CEED - Conseil Européen des Enfants du Divorce - Organisation de parents binationaux contre le JUGENDAMT et ses principes du LEBENSBORN
Paris - Bruxelles - Frankfurt - London - Roma - Madrid - Zürich - Washington - Chicago - Warszawa - Auckland

CEED - Conseil Européen des Enfants du Divorce
association de parents enfants et grand-parents victimes d'enlèvements et de rapts internationaux d'enfants


Open letter to the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic Mr Silvio Berlusconi
Spoliation of children by the Federal Republic of Germany
The European arrest warrant of Mr. Schulz puts the children of Italy at the disposal of the German State


Case of Dr. Marinella Colombo - Spoliation of children by the Federal Republic of Germany
The European arrest warrant of Mr. Schulz puts the children of Italy at the disposal of the German State

Mr. Prime Minister,
Honorable Mr. Berlusconi,

Mr Martin Schulz, chairman of the Social Democratic Parliament, recently complained that the English MP, Mr Godfrey Bloom, shouted out as follows: "Ein Reich,ein Volk, ein Führer. " A few minutes later, he was called an "undemocratic fascist" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQy0_QyEZ2w ).

This is the same Martin Schulz, who had directed the same insolent and disparaging remarks to you and the Italian people, when he accused you of blocking the introduction of a European Public Prosecutor or a European arrest warrant ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyeUl3zEJtU ) We now know why Mr Schulz called for the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) with so much vehemence, because Germany will lose 15 million people in the next 50 years. For this reason, that Nation has a vital need to keep all foreign parents within its jurisdiction, dominate their children, exploit their labor, keep their money and later steal their family inheritances.

Under these circumstances, therefore; to place the children of Dr. Marinella Colombo (Leonardo and Niccolo) under the welfare 'protection' and exclusive control of the German court is truly a national issue, a combined goal to which all civil servants (Jugendamt) and lawyers (judges and lawyers) strive as a nexus in Germany. Ms. Colombo is not contumacious against her former German spouse. She is opposed, like all other parents in her situation to a combined politico-legal system hidden, under the political control of the
JUGENDAMT, whose chief purpose is to keep other people's children today, in order to rely on the political, economic and social advantages of tomorrow.

The case of Dr. Colombo is an exceedingly serious problem. This problem portends much for the political future of Europe, because it calls into question enabling mechanisms of the entire European Community. Based on mutual trust and presumed reciprocity, Member States are required to implement peculiar German political decisions without sovereign discretion to verify such orders before merely carrying them out, despite much evidence that these policies violate the constitutions of respective States, discredit rule of law within the entire Community law, undermine their own economic interests and threaten social stability throughout the Europe of tomorrow.

Mr Berlusconi, in family matters the European Commission has imposed on the Italian courts as well as European courts at large the enforcement of German judgments, while refusing to give them the means to control the mechanisms, procedures and actors that lead to these decisions, on the premise that this would engender political backlash in functions of Community law. At the same time the Commission, entrusted as guarantor of Community law, refused to monitor these mechanisms on the grounds that the principle of subsidiarity would prohibit it from doing so, even though Parliament reports very serious systematic discrimination which is inflicted on a recurring basis against foreign parents, under the pretext of normal functions of sovereign German family law.

Following this logic, the Commission states that Community law applies where German interests are at stake, but only a subservient principle applies when it does not serve German interests. The German concept of subsidiarity, that the German court can impose its domestic law (procedures and laws which violate fundamental principles of universal rights applicable all the courts of the Union); and the aforesaid Nations, for compliance with Community law but in contravention of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, have no choice but to apply aberrant precepts peculiar to German law.

This blindly obeisant practice must stop immediately, whereby this 'one-way' concept of subsidiarity always benefits insolent jurisprudence of the most dishonest, arrogant and aggressive kind, the type which Mr. Schulz represents in the European Parliament. Subsidarity also opens the door to every excess of those lawyers and ancillary German officials who do not cherish the same concept of law, family, relation of family to state, basic respect for humanity, UN and EU conventions, and such other values as their neighbors in Europe; who thereby use their knowledge of the EAW as a weapon forpopulace and economic plunder, so as to assimilate these children within the dark heart of their own jurisdiction, free from outside scrutiny.

