is a judgment of the Bayreuth Bavarian Administrative Court of April 17, 2000. I had requested a grubbing-up, the grubbing-up was rejected to me several times,
thereupon I submitted complaint with the Bayreuth Administrative Court. The hearing was to take place on April 17 instead of April, 12. I then received this letter from my lawyer here by fax on
April 11, 2000, i.e. one day before that date: The Coburg District Office declares that the Beowulf von Prince case against the Free State of Bavaria has been settled because of clearing.
So I've been informed, my lawyer tells me this trial is not going to happen. Thereupon an order was issued by the court, Bayreuth Bavarian Administrative Court, it says:
It would therefore have been necessary on the part of the plaintiff to apply for a new grubbing-up permit immediately in the event of a change in his plans, giving a precise description and justification of the now planned project, since only then can the District Office assess whether the plaintiff can also be granted a grubbing-up permit for the now planned use.
That means nothing else, Mr von Prince, grubbing-up - submit an application for a grubbing-upped forest. How do you grubbing-up a grubbing-upped forest? How do you shoot a shot dog. How do you blow up a building that has already been blown up? I've been excluded from this trial so they can write such nonsense as a summation. This decision is final. In response to these motions I had clearly explained the legal situation to the District Office and of course to the Court. There could therefore be no doubt and no error as to which law one was breaking. On Nov. 30, 97 to the Coburg District Office.
Judge: Mr. von Prince
Defendant: I'm sorry if I get a slap on the wrist here and am said to have been the culprit. I have a cold.
Defendant: Okay, I'll try. To the Coburg District Office: Execution of the Bavarian Forest Act. 30.11.97. Ladies and gentlemen. In your letter of October 22, 1997, you approved the grubbing-up of the 1890 plot of land, section 3, district of Grub am Forst. I hereby inform you that the grubbing-up has been completed. The fees have been transferred. The Forest Act is no longer valid for this area. Now. What is a grubbing-up? For a piece of land, grubbing-up is an adoption of the Forest Act.
Judge: Mr. von Prince, that's not the point!
Defendant: It is, I'm still at my statement. It is about
Judge: But you can't
Defendant: This is here a criminal offence, which has been committed in connection with the Administrative Court.
Judge: Report it to the competent authority!
Defendant: I have just done that.
Judge: .....we have now
Defendant: We have now, so now it just comes. Above all, the charges are as unclear as they are unfounded. They are thus contrary to the purpose of the grubbing-up, which is to eliminate unknown legal relationships to the authorities, and are therefore inadmissible under Article 36(3) of the Bavarian Administrative Law.
Judge: I am depriving you of your speech. You are not talking to the point, but you are giving lectures
Defendant: Please take this on record. The judge forbids me to speak on the grubbing-up, under which I must receive the accusation of having deceived someone under three pages, official pages.
Who here has deceived anyone? Mrs. Engel, Mrs. Hain.
Judge: If you say one more word now, before we proceed normally in the trial, there will be a fine...
Defendant: I go to jail too.
Judge: Mrs. Hain, please.
Defendant: Mr. Judge, you are biased and now we will determine whether you are biased or not.
Judge: Yes, then make the motion.
Defendant: I make the motion
Judge: Yes, then you must make the reasoning credible
Defendant: Mr. Judge, may I now hear what you have just put on minutes?
Judge: No, no!
Defendant: Well, I make the motion, the judge is biased. He does not allow me to testify on the merits of the case, he does not allow me a fair hearing in accordance with Article 103 of the Basic Law, he refuses to give me a hearing. He does not allow the minutes to be read out at my request, contrary to the rules of criminal procedure. I therefore reject Judge Bauer on the grounds of bias.
Judge: Statement, Mr. Prosecutor?
Judge: Decision is postponed.
Defendant: Judge Bauer, you are biased.
Judge: I have rejected your request for bias as unfounded.
Defendant: I declared you biased because you did not record my statement and did not have it read out.
Judge: I rejected your motion.
