Tag Archives: Marinella Colombo

015 – Jugendämter: Deutsche EU-Abgeordnete zensieren das Thema in Brüssel

Oline Redaktion Olivier Renault – 28 März 2014, 14:56 –
STIMME RUSSLANDS

Die Eltern und Opfer der Jugendämter haben von Philippe Boulland, EU-Mitglied der EVP-Fraktion, am 26. Februar per E-Mail eine Einladung erhalten, damit sie ihre Fälle im Petitionsausschuss am 1. April 2014 in Brüssel schildern.

Die Einladung des EU-Mitgliedes klang ernsthaft. Philippe Boulland betonte, dass alles gemacht werden sollte, damit die Medien informiert werden und damit Druck auf die Politik ausgeübt wird:
Ich schreibe, um Sie über die folgende Information, die für Sie am wichtigsten ist, zu benachrichtigen. Ich bat, bei der letzten Sitzung des Petitionsausschusses am 1. April über die Jugendwohlfahrt in Deutschland zu sprechen. Benachrichtigen Sie alle Medien, damit die an diesem Tag ins Parlament kommen, so dass wir den gesamten Druck auf die heutigen europäischen Behörden ausüben können. Bitte, kommen Sie zu diesem Treffen und bringen Sie ihre ganze Erfahrung und Analyse mit.

Im Jahr 2012 nahmen die Jugendämter mehr als 40.000 Kinder und Jugendliche in Obhut. Jedes vierte Kind hatte keine deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit. Die Tendenz ist steigend.
Am 20. März erfahren die Opfer des Jugendamtes und der deutschen Familienpolitik, dass der Termin vom 1. April storniert wurde.

Inobhutnahmen auf neuem Höchststand.
Die FAZ veröffentlichte im August 2013 einen brisante Information zu den Zahlen der Kinder, die in Obhut genommen werden. Unter dem Titel “Inobhutnahmen erreichen 2012 neuen Höchststand” erfahren wir, dass immer häufiger Kinder in die Obhut von Jugendämtern gegeben werden. Der Autor Peter-Philipp Schmitt schrieb:
Oft sind die Eltern überfordert, in anderen Fällen sind Beziehungsprobleme die Ursache. Die Zahl der sogenannten Inobhutnahmen ist 2012 in Deutschland auf einen neuen Höchststand gestiegen.
Im vergangenen Jahr nahmen die Jugendämter erstmals mehr als 40.000 Kinder und Jugendliche in Obhut, da sich die Minderjährigen in einer sie akut gefährdenden Situation befanden. Wie das Statistische Bundesamt in Wiesbaden am Mittwoch mitteilte, stieg die Zahl innerhalb eines Jahrs um fünf Prozent (1.746) von 38.481 auf 40.227.
Noch vor wenigen Jahren lag die Zahl unter 30.000. Gegenüber 2007 (28.192) ist sie damit um 43 Prozent gestiegen. Während 2007 aber noch wesentlich mehr Mädchen (15.442) als Jungen (12.750) in Obhut genommen wurden, waren es im vergangenen Jahr nahezu gleich viele Mädchen (20.062) und Jungen (20.165). Jedes vierte Kind hatte keine deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit.

EU-Opfer mit den Deutschen bei einer Pressekonferenz.
Die deutschen Abgeordneten Peter Jahr und Rainer Wieland vom Petitionsausschuss haben den Termin am 1. April storniert.
Begründung : “So viele Petitionen waren auf der Tagesordnung. Man hat gesagt, weil so viele Petitionen zum Jugendamt diskutiert worden sind, wollen wir Petitionen haben, die noch nicht besprochen sind. Wir wollten Petitionen zum Jugendamt haben, die noch nicht bearbeitet waren.

Eine italienische Quelle widerspricht der Argumentation der deutschen Abteilung: “Es stimmt nicht! Dieselbe Liste der Petitionen ist bei dem letzten Termin von denen erörtert worden.”

Philippe Boulland sei nicht von seinen Kollegen über die Stornierung informiert worden: “Wir waren auf einer Reise nach Madagaskar, als die den Termin abgesagt haben.

Italiener mit dem Verein von Marinella Colombo C.S.IN.ONLUS, Franzosen, Polen mit www.dyskryminacja.de und andere Eltern aus anderen Ländern wollen eine Pressekonferenz und Erklärungen bekommen.

Laut einer italienischen Quelle wird am 1. April im Raum PHS 0A50 im Europäischen Parlament in Brüssel um 15 Uhr zu einer Pressekonferenz staatfinden.

