But I did preside over quasi-judicial hearings of similar format to the one Jane describes. I can say with confidence that the presiding official here, if the situation is as Jane relates, was serving an interest other than justice.
A presiding official should reach a decision only after having heard Jane for as long as she reasonably needed to present her facts and then having questioned her on them and satisfied himself regarding her credibility. This judge did neither.
If her credibility held up, as reflected in a tape recording of the proceedings, I would have had no option, legally, but to grant her claim. But this reflects the fact that I would have been obliged to act impartially and this judge does not appear to have been impartial, if Jane’s account is to be accepted.
If I had told a claimant that the hearing would last 15 minutes and not to bring documents, that alone would be enough for the Federal Court of Canada to overturn my proceedings. The claimant in my hearing room could not be restricted in this manner prior to having had her day in court.
To introduce a document like an email prior to the claimant having had reasonable time to review it ahead of the proceedings would also be grounds for rendering any decision I reached null and void.
Those two errors in law would alone have been enough to have my decision thrown out and Jane lists many more.
I’m also surprised to hear that the judge would not volunteer that he would be issuing written reasons, which I would have thought would be mandatory. Granted I could give my decision orally in the hearing room, it still would have been recorded and then issued in writing. These would be my written reasons and they would be reviewable by the higher court.
Don’t overlook as well the indications that the judge had made up his mind before he came into the hearing room.
In my hearing room, all words I spoke to the claimant would be recorded so that the Federal Court, which would have reviewed my decision on appeal, could weigh everything about my hearing.
This hearing does not seem to have been recorded. If I spoke a word of consequence to the claimant that was not recorded, again this mistake would be grounds for overturning my decision. I could discuss procedural matters with the claimant off the record but not evidentiary matters.
The Federal Court would listen to this tape and, if it heard indications that I had already made up my mind, they would throw the case out. Keeping in mind that I was not at this hearing and so am only going on Jane’s account, if Jane has communicated it accurately (and the tapes would be the way of deciding that), this hearing appears to have been a travesty of justice.
I love due process of law and this proceeding did not afford Jane due process.
Not a pretty picture.
Kafkaesque interrogation at Vienna court: Are the Baxter charges behind this?
Judges are supposed to make their decisions on the basis of evidence, documents and facts, But in the court Döbling in Vienna, this is clearly not a requirement.
An email from an unknown person appeared to be set to be the basis of the decision to appoint a legal guardian and strip me of all my civil rights at top speed when I went at 10 am this morning to the court in Döbling, Vienna, for my interrogation by judge Dr Hannes Winge.
I was told the interview would probably last only 15 minutes and not to bother bringing any documents along as they were all.
To my surprise, Dr Winge’s first question to me in his spacious office was about an email from a person I had never heard of called „Christina Braun“, writing apparently about my role in the swine flu pandemic.
He clearly wanted to focus on this email from this Christina Braun and seemed intent on appointing a legal guardian for me without delay, even asking me to name a representative. I refused because the whole procedure is not justified by law.
He seemed to have absolutely no knowledge at all or even the slightest interest in the copies of the appeals I had handed in one month ago with documents proving that Judge Michaela Lauer’s reasons for appointing a legal guardian in connection with my Dad’s inheritance were all false even though this should have been the focus of our interview.
A copy lay on his desk. But the pristine pages betrayed that they had come straight out of the photocopy machine and had lain untouched ever since – even though Dr Winge is making such a weighty decision about my future and is supposed to be studying the evidence.
I had to insist that Dr Winge look at the proof, documents, bills, emails and evidence that Judge Lauer is pushing to appoint a legal guardian for me on the basis of false accusations and in order to bury evidence of her corruption.
In the end, I had to spend two hours in the office as I laid out all the evidence to Dr Winge – evidence so strong he could not ignore it. At some point, even the most capricious justice system has to take account of reality.
Dr Winge graciously agreed at the end to look at the files and study the evidence. Foolish me! I had been under the impression the examination of evidence happened before the interview – not after.
He said he would need about a month and would then make his decision about whether to drop the case or not.
I pointed out to him that he would have to give reasons for his decision and that the reasons had to have some basis in facts and that appointing legal guardians etc for me just to silence me is actually a criminal offence.
Instead of a fair hearing , Dr Winge appeared to wish to discuss only an irrelevant email from a person I have never heard of and to move forward to appoint a legal guardian immediately.
That remainds of the fake criminal charges created by the corruption state prosecutor Katja Wallenschewksi out of letters of protest about my persecution by Heiner Lohmann and Christine Cote.
