Wegen Trottel Jürgen Sonneck (oder C. Paucher?) ans LG München

F A X

Landgericht München I
80316 München
Fax 5597-2991

10. April 2022

Az. 15 O 3662/22

in Sachen Jobcenter München (?), Jürgen Sonneck

Guten Tag beim LG München,

Ich nehme Bezug auf das Schreiben vom 29.03.2022, in dem Sie meine Stellungnahme zum 30.04.2022 wünschen. Ich stelle eine gewisse und auffallende Redundanz fest zu ähnlichen Schreiben in früheren Jahren.

Die im Schreiben angenommene Einschätzung, es handele sich bei der hinterhältigen Handlung von J. Sonneck alias C. Paucher um eine Amtspflichtverletzung ist zu diesem Zeitpunkt verfrüht. Zwar ist ein Beamter dies nicht von 9 bis 5, aber eine Anzeige per Email weit entfernt vom Büro des Jobcenter München (JC) um 20 Uhr abgesetzt und unter dem Namen einer Person, die nicht in Bayern (vielleicht aber in anderen Bundesländern?) existiert, ist erörterungswürdig. Es gilt doch zu etablieren, wann endet eine Beamtentätigkeit im Laufe eines Tages von 24 Stunden, kann ein Beamter zwei Identitäten haben und was sind des Beamtentums ganz ferne Handlungen. Wir betreten hier, nebenbei bemerkt, Kants dritten Paralogismus, der Personalität und den Zeitaspekt in seiner Kritik der reinen Vernunft und dem Stichwort ‘Apperzeption’.

Überhaupt gilt es erst zu beweisen, wie das Gericht korrekt zu bedenken gibt, ob J. S. tatsächlich der Anzeigende war oder nicht eher die nicht existierende Person C. Paucher? Man sollte das Donald Rumsfeldsche Denkmodel nicht vorschnell diskontieren. Oder vielleicht mit Martin Heidegger eruieren, „Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts? Das ist die Frage.“

Den sehr guten Ausführungen von Dr. Michael Luber folgend gilt doch zunächst:

a) Bei der Beurteilung eines Realakts ist zu prüfen, ob die Zielsetzung dem hoheitlichen Aufgabenbereich zugehört und zwischen dieser Zielsetzung und dem Realakt ein hinreichend enger innerer und äußerer Zusammenhang … besteht.

b) Ob zwischen dem Ort der Handlung (siehe IP-Adressen Ermittlung durch mich) und ihrer Zielsetzung ein so enger innerer und äußerer Zusammenhang besteht, dass die Handlung als Bestandteil der hoheitlichen Aufgabenerfüllung gewertet werden kann.

Ich hatte dem LG schon am 02. Mai 2018 und 24. Juni 2018 unter Az. 15 O 4865/18 (SG München Az. S 42 AS 2950/17) detaillierte Hinweise zukommen lassen. Dem folgten meine Beschwerde vom 15. Aug. 2018. 

Schon am 26. April 2016 stellte ich unter Az: ER II GS – 6711/15 Antrag auf Herausgabe des Namens der Person, die sich hinter der IP Adresse 217.253.91.237 verbarg. In dem Schreiben führte ich zu diesem frühen Zeitpunkt einige auffällige Hinweise an, die auf das Umfeld JC deuteten. Dem folgte am 03. Mai 2016 und am 13. Mai 2016 unter Az: 821 Ds 112 Js 168454/15 gemäss § 244, Abs. 2 StPO mein Antrag auf Vernehmung der Person, die sich hinter der IP Adresse verbarg.

Am 14. Feb. 2017 stellte ich Beweisantrag beim LG unter Az: 18 Ns 112 Js 168454/15 gemäss § 163b StPO und Art. 6 Abs. 3 EMRK und erwähnte auf S. 6 das erste Mal den Namen Jürgen Sonneck als den Anzeigenden. J. S. wurde aus gutem Grund nie geladen, denn es wäre peinlich für ihn verlaufen. Dessen war sich das Gericht bewusst.

Mit Schreiben vom 15. Aug. 2018 an das LG zu Az. LG – 15 O 4865/18 führte ich auf den S. 3 bis 6 klare Hinweise auf die Person Sonneck an.