Quelle:
Text Olivier Renault – „Stimme Russlands” –
E-Mail: post-de@ruvr.ru Stimme Russlands

© 2005—2016 Russische Staatliche Rundfunkgesellschaft STIMME RUSSLANDS
Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Bei voller oder teilweiser Wiedergabe des Materials ist ein Hinweis auf die STIMME RUSSLANDS obligatorisch (im Internet – Link).

Andere Artikel zum Thema:

www.archeviva.com

Advertisements

008 – European Parliament – Committee on Petition – “Beistandschaft of the Jugendamt”

The petition against the German administrative measure of the BEISTANDSCHAFT (pronounce: “By-Staand-Tschaaft”) of the JUGENDAMT – an 11 pages document – was written by me, together with some other members of my organization CEED  (Conseil Européen des Enfants du Divorce). CEED is an organization that gathers numerous parents of various nationalities, who all lost their rights, their children, their money, and finally their dignity and liberty, as an unwitting contribution, to the economic welfare of the limited liability company “Germany” (the so called Economic German BUND lead by Wolfgang Schäuble).

The Beistandschaft is the key instrument used by a German local political entity -the JUGENDAMT (pronounce: ‘You-Guenn-Taamt’) – to hedge secretly, in advance and definitely, the final outcome of ANY procedure of German family law.

As my petition was introduced to the European Parliament, the German Government launched a european wide campaign of diffemation, criminalization and persecution, which brought me for 4 years in jail.

Many others were assaulted and threatened heavily (Meike Langenhan – D, Konstantin Theocharidis – GR, Rebecca Saruhan – TUR, Dr Luc Gigou – F, Joumana Gebara – LBN, Dr Jean-Paul Pennera – F and many others), condemned to pay fines (Beata Pokrzeptowicz – PL) or even jailed (Kimberly Hines – US, Lionel Gilberti – F, Silvia Kalina – D, Dr Marinella Colombo – ) for short time.

A political process was hold on purpose in the dependent “Gau-Region” Italy (lead at this time by Merkel’s gouverneur Premier Mario Monti) to declare CEED a criminal organization, to make ineffective (for us) any legal mean of defense, to avoid any publicity and, last but not least, to allow the Germans to keep on their terrific angelic immaculacy; In facts, not the German Governement did condemned us, but the Europeans themselves. They legalized this way an arbitrarian, ultra nationalistic and highly discriminatory German administrative measure and made it jurisprudency for the entire European Union. 

Following parlamentary work was then promoted by Dr Marinella Colombo (Milan) who was confronted with a lot a difficulties and threats to circumvent german hostility.

Olivier Karrer
CEED Paris

Please see my conclusions below, following these 3 Parlamentary questions raised by italian representatives and the 3 answers given by the European Commission to the topic (the first answer is available only in french).


eu_vignette_parlement2 Parliamentary questions – QUESTION 1
28 June 2013
Question for written answer to the Commission – Rule 117

Patrizia Toia (S&D) , Roberta Angelilli (PPE) , Cristiana Muscardini (ECR) , Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) , Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE) , Oreste Rossi (PPE)

Subject:  Germany’s Jugendamt (child welfare office) and its ‘Beistandschaft’ administrative measure
In Germany, part of the Jugendamt’s everyday work involves issuing administrative measures known as ‘Beistandschaft’. These consist in the main of bringing a default action against a parent, who is often not a German citizen and not resident in Germany, for maintenance payments for the child living with the other parent in Germany. This can often happen even before a judicial ruling gives it legality.

In essence the Jugendamt, having advanced a sum of money that it has itself decided is suitable to the parent that is de facto living with the child, then applies to the other parent for repayment of this amount, relying in so doing on its prerogative and enforceable powers as a public body.

There is no right of appeal against the ‘Beistandschaft’. It is decided upon without a hearing and it is often vitiated by a failure to notify the party concerned, who only learns of its existence some considerable time later when the sums involved are deducted under an attachment of earnings.

Having duly verified the German laws concerned, could the Commission answer the following:
Does it believe the ‘Beistandschaft’ administrative measure is compatible with European Union law

Does it believe that an administrative measure without a hearing, such as the ‘Beistandschaft’, in which a public body such as the Jugendamt stands in the place of one party against the other, is compatible with Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, which provides that a decision given is recognised in another Member State without any special procedure being required and is therefore immediately enforceable?

Does it believe that an administrative measure that does not allow for any form of appeal, such as the ‘Beistandschaft’, issued by a public body such as the Jugendamt, is contrary to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008?

