How did the continuation dates of Bergstedt, “Mr. Blue” and Basti run and how will it go on?
March 03 – Second trial date for allegedly insulting judge Witzel
Heard were judge Witzel (about 2 hours) and other judicial personnel. Judge in this trial was Königsfeld. In the end, the court stated that the process, which was performed by judge Witzel at that time, probably was not held in a way, as it is prescribed. But Königsfeld did not consider as proven that all this was already perversion of justice *.
He suggested a setting without conditions. This could not be decided in that moment because the representative of the prosecutor’s office in the hearing was not authorized to do so. So this will be settled in the next few days.
If the public prosecutor disagrees, then on March 22.3. at 11 am would be held a continued hearing.
More info on this case: Is it an insult to call a judge “perversor of justice”?
March 4 – Third trial date against “Mr. Blue”
In the names of RW€ and the society that makes these hostile conditions and technologies possible, “Mr. Blue” was found guilty in six cases (eg insult, bodily trespass). For the first time on the part of the prosecutor’s office, not the act itself was in the foreground, but the motivation. Here, the prosecutor tried to cleave the resistance against the ruthless exploitation in “good” and “evil”. He mentioned, that it is well known in the region, of which impact the local population is concerned and that it is right and proper to take action against it.
So in his view the forest occupation initially also had good intentions. But now, according to the prosecutor, people from all over Germany come just for the purpose of a unmotivated rampage. In the eyes of the prosecutor it is even worse, because these people even come from other countries. He hereby tries to divide and categorize individuals into drawers. To legitimize the drawer of law-abiding local resistance and to criminalize the drawer of people who also consider the global effects and expand their forms of resistance.
The 190 per diems, demanded by the prosecutor, do not differ very much from the judge’s decision. The judge sentenced Mr. Blue to 150 per diems of € 10 each plus 1000 € for pain and suffering to an RWE employee. The RWE employee himself demanded “only” 600 €.
Finally, the judge reasoned her verdict, in which a very questionable legal opinion appeared about the unlawful entry: She stated that even if the incriminated would have entered the area by a gap and therefore it had not been completely fenced, be it from her perspective yet evident that he had no business there at all. But the section for trespassing prescribes precisely that the land must be completely fenced. Thus, a gap is not enough to satisfy to the offense of trespassing. Therefore, it is possible that this case will proceed in the next instance.
They can not divide us! Our resistance is colourful and varied! We think globally and act locally!
March 8 – Second trial date in connection with the eviction of Grubenblick and a pile of wood, 2014
The judge regarded our compa Basti guilty of having committed coercion, assault and insult to the detriment of RWE employees during the eviction of a living barricade.
He became one year suspended sentence with three years of probation.
It needs to be noted that no concrete statements existed against Basti. The burden of proof was based more on presumption. In spite of long video sequences, there is no concrete evidence that Basti meets the presumpted offence of assault, only the prove that he was staying in front of the barricade.
The statements of employee of RWE and security firms and the cops, who were summoned as witnesses, frequently were contradictory and partly obviously were lies, which is confirmed by evidence in the form of videos, available to the court. A witness from the security company refused to testify in relation to a question, because otherwise he would incriminate himself. Partially also lacked memories, a “bodyguard” allegedly even could not remember to be interrogated by the police.
There was a mutual blame, about who started “wrangling”, and by whom or what it was triggered. This seemed to be necessary to find out whether in case of injury this could have been justified – and therefore unpunished – by self-defense or emergency. According to the judge, unlawful fixing or otherwise deprivation of liberty of activists by security staff, which could be considered as legal justification, has not taken place. From the point of view of the judge, the deprivation of liberty was lawful because, due to the smoke production of fireworks, the work of RWE at that place and time was forced to be stopped.
But it was not examined further if it was legitimate to use cable ties for that. Nor was looked at what the security people were wearing around, such as telescopic batons. Even after the law on self-defence in case of emergency it would be allowed to fight with equality of arms.
This demonstrates once more, for whom the laws are written. Greedy, exploitative and destructive companies like RWE as well as their helpers and accomplices are legally protected to reap profits under conditions that disdain humans and the environment as a whole.
SOLIDARITY MUST BE PRACTICALLY !!!!
For more information: https://abcrhineland.blackblogs.org