Dem folgte meine Strafanzeige gegen J. Sonneck vom 24. Sept. 2018 und vom 06. Jan. 2019 mit dezidierten Hinweisen auf ihn. Mittlerweile war er ja nicht mehr beim JC, sondern seit Mitte 2017, nachdem ich ihn öffentlich und bei den Ministerien BMAS und BMFSFJ blossgestellt hatte, beim Referat für Bildung und Sport. Auf Twitter wurde sofort, wie üblich in Deutschland, durch die beiden Ministerien gesetzeswidrig (Landgericht Dortmund mit Urteil vom 25.02.2022 Az. 17 O 7/21) geblockt.

Am 24. Feb. 2019 und 05. Mai 2019 folgte, ebenso wie üblich, erfolgloser Strafantrag bei der Staatsanwaltschaft.

Es wird bei der Vernehmung des J. Sonneck von mir eine klare Beweiskette präsentiert werden, aus der hervorgehen wird, C. Paucher ist Jürgen Sonneck. Ausserdem wird sich die fundamentale Essenz für die Jobcenter, das BMAS und die BA ergeben, bei solchen Taten gilt grundsätzlich, die Timeline und den Kontext zu unterbrechen. Die Benutzung von VPN sollte für solche Gestalten offensichtlich sein.

Salomonisch böte sich an, J. S. sendet einfach einen Gutschein für ein Macbook Pro.

Ad meliora

Complaint with the ECtHR about tricky Munich judge

Mailed today, March 8, 2022. Will they accept it? Big question. This is the EU and one never knows. Might be simply shelved by single-judge decision. We’ll see.

The application form consists of 13 pages and is available here in several languages. The most relevant pages are the pages 5 to 10 and page 12 with the list of accompanying documents. Let’s go.

E. Statement of the facts

58.

Renewed rejection of a motion to recuse a judge of the Munich Social Court.

The complainant (hereinafter ‘C.’) and his Tibetan daughter (born 1995) returned to Germany from Nepal in 2005 because of the Maoist movement and the associated deterioration of the general situation of public and school life. For years, he has been involved in legal disputes with the Jobcenter Munich (hereinafter ‘JC’), which in particular massively disadvantaged his daughter. In numerous cases he saw a clear partisanship of the Social Court (hereinafter ‘SC’) judge in favor of the JC. Thirteen petitions for his replacement were fruitless.

The part of the chairman of the 42nd chamber of the Munich SC, Judge Ehegartner (hereinafter ‘Judge E.’), in the representation of the interests of the JC includes suppression of documents, refusal to allow the lawyer to inspect files over two years in three cases concerning the C.’s daughter. He communicates with the C. instead of the lawyer. Not an isolated case at the SC according to Google Reviews! An according to the BSG (Federal Social Court) indispensable ‘transfer contract of the JC/City of Munich’ did not interest him. He is indifferent to a breach of data protection of the C.’s daughter. The threat of seizure and the associated possible ruining of the bank creditworthiness of the C.’s daughter left him cold. He denies the existence of a power of representation of his daughter and a sublease contract of the daughter. In case S 42 AS 1398/16 (Right to visit parent) he suppresses important email communications with the Munich Youth Department and thus denies payment of airfare. The mother had taken a loan of $ 1,000 to cover the costs so that her daughter could see her mother in Nepal after four years. He refuses the release of the JC’s email server logs as proof of the suppression of documents with the C.’s reference to the IFG (Information Freedom Act) (case S 42 AS 2594/16 Vacation job earning). Legal reasonings and references to court decisions by the C. find no resonance in his decisions. He insists on electronic forms of communication that do not exist at the JC. Judge E. has a habit of claiming that the C. had not filed an objection with the JC. A particularly salient case of devious conduct by both the SC and the Bavarian LSG  is case S 42 AS 1596/19 in which the C. demands the repayment of €1,300.00 from the JC. In this case the Bavarian LSG contradicts itself in its decision when it denied the existence of an objection in its reasoning and on page 2 admits the existence of the objection. 