Original language of question: IT OJ C 56 E, 27/02/2014
Questions parlementaires – REPONSE 1
20 août 2013
Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission
Les Honorables Parlementaires interrogent la Commission sur la compatibilité du Beistandschaft avec le droit de l’Union européenne. Selon les informations dont dispose la Commission, le Beistandschaft en matière d’obligations alimentaires désigne le pouvoir donné au Jugendamt (service d’aide à la jeunesse) d’agir en tant que conseiller juridique de l’enfant en ce domaine.

La Commission souligne que la détermination d’une créance alimentaire ou de prestations versées à titre d’aliments, l’organisation interne d’un État membre pour allouer des aliments, la définition des pouvoirs du Jugendamt pour assister un enfant en matière alimentaire ou son droit d’agir en remboursement des prestations fournies à titre d’aliments relèvent du droit national. L’exercice de ces pouvoirs ne relève pas de la mise en œuvre du droit de l’Union européenne.

La Commission n’est donc pas en mesure d’en évaluer la compatibilité avec le droit de l’Union européenne.

Par ailleurs, les Honorables Parlementaires souhaitent connaître l’avis de la Commission quant à la compatibilité d’une décision prise par le Jugendamt dans le cadre de ses pouvoirs de Beistandschaft en matière d’obligations alimentaires avec les articles 17 et 19 du règlement (CE) no 4/2009 (le règlement «aliments»).
À cet égard, la Commission précise que le Jugendamt n’est pas assimilé à une juridiction au sens du règlement «aliments».
Dès lors, à supposer qu’il puisse prendre des «décisions unilatérales», celles-ci ne bénéficieraient pas des règles prévues par le règlement «aliments» en matière de reconnaissance et d’exécution, en particulier de l’abolition de l’exequatur (article 17) et de la procédure de réexamen (article 19).

JO C 56 E du 27/02/2014
eu_vignette_parlement2 Parliamentary questions – QUESTION 2
14 October 2013
Question for written answer to the Commission – Rule 117

Cristiana Muscardini (ECR) , Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE) , Roberta Angelilli (PPE) , Patrizia Toia (S&D) , Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) , Oreste Rossi (PPE)

Subject:  The German ‘Jugendamt’ (child welfare office) and the ‘Beistandschaft’
In its answer to Question E-007711/2013, the Commission states that ‘[t]he exercise of these powers does not form part of the application of European Union law and the Commission is therefore not able to assess its compatibility with EC law’, but it is common knowledge that there are EU instruments, such as Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008, that are concerned with precisely these issues, so there clearly is competence in this sphere. The Commission’s statement highlights an unacceptable paradox. Could the Commission provide definitive clarification on whether, in its view, the EU institutions do not in fact have any jurisdiction on the said subjects, particularly where fundamental rights are being infringed, and where these are protected in other EU countries?

In its answer, the Commission says ‘assuming that it [the Jugendamt] may take unilateral decisions’. We would therefore like to make it clear that the article of law concerning Beistandschaft provisions stipulates that such a provision shall be issued only at the request of the parent who is with the child (whether in the absence of, in accordance with or in contravention of a custody ruling) on German territory and without any kind of consultation with the other parent (from whom, not infrequently, the child has been abducted) and, in addition, provides that the provision shall be immediately enforceable. We therefore ask for the Commission to confirm that Beistandschaft provisions may be characterised as unilateral decisions.

In its answer, the Commission also states that ‘the Jugendamt is not equivalent to a court within the meaning of the said regulation; therefore, since it may take unilateral decisions, these decisions are not covered by the rules laid down in the regulation on maintenance obligations regarding recognition or enforcement, and in particular the abolition of exequatur (Article 17) and the review procedure (Article 19)’. In view of this, could the Commission explain whether I have correctly understood that the decisions of the Jugendamt referred to as Beistandschaft provisions, and the orders issued by the family court which transpose them to the letter, are not subject to the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 and thus, specifically, do not benefit from the abolition of exequatur or the abolition of the review procedure, referred to in Articles 17 and 19 of the regulation, and therefore must and can be reviewed by the national courts?

Original language of question: IT OJ C 218, 10/07/2014
Parliamentary questions – RESPONSE 2
11 December 2013
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
With regard to the legal advisership (Beistandschaft) granted to the German Youth Welfare (Jugendamt), the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Members to its replies to the written questions E-007539/2012 and E-003342/2013.

