5. November 2010
Warum landet offene mail an Dunja McAllister im niedersächsischen Justizministerium?
Wer am 3. November 2003 in Burgdorf the seizure of two computers, has the need on 5 November 2010 about a strange response from the Lower Saxony Ministry of Justice to open mail not wonder at the woman of the Lower Saxony Minister President? I have written
27 October 2010 at Dunja McAllister to know because I had that she had become a patron of the victims. This organization takes care of victims of crime.
I told the wife of the Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, which to me since 3 November 2003 happened, when it was levered at seven clock in the morning my front door, stood two CID officers with urban witnesses in front of my bed. They were accused of disseminating child pornography. Were taken both of my computers, and two dozen CD's.
I immediately turned on a lawyer from Burgdorf, but this was not in the pot, because he wanted to await the results of the Hanover public prosecutor. So I tried myself for the CID of Garbsen to the publication of files for a magazine I 1 was founded in November 2003. I needed for the second issue, on 15 to appear November 2003. I did not get the files. The magazine died young. A friend recommended me
then a lawyer from Hanover, access to the file requested. Which it has been for over half a Years granted. What was in the file, but I knew already. It had already been in the newspaper.
few weeks later I received from the criminal police in Garbsen one of my two computers again, and the confiscated CDs. We have found nothing Tatrelevantes. The prosecution exercised
of Hanover, meanwhile, through years of inaction, until I intervened again a lawyer. Now the stone began to roll: The prosecutor accused me of Hanover in the spring of 2006 and led the CD's to as evidence that I had in September 2004 received from the criminal police in Garbsen again.
followed on Holy Thursday 2006, a pardon by the facts, the district court of Hildesheim put almost half a year later determined that the allegation was completely unfounded to me. The presiding judge Brinkmann noted in his ruling that he is not the long inaction of the Hanover public prosecutor can explain.
happened But even more inexplicable: A Mr. Wendt, who posed as a judicial officer of the public prosecutor in Hanover, promised in November 2006, a compensation after the Justice Compensation Act. Since he had not reached me at home on the first try, he called on then even my mother.
The promise has been broken. Even after I showed the wife of the Lower Saxony Minister President in meiner offenen mail vom 27. Oktober 2010 hin, weil ich mir von ihr unbürokratische Hilfe versprach. Ich täuschte mich. Meine mail landete gar nicht bei Dunja McAllister, sondern im niedersächsischen Justizministerium bei Dr. Hackner.
Der wertete meine offene mail als "Eingabe an Frau McAllister", entdeckte keinen "rechtlich begründeten Anlass zu Maßnahmen der Dienstaufsicht" (gegen wen?). Weiter schrieb er unter dem Zeichen 4121 E 402.79/07: "Insbesondere habe ich festgestellt, dass Ihnen dem Bericht der Staatsanwaltschaft Hannover zu Folge weder eine Entscheidung zugesagt noch der erbetene Beschluss früher zugesandt werden konnte."
Man kann mich auf den Kopf stellen, diesen Satz verstehe ich nicht. Was für einen Beschluss meint Dr. Hackner? Den stillschweigenden Beschluss der Staatsanwaltschaft Hannover, mich zweieinhalb Jahre lang schmoren und dann belügen zu lassen?
Noch kurioser ist der Schlussabsatz: "Einen Bescheid haben Sie bisher nicht erhalten, weil Ihre Schreiben im Wesentlichen aus Unmutsäußerungen bestanden und kein konkretes Petitum erkennen ließen. Ihre Beschwerde weise ich als unbegründet zurück."
Was ich unbürokratisch wollte, ist nun wieder bürokratisch geworden? Geschrieben habe ich schon seit Jahren nicht mehr an die Staatsanwaltschaft von Hannover, was für Unmutsäußerungen sind also gemeint? Die aus den Jahren 2004 und 2005? Außerdem bat me that Mr. Wendt in November 2006, at standstill. I should do nothing, the prosecutor's of Hanover will pay me the compensation that way.
That this promise has been made is not denied in the letter of Dr. Hack. Or is this denial is hiding somewhere between the lines.
0 comments:
Post a Comment