Zurück Menü

Albtraum: Gerichtliches Betreuungsverfahren und die Folgen.  Deutschlands erfolgreichste Mobbingmethode mit Staatshilfe.
Gesetzesänderungen sind hier dringend notwendig
Ab 10.01.2012 online: www.gerichtlichesbetreuungsverfahren.de
Wie aus einer Mücke ein Elefant wurde ! - Mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schießen! (AG Lörrach)
Wie Nachbarin-X, Polizei, Amtsgericht, Staatsanwaltschaft u.a. mich in den Tod treiben dürfen!

Startseite - Home
Polizeirevier Weil
Beteiligte Polizisten
Keine Antwort
Ereignisse 2023
Ereignisse 2022
Ereignisse 2021
Ereignisse 2020
Ereignisse 2019 ab 7
Ereignisse 2019
Ereignisse 2018 ab 7
Ereignisse 2018 bis 6
Ereignisse 2017 ab 7
Ereignisse 2017 bis 6
Ereignisse 2016 ab 7
Ereignisse 2016 bis 6
Ereignisse 2015
Ereignisse 2014
Ereignisse 2013
Ereignisse 2012
Ereignisse 2011
Ereignisse 2010
Ereignisse 2009
Lebenshilfe e.V.
Falsche Verdächtigung
Aktenberg !!!
Landratsamt  Bau
Landratsamt Sozial
Europ. Gerichtshof
European Court
Nachbar X
Nachbarn X
Einzelpetition 2013
Prozessbetrug ?
Keine Zeugen
Betreuung für ...
"psychisch krank"
Heile Welt !!??
Staatl. Informationen
Weinende Justitia

For the European Court

Part 6 (Attachments L, 6, 7)

Attachment L

Gertrud Moser,................. Binzen, Tel. 076...............


Municipal administration Binzen

79589 Binzen
District Office Lörrach
Construction law and commercial
Palmstraße 3
79539 Lörrach


Public parking situation in the Johann-Peter-Hebel-Str. No. 1 to 10

Direct and indirect file numbers (not completely)

1030-10-03 192-10-03  21-0532.3-10 / 428-E
184-09-03 1030-10-03  691-09-03/632.6
692-09-03 092.3  3.5.2012 without CFN of District Administrator

Dear Madam or Sir,

In July 2009, I have raised because of the new building of the builders x and y Nachbarn-X,........(address) , objections due to possible lack of parking spaces. And I have also asked whether the existing commercial Nachbar-X is allowed.

Instead of answering in writing to me a letters, I was unfortunately invited to a personal discussion, in which I, among others it was recommended that my opposition to withdraw. That is what I did.

In retrospect, I think it's an impertinence from the District Office, the procedure was against me.

I withdrew the contradiction without sufficient informations. I did not know that a large tax consulting company moves in and thus to an increased volume of traffic and availability of public parking in the Johann-Peter-Hebel-Street leads. In order for the redemption of my opposition is ineffective.

It was also distracted from the actual problem.

On my instructions to not be permissible commercial was not followed. Only when I hired a lawyer, the District Office pretended to have no knowledge of the commercial. I had thus unnecessary legal costs that were not reimbursed me until today.

This may be impossible because the mayor of Binzen also knew of the commercial and was in correspondence with involved.
The company Nachbarn-X has also least once involved in Binzener crafts exhibition in the spring.

Following Problems have been created:
1. Increased Traffic
  The volume of traffic in the above part of the Johann-Peter-Hebel-Street was from around 2005 through 2010 largely due to the trade of Nachbar-X.
After completion of the new a tax consulting firm drew with relatively many employees inside and customers. Thereby the level of traffic increased in the residential area.

A few years ago the practice of the family doctors of Binzen moved from another Road into the building of the senior home, official Hauptstr. No. 2,
factually Johann-Peter Hebel-Str. 2. This also increased the traffic, but I don't want to criticize, because a general practice is an important positive part of a community.