The mechanism is simple. Whenever any foreign parent (such as Dr. Colombo) wants or must leave, or (even worse) has left Germany with her children, just find some baseless ground with unverifiable accusations to criminalize that person. In other words, turn her civil case into a criminal case. This excuse allows automatic issuance of an EAW and presentation of the same as an accomplished fact for foreign authorities to execute. Not enabled to check out the German complaint to any degree of validity or doubt, they return the children in good faith. In doing so, they trigger in the German court the tautological 'a priori' pretext that removed child custody from the parent abroad in the first place.

If the sending authorities are unaware that the foreign parent has left without the German court's prior decision, it is not because the parent did not respect the German law, but because the German court did not want and could not rule on the request.

If the court did not act, it was to force the foreign parent to stay in Germany as long as possible, without judging the merits of the case, which of course is only possible with the silent participation and ministrations of the German lawyer.

If the court could not decide, that the law had no reason to justify the detention of children in Germany then it needed time to build a pretext by maximizing external interventions and arbitrary procedures in order to create an aura of ceremonial credibility; however, if the court had no reason to rule or did not fault the parent, that person in the absence of a decision was de facto custodian exercising legal rights.

Therefore, if there really were nothing to complain about such as finding the foreign parent was failed or unfit; in the absence of a decision, he could leave Germany. What Mrs. Colombo did, like many other parents in her situation, was made in complete compliance with the law and preservation of
fundamental freedoms.

The foreign parent has no sooner crossed the border, when the total administrative might of the German government treats her like a criminal, by accusing her of kidnapping and endangering her own children, based on the simple fact that they are no longer in Germany. In the scope of legal teams and sense of official JUGENDAMT officials, the simple fact that a child leaves the German jurisdiction puts him in danger.

To snatch children back while maintaining a semblance of neutrality, the German authorities require the German parent make out a sworn deposition that essentially states he is very concerned for his children, because they can not be reached by telephone. Consequently the judge grants him sole custody in few hours, by means of emergency measures, without ever hearing the foreign parent (a method of key interest!); the same sole custody, the same judge hitherto refused to allow the foreign parent, when that person has already asked the same court to leave the country according to established rules. In doing so, the foreign parent who lived peacefully with her children until that moment is suddenly designated as a parental abductor, because she suddenly has violated custody rights shared with the German parent. Nothing more remains to be done aside from an application to foreign police forces to remove the children back into German jurisdiction German and so determine this innocent parent to be a criminal on the run.

A formal request for return is made pursuant to the Hague Convention for show; in fact, the German prosecutors have already ordered the return of these children to Germany through criminal prosecution.

At the request of the family judge, within a few hours the State's attorney enrolls parents and children on the wanted list in SIRENE (Europol), issues a request EAW and seeks execution of the same by foreign police departments.

Such an EAW, illegal at the time of issuance, is later validated in the course of another German hearing held without the foreign parent (again, a method of key interest). Blocked to reenter German jurisdiction from abroad, it becomes imperative to challenge the rule or negotiate through a hired German lawyer. This proves superfluous, since every German lawyer is sworn to serve not their parental client, but rather to uphold the German law above all other considerations, and so defend the national interest without objection to status quo national judicial policy (i.e . the plenipotentiary political nexus a.k.a. JUGENDAMT).

In this situation without any foreign witnesses, authorities German "contend" or pretend emergency measures in a unilateral ad hoc manner to justify a posteriori the validity of that EAW already presented to foreign authorities for execution. Upon returning the children to Germany but unable to verify either the substance or form of the original emergency ex-parte decision in lieu of habeas corpus, nor even the order of the facts, let alone those false accusations and falsifications of judicial documents common and peculiar to German habits, European and Italian police authorities are unaware that they are forced to execute a mere unsubstantiated affidavit of the German parent as entered as entered by a German judge for a civil case- an interim secret and arbitrary decision by the same judge , who will later rule on divorce, child custody and proceed with the distribution of property. It is not difficult to imagine how the rulings will later be decided in regard to details.

