Federal Republic of Germany guilty of violating the UN Genocide Convention

- Press release: Appeal to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) -

(Kirche zum Mitreden, 16.09.2012)

NOTE:
This is a modified version of the petition: "Federal Republic of Germany accused of crimes against humanity"

On 16 Septembre 2012 both via fax and via mail to:
Office of the United Nations / High Commissioner for Human Rights / +41 22 917 9022 / petitions@ohchr.org

The so-called "Federal Republic of Germany" (FRG), i.e. every single responsible FRG representative personally, is guilty of violating
a) UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
The Genocide Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 as General Assembly Resolution 260. The FRG accessed to this treaty in 1954 and made it part of the German penal code (earlier § 220a StGB; now § 6 VStGB). The FRG is guilty of committing the following acts with intent to destroy a religious group, i.e. the Roman-Catholic Church:
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
punishable according Article 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the Genocide Convention.
Furthermore, the FRG, i.e. every single responsible FRG representative personally, is guilty of violating
b) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child from 1989 was ratified by the FRG in 1992. By brutally suppressing the Freedom of religion in general, the FRG is consequently guilty of refusing also the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Thus the FRG heavily violates several Articles of the Convention, e.g. Article 14: "1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." E.g. children in Germany are forced in school to approve that the sect of the so-called "Second Vatican Council" (V2) is called the Roman-Catholic Church. And worse: Whoever - and this naturally includes children - ends his membership in the V2-sect is not allowed to confess his membership in the Roman-Catholic Church.
As a current result of these crimes against various UN Conventions, the Roman-Catholic priest Father Rolf Hermann Lingen (the complainant), Germany, must expect a life imprisonment solely for confessing the Catholic faith. Already sentenced earlier because of the same "crime", he now shall be sentenced again, this time once and for all, because of his obstinacy. The final court hearing shall take place on Septembre 27th, 2012. The complainant is a so-called "sedevacantist". Sedevacantism is the position that the Holy See is vacant since 1958, i.e. since the death of Pope Pius XII. The group of the so-called "Second Vatican Council" (V2) is *NOT* the Catholic Church, but an anticatholic sect. Many English websites offer information on this issue, e.g. "dailycatholic.org" or "novusordowatch.org". In 1997, the complainant founded a German site (later address "kirchenlehre.com" - "doctrine of the church") for which he has already published more than a thousand texts. In short: The V2-sect does not have the four marks / specific adjectives of the Church, i.e. one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The Church infallibly condemned some teachings as heresies, of which some are mentioned in a "collection" ("Syllabus") by Pope Pius IX. And even Joseph Ratzinger himself (nowadays sometimes called "Pope Benedict XVI.") openly declared that the V2-text "Gaudium et Spes" is a "counter-Syllabus". Regarding all the blasphemies and heresies of the V2-sect with "inter-religious meetings", "ecumenical worship services" etc., nobody seriously thinks that the V2-sect is the Church. The complainant spreads this information confessing that he - contrary to the V2-"priests" - is a Roman-Catholic priest. The FRG ignores reality completely and falsely accuses the complainant of "abuse of titles". Some aspects: 1. The FRG completely violates the principle "No punishment without a penal law" ("nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali"). There is no law at all that prohibits being Catholic, i.e. sedevacantist, resp. that dictates to approve a false pope as a true pope. And even if such a law existed, it would be illegal and void in itself, cf. Pietro Rainalducci. 2. The FRG completely violates the freedom of conscience. The FRG forces the citizens to approve the false ideology that the V2-sect is the Catholic Church. 3. The FRG completely violates the freedom of the true religion. The FRG absurdly declares that everyone who rejects the blasphemous V2-heresies is a heretic (contradictio in adiecto). And as the Church is "Catholic", i.e. "for all", every actual and potential Catholic is victim of justice of the FRG. 4. The FRG completely violates the right of a fair trial. In general, The FRG a) never proves anything of its - notoriously false! - accusations against the complainant and b) ignores all the proofs, arguments etc. submitted by the complainant. 5. The complainant has even openly declared that he will instantly revoke his sedevacantist conviction as soon as there is a proof that the V2-sect is indeed the Catholic Church. But the FRG nevertheless does not give any arguments that the V2-sect is the Catholic church. Instead, it argues that only the Church has to give any arguments. However, in the first place, the FRG insists that the V2-sect is the Catholic church. Thus, the FRG presupposes the exact thing that must first be proven! To stress this fact again: In all these decades since 1958 the V2-sect could only "argue" that Germany itself claims that the V2-sect is the Catholic church. The FRG solely points to the V2-sect, while the V2-sect solely points to the FRG. As a matter of fact: There is no argument at all but only a circular reasoning. 6. Contrary to the FRG, the complainant has sufficient knowledge of both Catholic theology and V2-ideolgy. The complainant was a V2-"priest candidate" and made his V2-"diploma" with the rating "very good". Not until at the end of his V2-studies, he became "sedevacantist" and therefore refused being "ordained" in the V2-sect. Instead, in 1996, he was ordained by a sedevacantist bishop: Georg Schmitz, a former member of the "Society of St. Piux X" (SSPX) of Marcel Lefebvre. 7. Both the FRG and the V2-sect have tried to declare the complainant to be insane. But the complainant was not only a good student of V2-"theology" (see above) but already a good grammar pupil (general qualification for university entrance: "1.6"). In all the long years of intensive contact with many (high) members of the V2-sect, he never was considered "insane". Not until the year 2004, i.e. seven years after the beginning of his substantial publishing activities, the FRG and the V2-sect suddenly invented the insanity defamation against the complainant - after they had proceeded legally against the complainant for already five years, but could neither prove him wrong nor intimidate him. Abuse of psychiatry is a standard procedure of the FRG to defame and ultimately silence critics. Up to now, the FRG engaged two "psychiatrist experts". In 2005, the first "expert" wrote an "expert report" that concerning the complainant "there is no indication that proves a mental illness or makes it probable". The second "expert" only stated in oral form during a court hearing that all remarks of the complainant are "in itself completely logical" and that there is "nothing that excludes or at least reduces any culpability": the complainant is "completely criminally liable". Why should and how could you renounce a conviction that is not and cannot be punishable at all, that has never been proven wrong, that is "completely logical", while the opposing position has been definitely proven wrong and is only based on a circular reasoning. Please note: The question that is dealt with is literally and absolutely a question of heaven or hell: According to Catholic dogma, it is necessary for salvation to be Catholic. For comparison: The V2-sect claims that non-Catholic societies can be a "means of salvation". This longstanding completely illegal persecution of the complainant solely for his catholic belief is symptomatic of the justice of the FRG. According to Catholic standard literature like the "Canon Law" by Klaus Mörsdorf, the FRG (considering the definite breaking of the Concordat in 1957) is "lawbreaking", "denatured" and "schizophrenic". Peter Briody generally states (Germany's flawed Justice, Dec 28th, 2008): "Germany is operating a system of justice, whose decisions, due to: the political influence on its judiciaries, its effective abrogation of the European Convention on Human Rights, the extremely poor quality of its workmanship, its unconvincing record in prosecuting perversion of justice, its hugely defective procedures, can only be classed as extremely unreliable." And the "United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit" granted a woman from the FRG asylum "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. [This persecution] was committed by the [German] government or forces the [German] government was either unable or unwilling to control" (Appeal No. 02-71841). Because of all these clear facts it is impossible to deny that the FRG is absolutely and inexcusably guilty of crimes against humanity.
Q.e.d.: The FRG tries to extinct the Roman Catholic Church completely. The FRG is committing this crime deliberately and with full intent. The FRG is completely aware of its lies and of the violation of the UN Conventions. As mentioned in the complaint itself (III. Exhaustion of domestic remedies / Application to other international procedures): "Even the highest courts have several times declared the extinction of the Church as legal."
Considering the urgency and significance of the matter, namely the trial on 27 septembre 2012 with a possible lifetime imprisonment, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) must act
*NOW*!