2. Occupation of public parking places
mainly through family Nachbarn-X
a) Unfair parking regulations for House No. 8

Even before the creation of the new building was laid down that the tax consulting firm ...x.................. moves in. Thus, it was known that the number of employees and the number of clients is relatively high. Accordingly, there parking place requirements. Officially it was a residential building with office for a free professional. Then there would be additional parking spaces for the residential building.

Around the house a special, reasonably solid gravel was applied and planted trees. There are no parking markers. So then sometimes park each 3 cars behind each other in two rows, which is very inconvenient if the front 4 cars ready to take off in a hurry. More 2-3 parking places can be used directly from the street, but are uncomfortable because of this gravel covering.

Therefore, some employees park regularly on the border of my property. So during business hours possible visitors for me cannot use these parking spaces.
The next parking places are in another street.

b) Unfair parking regulations for House No. ...... (x and y Nachbarn-X)
They own 3 or 4 cars and a camper.
The only parking place is no longer used by a wooden porch.

The cars and the Caravan of house no. ....... are mostly parked on the property no. ....... or directly on the street on public spaces, sometimes in house no. ........

Some time ago, there was a shortly parking visitor from me at the entrance of house no. ...... Nachbar-X pointed out to him that he has parked wrongly. This has once again showed me that family Nachbarn-X any consideration refuses to me. But from me they expect very much consideration since 2005. And they still charged me to with false statements to the police, the public prosecutors and the civil courts.

Therefore, the following problem solutions would be possible:


  1) Nachbar-X would be forced to remove the wood building, so he can regulary use one place for a parking car. Then nobody is allowed to park in front of it.
  2) I get an approval from the municipality or the District Office that about once a month my park potential visitors may use this parking place when the other remaining spaces are occupied by tenants, customers or em-ployees of the tax office.
This right I would probably take very rarely claim.
c) Unfair parking regulations for House No. ....
(Nachbarn-X-Block of flats with 3 Apartments)

There is only one parking space beeing used by the apartment building, so that tenants park in public spaces. Earlier, the basement was used for a car of a tenant. But that is a long time ago.

In my objections on 24/09/2010 to a balcony construction and use changes in a "Angrenzerbenachrichtigung" (alert) on 14/09/2010 I have unsuccessfully noted. (Point 4 Far too little parking places for the apartment building Johann-Peter-Hebel-Str. ..... )

d) Parking Place Reality Nr. ...... Family Nachbarn-X Senior)
The two groups are occupied by one or two cars.
Previously, two pitches.
Therefore, there are no objections or issues about "parking place".
3. Similar chicane measures of District Offices in cooperation with the mayor of ...... Binzen towards me
a) Instead of regulate properly the mentioned parking place and the commercial situation I was bullied.
  After my letter of complaint from 08/07/2009 reached the district office Lörrach, the office started a case file act for me. Because i had a private tutoring in small scale i was forced to a second parking place. Also the district office attacked me that my private tutoring is not allowed without a application for change of use for the concering room. In the next time there was an obviously unnecessary correspondence. Result: I don't need a second parking place and i don't need a application for change to use my tutorial room.

Meanwhile my neighbour Nachbar-X could continue his not allowed Commercial with much traffic und occupying puplic parking places.
The Behaviour of he mayor and the Districe office was that they didn't know that a private tutoring is not a commercial. And the ignored the actual existing commercia of my neighbour. I can't believe this.

(New Translation Version for the European Court to understand the Problem or perhaps the corrupt behaviour of the mayor and the district office)

For me it was a bullying behaviour from the District Office,
to distract from the illegal trade and the unjust parking regulations.


b) False statements of Nachbarin-X to the police.

On 08/07/2009 in the morning i brought my letters to the community and the District Office.
In the afternoon Nachbarin-X made their false statements to the police.

While there was further correspondence with the mayor and the District Office, the police report arrived on 14/07/2009 the police at the District Office, probably also at the municipality Binzen and thus to the mayor. But i was not informed about the police report.

