Monte Blanc Store In Jacksonville

unduly raised examination fee

In the process, the conscientious shot from Andreas Reuter, it is still continuing. Briefly on the state of things in the opinion of the District Court Görlitz from last September: The

been appealed, we have withdrawn on 21.10.2008 . This is less because there would have been at the judgment about criticizing anything legal - it might very well, namely in particular the implementation of the appeal itself, although it has been shown to act a (illegal) blocking appointment of public prosecutors. The danger, however, that on this issue, to the so far little case law exists, the Higher Regional Court Dresden would comment negatively, we have judged to be too large and will therefore continue to work up the way the whole process instead of the legal and legal policy literature. Some appeared here already, other papers are currently in the process of creation - we are on this later published in a list (see verdict in the "More information about the process" about the article in 2 / 08 (Journal of the judges and public prosecutors in the ver.di)).

Now the process is but another "Fun" section. The Treasury has opened its account - And would like to make a charge for an appeal on a charge of 240 EUR. Regard, it relies on the cost directory of legal costs law , No. 3130, and quoted these numbers even themselves "fee for audit procedures by order or decision." Well, it was in the revision process, a decree or order? No. In such a case, a (then: half) No fee for 3131 will be due, but not "taking back the revision prior to the submission of grounds." So it is but here - a fee may not therefore be taken into account.

One might think, well, there's the prosecutor made a small mistake undermined, it could happen once, since one then points on it, and so should the matter be settled. Unfortunately - far from it.

is the one it is clear that system. In three cases, in which the defenders were active in the current proceedings in cases other than defense and placed well at a certain time for a revision, it was withdrawn before the expiration of the reasons of appeal period, was later used by the public prosecutor of the fees referred to in paragraphs . 3130 or 3131 brought in approach and could be down again removed from the world only on appeal. The cases were also spread over the country (StA Hamburg; StA Dresden, StA Amberg; Now: StA Görlitz). It can only be assumed that the Treasury here actually tried in a really bad faith always to charge this fee, even if they do not become due, most defenders are then in the process no longer directly involved, and accused the bills eh more of a closed book, so that probably rarely oppose - and operates the state treasury in this manner, a profitable business.

Second, we have the so-called appeal of the "memory" is now out noted that the review fee is not to bring in approach. In response, the prosecutor the costs listed fine again - by repeating the examination fee collected inadmissible, for submission to the District Auditor and for forwarding to the district court to rule on the appeal. Again, we have once again taken in addition position and pointed out that a judicial decision must be because the prosecution could correct the bill simply (another minor problem that is also still been in the financial statements, but which is almost negligible ).

remains to be seen whether the district attorney really on their (absurd) position persists when, who's the infamous AG Zittau have to decide if this is about ... to experience

Monte Blanc Store In Jacksonville

unduly raised examination fee

In the process, the conscientious shot from Andreas Reuter, it is still continuing. Briefly on the state of things in the opinion of the District Court Görlitz from last September: The

been appealed, we have withdrawn on 21.10.2008 . This is less because there would have been at the judgment about criticizing anything legal - it might very well, namely in particular the implementation of the appeal itself, although it has been shown to act a (illegal) blocking appointment of public prosecutors. The danger, however, that on this issue, to the so far little case law exists, the Higher Regional Court Dresden would comment negatively, we have judged to be too large and will therefore continue to work up the way the whole process instead of the legal and legal policy literature. Some appeared here already, other papers are currently in the process of creation - we are on this later published in a list (see verdict in the "More information about the process" about the article in 2 / 08 (Journal of the judges and public prosecutors in the ver.di)).

Now the process is but another "Fun" section. The Treasury has opened its account - And would like to make a charge for an appeal on a charge of 240 EUR. Regard, it relies on the cost directory of legal costs law , No. 3130, and quoted these numbers even themselves "fee for audit procedures by order or decision." Well, it was in the revision process, a decree or order? No. In such a case, a (then: half) No fee for 3131 will be due, but not "taking back the revision prior to the submission of grounds." So it is but here - a fee may not therefore be taken into account.

One might think, well, there's the prosecutor made a small mistake undermined, it could happen once, since one then points on it, and so should the matter be settled. Unfortunately - far from it.

is the one it is clear that system. In three cases, in which the defenders were active in the current proceedings in cases other than defense and placed well at a certain time for a revision, it was withdrawn before the expiration of the reasons of appeal period, was later used by the public prosecutor of the fees referred to in paragraphs . 3130 or 3131 brought in approach and could be down again removed from the world only on appeal. The cases were also spread over the country (StA Hamburg; StA Dresden, StA Amberg; Now: StA Görlitz). It can only be assumed that the Treasury here actually tried in a really bad faith always to charge this fee, even if they do not become due, most defenders are then in the process no longer directly involved, and accused the bills eh more of a closed book, so that probably rarely oppose - and operates the state treasury in this manner, a profitable business.

