The political prosecution

8. The second instance before the Coburg Regional Court and the withdrawal of the lawyer's admission to the bar due to an                    enforcement action

Case No: 2 Ns 106 Js 7394/04 on April 19, 2007 before the Coburg Regional Court

Judge: Dr. Krauß

Public Prosecutor: Dr. Koch

Jurors: Erich Zethner, Kronach

            Joachim Schubert, Ahorn


So we had founded the association "Bund für das Recht" a few months before, because we had to realize that German law was no longer observed. The courts did not served judgements signed by the judges, as required by the law §§ 315 and 317 ZPO, § 275 StPO, but copies on which the certifications confirmed that the original was not signed (see e.g. the Decision on the refusal to correct the minutes.) Later in 2009 we went into detail about the missing signatures in our book: Do your duty. We also knew that no witness statements were recorded at all in the minutes of the regional court trials. There it only says: The witness... age... resident... was questioned on the matter.


We therefore had no misconceptions about how the trial in the second instance would proceed before the Regional Court. The matter was already clear.


Beo had been looking for a competent lawyer for the hearings at the Regional Court, which required a mandatory lawyer. He had written to lawyers to ask whether they were familiar with the law concerning neighbours and had paid around €10.000,- for representation.

But the two lawyers paid by Beo did not appear in court.

The lawyer Mr. Olaf Pfalzgraf, who had filed an enforcement lawsuit on Febr. 02, 2007 with the Bamberg Higher Regional Court on the grounds of unsworn false testimony against Oberregierungsrätin Engel of the Coburg District Office, was subsequently disbarred. The Court was thus able to assert that the proceedings had not been filed by a fully qualified lawyer, that the deadline had therefore been missed and that the enforcement proceedings therefore did not have to be processed (see below the Decision of the Bamberg Higher Regional Court ). 

Two of the defenders chosen by Beo, who are not admitted to the bar, were not admitted to the Court. Instead, a mandatory lawyer was imposed.


It must be remembered that the Nazis used this obligation to hire a lawyer in an ice-cold way in order to deprive Jews of the opportunity to defend themselves in court. Jews were no longer admitted to the bar or their existing licenses were revoked and therefore the Jews were forced to use lawyers who conformed to the system. A real defence was no longer possible, the door was opened to arbitrariness. This Nazi arbitrariness is still used today and again lawyers' admission to the bar are withdrawn if they did not work in conformity with the system. Thus, there is no lawyer who would criticize that the signatures are missing or that, contrary to the law, no original sentences are served but only copies. - Beo's 2013 mandatory lawyer: "That you published that there are no legal judges will break your neck."

The obligation to be a lawyer is contrary to the EU Human Rights Charter Art. 6 (3c), which states that everyone is entitled to defend himself or herself or to have a defender of his or her choice. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also stipulates that everyone may defend himself or herself. In the USA one may defend oneself up to the highest instances.


As at the first trial, we invited all newspapers and the public. This time, metal detector barriers at the entrance to the courtroom, like those at the airport, awaited us completely unexpectedly. The bags of all trial observers were searched, but not for weapons, as one would like to present it today, but for recording devices and mobile phones. The mobile phones were all collected! We are in 2007, when such measures were only used in proceedings against terrorist organisations and mafia-like gang crime. So what were they so afraid of?


The court spokesman admitted afterwards in the press report that this was done to prevent a new tape recording. What was so dangerous about a tape recording? The logical reason to assume is that the public document of the exercising state power (court record) does not correspond to the complete truth!


By the way, a tape recording is allowed according to German law: GVG § 169, according to it only the publication is forbidden, for self-protection it is allowed at any time.


A public defender was appointed. The lawyers firm Mäckler und Bockow, paid by Beo, did not appear. Mr. Görlitz was expelled from the courtroom.


Mr. Görlitz therefore took a seat at the table in front of Courtroom H on the first floor and spread out his files. The hearing was interrupted several times. On these occasions, Beo succinctly told his defender what was being heard and he wrote the motions, which Beo then took into the courtroom.


The newspaper reported under the heading, "In self-defense against authority of the state." "Then the defendant loudly asked the clerk to write what he said. Judge Dr. Krauss then said: "I decide what will be written in the minutes." "Then I refuse the clerk for bias, according to § 31 StPO, etc., etc." (Original newspaper clippings see below).


Without consultation and without letting the other judges or jurors comment on the application, Judge Dr. Krauß rejected the application for bias.


Beo replied to this: "Then I'll reject you!"


Incidentally, no decision has been made on this motion for a bias to date!


Because no decision has been made on this application, Beo called the police station in Coburg with his mobile phone so that the police could take the minutes of the court. "Record the conversation. Take notes.

On Dr. Krauss' orders, a prison officer took his cell phone. Dr. Krauss was yelling around, and Beo got a adminstrative penalty.


His equally loud answer: "What's this about an administrative penalty? Because the Public Prosecutor´s Office is too stupid to put together a meaningful indictment, I'm bankrupt!"