Defendant: You deny me my right to be heard, protected by Article 103 of the German Basic Law.
Judge: You hold monologues.
Defendant: The Code of Criminal Procedure applies, not Lex Bauer.
In any case, I am appealing and I am leaving now.
Beo puts his papers in his pocket to leave.
Two uniformed judicial officers appear, preventing him from leaving the courtroom.
Beo turns his back on the courtroom in protest and stops following the trial.
Prosecutor: The following motion is hereby made:
- conviction of fraud,
- imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months, suspended for
Probationary period of 3 years,
- Money order of 1800,-€,
- Costs of the proceedings.
Beo is trying to make contact with the uniformed judicial officers.
Judge: Mr. von Prince, I can also impose an administrative fine of 1,000, -
Without interrupting the proceedings, the judge pronounced the sentence. So it was already written before the trial.
Judge: In the name of the people I pronounce the following verdict:
1. The accused is guilty of fraud.
2. He is sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.
Execution of the prison sentence is suspended on probation.
3. The accused shall pay the costs of the proceedings.
Beo requested the court minutes to compare with the transcript of the tape recordings. The official court minutes does not contain the essential things, such as the bias petitions. The audio recording of the trial was reproduced in writing and presented to the court with witness signatures, and four requests were made to improve the court minutes. This has not been done.
Now let´s see what´s on the record:
Case number: 3 Ds 106 Js 7394/04 Start of meeting: 13.30 hr
End of meeting: 14.30 hr
recorded in public session of the
District Court - criminal judge - Coburg
on Thursday, March 30, 2006 in Coburg
Judge at the District Court W. Bauer
as a criminal judge
Public Prosecutor Stopfel,
as representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office
Court Clerk Geier
as clerk of the court
In the criminal proceedings against
von Prince Beowulf
appeared upon calling the case:
the accused von Prince Beowulf
the witness Senior Executive Officer Engel;
the witness PHM Schumann;
the witness Hain had not yet appeared.
The witnesses were informed of the subject of the proceedings.
The witnesses were instructed in accordance with §§ 57 StPO (Code of Criminal Procedure) and were informed of this,
that the duty to tell the truth also refers to the information according to § 68 StPO.
The witnesses left the courtroom.
The accused declared as the person:
von Prince Beowulf Adalbert,
born on Dec. 27, 1953 in Ebern;
married, defendant without profession,
Gleisenauer Str. 14, 96271 Grub am Forst;
The representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office read the indictment.
The accused was informed that he was free to do so,
to speak out or not to testify.
He agreed to testify.
The accused was heard on his personal and economic circumstances.
I grew up in Ebern, Hirschaid and Neustadt b. Coburg.
After the vocational baccalaureate, I completed my studies as a graduate engineer, direction forestry. I was then in the profession until 1997. Then I started my own business as a farmer and forester. Then I was violated in my rights for 4 years by the Coburg building authority, so that my business stagnated. Then I started to study business administration and after 2 semesters I started as an investment and management consultant. I have been married since 1975 and have 3 children aged 25, 22 and 19. I currently live from my capital.
The extract from the BZR was held before the defendant and
Let's get down to business:
The defendant stated that he has no information on the merits of the case...
The hearing of evidence has begun.
The witness, Oberregierungsrätin Engel, was called in
to the person:
Petra, 41 years old, lawyer
in District Office Coburg, 96450 Coburg
not related to the accused and not related by marriage.
to the matter:
On December 3, 2003 Mr. von Prince and Mrs. Hain filed a motion
Issue of a building permit for the property FlNr. 1890/8
one. This request was rejected on May 7, 04 because the
property is an outdoor property that was not
building land. The defendant has appealed against this.
By order of the Bavarian. Administrative Court, the
Appeal was dismissed.
At the judge's request:
The application for planning permission was rejected because
the property in question is located outside and is not therefore
to be expected that it will ever become building land.
At the defendant's request:
That the charge of forest law, and not construction law.
was an oversight.
The witness, Engel, was not sworn in.
The witness Engel was sworn in
Consent discharged at 1:55 pm.