It seems any, „false flag“ email or criminal charges will serve as a happy excuse not to look at the facts at hand and to continue framing me.
I have to ask myself: why is the Austrian government so desperate to silence me? Why do they risk such a scandal to strip me of my rights? Anyone who reads the appeals and criminal charges on the Internet can see that the accusations made against me are trivial or lies.
Being stripped of your civil rights because you allegedly have not done things like pay the insurance of your Dad’s house when you have the bill proving you did — and when it was the job of the Judge Lauer and solicitor Hutz anyway to do this in the first place — is like a black, black comedy. Knowing you could be detained forever because Judge Lauer falsely claims I “made ever new demands for the evaluation of various properties” is like a twist in a Stephen King novel.
What the judge said about me amounts to defamation.
One reason the Austrian government could be so desperate to remove me is because the Council of Europe report by UK MP Paul Flynn on the swine flu pandemic hype is set to be debated in the Austrian parliament, along with all other parliaments in Europe, in the next session. Also, 220 MEPs demanded an investigation into swine flu at the European Parliament, though this has been blocked for now.
Maybe the Austrian govenrment fears that the upcoming debate will highlight once more the incident where 72 kilos of seasonal flu was contaminated by Baxter in February 2009 in Orth an der Donau. Because the deadly bird flu virus has to be kept in a biosecurity level 3 lab, an accidental contamination can be virtually ruled out. The material was sent to 16 labs in four countries. Only an alert lab technician in the Czech Republic detected the virus after testing it on ferrets.
I filed charges against Baxter on April 8th after there was no meaningful investigation by the authorities. A vet was sent to inspect the lab. The state prosecutor did start an investigation which was dropped in September 2009.
Baxter could have sparked a global bird flu pandemic, triggering mass vaccinations, in February 2009. These pandemic vaccinations can even be made compulsory under the pandemic level 6 declaration by WHO.
A few days after I filed charges, the swine flu mysteriously appeared in Mexico.
That the swine flu virus was hyped by WHO and by the pharmaceutical companies for profit has been confirmed, in the meantime, by evidence presented reports by the Council of Europe and studies such as have appeared in the BMJ [British Medical Journal].
It could well be that Baxter and the international corporate crime syndicate that I accused of deliberately starting a pandemic for profit in April 2009 is feeling less confident about its ability to withstand scrutiny.
Only about 3% to 4% of the Austrians took the swine flu vaccine in spite of the gigantic media hype and the exhortations of the health minister Alois Stöger. About 40% take the seasonal flu shot every year as a routine matter. The authorities clearly anticipated that 60% to 70% would take the swine flu shot.
But the Austrians did not believe the hype. And the government must be worried about its ability to give its spin to the whole swine flu pandemic and Baxter bird flu incident.
As pharmaceutical companies and government gear up for unprecedented vaccine campaigns, any scrutiny of the Baxter’s contamination in February 2009 may be seen as an increasingly big threat.
Indeed, if Baxter were ever convicted in a court of law of deliberately attempting to start a global bird flu pandemic, it could well deal a death blow to the whole pharmaceutical industry and vaccine complex around the world.
Getting rid of me through a legal guardianship under false and trivial accusations and also by framing me by fake criminal charges may seem a better option given the possible repercussions of a substantial investigation into Baxter.
The sheer amount of publicity my case is getting will, however, make it impossible for them to remove me. The legal basis is non-existent and there is only so much caprice and eccentricity a justice system can allow itself in the age of the Internet before it discredits itself totally in the eyes of the general public.
As soon as the court guardianship is dropped, I can and will file for compensation because this unjustified legal guardianship actually boils down to an attempt at illegal detention and the silencing of a whistleblower.
The longer this drags on before it is finally laid to rest as it must finally be, the higher my compensation claims can be and the more publicity this case will generate.
The Baxter case is once more already in the spotlight along with the corruption of the Austrian justice system that failed to investigate the contamination of 72 kilos of seasonal flu vaccine material with the bird f u virus that could potentially have endangered people all around the globe.
On a personal note, the last few weeks have made me understand what the word “Kafkaseque” and “surreal” really mean. Being hounded by a malevolent state is no joke at all.
Nightmarish as this time has been, I have been overwhelmed by the amount of support I have had from people all over the world.
I don’t have time to answer all the emails, alas , as the likes of Dr Winge force me to go on filing documents etc, though I try to answer as many emails as I can.
But the support of so many people, also from Switzerland and from We Are Change Austria, has been truly amazing, and I feel humbled and grateful to have experienced so much generosity, kindness and good will from so many people around the world.