Judge Thau and the case of an 85-year-old woman sued successfully by Bank Austria for €150 000

Konstanze Thau (picture taken from page 5 here)

This is a synopsis of a case that is documented long before the case of the Schlesinger twins.

Letter written by an 85-year-old woman who discovered by chance that her own lawyer was attempting to deprive her of the right of decision (“entmündigen”)

The lawyer is Mag Pestal. The judge who knows she shouldn’t be getting involved in this is Mag Konstanze Thau from the Provincial Court for Civil Law Cases in Vienna. The actual scandal is that people such as this know exactly what is going on and although they are even in certain cases obliged to do something about it, they don’t.

NB The elderly woman receives the lowest possible pension and therefore cannot afford to pay a lawyer. She applies for free legal representation for needy people (legal aid). She ends up being sued successfully by the Bank Austria for € 150 000.

Bank Austria persecutes citizen without criminal record

An das Landesgericht für ZRS
Schwarzenbergplatz 11 1040 Wien
Wien, 2004-10-xx
 7 Cg xx/yy 

Rejection of Judge Thau because of obvious bias

Application for provision of legal representation (for legal aid) for the judicial preparation of my rejection (challenge) application

On Monday this week I discovered by chance that Mag Konstanze Thau had again started action indicating her bias or her obvious intention to harm me.

On 6 September 2004 Mag Thau pronounced a decision which I only found out about by chance. The fact that she did not serve me with this document by post leads me to the conclusion that Mag Thau is absolutely aware of her untrue claims and the fact that her arguments are obviously unfounded, also that she wishes to blatantly conceal the decision from me and to prevent me from having the possibility to defend myself in a court of law. This is a further indication of the obvious bias of Judge Mag Thau.

From this decision it is easy to recognize that Mag Thau is still acting against my interests and obviously attempting to harm me by every possible means.

Below is an account – that does not claim to be complete – of what has happened:
In this decision Mag Thau refers to a document of 2.9.2004 which had already been submitted by my Legal Aid representative. In this document, the law guardians’ court is advised to commence proceedings according to §6 a ZPO, ie to deprive me of the right of decision. The reasons given by my legal representative Mag Pestal were invented by her and consist clearly of lies, a fact which Mag Thau is aware of from her own observations. Mag Thau should therefore not have acted on Mag Pestal’s “suggestion” as she knew that it consisted of untrue assertions: Mag Thau for instance knows my daughter and is aware that she is allowed to represent me. A power of attorney signed by myself is even in the file. The assertion that someone came forward and “claimed to be my daughter” without authority is false, as my daughter has expressly been granted power of attorney. 

Mag Pestal also stated expressly in a document on 22.7.2004 that I would be sending her the required information in writing. She in fact received the over 15 pages but did not react when written to and phoned with the question that if more information was necessary, it would be provided at any time.
On the contrary, the legal representative Mag Pestal ignored my questions and has to this day not replied. These obviously false claims, made with the obviously conscious attempt to harm me by Mag Pestal should easily have been recognized by Mag Thau as untrue, on the one hand from her own observations and on the other  with the assistance of the right to be heard which is anchored in the Austrian constitution. Mag Thau clearly failed consciously to do this and pronounced this decision with the presumed intention to harm me. 

It should also be noted that I am being represented in these proceedings by Mag Pestal, who is obliged to protect my rights in them! This would be reason enough for Mag Thau to be obliged to reject Mag Pestal’s “suggestion”. 

Mag Thau knows exactly that I am definitely in a position to protect my rights, as she followed my successful fending off of her constant attempts to refuse me legal representation for over 2 years. I have succeeded in protecting and defending my rights against a – as I have informed the court time and time again – quite obviously biased and illegally acting Judge Mag Thau (against whom in addition a criminal complaint had to be made) as far as the Supreme Court.

The immediate reaction of Judge Mag Thau to the obviously false and hugely damaging claims of a legal representative through an illegal decision which was not even delivered to me may be recognized once more in that Mag Thau is biased in this matter and the justified fear exists that she allows herself to be influenced in her decisions by considerations which are not objective and is biased in her decisions against me.

Mag Thau apparently takes no notice of justified rejection (challenge) applications.
Judge Thau apparently plans to deprive a decent, debt-free, retired woman (85) without a criminal record of her financial assets by means of an obviously false decision. Behind this and “beneficiary” of this decision is the Bank Austria, which is suing her. Mag Thau refuses the woman Legal Aid, after which the latter fought her through to the Supreme Court. Mag Thau attempts to get the woman out of the way by depriving her of the right to make a decision (“Entmündigung”), with the enthusiastic assistance of lawyer Mag Pestal, who appears to be both acting criminally and guilty of professional misconduct.

The whole behaviour of this judge, which is known to the Minister for Justice, is in our opinion criminally relevant and ought to, according to our evaluation of the situation lead to immediate suspension of the judge.
Numerous applications for rejection (challenge requests) owing to bias have been made against Mag Thau.

Complaints of fraud and coercion, as well as participation in these and in a criminal consortium according to §278 StGB were made to the public prosecution and to the Ministry of Justice (regarding the case “Bank Austria cheats client”). To this day (2010), there has been no objectively justified reply to these complaints. Neither have there been any hints at all that the detailed accounts of what happened, accompanied by clear, unambiguous evidence, have been/will be dealt with according to the law.

No comments:

Post a Comment