Bundesverfassungsgericht hackt einer juristischen Krähe kein Auge aus

Das Frühjahrslüftchen im Herbst wehte, wie zu erwarten, nur kurz. Die Karlsruhe Klowns hacken einer juristischen Krähe kein Auge aus. Kameraderie ist die Devise. Verfassungsbeschwerde wird, natürlich ohne Begründung, nicht angenommen.

Bundsverfassungsgericht – 1. Senat, 2. Kammer
Christ – Lord Chief Justice Paulus – Härtel (zur Quotenerfüllung)

Also adressierte Berlin (Hal) den Lord Chief Justice in Karlsruhe:

“Be it your charge my Lord
To see performed the tenor of my work.”

Lord Chief Justice Paulus antwortet Berlin:

“After this cold considerance, sentence me,
And, as you are a king, speak in your state
What I have done that misbecame my place,
My person, or my liege’s sovereignty.”

(The Choice of the Four Fathers: Henry IV, Falstaff, the Lord Chief Justice, and the King of France in the Henriad – Kenji Yoshino)

Bundesverfassungsgericht, ein Richter nimmt sich alles heraus. Ist dies Qualifizierte Immunität?

Umweltverträglich werden diese gut 96% abgelehnten Verfassungsbeschwerden entsorgt.

3rd anniversary of ECHR Euro Clowns’ covering up German civil servant Jürgen Sonneck’s and alias “C. Paucher”

German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek, imbued with exquisit cultural and symbolic capital, and complemented by habitus. Section V – European Court of Human Rights. Expertly executed by judge Potocki in Single-judge decision. Potocki meanwhile retired.

The complaint and background is here and here the letter from a year ago.

Complaint 51482/18

01/17/2019

The European Court of Human Rights has decided in a single-judge setting to declare the above complaint inadmissible.

The decision of the Court is annexed hereto.

This decision is final and is not subject to appeal to a tripartite committee, a chamber or to the Grand Chamber. Therefore, you will not receive any further letters from the Court in this case. The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision. (1)

This Decision shall be rendered in one of the two official languages of the Court (English or French) and shall not be translated into other languages.

The Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

. . . . . . . . . .

DECISION

(Application no. 51482/18)

introduced on 29 October 2018

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 10 January 2019 in a single-judge formation pursuant to Articles 24 § 2 and 27 of the Convention, has examined the application as submitted.

The Court finds in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto and that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met.

The Court declares the application inadmissible.

André Potocki

Judge 

Just trust The German Connection. No relation to The French Connection. I have that on good authority from “Popeye” Doyle.

The German Connection at the ECHR.

And here is His Stupidity Jürgen Sonneck in person. Why did nobody tell moron Jürgen the IP address is transmitted when you send an email to police?

Racist and criminal Jürgen Sonneck

“whatever the European law may be, which in case of doubt is a matter for the CJEU to determine, and the CJEU alone”

Wolfgang Streeck has an excellent post ‘Ultra Vires‘. It is about the campaign, conducted by the European Commission (EC) and the EU Parliament (EP) with the help of the Court of Justice (CJEU), to teach Poland the rule of law by withholding its share in Ursula von der Leyen’s precious, the Next Generation EU (NGEU) Corona Recovery Fund. Here some morsels.

… ‘rule of law’ means two things here: independence of the national judiciary from the national executive, and recognition by both of the supremacy of European over national law, including national constitutional law, whatever the European law may be, which in case of doubt is a matter for the CJEU to determine, and the CJEU alone.

The way this works can be seen by comparing the cases of Poland and Germany. Germany was accused because its constitution allowed its constitutional court enough independence to rule against the national government – in other words, for its government not preventing the court taking a view different from that of the government, thereby upholding the rule of law. When, upon pressure from Brussels, the German government promised that it would see to it that the court would from now on rule in line with the national government, thereby committing itself to curtailing the independence of the court, and with it the rule of law, proceedings were ended on the grounds that the country had promised to respect the supremacy of European law. Poland, on the other hand, is accused of, and is already being punished for, not allowing its court enough independence to rule against the national government, thereby curtailing the rule of law, this time however by allowing the national court to challenge the doctrine of the universal supremacy of European over national law.

As a remedy, Brussels expects the Polish government to change the composition of the constitutional court so that it will rule in favour of European law supremacy in future, in which case it will pass the rule of law test, which in fact is a cooperation-in-integration-by-law test. Until it does so, the EU will withhold the financial support to which the country is entitled under the Treaties, breaking the law in defence of the law – a Schmittian Notstand. As a side effect, hardly unintended, the domestic opposition to the Polish government, led by a former Polish prime minister voted out of office for strict adherence to EU neoliberal economic recipes and compensated by his Brussels friends with one of the five EU presidencies, will be able to claim that by voting for them and for the supremacy of European law, Polish citizens will again benefit from EU financial support. In effect this turns the battle over the rule of law into an instrument of imperial elite management aimed at national regime change.

