The primary (proto-) medical Modern-Murder will be destroyed again by the SPK - II


Ingeborg Muhler, Lawyer and Barrister,


The European Ombudsman
1 Avenue du Président Robert Schuman
B.P. 403
67075 Strasbourg Cedex

Date: November 24, 2006

Subject: The hourly on-going murder that is committed on a mass-scale (so-called euthanasia) must be stopped at once!

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


Dear Professor Diamandouros,

The matter at stake is not our or someone else’s point of view, therefore no subjective opinion, as you erroneously assume. What you call "point of view" is nothing but applicable law. You were given the possibility to assure yourself of the fact that we have dealt exclusively with legal provisions which to account for is your and no one else’s business. The human rights exist in order to ban the hourly on-going murder that is committed on a mass-scale, which is being deliberately played down by you as euthanasia (ancient Greek word stem, your point of view?).

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.

Once again:

The human rights and the fundamental right to life are obligatorily and binding on all the institutions of the European Union and on the institutions of the Council of Europe as well, and they are that throughout all their institutional diversifications. They are also obligatorily and binding on the European Ombudsman, thus on You yourself.

All the member states of the European Union have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, but the European Union itself has not. That defect has been redressed subsequently by the European Charter of the Basic Laws, solemnly proclaimed in Nice, in December 2000, so that now the human rights are also obligatory and binding on the institutions of the European Union itself.

In the European Charta of the Human Rights, which is obligatory and binding on the bodies and the institutions of the European Union itself, it is made clear that one condition sine qua non of the legitimacy of the Community consists in enforcing the Basic Laws ubiquitously. Article 52, paragraph 3, of the European Charta of the Basic Laws states that "the Basic Laws of the Charta shall have the same meaning and scope as laid down by the Convention of Human Rights".

With regard to the Statutes that regulate the performance of your duties You yourself write:

Article 2, paragraph 1 – Statute of the European Ombudsman

"Within the framework of the (…) treaties (…), the Ombudsman shall help to uncover misadministration (i.e. a deplorable state of affairs that gives rise to grievances) in the activities of the Community institutions and bodies (…)".

If it is the case that the human rights and particularly the right to life is being disregarded and violated by a body or an institution of the Community – all the more by not intervening against the euthaNAZIstic mass murder in several countries member states of the European Union – so, undoubtedly, there exists at least "a deplorable state of affairs". And, as you write correctly, the European Ombudsman, that is You yourself!, has to take action by the endowment of his office to resolve "grievances due to deplorable states of affairs".

The right to life is the most fundamental human right without which any other human right is not even thinkable. Because those that are dead have no human rights. And the fundamental freedoms, too, are suspended (being overruled), because it is human beings that create the movement of goods that the fundamental liberties refer to. Goods do not circulate on their own initiative ("free movement of goods"), it’s the people that move them.

If in one or in more countries of the European Union there exist national laws that obstacle the "free movement of goods", and be that only by simple limitations on competition, then the institutions of the European Union are taking action in order that these national laws that limit competition are abolished. So-called EU-directives are passed that are obligatory and binding on the national states members of the European Union and overrule all their national laws. A time limit is imposed on the national states within which they have either to abolish their national laws or to adapt them according to the European Directive. A course of action that, with regard to customs barriers and distortions of competition and suchlike, has been a common practice long since, shall not apply to the right of life?!

It is a simple fact that within the European Union there are States that have passed pro-euthaNAZIa laws. It is also a simple fact that in other EU-States strong trends are in progress, as well as massive surreptitious advertising and propaganda campaigns, to influence the national jurisdiction in that sense, that is to introduce pro-euthaNAZIa laws.

That is incompatible with the European Human Rights Charta of Nice. That is also incompatible with the 1992 EU Treaty. Article 6 of the EU-Treaty (Maastricht 1992) states: "The Union is founded on the … respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms". And Article 6 (2) of the EU-treaty (Maastricht 1992) states: "The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights signed in Rome on 4 November 1950".

If within the scope ratio (materiae and personae) of the European community law the commission of acts of murder is not punished, and if in several member states of the Community the commission of such acts of murder is even permitted by law, then, this fact of the matter cannot be tolerated by the bodies of the European Union. If the bodies of the European Union remain nevertheless inactive, then, this fact of the matter constitutes a "deplorable state of affairs" that is unequalled, and in your quality as European Ombudsman You could have intervened ex officio and according to your statutes already a long time ago, in fact you ought to have intervened!

Within the frame of the Council of Europe*, euthanasia has been banned as well.
Here, there even exists a relative recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe already since 1999. That recommendation bears the title: "Protection of the Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being", and it states that the European states have to guarantee the right to "live in human dignity in all stages of life till its end". The Parliamentary Assembly has stated explicitly that "a person’s wish to die never constitutes any legal claim to die at the hand of another person, let alone a legal justification to be killed on somebody’s demand".

* 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.

Lawyer and barrister


Supplementary note:

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