Greatest Beautiful Agony

extract from the FFE report and the reasons for the guardianship authority Bülach

The following letter is the response from Dr. Baer, data protection officers of the Canton of Zurich, the letter of the guardianship authority Bülach Werner Scherrer (see entry 19.10.2007 below).
The answer of the Supervisor is contiguous to the events which I have described in the entry for 24.05.2009.

The letter was on 29 May 2001, this 8 days after our arrest and instructions written (see earlier entries). Accordingly, the guardianship authority Bülach was the rebuke by the Supervisor does not matter, since they have already achieved what they wanted.

The FFE but was already on 23 April 2001 decision. The arrest, see entry from the 28th January 2008 and 15th June 2008 .

The following individual excerpts from the report of 23 Arpil 2001, which was explained by our arrest and detainment.

conveys with his style of writing Francis Xavier Huber, guardianship authority Bulach, the impression that I until not too long ago in Effretikon had lived, what does not at all: From 1965 to 1966 in Effretikon, from 1966 to the arrest Jürg Gritti 1968 Illnau (See more in journal of 27 December 2006 ). After the arrest, I came to relatives in Brüttisellen. That a wrong impression, I also confirmed several nurses in the clinic Hard, who have seen this passage. They also felt that I had lived directly in front of Bülach Effretikon. The doctors certainly did not believe me.

As Mr Huber "The local authority had used in different ways for them," twisted the facts: It was customary at that time that children who were born out of wedlock, up to the age of 20 Age under educational assistance were and I was the only reason the guardianship authority Illnau-Effretikon in contact. So to speak over law because of, not because I sought help and had been given me this.

I have taken with the guardianship authority Illnau-Effretikon only contact because I would have used my time in medical children's files for the name change. The following is again mentioned by Mr. Huber letter of the VB-Illnau Effretikon. (More Content this letter in the entry of 20 March 2007 )

Rather, it gives the impression that with "the local authority had been used in various ways for them" the way the VB-Illnau Effretikon with my children's medical records condones it (see the entry children dealing with medical records of 20 March 2007 Brüschhalde or keyword in the blog search).

Another excerpt from the report of 23 April 2001:

says here that the is Medical Director of the Child and adolescent psychiatric service only on the basis of telephone conversations with me and my older son made an assessment.
is interesting that Dr. Simon U.S. on 3 November 2001 wrote that you are not able to meet the required assessment as desired (see entry 24 May 2009, letter from Mrs. Dr. Simon, Center). First they lied to us, whether any advice was given. Second, the record shows Memorandum of 20 November 2000 that has already decided before the letter from Dr. Simon us the guardianship authority Bülach right to apply for permits!

Not only that

aware of the existence of a false report has incorrect information, they had already decided about us before we got wrong answer.

Next Abstract:

On 5 October 2000, I filed a complaint with the District Council Bülach supervision. The VB Bülach this procedure was not matter and has also pre-empt a decision of the Bezirksats Bülach with our training. In addition, Mr. Huber
writes that I have denied access to the file to the VB Opfikon. All entry of 24 May 2009 a question of why I have refused access to the file: Due to an Act of the Child and adolescent psychiatric service, the content was unknown to me (see entry 24 May 2009), which would with other files to be sent to Opfikon. I will therefore make the accusation that I share not blind substance unknown to me files while but is served by the guardianship authority Bülach in great words against the Data Protection Commissioner, the Act still, just after (26 April 2001) all FFE Massnhamen (23 determined. April 2001) were and I could not do anything more (see the entry of 19 October 2007 ).

As it turned out, the VB was not so Opfikon aktenunkundig, as the following letter (the contents of the letter of the Youth Advocacy and the VB Bülach 3 March 2001 we is not known) of VB Bülach shows

From discussions with representatives of the VB Opfikon I had always felt that these individuals knew much more than just the future-oriented discussions, as I said the District Council Bülach (see entry 24 May 2009 or first scan.)
That it should then never go to future shows, even my entry of 6 September 2009 .

to the following excerpt:

is amazing that Ms. Pente early as 23 April 2001 mentioned as Beiständin. Why she writes, but the Supreme Court of Zurich, that only on 10 May 2001, ( entry of 22 November 2008 , 2nd part) a first meeting with Huber? Or if Mrs Evelyne Pentes statement is true, then advisers are simply times appointed to office by placing them at an FFE as advisers notes without one having first spoken with the advisers once? This would be a very weak and dangerous practice in advisers!

or using the e-mail from Peter Max by the Youth Secretariat Bülach (see entry of 20 February 2007 and scan directly ) Very strange is the fact that women Pente early as 23 April 2001 as officially Beiständin stood firm, while in the e-mail of 3 May 2001 was still in a selection. What kind of sloppy practice is it?