This complaint is based on the decision of Aug. 25, 2021 ref. S 31 SF 299/21 AB (A 1) of SC Judge Schulte, who for the second time rejected the application for discharge of Judge E. as already on Dec. 29, 2020. (A 2) The decision of Aug. 25, 2021 ref. S 31 SF 299/21 AB (A 1) is based on the request of the C. for discharge of Judge E. to the President of the SC of Aug. 07, 2021 with reference to a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court 2 BvR 890/20 – recital 14. (A 3)

The C.’s patience with judge E. was exhausted when he saw his March 03, 2021 request for reopening of five cases (A 4), three of them concerning his daughter, deliberately reduced to only one case S 42 AS 1103/18 {monetary claim} in the letter of the SC of April 16, 2021. (A 5) In this request for reopening of March 03, 2021, the C. criticized the ad nauseam given reasoning by Judge E. in numerous cases for his negative decisions, according to which “objection had not been filed in due form (§ 84 SGG)” because the “email precisely did not contain a qualified electronic signature and thus did not meet the requirements of § 36a para. 2 sentence 2 SGB I”. 

In four cases S 42 AS 2594/16 vacation job earning (A F1), S 42 AS 992/18 Computer Tablet, S 42 AS 1103/18 and S 42 AS 1596/19 Monetary claims (A F2) he uses this reasoning. An independent judge would have dutifully taken a look at the JC’s website and likewise the letterhead of the JC’s letters to realize, the JC does not provide a way to send an email with a qualified signature, but only a normal email address. Therefore, default according to § 36a para. 1 SGG applies.

As early as Sept. 2019, the C. had filed a lawsuit for the assumption of costs for DocuSign (A 6) in the interest of the parties. This action under ref. S 42 AS 1728/20 has been denied without reason in Feb. 2022. DocuSign is GDPR compliant and authenticates the recipient, who is previously specified by the sender, confirming that the document has been read and at what time. This confirmation is especially important as JC employees repeatedly claimed not to have received essential emails. By denying this complaint, the impression arises that the SC considers transparency unnecessary.

Statement of the facts (continued)

59.

In Aug. 2021, the C. received the ‘Official Statement’ of Judge E. (A 7) and commented on it on Aug. 23, 2021 (A 8).

In her decision, Judge Schulte ruled negative for the second time. This casts doubt on her independence. All the more so as she cleverly disregarded case ref. S 42 AS 165/17 in the C.’s first request, which leaves one speechless. Judge E. had deliberately falsely claimed at the hearing in Oct. 2020 in the presence of C’s lawyer that the C.’s daughter had not sent a power of representation (A 9) to the SC. (A 10)

The C.’s attorney was not granted access to case files for more than two years. (A 11, 12, 13) The power of attorney was signed by the C. in Nov. 2018. (A 14) Furthermore, a power of attorney of the daughter is not necessary according to § 73 para. 6 and 7 SGG. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) commented on the multiple rejection of a request for file inspection in its decision of Jan. 29, 2021 – AnwSt (B) 4/20.

Judge Schulte shows on page 1 of her Aug. 25, 2021 decision that she lacks probity and independence, (A 1)

“Der Antragsteller hat unter dem Aktenzeichen S 42 AS 1103/18 ein Klageverfahren auf höheres Arbeitslosengeld ll von Dezember 2O17 bis Mai 2018 geführt. …”

“The claimant has brought an action for higher unemployment benefit ll from December 2O17 to May 2018 under file number S 42 AS 1103/18. …”

This is deliberately misleading. The C. had cited five cases for reopening. (A 4)

According to the C.’s knowledge, the President of SC Mrs. Mente was in contact with the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office in the period from June 2, 2020 to June 16, 2021 (A PSC 1, PSC 2) due to alleged insults of Judge E. by the C. (Az. 845 Ds 259 Js 153060/20) The C. is perplexed, how a court, which is in contact with the public prosecutor’s office Munich over a period of one year and was “supplied” in this period with submissions against the C. by Judge E., is able to judge independently and unprejudiced. Several negative decisions by Judge E. fell into this period. One wonders why a president of a social court does not preemptively relieve the judge of the cases. Perhaps it was assumed that the public prosecutor’s office would not grant access to the files. “False face must hide what the false heart doth know.”

Even more perplexing is why a judge is so eager to continue to judge after these declarations of no confidence. To suppress documents, to table fraudulent decisions in disregard of the BSG judgment of 24.11.2010 – B 11 AL 35/09 R (keyword “allowance” (“Freibetrag”)), to accept open racist insinuations from the JC unquestioned (sublease contract of the daughter deemed not credible), to ignore an important witness summons.

A monetary adjustment from 2019 onwards decided by the Federal Cabinet, to which the JC deliberately did not comply (action in Sept. 2019, S 42 AS 1968/19), leaves him cold and he passes a complaint for failure to act of May 2020 on to the Bavarian LSG at a cost of € 560.00. There is nothing at all to decide for a judge here. It is virtually a law.

