Sunday, September 23, 2018

10. European court of human rights part 3

Third appeal to the european court of human rights  regarded 

1. unequeal treatment, 
discrimination by authorities of disabled people that are treated with disrespect and their requests dismissed or ignored
Taxes went as far as to abuse  my disability by making demands I could not physically meet with, to then financially punish me for that failure, which I claimed is cruel treatment

2. taxes and courts  refusal to  disclose decisions and provide copies of relevant documents, which is their legal duty

3.   This was done to prevent appeals to proceed to impounding without the delay appeals woud have caused , which impounding was also tried to be managed behind my back.
The debt was based on  retroactive recall of refunded mortgage interest  over 2010 till 2012 regardless of the fact a judge had already ruled  those illegal. Here are  listed the decisions  appealed;
 

1. DECISION BY NATIONALE OMBUDSMAN 
and analysis of that decision, that I felt was based on discrimination

Nationale Ombudsman went so far as to substitute a letter written by one of their  investigators by the substitue ombudsman to iron out all mistakes , but as my analysis shows it is still discriminatory

information regarding normal policy in regards to use of postal address


  2.  DECISION BY TAXES 
legally allowed time to decide; 10 weeks, time taken; 2 year. 

       list of documents that courts and taxes refuse to provide copies of, till date

at the bottom 2 letters are listed that Taxes denies exist.

      
proof of impounding of faked debts
       along with details of a Dutch style lynching
  

that consists of a  complex financial and legalistic attack, with aim to kill in the loopholes of the law;
mark the amount to be left available to me as calculated by taxes ( 500 something) and as calculated by a private  company ( 800 something) based on the SAME details and laws. 


 

2.   APPEAL TO EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS  APRIL 6   2018 

I also appealed here that taxes could not be reached from abroad  by fax and post was disregarded when not in after 10 days, while post from abroad takes 2 weeks to arrive.
This disadvantage to people abroad  was compensated for after this appeal, though the appeal was dismissed dismissed.



  3.  ANOTHER QUICK REJECTION BY TIM EICKE
this is a rather over the top reaction because all reasons for disqualification are mentioned, while none of these applied .
I  do not believe Eicke meant to imply that making decisions, but not sending them and not treating appeals , but impound also behind the back of the citizen is fair, I guess he meant to express his loyalty to  his friend , whom he used to work together with, in that department, maybe the friend helped him formulate the verdict

No comments:

Post a Comment