In addition, the Commission would like to specify that the regulation (EC) No 4/2009(1) and its rules abolishing the exequatur and providing for a review procedure apply only to court decisions, courts settlements or authentic instruments, relating to maintenance obligations. Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 does not concern measures granting the Jugendamt powers of Beistandschaft.

As far as maintenance matters are concerned, the Commission would like to emphasise that in general, a court decision, a court settlement or an authentic instrument, including a maintenance arrangement concluded with administrative authorities or authenticated by them, which meets the conditions set forth under the regulation (EC) No 4/2009 shall benefit, in another Member State, from the abolition of exequatur provided by that regulation.

It is also important to inform the Honourable Members that as a general rule, a public body of a Member State, which under its national law has the right to act in place of an individual to whom maintenance is owed or to seek reimbursement of benefits provided to the creditor in place of maintenance, may claim enforcement in another Member State, without prior exequatur, of a court decision given against a debtor on the application of the public body or of a court decision given between a creditor and a debtor to the extent of the benefits provided to the creditor in place of maintenance.

Finally, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Members to its reply to the Written Question E-011669/2013.

OJ C 218, 10/07/2014
eu_vignette_parlement2 Parliamentary questions – QUESTION 3
14 October 2013
Question for written answer to the Commission – Rule 117

Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE) , Cristiana Muscardini (ECR) , Roberta Angelilli (PPE) , Patrizia Toia (S&D) , Erminia Mazzoni (PPE) , Oreste Rossi (PPE)

Subject:  The ‘Beistandschaft’ of the ‘Jugendamt’ (child welfare office)
In its answer to Written Question E-007711/2013 dated 20 August 2013, the Commission referred to ‘information available to the Commission’.

Could it state exactly what the information available to the Commission consists of? Is this information solely from Germany, the country whose provisions are being challenged?

Has the Commission checked the articles of the German Code quoted in the Beistandschaft petition, which was declared admissible in November 2012 and given reference number 0979-2012?

In the abovementioned answer, the Commission stated that the Jugendamt acts ‘as legal adviser to the minor’.

Could it clarify how this description of ‘legal adviser’ should be understood, and to what extent a minor is ‘legally advised’ to act against his or her own parent to receive money?

What is the explanation for the ‘legal adviser’ obtaining advances of maintenance payments through the Federal State, even before the relevant court has ruled on custody?

How can this role be reconciled with the prohibition on those who are not legal experts exercising the role of legal adviser, and particularly when they are employees of the Jugendamt?

Original language of question: IT OJ C 218, 10/07/2014
Parliamentary questions – RESPONSE 3
11 December 2013
Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission
The Commission would like to assure the Honourable Members that it has carefully examined the relevant pieces of legislation related to the Written Question E-007711/2013 and the petition 00979/2012, referred to in the question.

In this regard, the Commission takes this opportunity to specify that the tasks of the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) as legal adviser (Beistand) of a child in maintenance matters are to be understood within the meaning of the German national law i.e. Section 1712 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

In addition, the Commission would like to emphasise that in the area of child maintenance, its main objective is to promote the swift recovery of child maintenance in cross-border cases within the European Union. However, it remains the responsibility of Member States to develop specific schemes so as to provide children in need with financial or legal assistance in maintenance matters. That internal organisation remains a matter of national law. In particular, the right of a public body to act in place of an individual to whom maintenance is owed or to seek reimbursement of benefits provided to the creditor in place of maintenance is governed by the law to which the body is subject.

Finally, for the sake of completeness, the Commission would signal that, according to the information available, German law provides that in case of disputes relating to maintenance matters, the maintenance issue is to be determined by a court and not by the Jugendamt.

OJ C 218, 10/07/2014

My conclusions:
The exchange of questions and responses between italian representatives and the European Commission makes me understand two points:
1.
The questions raised  were limited to one sole aspect of  the Beistanschaf: the request of advances of maintenance payments. Nevertheless, the impact of the Beistandschaft on German legal procedures in family matter and its transnational application within the EU is much much broader. Non-German representatives are not aware of what is really the Beistandschaft, nor understand the terrific consequences it will have – in a couple of decades – , once applied automatically in combination with the (EC) regulations (2201/2003, 4/2009 and 650/2012) in all non-German jurisdictions (hundreds of billions of euros will be then transfered to Germany without any legal mean for the non-German states to hinder these obligatory withdrawals).
2.
German officials did not tell all the truth to the Commission. They hid deliberately the central aspect of HOW and WHAT FOR the Beistandschaft is implemented. They kept silent its function to introduce secretly, BEFORE the legal procedure, a fait accompli that then never can be contested. This for a single reason: It doesn’t exist a legal way, nor a legal mean to oppose a Beistandschaft of the Jugendamt (even if German lawyers pretend the opposite), this means, with other words, to get fair justice in Germany.