He forces the C.’s daughter to appear in court in person under the threat of a penalty payment of € 1,000 in the event of non-appearance. (A 15) This in a case in which part of her earnings from a vacation job were requested by the JC by threatening confiscation. (S 42 AS 2594/16)

If, in Judge Schulte’s view, the “distrust (must) be understandable from the point of view of a calmly and reasonably thinking party”, the C. fails to understand how she can regard the passage in para. 17 in the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision 2 BvR 615/11 as irrelevant:

“… In the case law of the higher courts, it is recognized that the filing of a criminal complaint against a party or its announcement by a judge does not justify the apprehension of bias without further ado, because the law itself allows the filing of a complaint by the court (§ 149 ZPO) and in some cases also requires it (§ 183 GVG). However, it is also recognized that the concern of partiality can arise from the concrete circumstances of the filing of the report …. According to the prevailing view, the filing of a criminal complaint does not constitute grounds for bias only if the judge has previously carefully weighed the existing circumstances of suspicion and exoneration and has given the party the opportunity to comment …”

Statement of the facts (continued)

60.

The presumption of innocence seems to be anathema to Judge Schulte when she writes:

“Even the fact that the President actually filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff does not, from the point of view of a calm and reasonably thinking party to the proceedings, give rise to the apprehension of bias on the part of the judge to whom the insults were uttered.” (A 1 p.4)

The hearing at the District Court Munich was in Oct. 2021 and after the C.’s declarations the prosecution reduced its prior accusations to a considerable extent. The case is pending at the Regional Court. Judge Schulte contravenes Article 20 (3) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 28 (1) sentence 1 of the Basic Law and Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Judge Schulte furnishes an abstruse reasoning according to which “a litigant (would) always have the possibility to ensure that a judge is biased by insulting a judge he does not like, if the judge in question defends himself against the alleged insults, with the consequence that another judge would become responsible in the legal dispute. This would not comply with the principle of the lawful judge enshrined in Article 101 (1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law.”

Judge Schulte is also indifferent to ECtHR ‘Case of Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy’ (Ref. 48/1995/554/640) keyword “double circumstance”, which has a striking resemblance to this case.

The C. received further proof of Judge E.’s indifference by email dated Sept. 21, 2021, in which his attorney states that she has not yet received a response to the inquiry of June 8, 2021 in the case S 42 AS 1398/16 (Wahrn. des Umgangsrechts – Right of child to visit parent). (A 16)

In total, six applications were filed by the C. with the SC to see Judge E. relieved:

– Case at hand,
– Motion filed Nov. 09, 2020 and denied by Judge Schulte, 
– July 21, 2020 and denied by Judge Rimmelspacher by decision dated Sept. 3, 2020,
– Motions filed March 2019 (to Pres. Mente), Dec. 18, 2019, Feb. 2020, and March 07, 2019. 
– The total number of rejections amounts to thirteen! As a matter of principle, the C. no longer attends any hearings with Judge E. and is appalled by his gloat.

Since the decision of the SC was unappealable pursuant to Sec. 172 (2) SGG, the BF filed a constitutional complaint (A 17) in due time on Sept. 26, 2021. This was not accepted for decision on Dec. 19, 2021 without giving a reason. (A 18)

F. Statement of the alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and relevant arguments

61. Article invoked

Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR
Art. 6 para. 3 c ECHR
Art. 6 para. 3 d ECHR

Explanation

Article 6 (1) ECHR guarantees access to a court and a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. 

This cannot be guaranteed with simultaneous prosecution of the C. by a judge and his covering ongoing lawsuits with all of them decided negative. A bias will be always present.

Suppression of documents or failure to inquire into the existence of these documents as claimed and presented by the C. undermine “litigants’ confidence in the workings of justice based on the knowledge that they have had the opportunity to express their views on every document in the file (including documents obtained by the court of its own motion: K.S. v. Finland, § 22) (Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, 1997, § 29; Pellegrini v. Italy, 2001, § 45 and 46).”

Article 6 (3) (c) ECHR guarantees legal assistance

The continuous denial of access to the files to the C.’s lawyer as well as ignoring her in three cases when the judge communicated primarily with the C. (Pellegrini v. Italy, 2001, § 45 and 46) undermines this guarantee. See also review of SC on Google (“Ein Google- Nutzer”).