In so doing , foreign police condemn their nationals by submitting them to the same jurisdictional trap they had sought to avoid; whereby in refusal to act according to statute, the German court pushed them into a contumacious status designed to prohibit them from leaving German soil before a definite transfer of custody to the German parentis even made effective. By means of the EAW, foreign authorities convey to this illegal situation a sense of confirmation, which has no inherent validity or substance in itself. By recognizing such bogus orders, foreign authorities criminalize their own nationals in a manner inconceivable while these citizens had peaceably remained within Germany. Dr. Colombo for example was condemned to hide in her country, not to leave its borders either to work, to defend herself or to see her children. All these elements diminish resistance of their victims bit by bit , insofar the Germans gratuitously manipulate and exploit foreign powers to their own advantage.

Moreover, in honoring this narrow German concept of the EAW, foreign sending authorities deliver citizens up to German rule, thereby enabling a political decision never intended or imagined at home -to enforce a primary directive keeping children in Germany for ulterior demographic purposes .

Once the children return to Germany, not the least of promises made are kept and all arguments vouching in favor of the foreign parent are erased. By now the intervention of foreign police forces alone (as necessitated to enforce German law) justify all other decisions to come. This event serves to substantiate an alleged wrongful removal, legitimize the bogus German request and deliver enough indubitable proof that the foreign parent has offended German law, in violation of a custody decision rendered at will ex post facto …. i.e. after she had left.

By spectral invocation of protecting the welfare of children at risk against a possible 'relapse' of their foreign parent, Jugendamt authorities next recommend transfer of exclusive custody to the parent German, with tautological justification that the foreign parent themselves force them to do so in order to prevent a new flight abroad. Under such conditions foreigners and their children are abandoned by their own governments more eager to get rid of a problem which diplomatic and judicial systems cannot address. Foreign parents ultimately have no other choice but resignation to a fate, whereby they try - for years - to work through an extreme penance in the hope to see their children again. The ordeal from which they sought to escape by seeking assistance of native authorities will play out until the children reach maturity without outside influence. Meanwhile, the German government (granting massive and unilateral support to the German parent while dissimulating official responsibility) employs every means to make the other parent feel that she has become persona non grata in German society, a Unperson (a non-person) in the lives of their children, and utterly unable to educate these children the benefit of the greater community of Germans (Erziehungsfähig); now other, loyal Germans strangers will do this instead.

In reducing the sphere of influence over children wherein the JUGENDAMT controls them as State property, foreigners put the long term interest of the community at risk. In leaving German soil, foreign parents disrupt master plans to further German national economic interest. However, the most serious consequences follow in showing the true face of German judges, lawyers and officials to the international community, thereby effectively betraying the entire German social structure. These habitual punishments go well beyond systematic deprivation of normal and regular contact with their children. Such non-parents ultimately can initiate no personal traditions aside from dictates of the State-only then exclusively in the German language, while they suffer humiliating conditions intentionally designed to result in self-defeat through any effort to maintain contact with their children.

These visits (which may develop at a pace only proportional to the extent which foreign attention wanes) will be used to justify the payment of child support to third parties for those children who will no longer be their own. Sums to be reckoned as due will depend on a visit schedule randomly approved at the whim and convenience of the JUGENDAMT which dangles the parent on tenterhooks. Income, personal property and life's savings will be acquired in the course of endless legal proceedings. As a fundamentally prerequisite condition to see the children, lawyers first exhaust a maximum of financial resources from the child's country of origin. State power through it's long arm the Jugendamt subsequently utilizes institutional blackmail of a parent's love to harvest the rest of these foreign resources.

Without prosecutorial discretion to enforce a EAW by submission to German orders, without challenge or verification, foreign authorities spare the German courts several lengthy and costly procedures, which otherwise would have been necessary to retain foreign parents and children in Germany.
More seriously in scope, foreign governments convey legitimacy to continued predatory actions of German law, which have a cascading effect of repercussive violations against immigrant rights within Germany. Thus, foreign governments become unwittingly complicit in performing the bidding of a Germany, which abuses their good faith through naivety or a collective amnesia in erasing 2000 years of shared history 3 4.

