Complaint about the President of the Social Court Munich Edith Mente

President Edith Mente laying it bare.
Inadvertently.

By Email

Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (FADA) (1)
Glinkastraße 24
10117 Berlin

July 26, 2021

cc ECRI, BMJV, BMAS, SC, Bav. SC, Federal SC, Public Prosecutor Munich

Complaint about the President of the Social Court Munich Edith Mente

To whom it may concern,

The president of the Social Court Munich, Edith Mente, took issue with a phrasing (in bold) in the following paragraph which is an excerpt from the case S 42 AS 291/20 I filed on 19. Feb. 2020 that addressed fraud by the government agency Jobcenter Munich.

“Laut Kontoauszügen (zu unterbreiten durch die Behörde, aus der der charakterlich versiffte und völlig verblödete deutsche Nazi-Stil Beamten-Halunke Jürgen Sonneck alias C. Paucher stammt) gingen vom JC in den Monaten Sept. bis Dez. 2016 (4 Monate) € 1.010,- ein. In den fünf Monaten von Jan. bis Mai 2017 gingen € 2.449,- ein. Somit kumuliert € 3.459,-. Zugestanden wären € 4.474,-.”

The bold part translates:

“the rotten character and completely dumbed-down German Nazi-style civil servant half-wit Jürgen Sonneck alias C. Paucher”

On June 2, 2020, the president of the Social Court Munich (following ‘SC’) Edith Mente filed a criminal complaint (Exhibit 1) against me for, as she sees it, insulting “judge” Ehegartner, who in four cases decided against my Tibetan daughter with the explicit and planned intention and systematic execution of defrauding her (2). This will be addressed in a separate complaint against racist and career-conscious “judge” Ehegartner.

In her letter to the Chief public prosecutor Mrs. Mente mentioned her pontification to me to ”refrain from comparisons from the Nazi era” (page 2). Mrs. Mente would be well advised to mind her own business and refrain from interfering in my right to free speech. Secondly, and more importantly considering she proudly sports a PhD in law, she might want to dive deeper into the peculiarities of language, in this case her mother tongue. I.e., a Porsche-style car is not a Porsche. A Bolt-style sprinter need not be as fast as the real Usain Bolt.

However, it seems that the president of the SC did not have her best day in terms of intellect and circumspection when she sent her letter to Munich prosecution. She should also have consulted with the local Jobcenter and with the City of Munich about this person Jürgen Sonneck and his Alias ‘C. Paucher’ prior to sending it. It can be surmised she was absolutely certain I would not gain access to the case files. Judging from said letter she defends the racist criminal Jürgen Sonneck,

  • a civil servant who in his blatant stupidity dispatched a libelous criminal complaint to Munich police on May 7, 2015 using the false name ‘C. Paucher’,
  • who in his stupidity did not use a VPN service to conceal his identity/location,
  • did so on a date that immediately gave away his identity in the context given, and
  • had this planned months ahead in order to, yet again, harm me and my daughter who was attending high school at the time,
  • and to drive home its point unmistakably, the Munich authorities deliberately damaged her Macbook (!),

when she writes “In addition, Mr. N. – referring to a (former) employee of the Jobcenter – again uses comparisons with the Nazi era (Nazi-style civil servant scoundrel)”.

One wonders what are the president’s moral convictions? How does she understand a civil servant’s duties in the social environment? Does caring carry any importance to her? Is she oblivious to the fact that Germany is internationally well known for its institutionalized racism? Again, one can surmise she was absolutely certain her letter would stay discreet because the letter is an embarrassment in toto.

Alas, it gets even more deplorable and despicable. In 2014, the racist and criminal German government agency Jobcenter tried to coax my daughter away from attending higher school into a job. This by expressly questioning her qualifications although they had never seen her, knew nothing about her apart from her mere existence. That is what racist Germans do and that is how migrants are treated in racist Germany. The same Jürgen Sonneck had sent this letter (Exhibit 2) to the police in Munich in May 2014. As racists come, he was very outspoken as to what Jobcenters are all about on page 2:

“The Munich Job Center cannot accept that its employees are impaired in the performance of their duties.”

Come to think of it. A civil servant openly expresses his racism in a letter to police! Migrants should be content with basic schooling and then fuck off into a job. Very pertinent was ultimately his and the Jobcenter’s request.

“We ask to be informed of the prosecutorial reference … and final notification of the outcome of the proceedings …”

The final verdict of the County Court Munich was on May 6, 2015!!! Fast backward to the beginning of this letter and one becomes literally witness of his deviousness. His second complaint using a false name took place exactly one day later on May 7, 2015. Racist Jürgen Sonneck had it all very well planned, or so he thought.

For good measure Jobcenter racist Jürgen Sonneck’s last sentence reads:

“The undersigned is authorized to file criminal complaints.”

Even using a false name. This is the proverbial Ugly German. Here is a blog post about this case by Jacob Mchangama, Director, Justitia, Denmark and Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow, Justitia, Denmark.

It should be noted that in case S 42 AS 992/18 I requested on June 11, 2020 the subpoena of Jürgen Sonneck for questioning based on Art. 6 subsection 3 d ECHR. SC “judge” Ehegartner did not care. Too great was the fear that Jürgen Sonneck would stumble over his stupidity and blow it. This is what you call a veritable Kangaroo Court. “It would be insulting to kangaroos to call it a kangaroo court” though as US star attorney Alan Dershowitz once put it.

Judging from these incidents I am at a loss to interpret as to what the president of a Social Court Edith Mente was thinking when she set out to express her concerns about the honor of a racist and criminal civil servant? Is it hyperbole? Is it the loss of ethical bearings? Has her moral compass become misaligned? Has decency lost its currency?

‘I would have a man know everything and yet,
by his manner of speaking,

not be convicted of having studied.’
Antoine Gombaud, Chevalier de Méré (1607-1685 ), De la conversation.

STVBEEQV

(1) I am fully aware of the shortcomings. Shortcomings of the FADA by government design, to be sure.

With regard to the promotion and prevention function of equality bodies, the FADA lacks the competence to intervene in the legislative procedure (§ 13j of GPR No. 2). It also lacks substantial competences with regard to the support and litigation function: while the FADA has the competence to assist persons exposed to racism and intolerance by providing information, redirecting them to other organisations and by mediating, it cannot provide them, as recommended in § 14a, c, d and e of GPR No. 2, with legal assistance, represent them before institutions, adjudicatory bodies and the courts, bring cases in its own name or intervene as amicus curiae, third party or expert. The members of the FADA’s network against discrimination cannot provide such assistance throughout Germany either. As pointed out in ECRI’s last report on Germany, the FADA also lacks the power to question persons and to apply for an enforceable court order or impose administrative fines if an individual or institution does not comply with a decision related to its investigation powers (§ 21 c and d of GPR No. 2).

ECRI REPORT ON GERMANY 2020

The FADA is a simulacrum.
“1. Rather than creating communication, it exhausts itself in the act of staging communication. Rather than producing meaning, it exhausts itself in the staging of meaning. A gigantic process of simulation that is very familiar.”
(Simulacra and Simulation, University of Michigan Press)

(2) “Judge” Ehegartner’s systematic and meticulous execution included denial of access to case files for my lawyer and shutting down one case by claiming – falsely – that my daughter had not sent a power of attorney. It should be noted that the president of the SC was made aware by me in an email of the existence of the power of attorney well ahead of the court hearing!


2 Exhibits attached