JUDGES – LAST WALTZ IN VIENNA ?
Corruption in the Austrian Justice System
by Ken Cameron
6 February 2019
 |
| Judge Konstanze Thau |
Is this true in Vienna where some judges run mediation and counselling businesses for separating and divorcing couples but then sit in judgement over their clients in the courts ? This applies in both the District Courts (Bezirksgericht) and the Higher Court (Landesgericht). The activity is not hidden, indeed it is known to the Justice Ministry with details posted to its official government web site.
Do these judges preside in court over cases where they have previously offered mediation counselling to applicants ? Do these judges discuss clients, whom they have counselled, with the judge who eventually hears the case in court ? Do these judges accept inflated or non commercial fees from clients in order to influence the outcome of cases in court ? Does the Justice Ministry approve or condone this apparent conflict of interest?
These questions were put to a senior court official at the Landesgericht Vienna last year, but she declined to comment.
Higher Court Judge Konstanze Thau, 59, runs a counselling service, Mediative Wings, located in central Vienna. According to the Justice Ministry she also appears to let or sublet a property on the outskirts of the city to another Judge, Susanne Kliendienst-Passweg, 65, and her counselling service operates under the name Min & Win Mediation. There is evidence that some clients are eventually referred to the District and Senior Courts. Is the behaviour of these judges unethical or worse? The public should be able to pass judgement on the behaviour of judges and the performance of the justice system meaning that accountability is essential.
Although relationship counselling raises conflicting and difficult issues, this may be just the tip of the iceberg. Is it possible that the Austrian justice system wilfully protects judges who commit felonies such as fraud, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in a public office? Is it possible that judges sometimes conspire with politicians, religious leaders, other establishment figures and lawyers to deprive a mother of her children without any just cause? To remove children from their mother in return for a bribe is a heinous act, meaning that any judges who are involved, should upon conviction, be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law. No mercy for corrupt judges including those who deliberately delay or prolong court proceedings.
Sources indicate that Konstanze Thau and her friend District Judge Susanne Göttlicher abused the judicial process by allegedly taking a bribe of €70,000. The bribe came from medical doctor Michael Schlesinger, father of two boys, and after a war of attrition in the courts, he took sole custody of those children. The court process was used to harry the mother, Beth Alexander until she had little alternative but to flee Vienna for her homeland England. She has not seen her children since November 2016. Konstanze Thau, Michael Schlesinger and Beth Alexander were all members of Vienna's Jewish community however the city rabbis failed to intervene in the case, except to protect Schlesinger's interests.
The Community (IKG) suffered appalling persecution during World War II but as a result, it is now untouchable and remains aloof from legal and political scrutiny. Any attempt to investigate the IKG would probably be countered with charges of anti-Semitism. There is alleged to be evidence of two-way money laundering between a New York based charity, possibly involving former IKG president Ariel Muzicant. Muzicant is thought to be a millionaire with an extensive property portfolio.
The Beth Alexander case is known to the British government and has been debated in the British Parliament nevertheless the Austrian justice system continues to behave with apparent impunity and against natural law.
This story was referred to the leading Jewish newspapers in the UK during 2018, The Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph, all of which have covered the Beth Alexander case in the past. Their editors declined to publish.
In March 2018, an earlier version of this story was handed in person to Austria's four Appeal Court presidents, Manfred Scaria, Klaus Schröder, Gerhard Jelinek and Katharina Lehmayer. The office of Manfred Scaria (Linz) responded but the others failed to make any coherent reply. It is unknown whether these judges intiated action against Thau or Göttlicher but in the context of Austrian judicial culture, assumptions may be made. Details were also sent to the State Prosecution Service (WKStA) and the Generalprokurator Dr. Franz Plöchl but no action resulted. This means that there is now no competent authority that can investigate and ensure accountability. Consequently, legal opinion now suggests that Austria has violated the 1955 State Treaty and should be referred to the United Nations as required by the Treaty.
There are other unresolved questions that involve the Austrian judiciary and police. It must be unprecedented for a (retired) President of the Oberst Gerichthof, the Austrian Supreme Court, to be prosecuted for perjury. Johann Rzeszut criticised the police investigation into the notorious Natascha Kampusch case and the authorities are said to have warned him off. There were many irregularities involving the police and prosecution authorites in addition to the alleged murder of the detective in charge of the investigation. There were also some unsubstantiated allegations that a police officer and/or a judge raped Kampusch during the time when she was held in a cellar by Priklopil.