Worse, Italy crushes the challenge of one of the very few EU citizens in Germany who has realized in time that the German court system is controlled politically and therefore inherently unfair, draconian and xenophobic- the foreign parent who absolutely had to leave before the point of no return was reached, before the assimilation and retention of children had become facts accomplished by German law, the parent who was able to overcome underlying threats and terrifying allusions of various German authorities to remove her children by surprise (at school, without prior court decision). With the simple fact of expressing a normal desire in wishing to leave their perverse jurisdiction, one parent had enough means and intellectual capacity (coupled with spiritual fortitude and convictions good and right), not only to demonstrate at her own expense by factual evidence and proof that each lawyer, judge and German official lied and tricked the international community with the self-same insolence and hypocrisy of Mr. Schulz. In crushing the resistance of this resident, who mounted an expected challenge to the German national interest - a rare and valuable witness who must be heard, because she knows what the authorities at home do not; Italian authorities condemn the very one who had the courage to escape from a regime of lawlessness, where family law is governed by xenophobia and political interest, to be kept under house arrest and her children deported to be Germanized. By refusing to listen well to one person only asking for legal support in order Germany respect norms of European law, Italian authorities adopt the spectrum of bizarre German customs as their own and legitimize, rather than reject, a spectral panoply of bastardized German arguments.

This attitude is brings to mind the reaction of some French judges under the Occupation, who did not inquire about exact details of what the Germans had organized through legal guile. Convinced it was in their own best interest to respect their national legal system, they returned victims to a Germany of Nuremburg laws, those refugees who had managed to escape the concentration camps and come forth to bear witness about real events as they unfolded. Even then, most French judges never bothered to question the integrity of German lawyers and State officials.

Mr Berlusconi, today Italy can no longer tolerate children of Italians and others being so held in Germany, so they no longer can leave that country, and they can remain only speak German, their young parents trained in that country, forced to raise their children on behalf of Germany, which only grants them tacit rights still subject to the will of the German parent and under the direct control of Jugendamt, that these parents are kept under house arrest, menaced by loss of their children because they wish to leave that country, and declared criminals simply because they have left that country. This situation can not represent rule of law. Germany can not deprive Italy and other EU states of all of these children, nor of these parents, their knowledge, their work ethic, their inheirited wealth (to pay German pensioners from now on into the future), parents who now flee with their children and thereby undermine the German welfare scheme. Insofar the European Commission can guarantee Germany implementation of their peculiar Family Law abroad in Italy or elsewhere, the Commission becomes impotentat the same time, ensuring that neither Italy nor any other EU nation may check the very same code of law that the Commission requires them to apply. The European Commission can not make the theory of German Minister of Justice, Dr. Frick-who would mold European law- into a reality serving every end which becomes convenient for the German people.

Mr Berlusconi, if that is the situation, it is extreemly serious. The present crisis requires that every Government of the Union suspend in situ recognition of German family court judgments, moreover that they sue the German Government before the European Court of Justice in order to get a heavy sentence, the only language that the political circle of Martin Schulz can understand. Indeed this is no longer a question concerning personal problems of divorce, of domestic jurisdiction or even several issues about subsidiarity principles, but the rogue nation of Germany, which chooses to cheat its partners with deliberate premeditation in particularly sensitive fields of family law in order to procure ill-gotten gain at the expense of partners who have placed their trust.The topic of state sponsored racketeering concerns the national interest of each member state and it is of course not the individual personal responsibility of the parents of victims or their private lawyers, to run out and rumble with German gangsters who do not play the same game at all.

Consider the scandalous case of Dr. Colombo, for example. She endured the same travails as all non-German parents who, like her, attempt to separate from a German citizen, with the difference that she did not remain in Germany. Dr. Colombo understood more quickly than most, that various court proceedings had no concrete purpose other than maintain her under virtual house arrest in order to keep her children and her hard work within Germany. She quickly realized that lawyers are actively involved in third party child 'protection' on behalf of the German nation. She understood the deceptive tricks of the JUGENDAMT entity creating a grand illusion of impartial justice or fair trial; so she left the land before the Germans could conjure up a decision to detain.Since her departure from Germany, Dr. Colombo has brought all the evidence, despite all the considerable logistic, juridic and linguistic difficulties it posed to the scrutiny of her own authorities, to prove beyond a doubt that the German authorities in groupthink have always upheld their national interest in serving the German parent unilaterally.