Second, we have the so-called appeal of the "memory" is now out noted that the review fee is not to bring in approach. In response, the prosecutor the costs listed fine again - by repeating the examination fee collected inadmissible, for submission to the District Auditor and for forwarding to the district court to rule on the appeal. Again, we have once again taken in addition position and pointed out that a judicial decision must be because the prosecution could correct the bill simply (another minor problem that is also still been in the financial statements, but which is almost negligible ).

remains to be seen whether the district attorney really on their (absurd) position persists when, who's the infamous AG Zittau have to decide if this is about ... to experience

Baking A Cake Piano Shape

level insufficient: Case LG Görlitz is against total war objector before

a judge at the hearing and read his written opinion, can sometimes be two pairs of shoes. Although the presiding judge had the LG Görlitz, Böcker, before and during the trial made it clear that he likes a different style of criminal procedure, as his "predecessor" at AG Zittau, Ronsdorf. That an overall calm and relaxed negotiation is not the same as hiding itself behind Santander legal brilliance, like the now writing this sentence testifies all the more ...

start with, there is the question of why the blocking appointment of public prosecutor is not inadmissible has been discarded. For this purpose, Böcker noted, first, that the guidelines for criminal and administrative penalties have no binding effect - that this statement is an empty statement regarding the issues to be discussed, we had already discussed: for the inadmissibility of the appeal is not directly (only) the violation of RiStBV, but also from the fact that the appeal has been lodged vexatious. However, given the RiStBV (using very useful criteria) provides the framework in which the prosecution has to move - if the user leaves, is at least the suspicion of abuse of rights on the hand, in this case he could even be proved. But such fine distinctions which shears a judge who just "will not" ...

Then Böcker is almost funny: He controls but once again the respect of RiStBV (which he had just been declared irrelevant) and says: The RiStBV prohibit such an appeal only if it is because the other party has filed an appeal . But, the resourceful judges, here it was the other way around: The prosecution had indeed first appeal, filed! Were it not so bitter, you could almost smile about it. For if a process runs as in Zittau, without any binding to the Code of Criminal Procedure and detached from the spirit of law, then should it be clear that trying the accused will be here to take action, but then appeal, the prosecution only against the defendants appeal, and already she can say, 'We have done so not because of the appeal of the accused, but first, thus completely independent of the defendant! " Well, if the argument should take, so this might sound like the call to the public prosecutor the same, "first" fast appeal, and then the withdrawal from the conduct of the accused be made conditional. Since exactly this behavior - the Prosecutor operates an appeal depending on the appeal of the accused - but excluded by the wording in the RiStBV be is, the text must be interpreted accordingly: "The mere fact that another party has filed an appeal, is for the attorney constitute a sufficient reason to challenge the ruling also or a challenge to maintain ." But interpret what if the result does not settle with the will would bring to the judge in accordance ...

Finally, and here's getting really annoying, copied Böcker the excuse of the prosecutor, who said: 'We call instead so the two months three to six months, so muuuch more, and therefore, the appeal also permitted. " We now had the appropriate application set out across pages, first, that the reasons which called for the district attorney a fine sharpening, continuous not been legally recognized, and second, that the penalty amount to precisely according to the case not in a "manifest imbalance" claim the district attorney is. What the judge has to counter this? Nothing . But yes, he has the last word (and not the accused) has to stay there and even if the logic and arguments on the track - who's cares?

Then we come to really facts, since the so-called "flight services". Böcker summarizes the entering of Andreas together initially quite good, a few Paragraphs later apparently forgotten all of you: "The court is aware that it is completely absurd to see a job in a children's home as part of military service." had now spoken by "part of the military service" no, this is attributable only to the imagination of the judge, but by "part of the military service" - and that is regulated in § 3 para 1 sentence 1 Compulsory Military Service Act: "Conscription is met by the military service or ... by the civil service." But here it's just easy to invent something to say then that this was "completely absurd" - the accused can not even take corrective action ...

But besides that, enough of the mental horizon is not too far "Apparently, he can easily agree with his conscience but to suspend by a failure to treat these soldiers to significant risk." explained as a judge of a total objector, which every war involvement clearly now (in planning) and in the future (in war) preclude it by refusing to participate at about the Wounded supply of a soldier, these "significant risks" expose "significant risk" ! That the "significant risk" to life and health of entire populations of soldiers and war starts, and it just comes to fighting this threat, seems to be a presiding judge of the District Court to a difficult-to-minded thought. Important: you even need the opinion of the accused not to take for themselves, we may see even war as the most convenient form of passing the time - but understand the counter argument intellectually, this should already be in the situation before one strikes with the club of criminal law ! Legally, it is

short sleeves again, if justified, the judge "§ 53 ZDG is therefore compatible with the Basic Law." Has anyone ever said otherwise? No. The question whether a penal provision is constitutional, is an entirely other than that, if a punishment in individual cases if there is a conscience decision is unconstitutional. Now this is not just splitting hairs, but coarsest legal trade, which Böcker (and sorry to say: individual criminal court again and again) does not dominate. Especially, the configuration by decision of the Constitutional Court in the so-called " faith healer case " is a very simple example of this, of course, was there not state that the criminal standard of failing to assist is unconstitutional, but that the conviction under this constitutional standard itself can constitute unconstitutional if the criminal offense is based on a decision of conscience.

If Böcker says seen "that such total objectors have to answer very negative social consequences, because in this case, the children do without from the home of a caregiver" , he has unfortunately not even take note: The civil service has to be labor-market-neutral course the children have a right to be a caregiver to have, but still, they have a right to a trained caregiver to have, one that makes voluntary the job, and not a caregiver who is being forced under threat of punishment. Now here is as above: You have not see it. You can also refer to an anti-social point of view and say ask: 'have children no rights, and if they get a tutor, then please than forced labor. " Can make. Go. Not smart, but does. What is not is a thoroughly logical and coherent argument to not understand the approach, but to think that legally and morally judge the accused be allowed to. The rest of that paragraph

may not even be commented on. A judge, whose intelligence allows him obviously do not understand simple property relationships, which makes up but then the defendant a "strange world of thought" and he placed under "considerable maturity deficits" is certainly worthy of his office. Especially but such remarks are an insult and slap in the face of a defendant who all substantive arguments - and the bargain morality - on his side ...