But what is the function of the Beistandschaft, at all?
To say it very shortly, the Beistandschaft undermines systematically the effectivness of ANY legal procedure for ONE of both parents (the Non-German) in combination with an other hidden measure – the so called Verfahrenspflegschaft – . It allows the Jugendamt to place the chosen parent (the German one) under its legal protection (trusteeship), in  order to access to the “financial” part of his parental rights towards his minor (Vermögenssorge) – which is placed himself under the “financial” care (wardschip) of the Jugendamt (more precisely of the “Bundesland”) -, this all to entitle the Jugendamt to assert these financial parental (part)rights, acting as the German State against the other parent (the Non-German).
With other words, custodian and visiting parents are already chosen administratively – unilaterally and arbitrarily – before any Court procedure has initiated. The function of the Court will be then reduced to a materialization of the fait accompli and a legalization of the political decision (the one made by the Jugendamt that implemented a Beistandschaft), through the effect of legal procedures.
The “German” parent must cooperate – even as an unwilling instrument – against his former partner (the Non-German), in order to exclude him from any contact to the minor child. A non cooperation could imply for him, to set his own parental rights at risk (to loose his own child to the Jugendamt).

Let me conclude in a metaforic way; the German family justice is a “double decker justice”:
On the first floor there is the Jugendamt, that guides and decides alone the destination to reach, the way to take (a short or a long way accordingly to the patrimony available by the non-German) and how much will be the fare to pay.
On the second floor there is the judge. At any station (at any hearing) a new passenger get on board and is directed straight to the second floor: sollicitors, ‘Verfahrenspfleger’, ‘Umgangspfleger’, expert in German ‘Kindeswohl’ matters (Gutachter).
Once boarded, all these people won’t leave the bus before the final destination is reached, with other words, before the political decision made by the Jugendamt through the Beistandschaft will have been implemented in irreversible facts.
Non-German lawyers, politicians, parents, the European Parliament, the Commission or even the ECHR, never see the first floor of this double decker. This is the key problem.

However I will publish an extended feuillet universitaire in english on this topic.
A draft of all effects of the Beistandschaft is published in french as a 007 document.

Olivier Karrer
CEED – Paris

006- La vera vergogna è un’altra

PART I
I nostri governi non-tedeschi hanno ratificato regolamenti europei, senza conoscere né lo scopo reale (apertamente criminale), né gli strumenti reali (jugendamt, beistandschaft, verfahrenspflegschaft) della giurisdizione famigliare di un BUND (un’UNIONE) tedesco, che non si è costituto “Stato”, né ha ratificato un trattato di pace con i suoi ‘partner”. Si sono fidati.

Da allora le nostre amministrazioni applicano gentilmente, in modo ceco, gli ordini dello Jugendamt (si pronuncia: You-Ghèn-Tamt), ossia di un ente politico e amministrativo che sfrutta i tribunali tedeschi per ‘legalizzare’ decisioni politiche e nazionalistiche prese sottobanco e rese inattaccabili, che sfrutta le autorità straniere per legittimare e legalizzare tali decisioni, come anche le istituzioni europee sotto forte influenza delle lobbies tedesche (PE, CE, CEDU, ecc), e in fine che sfrutta la buona fede dei politici non-tedeschi, che si mostrano non soltanto INGENUI, ma che in primo grado mettono a rischio la libertà e i diritti del loro proprio paese, legittimando cosi la normativa economica del BUND tedesco – la legge FONDAMENTALE o ‘Grundgesetz’ – come legge SOVRA-COSTITUZIONALE, applicabile a tutti gli altri paesi del grande “BUND” tedesco, l’UNIONE Europea.

Quanti sono i magistrati, i giuristi o i politici non-tedeschi che potrebbero spiegare perché NON ESISTE NESSUN MODO DI FARE RICORSO contro le decisioni segrete rese nella giurisdizione dello Jugendamt (oggi direttamente eseguibili in Italia), né con strumenti legali, né con strumenti POLITICI (perché lo Jugendamt non dipende della responsabilità del BUND tedesco, cioè del governo di Berlino col quale i trattati sono stati ratificati, ma dei 16 stati tedeschi costituiti, i cosiddetti “Land’ o ‘Länder’), NE NELLA GIURISDIZIONE TEDESCA stessa, NE NELLE GIURISDIZIONI NON-TEDESCHE, NEANCHE di fronte alla CEDU o al Parlamento Europeo; quanti sono?

