Criminal case
pending against gegen Joachim Walter Maria Koßmann, born in Wanne - Eickel at June 26th 1955, residental Vinckestr. 49, 44623 Herne because of misuse ot titles, calumny etc. (here: defence against the effectivity of the taking back of an appeal)

The second criminal jurisdiction (Strafsenat) decided on the immediate defence of the defendant of Aug. 14th 2003 against the decision of the 14th criminal jurisdiction (Strafkammer) of the district court Bochum of Aug. 8th 2003 after the hearing of the general public prosecutor:

The immediate defence is rejected at the expense of the complainer by the essential reasons and in result correct reasons of the contested decision, which could not been smoothed out by the complainer´s arguments.(§ 473 Abs. 1 StPO)

Addition
The criminal chamber had expounded to be executed correctly the appeal of the local court Herne of Nov. 12rh 1996 of the former defendant by the taking back of the appeal of April 8th 1997, because he had neglected his taking back of the appeal unjustly.(vgl. Meyer - Goßner, StPO, 46. Aufl. § 302 Rdnr. 11 a).

Further than the general prosecutor´s office pointed correctly, that there is given the legal remedy of the immediate complain after § 322 Abs. 2 StPO, which had been given notice in time. (vgl. Senatsbeschluß vom 15. September 1999 in 2 Ws 270/99 = VRS 98, 140 Meyer - Goßner, a. a. O. ).

Neither the statements of the complainer in his complaint of Aug. 14th 2003 nor in the further letter of the complainer of Sept. 6th 2003 are given rise to the senat to make further investigations about the occurence of the taking back of the appeal. Such investigations are neither neccessary nor indicated, at least the complainer had been representated by his lawyer at the relevant point of time, and the complainer had been counselted by him during a pause of the trial of Aprol 8th 1997. And so the minutes of the main trial of appeal have got the following content at page 317:

"The defendent explained with the allowance of his lawyer: "I take back my appeal." ( "Ich nehme die Berufung zurück.") Dictated loudly and accepted.

After that the public prosecutor and the lawyer of the co - plaintiff agreeded to the taking back of the appeal.

Mady by upper district court Hamm Oct. 31th 2003 (Oberlandesgericht Hamm)

 

After that I wrote directly to the ministry of justice of Northrhine - Westphalia

Joachim Koßmann
Vinckestr. 49
44623 Herne

Nov. 9th . 2003

NRW Landesjustizministerium
Martin Luther Platz 40
40212 Düsseldorf

Your record number 4122 E - III B. 24 / 97 (further record numbers see at the decision above)

Diesciplnary complaint against the general public prosecutor in Hamm
Complaint against the decision of the upper district court Hamm of Oct. 31th 2003
Appilcation for demands of compensation and smart - money against the land Nortrhine - Westphalia

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

the matters happend sould be known to you.

After it became clear during the trial of April 9th 1997 at the district court Bochum that an emergncy of prooves had been occured caused by the at least careless investigations of the prosecutor´s office of Bochum, the femal judge ,,, imputed me at all that I would like to make an attempt of the lives of the witnesses which had incriminated me, and than the femal judge threatened me to put me into the psychiatry. There are not really any indications for such a imputation. The female judge ... acted at this kind obviously in order to force me to tale back my appal, and I did so.

My taking back of the appeal was made by external force, it wasn´t my free expression of my wish and therefore the taking back of the appeal is invalid. Therfore I request to check the matters happened. But the distict court was the opinion that my taking back of the appeal would had been reached by "correct" methods. Therefore I requested against the decision of the district court Bochum (Landgericht) at the upper district court Hamm (Oberlandesgericht).

But the mister general public attorney didn´t investigated for the matters further on. Especially he refused to ask witnesses, which had possibly charged by their statements the female judge ... suspected of a compulsion / an extortion. Instead of it he refered, that I could spaek with my lawyer before.

But that is not right at all. About 45 minutes had been passed over between the talk to my lawyer and my alligated taking back of the appeal, and in the meantime it had been arising a new situation I couldn´t expected and astimated allone because of the threatening with the psychiatry of the female judge ...

Further than the general public prosecutor refered that both my lawyer and the public prosecutor of Bochum had agrred to my alligated taking back of the appeal. That is correctt, but it doesn´t proove that the two maen acted correctly.

Neither the public prosecutor nor my lawyer would had been allowed to agree to my alligated taking back of the appeal under this conditions.

The public prosecutor would ´d to initiate preliminary investigations of his own free will against the female judge ... suspected of compulsion / extortion. He abstained from willfully, to come into question: aidung and abetting to compulsion / extortion or obstruction of punishment.

Also my lawyer knew that I had didn´t make the taking back of my appeal because of my free will. Therefor I think that also he has be to punished and to pay smart - money to me.

I demand that the case has to be cleared up carefulnessly, in order to clear up in what an extent I can demand for compensations and smart money against my lawyer and against the Land Northrhine - Westphalia in its nature as the employer of the female judge and the public prosecutor. I will not let the matters rest till I will ´ve got my right in every espects.

I demand for compensations and smart - money by this letter against the Land Nortrhine - Westphalia. I´d lost my economical and professional existence because of the judgement, and I ´m not willing to stand the damages caused to me with malice prepense.

With the best greetings,

Joachim Kossmann