From this fact I learned much later on 03/08/2009 during my access to the case files at the district court Lörrach. There I learned that I have got into a judicial declaration of incapacity due to this police report and the forwarding letter from the District Office.

Nachbarin-X told the police a horror story about me so that i get into the judicial incapacity procedure. The resulting police report is, in fact still kept on more years in the so-called care Act or actual in the incapacitation of Act.

Until today I have no rights to counter-evidences, for example, Questioning witnesses. Nachbarin-X has made more false statements and disparaging statements about me over the years. Recently the police and the district office refuses evidences at the Administration Court Freiburg.

c) By the behaviour of the mayor and the District Offices can not be excluded that the forwarding letter from the District Offices had the purpose, a possible incapacitation of me. So they could stop me to uncover the obvious construction and trade law deficiencies.

My Expectation: Detailed reports
1. Parking Place Rules for House No. .... and
the possible change or adjustment to legal requirements.
2. Parking Place Rules for House No. .... and
the possible change or adjustment to legal requirements.
3. Parking Place Rules for House No. .... and
the possible change or adjustment to legal requirements.
4. Parking Place Rules for House No. 2
I don't want the possible change or adjustment to legal requirements.
The existence of a general medical practice is very important for the community.


  Basically I create structured and numbered letter to state institutions. In such cases i got very often a short answer, ignoring the individual points.
This then means that individual concerns no response is given.
I would therefore also a structured reply.

III. Proposal of the District Offices to
Amount of compensation for me,
  because its unjust, illegal and inhumane practices have contributed significantly to the many financial and psychological burden for years.
The community Binzen can take part in it also.

That unfortunately I have chosen wrong, incompetent and fraudulent lawyers, can not be held against me.

In Attachment 1 is a current, incomplete list of expenses incurred by me by the behaviour of family Nachbarn-X, the police, the District Office, the District and Regional Courts, the Prosecutor's Office, the Committee on Petitions BW, the Administrative Court Freiburg and my lawyers.

In Attachment 2 is a donation receipt. In protest against the injustices and multiple false statements of Nachbarin-X I donated the opponent's legal fees and am now i am in a foreclosure process in which I have to pay € 1,740 until 15 Sept. 2016th.

Sincerely (?)
G. Moser

Attachment 6

Gertrud Moser,........................ Binzen, Tel.: 07....................


Gertrud Moser, 79589 Binzen, Johann-Peter-Hebel-Str. 9

Deutscher Bundestag
Sekretariat des Petitionsausschusses
Platz der Republik 1

11011 Berlin


Petition 63006

Dear Madam or Sir,

as you inform me by a letter the above mentioned petition is according to online display in progress.

Unfortunately, the implementation of my desired concern would be just a drop a the bucket.

2012 and 2014, you have denied to public my public petitions and thus the opportunity to vote of others for them. Your reasons were inadequate to me. You mentioned general information about care law (incapacitiy law) so that your are not concerning my arguments.

Meanwhile, i think that perhaps the lawyer and professional caregivers lobby is against im-provements in care law, de facto incapacitation law. Who owns property, the legal guardian must pay by himself. In such cases, lawyers or professional caregivers are employed.

My petitions arose from my personal experiences.

I therefore i point again to my case website:

www.gerichtlichesbetreuungsverfahren.de: Here i show how the lack of the caring law, in fact the incapacitation law, has changed my life radically negative.
With my proposed improvements such case would be never happening.

also i point once again to my second information website:
There I included a lot of information including videos from TV program.

I therefore expect from you that you finally publish the mentioned Petitions in the Attachment and actually work within the meaning of the European Convention of Human Rights.

G. Moser




1. Petition: 53648;

 Pet 4-18-07-312-009146

The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:

Immediate right to witnesses, if there are legal consequences by a police report, which is caused by the statements of a third person.

If a police report causes a judical procedure, then every German court and / or the prosecutor shall immediately take appropriate measures to verify the statements.