Noi, i pochi che sono stati perseguitati dal governo italiano per conto della Repubblica di Baviera, rappresentata all’estero dal BUND tedesco, sappiamo benissimo ciò che hanno ratificato i nostri politici (in particolare Franco Frattini in qualità di Commissario degli Affari di Giustizia a Bruxelles). Hanno sottoposto l’UE al controllo della Germania e, in materia famigliare, hanno ridotto i tribunali e le polizie non-tedesche a semplici organi di esecuzione dello Jugendamt.

I loro giuristi (non-tedeschi) – quelli della Commissione – non erano in grado di capire il doppio senso dei termini tedeschi, né di CONTROLLARE mediante i FATTI la funzione economica della giustizia tedesca. Non si sono accorti che la “Legge tedesca equa e non discriminatoria”che i Tedeschi hanno venduto loro, non poteva essere altro che un tessuto di MENZOGNE di legalità tedesca, quando dietro ogni tribunale si trova lo Jugendamt. Hanno ingenuamente creduto alle favole dei responsabili politici tedeschi, quando avrebbero dovuto VERIFICARE.

Ma questi politici, si sono dimenticati cosi velocemente della loro storia ? Non c’è in Italia uno che alcuni anni fa si era fidato in modo ceco della genialità delle favole tedesche? Non debbono rendere conto?

PART II
In questa vicenda molto preoccupante, quella della Dott.ssa Colombo, una vicenda che assomiglia a decine di migliaia di altre vicende simili che si svolgono ogni anno di nascosto, nel BUIO della giurisdizione dello Jugendamt, il peggio è tuttavia tutt’altro: E’ il fatto che la posizione presa dall’allora governo Monti, di collaborare con il Governo tedesco per imporre la criminalità istituzionale tedesca in Italia, sembra prolungarsi anche col Governo di Matteo Renzi. Non si capisce veramente il perché.

Infatti, nel frattempo dovrebbe essere diventato chiaro a tutti i politici italiani, che lo Jugendamt tedesco non ha altro scopo che di sfruttare in modo subdolo la Giustizia civile e penale tedesca ed europea (Eurojust, Europol), i regolamenti europei e l’ingenuità dei Governi non-tedeschi, per accaparrarsi i figli di tutti i non-tedeschi, trattenerli nel “territorio economico riunificato” (art. 133 della Grundgesetz – la Germania attuale con una sua sovranità ristretta alla sola gestione dei suoi affari economici) affinché la loro forza lavoro, quella dei loro genitori, le loro ricchezze, il loro patrimonio e infine la loro eredità rimangano per sempre lì.

In poche parole il suo ruolo è di sfruttare gli strumenti giuridici e giudiziari per rubare ‘deutsch-legal’ ai non-tedeschi non solo i figli e le ricchezze che essi producono e produrranno nel futuro, ma anche i diritti fondamentali e le LIBERTA’ di tutti coloro che non appartengono al VOLK (popolo) tedesco e si rifiutano di soccombere al suo odioso ricatto.

Non si tratta per nulla di EMOZIONI o di diritti umani o del fanciullo. Si tratta di SOLDI, di CENTINAIA di MILIARDI di Euro che la Germania intende incassare nell’abile sfruttamento del soggetto economico minorenne e dei trattati/regolamenti europei.

Lo Jugendamt è uno dei principali enti economici del territorio economico riunificato. E’ a capo delle risorse umane della società a responsabilità limitata ‘Deutschland GmbH’ (un’azienda di 80 milioni di dipendenti – meno 14 milioni di minori). La sua funzione reale è di massimizzare il giro d’affari (=PIL tedesco) attraverso il prodotto “bambino”, con l’aiuto del suo fornitore di servizi “Giustizia famigliare”.

Allo Jugendamt incombe la carica di tenere a disposizione una forza lavoro addestrata oggi e domani, di impedire che quella possa lasciare la sua economia, di reclutare giovani donne (grembi) e giovani uomini (soldi) all’estero che fisserà nella sua giurisdizione una volta diventati genitori (bambino), di sfruttare in ogni modo il bambino per estorcere il più possibile di soldi dallo straniero, che sia genitore o Stato non-tedesco.