Thereupon the Judges, including the Public Prosecutor, withdrew. When they reappeared in court, they wanted to continue the trial without having decided on the motion.


His defender outside the door commented on the screaming of the judge in the courtroom (which, by the way, is not allowed!): "He is Freisler-ing again." ( Note: Freisler was a Nazi judge who pronounced death sentences (White Rose) and screamed around the courtroom.


In the end, Beo left this "trial" without being prevented from doing so, because no decision was made on the bias petition. In his absence, the Regional Court confirmed the verdict of the District Court, while he was in Cafe Anders with several trial observers. This café is located near the court building and is also a popular place to visit for court employees, judges and prosecutors. Our group talked loudly about the unheard-of events that had just happened in the large courtroom H on the first floor, so that the employees and officials noticed and looked at us with uncertainty. Mr. Görlitz told us, not without pride, that he had once been a member of the German Socialist Party and had personally known the former Chancellor Willy Brandt, of whom he was very proud. Yes, he had been an honest man and politician who had resigned after disagreements. Nobody did that any more today. The lie had established itself in politics.


Afterwards we went together to the police station at the Thuringian street cross and filed a complaint together, for falsification of protocol, which each of the trial observers signed.

We entered the police station through the heavy wooden door decorated with carvings and walked up the few steps. On the left was a large, thick window pane. The police saw our group and opened the door so that two of us could enter. We were given a form in our hands on which we could put our report on paper. Mr. Görlitz sat down at a small table opposite the window pane and began to formulate the report. Afterwards all witnesses of the offences signed. We were about 8 people.


What happened to the criminal charge? It was never processed. The penalty for prevention of justice is five years in prison. Who would even pursue such a prosecution - against a colleague? After all, the public prosecutors and judges change their posts merrily, as we were made to realise years later. With prevention of justice at best unpleasant colleagues are pursued and the sense of § is turned into the opposite and used as a means of pressure, so to speak: If you do not decide, as I want...


We sat down together and considered the next steps that we could take against these abuses of the law. We agreed that public relations work was necessary. Who of the population knew what was actually happening at the court here. We sat down together and wrote down our findings, prepared the whole thing like a small newspaper of the Federation for the Law with columns and imprint and looked for a printing house. Ready was our  Special edition 1 on protocol forgery and Special edition 2 on missing signatures see below.


Special edition No. 1 of April 18, 2007 had as title: What does the Coburg justice system want to cover up? In it we dealt with the entrance controls, for the purpose of preventing a tape recording: "Why could a citizen feel compelled to think that in a state of law the complete recording of events with a tape recording from a courtroom is necessary in the first place? The logical reason to assume is that the public document of the exercising state power (court record) does not correspond to the complete truth."


This was followed in June 2007 by Special edition No. 2, which was entitled: How the judiciary deals with a falsification of minutes and an arrest warrant that is not legally signed.

In it we went into the whole of the sections that require signatures for the first time and made copies of examples from the judgements to show that not a single section was complied with.


We distributed the Special editions in Coburg and especially in the area where the judges lived, e.g. Judge Dr. Krauß. With Manfred there was a discussion about how many the offices should get. "They'll throw it away immediately anyway," was his opinion. Beo had a different opinion. There should be 20 to 50 of them. So he drove to the Coburg police station to deposit 20 in the mailbox. The policemen saw what he had put in there and apparently passed the information on to the next patrol.

As Beo drove on over the Thuringian street cross, blue light suddenly appeared behind him. It was a police car following him. He pulled over to the right and rolled down his window pane. A police officer got out of the police car and came up to his window. "Who is the vehicle registered to?" he asked. "I'd have to look there first," Beo replied. "You don't need to - to your wife," the officer remarked. "You ran a stop sign there and here you were driving too fast... But today we'll give it a miss!" The officer said goodbye and went back to his car. The officers had seen what he had thrown in. They knew he was on an important mission. Beo drove on to bring more Special editions to the people.


Decision Bamberg Higher Regional Court, rejection of enforcement lawsuit
Note: three judges - no signature
false seal- Bavaria, Higher Regional Court is wrong-
right: Bavaria, Bamberg Higher Regional Court
false authentication
Klageerzwingungsverfahren OLG Bamberg Ab
Adobe Acrobat Dokument 1.1 MB
Translation Decision Bamberg Higher Regional Court, rejection of enforcement lawsuit
OLG BA Klageerzw. engl. Pfalzgraf.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Dokument 34.9 KB

Newspaper: Headline: In self-defense against the state power
NP In Notwehr gegen die Staatsgewalt.jpg
JPG Bild 5.9 MB
NP über LG-Prozess weg. Betrug 001.jpg
JPG Bild 270.1 KB

Special edition No. 1
What does the Coburg justice system want to cover up?
Extrablatt Nr. 1.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Dokument 75.2 KB
Special edition No. 2
How the judiciary deals with a falsification of minutes and an arrest warrant that is not legally signed.
Extrablatt Nr.2.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Dokument 191.4 KB

©2020 by Beowulf von Prince, Karin Leffer