Then just two years later in 2008, there was another notorious sexual abuse case. Josef Fritzl imprisoned his daughter when she was 18 years old - Elisabeth Fritzl was raped more than 3,000 times resulting in seven children. At first the authorities failed to realise that Fritzl had a previous conviction for rape. It was obvious that DNA testing was required in order to prove Fritzl's guilt but it is alleged that the police were slow to act.
The organisation,Trauma Based Mind Control published more information about such abuse cases on its web site,
"Humans are capable of all sort of things. However mental health professionals are quick to dismiss disclosures citing archaic Freudian and (Neo) Kraeplinian ‘theories’ that seemingly have been developed to obscure the true origins of mental health issues (which are frequently neglect and abuse in early child hood) and deploy them to obfuscate persecution and outright criminality. A third case of such nature ‘in the making’ is the case of Andrea Sadegh and a child called ‘Luki’ whose disclosures were indicative that he was being abused while on unsupervised custody visits to his father (of Persian origin). Her investigations suggest an extreme abuse ring with 60 alleged abusers/helpers. Initial research efforts failed to return meaningful explanations for the boy’s behaviours. However since hearing about dissociative disorders (formerly referred to as Multiple Personality disorder’) she has become one of the leading expert-by-experience researchers in the field."
Rumours persist that some members of the Vienna judiciary and their associates have been involved in pedeophilia, and have avoided prosecution through conspiracy to subvert legal protocols and regulations.
"The book When His Eyes turned White by Catherine Ni Mhuillin (2014) describes how some judges discharge their duties:
1. The child talks about abuse – usually sexual abuse. The police conduct an inadequate investigation, claiming that there is not enough evidence to pass the case to the public prosecutor’s office, and close the case. The youth welfare office conducts an inadequate investigation, labelling everything as unfounded and refers the case to the family court, recommending the child be taken into “care”.
2. Family judges appoint child advocates and/or psychologists to lay the blame on the mother by maliciously claiming that she is a liar/stirrer and/or mentally ill, and to recommend that custody be transferred to the father, who is – in their opinion – the “loving parent”.
3. Judges minimise, ignore and conceal the evidence of abuse and rule that the mother is either lying/out to stir up trouble or mentally ill, and transfer custody to the abusive father.
4. The judge isolates the child from the mother and from anyone who could confirm the truth about the abuse, while the children are conditioned to develop Stockholm syndrome and brainwashed by the abuser or by a “reunification/deprogramming therapist”, or at a foreign base, until they have either forgotten the abuse or withdrawn their accusations and consented to live with the abusive father.
5. The judge ensures that the mother and her children can only see one another on supervised visits, during which neither she nor the children are allowed to speak about past or present abuse. As soon as anyone mentions the abuse, the supervisors send reports to the courts and immediately put an end to the visits.
6. The judge issues directives forbidding the children to receive the kind of professional help that could support them in their disclosures, and also forbids the mothers to take their children to see doctors or therapists, thereby giving the abuser control over whom the children are allowed to see.
7. The judge imposes a gagging order on the mother to prevent the public finding out anything about the abuse, including its cover-up, and threatens the mother with never being allowed to see her children again if she does not keep silent about the case and accept the cover-up.
8. The judge disempowers the mother by driving her into bankruptcy through the judicial proceedings, by traumatising her through separating her from her children and by enabling the abuse to continue. ''
In fairness is should be emphasised that the true magnitude of this problem in Austria is as yet unknown and so it would be unfair and unreasonable to condemn all those who work in the justice system, the presumption of innocence remaining paramount. However it is clear that some judges are a cancerous tumour within the judicial body, and that they must be cut out.
The Austrian media often professes that Austria is a 'Rechtstaat' meaning that the rule of law applies. This claim would now appear to be in doubt. A robust investigation should follow to include both the judiciary and the IKG Vienna, led and managed by an independent, reputable and experienced jurist from outside Austria. The Austrian people will want to see the unvarnished truth followed by meaningful reforms. The public will surely expect corrupt judges, police officers and officials to be identified and made accountable. The Austrian media is intimately connected to the political process and so investigative journalism is not encouraged. Dissenters or trouble makers have been threatened with accidental death under a train or committal to a mental hospital. Unfortunately the moral weakness of many editors means that straight reporting and accountability are often denied to the Austrian public. Catch 22.
KC News ©