2. Petition: Betreuungsrecht: 53655

 Pet 4-18-07-315-009048

The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:

A judicial declaration of incapacity must be canceled or interrupted, if the person in the process indicated that it was initiated as a result of false statements.

 The court then should give priority to conduct an audit of the statements for their truth, as with the help of witnesses. The person concerned shall be granted the rights contained in Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights


6. Petition: 53772

 Pet 4-18-07-312-009150

The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:

The prosecution has to obtain the consent from the person concernd if they want to obtain a medical report from a civil court. This is especially important for the case that the person concerned has lodged a criminal complaint and / or criminal complaint against another person.


7. Petition: 53781

 Pet 4-18-07-4034-009068

The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:

A Court Letter initiating a judicial declaration of incapacity for the person has to be understandable, justified and written in a decent language.

 In addition, the putative legal consequences must be accurately specified and provided with typical examples, for example, Limiting the full legal capacity to the limited capacity, no free choice of residence.


8. Petition: 54960


Right to a public defender during legal incapacitation procedure analogous Criminal Procedure § 140

The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:

Right to a public defender during legal incapacitation procedure analogous Criminal Procedure .
If the potential legal incapacitation can not be detected as a matter of urgency, the person concerned shall be given a reasonable time to find a suitable lawyer.




12/05/2012 1. Petition: Pet 4-17-07-4034-037530
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:

For the proposal and beginning of legal incapacitation procedure there must be procedural requirements.
The person concerned must be informed in advance so that she/he can avoid a trial.

23/05/2012 2. Petition: Betreuungsrecht:  Pet 4-17-07-4034-037254
 The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:

Before and during a legal incapacitation procedure for adults the Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be suitable and compelling adhered.


23/06/2012 3. Petition: Betreuungsrecht: Pet 4-17-07-4034-037530
  = 1. Petition with particulary other arguments.
The German Bundestag may decide a law with the following rights:
For the proposal and beginning of legal incapacitation procedure there must be pro-cedural requirements.
The person concerned must be informed in advance so that she/he can avoid a trial.

Proposed from

Gertrud Moser, x--straße Nr. x, 79589 Binzen, Tel.: ......
Case-Homepage www.gerichtlichesbetreuungsverfahren.de
Information-Homepage www.gerichtliches-betreuungsverfahren.de

Attachment 7

Only the Translation, Copy see German Version

Answer by the German Bundestag

German Bundestag Committee on Petitions

Gertrud Moser
Johann-Peter-Hebel-Str. 9
79589 Binzen

Berlin, July 22, 2016
Reference: your E-mail by July 20, 2016
Unit 4 Pet
Upper Office Employee B............ N...................

Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin
Phone: +49 30 227 -.....
Fax: +49 30 227 -........ before .................. @ bundestag.de

Care Law, actual Incapacity Law
Pet 4-18-07-4034-028795 (Please specify all correspondence)

Dear Ms Moser,

on behalf of the Chairman of the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag I acknowledge receipt of your letter, with which you complaint the non-publication of your petitions from the years 2014 and 2012.

For this I refer to the already present you justifications for the respective refusals. In addition, I would like to discuss further the following:

Even if it is the desire of the Committee on Petitions to provide as many entries to the Internet, it is not possible even in the face of their large numbers, comply with all disclosure requirements. Clarity and focus on the essentials are just in the interests of users and users of our discussion forums.

Thus, the decision to publish according to uniform standards is carried out, the Committee has developed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of its policy for the disclosure of petitions to criteria.

After the procedural principles of the Committee including the "Guidelines for the treatment of public petitions" that you accepted when submitting your petition, with regard to the publication of a rigorous assessment standard is applied. In this context, also pointed out that no legal right to a publication is.

Regarding your current petition for guardianship law under the above Case number you receive as soon as possible further information

Best regards
B.......... N......................

Nach oben European Court 1 European Court 2 European Court 3 European Court 4 European Court 5 European Court 6 European Court 7

Geändert am:   18.01.2024


Startseite:  www.gerichtlichesbetreuungsverfahren.de