The fact that the German court refused to rule on her petition, and so undermine Italian interest by preventing her from working productively in Milan, the facts that these authorities lied in affirming she did not have custody of her children ( a position not shared by the Court of Cassation in Rome), that they intentionally produced fake documents forged for this purpose, that the JUGENDAMT entity carefully falsified documents, that the German court ruled the day of departure by way of urgent secret and unilateral decree awarding sole custody to the German parent, to justify the urgency by the fact that mother and children were Italy; nor wasthe German court expert ashamed to make racist remarks cloaked in his august robe of national expertise; the Jugendamt accused Italy of not being able to guarantee visitation rights of the father in the matter of custody; the prosecutor deliberately concocted German civil with criminal law to provide the parent with a EAW through the German Foreign Ministry, which is illegal; he entered Ms. Colombo into the register SIRENE (Europol) as a preventive measure before the crime - which does not exist - was committed, which is illegal; as attache to the German Embassy he intervened directly with the central authority in Rome, which is illegal; the Germans were provided with a European arrest warrant to prohibit Ms. Colombo's travel to Germany to defend herself and knowingly prevent visitation of her children, which is illegal; the Germans launched a second application upon return for a second arrest warrant even before the first was adjudicated, which is illegal. The list could fill another ten pages. This is not a unique aberrant lawsut, but the typical cascade of violations of law which reflect the intricate design of German Family Law, aiming to inflict intentional harm and chaos abroad.

How did police officers and magistrates react in Italy? They applied actions to the letter of redundant requests of the Germans, they imprisoned Ms. Colombo in 2008 on the basis of a bogus EAW-groundless in this civil case. Then they undertook criminal proceedings for extradition, a trial still closed to scrutiny to this day. At the same time , however, the Italians refuse to undertake complaints suing the Germans for intentional falsification of documents, specifically the forgery that led up to the EAW and the extradition trial. The central authority in Rome and the Juvenile Court of Milan ordered the return of both children to Germany within 48 hours without review or further checking; because the EAW had defined the emergency , therein lies the motivation and latent objective : to provoke a crisis situation.

This almost seems like cultural phenomenon, that Germans are perceived as and assumed to be rational by definition. However, CEED saw immediately that the German father only enjoys visitation right, and under conventional means is not entitled to make such a request especially in Germany; consequently, the German authorities have even much less right to support this allegation by penal measures. The first team of Ms. Colombo's Italian lawyers, who have not been able to defend her, were busy adding other distractions to the many German procedures, as well as those Italians working on account of the Germans, laying claim to huge amounts of money, everything playing more and more into the hands of the Germans.

A mediation agreement was signed between the parties in Italy; ignored by the Germans as ineffective if not nonexistent, the German lawyer in Milan then ordered the prosecution to send in the Carabinieri to take the boys from school and send them back to Germany. State's attorney and police function on the basis of the prophylactic arrest warrant which remains illegal, but seems to have more clout than the complaint for falsification filed against the same prosecutor, given full faith and credit because he is a German official. The Italian Supreme Court demonstrated that the Germans lied, and required in return that there should be no retrial. Nevertheless, the German law is deemed superior, so that the Carabinieri arrested Dr. Colombo again, this time in the Tribunal, when retrial request came forth. Stuck in prison by German request (upon issuance a new EAW to assert a second demand for return), German authorities can expect prevail again by abusing their usual procedure for robbing children throughout the Schengen zone -the police emergency channel. While Italian judges and lawyers are working to marshal their own place in this macabre carnival of German attacks, some to defend Mrs. Colombo, others to get rid of a problem they can not resolve (because font and origin is political and located well beyond their jurisdiction or comprehension), Germans back home continue to use their peculiar institutions to systematically demolish Dr. Colombo's career, take away her parental authority, and plunder her property. This scorched earth policy is a common and effective way to exact revenge and avoid contagion. For Mrs Colombo, justice and moral right are absolutely on her side, like virtually all foreign parents in Germany; those who are really morally bankrupt are all German lawyers.