To recapitulate: under current EU doctrine, protecting the rule of law requires in some countries repression of national courts by national governments, while in others it requires their liberation. The German government satisfied the Commission by promising to ‘actively’ discourage anti-European, pro-national tendencies on its highest court, thereby undermining domestic in favour of supranational rule of law; while the Polish government drew the ire of the Commission by encouraging anti-European, pro-national tendencies on the part of its constitutional court, thereby undermining domestic but also European rule of law, as interpreted by the CJEU. Whereas German undermining of domestic rule of law is forgivable because it serves European rule of law, Polish undermining of domestic rule of law is not because it undermines European rule of law.

Full Streeck here.

Here the view from the US. Somewhat vaguely related if you will.

EU Le Peauh

Also sprach Lady Macbeth Mente, “Come, you spirits, That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here …”

Canadian attorney clowning around and banging the gavel on his head

F A X

Kangaroo Court Sozialgericht München
Präsidentin
Richelstr. 11
80634 München
Fax: 13062-314

12. Jan. 2022

S 42 AS 2000/20

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Abraham Lincoln (inoffiziell zugeschriebenes Zitat)

Präsidentin des Kangaroo Courts SG München Mente,

Ich nehme Bezug auf das belästigende Schreiben vom 30.12.2021 zu o.a. Aktenzeichen.

I. Meine Klage vom 29. Nov. 2020 gegen das Jobcenter München und die Stadt München zur Durchsetzung des Sozialrechtlichen Herstellungsanspruch wegen der hodenlosen und völlig verblödeten Aktion des Rassisten und Verbrechers (Verleumdung) Jürgen Sonneck unter dem falschen Name ‘C. Paucher’ aufzutreten, wurde der 42. Kammer zugeleitet. Der GVP führt rechtswidrig (!) keine Namen an.

Ich erachte jegliche Korrespondenz von der 42. Kammer in der mir gewohnten Besetzung als Belästigung. Weiters als Verstoss gegen den Art. 97 Abs. 1 GG. 

Ich verbiete mir, wie schon in 2021 geäussert, jegliche Kommunikation von der 42. Kammer unter “Richter”, Rassist und Verbrecher ( Urkundenunterdrückung zum Zweck des Betrugs in mehreren Fällen, Bestehen auf nicht existierende Kommunikationsformen)  sowie Verstoss gegen Art. 6 EMRK, Master Robert Shallow Ehegartner. Sir Robert Shallow, Esquire & ”Richter” Ehegartner, die Apotheose der neoliberalen Bettlägrigkeit mit dem JC München in der ordoliberalen Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsordnung.

“I would curry with Master Shallow that no man could better command his servants.”

“Master Shallow, my Lord Shallow, be what thou wilt.
I am Fortune’s steward.
Get on thy boots. We’ll ride all night.”
Sir John Falstaff

II. Also sprach Lady Macbeth Mente,

“Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood”.

als sie vermeintlich sub rosa in Ihrer Korrespondenz vom 02.06.2020 mit dem “sehr geehrten Herrn Ltd. Oberstaatsanwalt Kornprobst” (siehe Exhibit 2 im Fall Az. 845 Ds 259 Js 153060/20) sich desavouierend besorgt zeigte um die Ehre eines “(ehemaligen) Mitarbeiters des Jobcenters”, Jürgen Sonneck, der als Beamter in einem demokratischen Staat feige und hodenlos den falschen Namen ‘C. Paucher’ bei der Polizei benutzte. Dies um mir und meiner tibetischen Tochter bewusst und geplant Schaden zuzufügen und darin erfolgreich war.

“Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye,
Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under’t.”

Sie, Präsidentin, etablieren sich wie der Prinz von Arragon, wie er eingebildet das falsche Kästchen wählte. Das Kästchen mit dem rassistischen Verbrecher und Moron Jürgen Sonneck.

“What’s here? The portrait of a blinking idiot.”

Bedenken Sie in der bukolischen Provinz des kleinen diebischen Bergvolks die Worte Portias:

“To offend and judge are distinct offices
And of opposèd natures.”

Mit anderen Worten, Art. 97 Abs. 1 GG, falls Sie schwer von Begriff sind. Den vermeintlich Interessierten bewegt die Frage, wann Sie Ihre seijinishiki halten?

Vielleicht hilft Ihnen ein Blick rüber zu dem US Law Professor Jonathan Turley, “The Eight Degrees of Ignorance and Stupidity” und hier eine der Maximen aus des italienischen Ökonomen Carlo Cipolla’s “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity“:

4. “Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.”

Um dem ganzen Ambiente den adäquaten Rahmen zu verleihen, darf ich auf zum Teil vernichtende Beurteilungen des SG München auf Google verweisen. Beurteilungen, die sich mit meinen Erfahrungen decken. Quelle surprise.

So Sie eventuell weitere Beleidigungen zu entdecken geneigt sind, ist Ihnen nahegelegt, penibel auf die Grammatik zu achten, das Sujet. Sie und die bayerische Justiz in der Nymphenburger scheinen hierin zuweilen zu straucheln. Ich stamme nicht aus der Bauerntrampel Provinz. Je est un autre.

O serpent heart, hid with a flowering face!
Did ever dragon keep so fair a cave?
Beautiful tyrant! fiend angelical!
Dove-feather’d raven! wolvish-ravening lamb!
Despised substance of divinest show!
Just opposite to what thou justly seem’st,
A damned saint, an honourable villain!

Gnōthi seauton

(signed)