(This is a google translation. The site's own translation algorithm is worst than this.)
Posted on 30. August 2019 by Typist
Ursula Haverbeck
Umlostraße 100
33649 Bielefeld
To the district court Bielefeld
33595 Bielefeld
Bielefeld, 11.08.2019
Appeal against the decision of Judge Oesker as a single judge, 19. Strafvollstreckungskammer Bielefeld
Az. 100 StVk 2221/19 (21 Js 814 / 16STA Detmold)
We hereby appeal in time against the resolution of 31.07.2019, received here on 8 August.
Judge Oesker justified her refusal of premature release with an existing danger of abuse. It is not acknowledged that there can not be such an offense. This is already apparent from the fact that the judge stated clearly that the punishable abuse in this case would already be in the truthful indication of the reason for imprisonment on the question of it.
If the accused does not want to commit abusive behavior, she is expected to either talk or lie about it. That's outrageous - and then by a judge. Please ask what honest citizens will say when I tell them that I can not answer their question because I would be liable to prosecution, because my offense is the answer.
It must finally be clarified whether a judiciary can tolerate it even longer 74 years after the war and wants a political-critical opinion that is undesirable for a particular group to be treated as a criminal offense? This is also for many members of said group no longer acceptable. (...)
The consequences are evident in their absurdity, especially in such a case: danger of abuse in a utterance offense, an expression of opinion! I consider it inhumane for a 91-year-old to be expected to face the corresponding complaints, which are rapidly increasing in prison, because of her age, to await the inevitable resolution of these questions and contradictions in prison.
I ask you to remember, it is ultimately not about my person, it is about the once so highly respected German legal life, the basis of a liberal constitutional state.
Ursula Haverbeck