Mr Berlusconi, I beg you to intervene on behalf of Dr. Colombo and tens of thousands of other parents held captive in the German court system through its nefarious history. Why must Dr. Colombo and her children live landless, exhausted and penniless, as did the Jewish people under other regimes, these last three years? They are harassed by the Germans; however, when one follows the case closely, there can be no doubt that she has not contravened the law, which manufactures evidence, which has deceived everyone, which makes use of disproportionate means, but rather these German officials and lawyers are the actors; they and not Ms. Colombo are the real criminals here.

Since it has been proven that Dr. Colombo had custody of her children in Germany (which the decision of the Appellate Court of Rome has shown), that she has not unlawfully or wrongfully removed her children and even if she had so done, that such measures could ever have been conceivable; as a result, the Italian authorities should ask themselves three basic questions:

- Why did they indict Mrs. Colombo for extradition, their fellow citizen, in a case of fraud which met no rational basis test?
- Why did they first enforce a EAW, and then a second in this civil case, without any motive, a motion applied against their fellow citizen as some kind of master criminal who violates international law?
- Why do they respond to a second request for return pursuant to the Hague Convention, even though the first is not yet adjudicated, which is (just like the first) every bit as inadmissible under articles of the Convention?

Everyone seems intent on respecting German law, the primary purpose of which is to extract benefits from- with harm to- its neighbors. Italy, its lawyers and officials, as well as their counterparts in Europe, must measure the political dimension of German family court decisions so as not to miss their mark by attacking those they should protect. The trend must be reversed.

Since Schulz's Land of Smiles does not understand such recourse to force and traffic of children to be illegal, Italy would be well advised to take the initiative quickly among European counterparts to deliver the Federal Republic of Germany up before the Court in Luxembourg (ECHR) and convict the BRD to pay penalties, until those legal mechanisms and ancillary administrative structures which legalize plunder of children are reformed. On the other hand, Italy and other EU Member States would be well advised to seek clear explanations from Commissioner Reding on the 'unilateral principle of subsidiarity' (according to the European Law theory of Herr Dr. Frick) and to ask on which principle Germany can so readily employ both SIS (Europol) and EAW to enforce aspects of civil matters in foreign jurisdictions, which engender lasting harm by using the truncheon of Community enforcement to cudgel the backs of children and skulls of parents who have fled the rabid contagion of Germany's jurisprudence system.

In Italy, the authorities would be well advised to support, over and above the case of Dr. Colombo, the greater community of Italians engaged in the struggle against incongruent German criminal codes and the revolting attitudes of German master lawyers. Now that doubt can no longer exist about the true intent of the German court nexus, the Italian State should take its place alongside its citizens to protect against continued harassment and unjustified assaults by this apparatus of the German State.

Such political resolve requires government intervention, not merely an assessment of available international remedies, but also determined public prosecution (both in Germany and in Italy). This effort must require payments of compensatory damages from every person who contributes directly (whether from near of afar) to imposition of peculiar German interpretations of law upon the Italian courts in order to to portray their compatriots as criminals which they certainly are not, in particular to have declenched egregious prejudice. The public prosecutor should target lawyers and judges in Germany, including the aforementioned lawyer Strauss who is responsible for the falsification of the application for return as submitted to Central Authority.

In demanding that Prime Minister Berlusconi introduce a European arrest warrant against his own people, the insolent Poettering Schulz and his friend Pottering knew exactly what they were doing. To subjugate and subrogate Italian and European political and judicial policies under the jackboot of German family courts which inevitably steal by subterfuge ('Made (legal) In Germany') is a public policy guaranteed to fail these children in future.

Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, the assurance of my sincere regards.

Olivier Karrer Chairman of CEED
December 2010



* Article No. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights sets out in detail the right to a fair trial, including the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, the presumption of innocence, and other secondary rights (adequate time and capacity to prepare a defense, legal assistance, the opportunity to confront and examine witnesses, and cost free legal assistance of an expert interpreter).

