Our claim for enacting Europe-wide laws against euthahNAZIa.
Your letter from October 26, 2006, received by us on October 30, 2006.

As to the petition business that you are striving after to insinuate into us by issuing a closing and obviously definitive notification, our indication that the whole matter has gone far beyond that long ago may be sufficient. And it is precisely that matter that is of Your concern, too, yet far more than it is of ours, because it concerns You, dear professor, entirely differently from us, qua person and by the endowment of your office.

* Members of the Council of Europe, apart from several states of the Association of Independent States (Ukraine, Russian Federation, etc.), Turkey and a few states of East-Europe, are particularly the states of the European Community or European Union.

That means: In Europe, euthanasia is clearly forbidden, and it is forbidden within the scope (materiae and personae) of the Council of Europe and within the scope of the European Union as well.

There exists the Fundamental and Human Right to Life. By consequence, euthaNAZIstic murder practised against human beings has been banned. How could it happen, then, that in Europe there are nevertheless laws permitting that murder? As it is generally known, the human rights have a higher status than simple national (domestic) laws. When national laws contradict human rights laws, those laws must be abolished. Why is it then that the European Union has not acted accordingly, for instance by passing a relative guideline (directive) that bans explicitly once again that euthaNAZIstic murder practice?

For comparison and taken into consideration merely from a juridical technical point of view:

After World War Two had ended, several ex Nazi bigwigs were accused and condemned by the victorious powers at Nuremberg. Prior to that, passels of the most erudite jurists from several countries had researched and examined the legal situation and had come to the conclusion that to conduct such a trial would be impossible under any legal point of view. Nevertheless they had found a way to prefer penal charges in the Nuremberg trial. That was a breach of the international law. Highest-ranking officers of the Wehrmacht and ministers had expected to be treated in quite a different manner, even that now negotiations would begin, in fact, with them as the defeated but nevertheless as the recognized representatives of the defeated nation. That had been the normal course of the matter in International Law since the Westphalia Peace Treaty of 1648, and yet still in 1918, after the lost war, even the German Kaiser had not been brought to trial. But instead of negotiations, it was death on the hangman’s noose that was expecting the former Nazi-bigwigs. They were executed for having plotted to start a war of aggression. Prior to that time, suchlike matters had never been subject to punishment. There did not exist any law that would have forbidden such a war. Because, up to then, to conduct a war of aggression had always been considered a legitimate means of politics. As to the internal affairs of the State, there, the murder on a mass-scale of so-called handicapped people by the doctors had been given the go-ahead anyway, just as they are given the green light nowadays. The 300 years old international law had been broken by the accusers at Nuremberg. They had condemned and executed without any law. In compliance with the correct juridical technical procedure, the principle to follow, what they actually did not do, was: nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without a prior law), and from that it would have followed: nulla poena sine lege (no punishment without a law).

The explanations given above have been exposed for merely juridical technical reasons, and only to that purpose. Since their concern was how to pass sentences on the Nazis, thus, during the 40ies, the jurists were not at loss for finding a juridical way, even if there did not exist any law that they could draw upon. And nowadays, provided that, meanwhile, there are – both on a national level and on an international level – more than enough law provisions banning the proto-medical Modern-EuthaNAZIsm, it would be impossible for jurists in Europe to put a stop to euthaNAZIstic mass murder?! There’s surely no one who would believe such a thing!

Nowadays and with regard to the present law case – euthaNAZIa in Europe – there is no need for any amendment by the US-sugar mafia milieu, as it has been at those times at Nuremberg (cf. DER SPIEGEL, No. 42, 43, 2006).

And you, dear professor, you certainly need not being told by me, although I do mention it, that nowadays, differently from then, there are laws, and especially after your ultimate notice I need not tell you that these laws are not being applied by your striving after to insinuate these laws into a "point of view" when we are the ones who have pointed that out.

The practicable European human rights against euthaNAZIa are already at your hand, thus ready to become operative, dear professor Diamandouros. And by consequence national laws contravening these human rights should not have been allowed in the first place. There is therefore need for a European Law, a so-called European Directive that bans euthaNAZIa, as we have requested it.

You already know all that, you know it by the endowment of your office, at the latest from our request (lodged with the European Human Rights Court) and from our letter dated 5.10.2006. It is therefore up to You to take action accordingly. The only correct "point of view" is that You focus on your Statutes and that You put into operation the prescribed procedere.

During the Middle Ages, Europe was depopulated by the so-called Black Death, the Plague. Nowadays, it is the medical epidemic plague of Modern-EuthaNAZIsm that is depopulating cities, towns, villages and communities. Visitation [Heimsuchung] in every home. The euthaNAZIstic mass-murder is hourly going on. The European Ombudsman, thus You yourself, should hurry. Who remains inactive takes part in the murder.

Muhler
Lawyer and barrister

The medical epidemic plague of Modern-EuthaNAZIsm does not stop at national boundaries, indeed, there is the World Health Organization, the World Medical Association: all of them medical doctors without boundaries. But confrontation-patients in Europe and overseas are attacking the medical doctors and their appendixes in the parliament, the judiciary and the government. In South-America, too, precisely in Colombia. Cf. the attached list of signatures from Bogotá at the address of the Interamerican Human Rights Court, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Colombia.

Meanwhile, even judges of the Higher Regional Court have signed up. Against euthaNAZIa.

Enclosure: Sign-up list of signatures