Added on the complaint form

Even the highest courts have several times declared the extinction of the Church as legal. All of these decisions were made when the complainant was not yet Catholic, and consequently he was not yet persecuted personally. One decision of the Federal Constitutional Court was made in 1994 (1 BvR 573/92), when the complainant was a "priest candidate" of the "Vatican-2"-sect. One decision of the Federal Court was made in 1993 (XII ZR 51/92), also when the complainant was a "priest candidate" of the "Vatican-2"-sect. One decision of the Federal Constitutional Court was made in 1980 (BvR 143/80), when the complainant was a twelve-year-old child nearly without any knowledge of the Catholic faith at all. And the definite breaking of the Concordat was declared by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1957 (2 BVG 1/55), ten years before the author was born. This decision of 1957 was the definite statement of the FRG that it will never tolerate, let alone defend the rights of the Church. As a result, Catholic standard literature of 1958 like the "Canon Law" by Klaus Mörsdorf states that the FRG is "lawbreaking", "denatured" and "schizophrenic".
Accordingly, following the legal structure, the complainant was never granted a right to recourse to courts of law in the FRG. Instead, his only option would be to suffer consequences.
Nevertheless, on May 8th, 2009 the complainant submitted a petition to the petition committee of the Federal Parliament, that the "Vatican-2"-sect is not any more allowed to falsely use the title "Roman-Catholic". The parliament, however, rejected this petition with an absurdly shameless circular reasoning: "Only the Church has to judge what is Catholic, and we declare that the "Vatican-2"-sect is the Church, so you have to believe that the "Vatican-2"-sect is the Church!" Besides that this "reasoning" is blatantly illogical, it is, moreover, heretical, because it is solely based on the infallible condemned opinion that the Church is subject to the state.

[Zurück zur KzM - Startseite]