Comment: Since the raision d'etre of the JUGENDAMT is to act de jure before the judge in defense of German interests, and de facto as judge for the German State as the third party alongside any binational couple, the German Family Court nexus is by definition neither an impartial nor independent functional system.

Article No. 7 establishes the fundamental principle 'nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege', i.e. no person can be prosecuted for an offense not defined as punishable at the time of alleged commission.
Comment: Since at the time of its transfer abroad, the parent is entrusted with an implied fiduciary duty. Since the German court refused to rule on the subject, the person exercises his fundamental right of free movement and thus cannot be persecuted for inchoate ideation undefined as an actual infraction at time of departure.

Article No. 8 defines the right to respect " a person's private and family life, home and correspondence. There can be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as necessary for national security, public safety, well-being of the country, in defense of order and the prevention of crime, protection of health or morals or the protection of rights and freedoms of others. "

Comment: Since the German judge (upon any divorce pending petition), ordered a curator ad litem ("Verfahrenspfleger" or "Ergänzungspfleger" - usually a lawyer) to speak on behalf of and in the name of the children, putting parents under de facto guardianship, then a visitation curator (Umgangspfleger) interferes and imposes alienating impediments with his very presence during the peaceful course of any contact with the children. Because a State entity (a.k.a JUGENDAMT) intervenes with the couple's private life with the mission to spy and identify for the judge, which parent will preserve the best interests of the German Nation. This custom violating any basic respect for the private and family life of any couple undergoing separation is a German legal act mandated throughout their court system.

Article No. 13 defines the right to an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of rights protected by the Convention. Failure to obtain a remedy before a national authority for violation of Convention rights is thus in itself a violation of the Convention, hence ergo, liabile for separate prosecution.

Comment: Since the Court of Appeal deals only with the decision of the trial court, whose purpose is to fabricate a shoddy temporary decision in lieu of habeas corpus, made unilaterally and secretly due to a nonexistent emergency and based of the bogus sworn statement of the German parent neither verified nor challenged; insofar the first decision can not as 'Ding An Sich' become the subject of an appeal, the non-German parent can not benefit from any effective remedy of legal review.

Article No. 2 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees each any every person the absolute and universal right to move freely within his country, as well as the right to leave his country.

Comment: Once a foreign parent abroad in Germany turns to the German court for definitive authorization to leave Germany, the State (in collaboration with Jugendamt lawyers) prevaricates vexatious delays lasting years by declining to open substantive proceedings (Hauptverfahren). Content to rule by way of flimsy interim decisions (einstweilige Anordnung) in related proceedings (Nebenverfahren) so a not to make definite decision granting the durable sole custody necessary to transfer, the judge manipulates due process without specifying that non-action to be the overt intent of the court, and so may bring forth a prophylactic EAW to bring the unresolved petition under exclusive German jurisdiction should the parent ever in the indefinite future leave before a German court's substantive decision is made final. The German Family Procedure Code book ensures that procedural violation of EU article No. 2 is a legal norm in the sense of German jurisprudence.

CEED Paris, 10.11.2010

References for More Information:


page d'accueil

CEED ECCD - Conseil Européen des Enfants du Divorce - European Council Children of Divorce
Association loi 1901 - Enregistrée JO : 28-09-02/4383/2237- Melun France -
email: ceedeuropa@gmail.com - tél: 00 33 (0)9 54 54 40 10 - site : www.ceed-europa.eu
IBAN : FR76 1820 6001 0237 5757 1300 111 - BIC: AGRIFRPP882 -

odebranie children Revel enlèvements BRUNI Kalinka Allemagne Zabczynska KINDESENTZUG RTL enfants conseil européens
rwin Hambura DIVORCE bambini Tinnemann sostrazione France TV Germania Mona przez André dzieci Colombo Beata RAI
abductions Olivier Rabunek Katharina Parlement uprowadzenie niemiecki UE niemiec luna Marinella Lisa ceed-europa Rosa figli
astridPflegefamilie BMFSJKINDERKLAU Kimberly Schulz Berlin Pokrzeptowicz Deutschland Germany ARTE Maria Wakiya RTVA
Diari ZDF Schulz ARD
Hallo Deutschland Andorra Karrer