In questo SISTEMA ‘germanopeo’ le autorità non-tedesche vengono degradate al rango di forze dell’esecuzione dello Jugendamt. PUNTO. Sono esse che vengono a prelevare nei loro paesi i figli dai propri cittadini (regolamento 2201/2003), i soldi del mantenimento (regolamento 4/2009) e l’eredità (regolamento 650/2012) per consegnarli allo Jugendamt. Debbono eseguire: le nostre Repubbliche sono legate dai trattati, ratificati dai politici che non conoscevano il vero piano di pace tedesca per l’Europa.

In quanto, noi cittadini dobbiamo pagare a prezzo caro la loro INGENUITA. Non ci difendono, peggio ci impediscono di difenderci. Forse per coprire la loro responsabilità.

PART III
Oggi, la vera domanda che si pone nella vicenda della Dottoressa Colombo è un’altra.
Visto che non esiste più alcun dubbio nelle fasce politiche europee (in particolare nel Parlamento Europeo) sul fatto che lo JUGENDAMT costituisce un problema molto GRAVE, un pericolo latente per l’UE, si deve adesso sapere come dovrebbero reagire i governi non-tedeschi di fronte a tale criminalità di legalità germanopea.

C’è la possibilità di smettere di credere alle favole di legalità tedesca e di nominare i veri esperti in materia – quelli che sono stati perseguitati dal governo Monti per conto dei Tedeschi – per aver il sapere necessario e affontare i Tedeschi con le loro bugie e i loro tradimenti allo spirito dell’Unione Europea.
Ciò presuppone che il Premier Matteo Renzi e i suoi Ministri della Giustizia e degli Affari Esteri intervengano per invitare la procura di Milano a cooperare nella lotta contro la criminalità tedesca, anziché di imporla in Italia, contro la loro propria Costituzione, in violazione grave dei diritti fondamentali NON-TEDESCHI. Invito tutti quanti che hanno un contatto con Palazzo Chigi o i Ministeri di trasmettere il mio appello.

Ma c’è anche la possibilità di continuare ad ascoltare le favole di legalità tedesca, di dimenticarsi della storia recente, di costruire un’Europa tedesca, la Repubblica Economica Germanopea (art. 146 della Grundgesetz), di mettere i propri tribunali famigliari e le proprie forze di polizia a disposizione dello Jugendamt in Italia, di lasciare mano libera alla procura di Milano di perseguitare la Dottoressa Colombo per conto dei Tedeschi, impendendole di lasciare il territorio italiano per esporre presso il Parlamento Europeo le numerose tecniche di dissimulazione dello Jugendamt, sconosciute ai giuristi non-tedeschi (come per esempio la Beistandschaft o la Verfahrenspflegschaft) e che si appresta adesso, dopo aver “rubato” illegalmente – in base alle bugie di legalità tedesca – due cittadini minori italiani (i suoi figli), a trasferire il suo patrimonio (il suo appartamento già pignorato) alla Germania.

Possiamo accettare questa giustizia tedesca in Italia, in Europa?
Questa sarebbe la vera vergogna.

Olivier Karrer
CEED – Paris
Ottobre 2016

Don’t like! Just share it!

004- EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Committee on Petitions and the shadow overparent JUGENDAMT (You-Guenn-Taamt)

Dears friends,

Since years we have been trying to get political support from non-german governements and non-German institutions, specifically from the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, to focus international public attention on the activities of the German JUGENDAMT (pronounce: You-Guenn-Taamt).

The JUGENDAMT is a non democratic, nationalistic, political entity, which is hostile to the principles of a non-German Europe. It’s purpose is to guide secretly any german law procedures, in order to set children under German political control, to keep your labor force (yours and this of your children), your ressources, your patrimony and finally your legacy in Germany.

Heavily persecuted by German administration, we managed finally with lot of difficulties to convince the European Parliament – in the third legislature – to investigate on the matter. Unfortunately the German representatives try once more  to impede any democratic investigation.

Therefore I beg you to help us – and help yourself doing so – to put pressure on the committee of petition (PETI), using a modern democratic weapon, mail bombing, to convince all non-German representatives to investigate on the topic, even if it does displease to their German colleagues.

Please read, copy and SEND per email following LETTER to all non-German representatives of the PETI committee.
(the list of email addresses is at the bottom of this letter)

Olivier Karrer
Paris

—————-
HEADER: Jugendamt – Hearing of the experts by the “working group”

Dear Sir, Dear Madam,

Please allow me to address myself to you, as an European citizen and voter. Since decades too many of us, parents, have been struggling against a German family SYSTEM, placed under the close control of the JUGENDAMT (pronounce: ‘You-Guenn-Taamt’). We had to face an omnipotent political system, which did not leave us the least chance to get equity, justice or liberty.

