Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYthings, that the accusation of deceit has to be made by the judge duringthe hearing and that evidence in this regard has to be introduced ornamed, so that the immigrant can defend himself against it. By meansof the verbal transcript we subsequently managed to prove that duringthe entire hearing the judge had never raised the accusation of deceit.Quite to the opposite he had repeatedly confirmed the seriousness, respectabilityand the well-founded nature of my asylum application. Furthermoreall the documents listed in the verdict as apparent proof formy alleged deceit either had not been introduced into the trial or I hadnot been told that the introduced documents would be seen as proof forthis claim.Since the verbal transcript is part of the trial documentation reviewedby the court of appeals, it was easy for us to prove that the asylumverdict was a misjudgment in this regard, and we consequently wonthe appeal regarding this issue.Not to have any verbal transcript at all is in my eyes unworthy of astate under the rule of law. This is almost an invitation to error and perversionof justice. In Germany a defendant is totally at the mercy of theimpartiality or infallibility of the judge. But not all judges are impartial,and not a single one of them is infallible.This isn’t just my opinion, but it is a serious flaw of the German judicialsystem which has been repeatedly and massively criticized,among it recently by the well-known defense lawyer Rolf Bossi in his2005 book Demigods in Black. 124 In it he also criticizes that the FederalGerman principle of free assessment of evidence, which means that onlythe investigating judge directly confronted with the case may assessthe evidence, has deteriorated to an anarchical liberty to arbitrary probativeclaims. This is especially true for cases deliberated in front of aDistrict Court, whose decisions cannot be appealed, which means thatthere is no second trial dealing with the facts of the matter. After a verdictof a District Court one can merely request a revision by the GermanFederal Supreme Court, but they examine only matters of law, yet nevermatters of fact as claimed by the subordinate court. Hence, in caseswhere it is about neck or nothing for the defendant, that is, where it isabout alleged serious crimes dealt with directly by District Courts, adefense against errors or arbitrary claims by judges about matters of factis impossible.124 Rolf Bossi, Halbgötter in Schwarz, Eichborn, Frankfurt/M, 2005.103