Why didn't the judge allow the question why he was charged with violation of the Forest Act and not with violation of the Building Land Act?
If, as a forestry official, he sells a plot of land as a building site, even though the Forest Act prohibits this, he must know this as an expert and would act deceitfully (§ 263 StGB). If he were to act as a civil servant and not as a private individual, he would be committing the crime of obstruction of justice (§ 339 StGB). On that stands prison!
In fact, as mentioned above, Beo had only given the land at cost price and made it a condition that a building application be submitted within three months. This was even sealed with a notarial deed of sale with the right of withdrawal.
The idea of deception on his part is therefore completely absurd.
Now he has totally proved that no forest law stands in the way of building on the property 1890/8 Gem. Grub am Forst. So the charge of fraud must then be dropped, because it is essential for the accusation of fraud what he must know.
After all, Beo cannot deceive anyone about something he does not know himself.
Do you understand why Judge Bauer did not allow the question why he was reported under the subject line: "Execution of the Forest Law" and not under Execution of the Building Law?
Judge Bauer thus knew that the report of the senior government councillor Engel fulfilled the criminal offence of false suspicion § 164 StGB.
Judge Bauer knew that he, together with the "Public Prosecutor's Office", was committing the criminal offence of persecuting innocent people under § 344 StGB.
In passing, it should be noted: To this day, no one can answer the question of how much profit or damage he allegedly made from the sale, for which he was denounced by Oberregierungsrätin Engel and not by the allegedly defrauded. Not even the tax office involved.
To make it clear once again:
Mrs. Engel did not file a complaint about the violation of the building law, but about the violation of the forest law, because Beo had already obtained a building permit for the property 1890/8 Gem. In the ruling of the Bayreuth Administrative Court (Ref.: B 2 K 97.784 dated Febr. 25, 99) it was established that he had been unlawfully refused a building permit and that his rights had thus been unlawfully violated. The information of the "Coburg Regional Court" that the Free State of Bavaria is liable for this is, according to Regierungsrat Hoss, wrong. According to the information provided by Councillor Hoss, the Free State of Bavaria is not the representative of the community of Grub am Forst, neither in administrative proceedings nor before the civil court. The Free State of Bavaria would also not be liable for breaches of official duties on the part of the latter, since breaches of official duties by municipal employees would be attributable exclusively to the municipality.
Initially, Beo suspected that the unlawful prosecution of the claim for damages was due to the damage caused by the years of denial of planning permission in the 1990s.
However, over time, he noticed several changes in the law. He could only draw one conclusion from the nature of these legal changes, namely that he was politically persecuted. His father had always refused German (Reich) nationality as a national of the Free City of Danzig. This then had to be officially acknowledged on the basis of the law of February 22, 1955 and Beo had filed a complaint against the German-Polish Border Treaty, among other things.
After the Unification Treaty between the FRG and the GDR, a state treaty, the 2+4 Treaty, was adopted. This was to finally make the Second World War history and restore Germany's full sovereignty. One of two conditions of this Treaty was the recognition of the borders to Poland. This was regulated by the German-Polish Border Treaty.
Beo believed that if Germany declared the border to be final, the Germans, who came from Silesia, for example, would lose their property legally. These Germans, and of course the Danzig people, were therefore entitled to compensation. In other words, the West Germans would now have had to make payments to those who had lost everything when they fled from East Germany and had to start all over again when they arrived in West Germany. Not only that: through the sale of land, loans, house building, furnishing, etc., the West Germans earned money from the East Germans, who at first were faced with nothing.
Such thoughts were probably not intended to arise at all. Because of his complaint, the law was promptly changed to the Federal Constitutional Court Law, whereupon submitted complaints no longer need to be answered ...
However, after Beo determined that the Federal Republic of Germany did not have the sovereignty to conclude treaties relevant under international law, he let the matter rest.
But what if a political persecution was instigated precisely because of this lawsuit? With this action, he had finally "outed" himself as a national of Danzig, who was still entitled to damages and reparations.
As a national of the Free City of Danzig, the father of Beo made explicit use of the Law of Renouncement of German (Reich) Nationality of Febr. 22, 1955. In matters of interpretation of German
law for nationals of the Free City of Danzig, it is not the Federal Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany that has jurisdiction, but the Permanent International Court of Justice
in The Hague (precedent case Series A/B No. 65 of 1935).
The Federal Constitutional Court is already not in accordance with the Basic Law, because the deputies of the FRG are not constitutionally, namely directly elected, but at least 50% are appointed by the parties and also the party leadership is not elected by primary election, but by the party executive committee.
So it is not surprising that when the Federal Constitutional Court Act comes into force it says
Federal Constitutional Court Act § 106 [Entry into force] --------
It doesn't say when or where the Federal Constitutional Court Act came into force.
But let's first come back to this trial:
Beo asked Councillor Engel: What are you referring to?
Witness Engel: That has nothing to do with the matter now.
Judge Bauer interrupted Beo and didn't allow the question, saying that he didn't understand the question and murmured on, so that everyone in the courtroom could hear it: "...because it doesn't fit into my sentence!"
So the verdict was already in place! And that's the way it was:
Finally, Judge Bauer stood up to leaf through his file a few pages further and read out the prepared verdict, without leaving the courtroom to reach the verdict - which is what the court transcript claims.
Beo was sentenced to 9 months suspended for fraud.
The bias petition that Beo filed during the trial has never been decided.
As Mr Bauer himself requested, requests for bias must be well-founded. The motions for bias were well-founded. Before the hearing continues, the motions for bias must be rejected with reasons, so that the defendant can be guided by the reasons for the further hearing.
©2020 by Beowulf von Prince, Karin Leffer
Beowulf von Prince
Schweizer Str. 38