Those of us, who have stood up and opposed this system, like i.e. Mr. Olivier Karrer and Mrs. Dr Marinella Colombo, have been persecuted and condemned. They were jailed to put them to silence. Notwithstanding the problem has remained. As shown by the hundreds of petitions sent to the European Parliament, which remained in suffering.

The Committee on Petitions (PETI ) of the European Parliament has decided to establish a “Working Group” on this issue. This one should meet experts to understand plainly the basics of a system and the billions of Euros that are at stake.

Nonetheless, the few non-german experts on the topic are precisly those parents who have been persecuted. Their knowledge is the very reason of their harassement by German authorities.

This working group decided time ago, that Dr MARINELLA COLOMBO should be one of these experts. After political pressure from German side, it seems that it has renounced to investigate further and refuses to invite her for a hearing.

Under such circumstances, how should you, as a non-German representative, understand the JUGENDAMT system, if the few people able to explain its multiple hidden proceedings, will be put a second time to silence? This is why I address myself to you.

German administration should not longer build on the ignorance of their non-German counterparts to pretend a sovereignty in family law matter, when the arbitrarian and nationalistic decisions of its JUGENDAMT have a direct impact over EC regulations 2201/2003, 4/2009 and 650/2012 in the non-German jurisdictions.

I kindly urge you, Dear Sir, Dear Madam, to support a hearing of Dr MARINELLA COLOMBO within the above mentioned Working Group. Even if this could displease to your German colleagues.

Waiting forward to get your confimation,
I remain with kind regards,YOUR PLACE:
YOUR NAME:

————–

LIST OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PETITION OF THE EU PARLIAMENT marco.affronte@europarl.europa.eu; laura.agea@europarl.europa.eu; tim.aker@europarl.europa.eu; marina.albiol@europarl.europa.eu; margrete.auken@europarl.europa.eu; beatriz.becerra@europarl.europa.eu; heinzk.becker@europarl.europa.eu; mara.bizzotto@europarl.europa.eu; soledad.cabezonruiz@europarl.europa.eu; enrique.calvetchambon@europarl.europa.eu; alberto.cirio@europarl.europa.eu; andrea.cozzolino@europarl.europa.eu; pal.csaky@europarl.europa.eu; miriam.dalli@europarl.europa.eu; rosa.estaras@europarl.europa.eu; eleonora.evi@europarl.europa.eu; elisabetta.gardini@europarl.europa.eu; lidiajoanna.geringerdeoedenberg@europarl.europa.eu; michela.giuffrida@europarl.europa.eu; sylvie.goddyn@europarl.europa.eu; takis.hadjigeorgiou@europarl.europa.eu; daniel.hannan@europarl.europa.eu; marian.harkin@europarl.europa.eu; anja.hazekamp@europarl.europa.eu; gyorgy.holvenyi@europarl.europa.eu; carlos.iturgaiz@europarl.europa.eu; peter.jahr@europarl.europa.eu; rikke.karlsson@europarl.europa.eu; jude.kirton-darling@europarl.europa.eu; urszula.krupa@europarl.europa.eu; kostadinka.kuneva@europarl.europa.eu; miltiadis.kyrkos@europarl.europa.eu; svetoslav.malinov@europarl.europa.eu; notis.marias@europarl.europa.eu; edouard.martin@europarl.europa.eu; roberta.metsola@europarl.europa.eu; marlene.mizzi@europarl.europa.eu; jozsef.nagy@europarl.europa.eu; javier.nart@europarl.europa.eu; victor.negrescu@europarl.europa.eu; victor.negrescu-office@europarl.europa.eu; demetris.papadakis@europarl.europa.eu; julia.pitera@europarl.europa.eu; gabriele.preuss@europarl.europa.eu; laurentiu.rebega@europarl.europa.eu; julia.reda@europarl.europa.eu; michele.rivasi@europarl.europa.eu; sofia.sakorafa@europarl.europa.eu; sven.schulze@europarl.europa.eu; josep-maria.terricabras@europarl.europa.eu; eleni.theocharous@europarl.europa.eu; laszlo.tokes@europarl.europa.eu; yana.toom@europarl.europa.eu; elena.valenciano@europarl.europa.eu;

Please think to send this letter to your contact list, so that they could help us in their turn. Thanks