The defendant has now made a full statement,
during which the judge cut him off.
In response, the defendant declared that he rejected the judge, Judge at the District Court Bauer, because he did not let him testify on the merits and deny him a fair hearing.
The representative of the Public Prosecutor's office did not give any
The judge announced
A decision on the defendant's motion to dismiss the judge is postponed.
The witness Hain, who has appeared in the meantime, was informed of the subject of the proceedings. The witness was instructed in accordance with §§ 57 StPO (German Code of Criminal Procedure) and pointed out that the duty to tell the truth also applies to the statements according to § 68 StPO.
The witness Waltraud Hain was questioned.
on the person:
Hain Gisela, 67 years old, pensioner,
Baumschulenweg 33, 96450 Coburg
not related to the accused and not related by marriage.
to the point:
On October 31st, 2003 I made a notarized agreement with Mr. von Prince for the purchase of a property. 16.200,- EUR I should pay in advance. 15.000,--EUR I actually paid at the beginning of January 2004. After there was no building permit for the property, I withdrew from the contract several times in writing by my lawyer. I have not got my money back until today.
On question of the defendant:
I would never have signed the contract if I had known it wasn't building land. It is not right that I only wanted to put my dogs there.
The defendant now entered a
plea for evidence
In order to prove that the purchase of the property was primarily about the accommodation of the witness's dogs and not about the construction of a residential house, Mr. Zölgert, the architect, is to be heard as a witness.
At the request of the judge, the witness stated
"Mr von Prince and Mr Zölgert urged me to sign the contract in 2003. Who set the deadline for obtaining the building permit, I do not know anymore. It is true that Mr von Prince has also made financing offers to me.
The witness Waltraud Hain remained unsworn.
The witness Waltraud Hain was dismissed by mutual agreement at 2.15 pm.
The witness PHM Schumann was called in and questioned
to the person:
Police Inspectorate, 96450 Coburg
not related to the accused and not related by marriage.
to the point:
I was the person responsible. I could not investigate the individual accounts of the accused, because there was no order for this. An inquiry with the bailiff revealed nothing.
The financial circumstances of the accused at the time of the crime could therefore not be determined.
The witness Jürgen Schumann remained unsworn.
The witness Jürgen Schumann was released by mutual agreement at 2:20 p.m.--
Then there was
The request for evidence for the interrogation of the architect Zölgert is rejected, because the alleged fact that the witness Hain did not want to build a residential house from the beginning can be assumed to be true.
The judge's rejection is rejected as inadmissible because a means of substantiation was not presented.
No further requests for evidence were made. The regulations of §§ 240, 257 StPO, § 58 StPO were observed.
The hearing of evidence was closed.
The representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office were given the floor for his comments and submitted the following motion:
- conviction for fraud
- imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months, suspended
on probation for a period of 3 years,
- Money order of 1800,-- EUR
- Costs of the proceedings.
During the remarks of the representative of the Public prosecutor's office, the defendant stated that he would now leave and would not listen to this any longer.
The defendant was asked by two judicial officers to remain in the courtroom and was prevented from leaving.
The accused was given the opportunity to defend himself and to make a statement.
The defendant had the last word.
After the main hearing was interrupted, the judge announced the following by reading out the judgment formula and verbally communicating the essential content of the reasons for the judgment
ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE
1. the defendant is guilty of fraud
2. he is therefore sentenced to 9 months imprisonment
Execution of the prison sentence is suspended on probation.
3. the defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings.
The criminal judge pronounced the enclosed
The accused was given instructions on the right of appeal and on the importance of a suspended sentence on probation, and was given the relevant forms.
No statements were made.
GerI form was handed over.
No application was made for a copy of the judgment.
The minutes were completed on 5 April 2006.
W. Bauer Geier, judicial clerk
Judge at the District Court clerk of the registry
For the original of the court transcript, see the column on the right.
©2020 by Beowulf von Prince, Karin Leffer
Beowulf von Prince
Schweizer Str. 38