The judge’s assertion of an absence of the C.’ daughter’s power of attorney is crude malice toward the C. and his daughter. Even the President of the SC was made aware of the power of attorney by the C.! In this case the C.’s lawyer was unable to respond because she was refused access to the case files.

Article 6 (3) (d) guarantees the production of witnesses and evidence. 

Showing indifference to the C.’s proven claim of the existence of essential documents in the court’s files and with the JC in various cases undermines any confidence in the ethics and the moral compass of a judge.

Stipulating that only emails with a qualified electronic signature are acceptable when this is not provided by the JC is a grossly malicious act and Catch 22.

Judge E. further did not follow the request of the C. to have a civil servant of the JC present an affidavit that she had not received three documents from the C. when another civil servant of the JC had confirmed the existence of one document. 

Judge E. did also not follow a request by the C. to summon the ex-JC civil servant Jürgen Sonneck who had sent us police by using the false name ‘C. Paucher’ for a sharp interrogation by the C. (see Application 51482/18 – single-judge decision).

Judge E. further denied access to email server logs of the JC. These server logs would prove with 100% certainty that the JC had received three essential documents from the C. All the more, since in one case a JC employee confirmed the existence of a document and based a decision on it.

“Proper participation of the appellant party in the proceedings requires the court, of its own motion, to communicate the documents at its disposal (Kerojärvi v. Finland, 1995, § 42). The mere possibility for the appellant to consult the case file and obtain a copy of it is not, of itself, a sufficient safeguard (Göç v. Turkey [GC], 2002, § 57).” Likewise Mantovanelli v. France, § 33.

G. Compliance with admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention

63. Complaint

Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR
Art. 6 para. 3 c ECHR
Art. 6 para. 3 d ECHR

Information about remedies used and the date of the final decision

1. Decision of the Munich Social Court of Aug. 25, 2021, ref. S 31 SF 299/21 AB – p. 38 (A 1)

2. Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Dec. 19, 2021, ref. 1 BvR 2356/21 – p. 49 (A 18)

Das verlogene Jobcenter Rat Pack

Per Email

Jobcenter München
A. Farrenkopf

20. Feb. 2022

Betreff: S 42 AS 1968/19, S 42 AS 1728/20, S 42 AS 2200/19, S 42 AS 2120/20, S 42 AS 1656/21, S 42 AS 873/20, S 42 AS 1297/20, S 42 AS 709/21, S 42 AS 2000/20

Die verlogenen Schreiben vom Februar 2022

  1. Bezüglich des Schreibens von Frau/Fräulein Schulte der staatlichen Verbrecher Behörde Jobcenter München zum Fall S 42 AS 1968/19 (Regelsatz) vom 04. Feb. 2022 stelle ich fest, die Behauptung, es sei lediglich Einspruch gegen die Kostenübernahme des Tablets eingelegt worden, ist dreckig gelogen. Nirgendwo taucht dies in meinem Widerspruch vom 15. Aug. 2019 auf.
  2. Bezüglich des Schreibens von Frau/Fräulein Schulte der Kaschemme JC und Heimat des Reservoir Dogs C. Paucher zum Fall S 42 AS 1728/20 (DocuSign) vom 04. Feb. 2022 stelle ich fest, die Behauptung, es sei lediglich Einspruch gegen die Kostenübernahme des Tablets eingelegt worden, ist ebenso dreckig gelogen. Nirgendwo taucht dies in meinem Widerspruch vom 15. Aug. 2019 auf.
  3. Bezüglich des Schreibens von Frau/Fräulein Schulte der Billiglohn Behörde JC zum Fall S 42 AS 2200/19 (Urkundenunterdrückung Ferien Verdienst) vom 04. Feb. 2022 stelle ich fest, die Behauptung, es sei kein Antrag vorab gestellt worden, ist ebenso perfide gelogen. Dies geschah in meiner Email vom 12. Sep. 2019.
  4. Bezüglich des Schreibens von Frau/Fräulein Schulte des reichsdeutschen Boudoirs JC zum Fall S 42 AS 2120/20 (Einsicht in Email Server Logs) vom 07. Feb. 2022 stelle ich fest, die Behauptung, es sei nicht klar, um welche Dokumente es gehe, ist ebenso perfide gelogen. Dies Dokumente sind eindeutig dem Schreiben des BfDI vom 15.12.2020 zu entnehmen. Dort wird der Fall S 42 AS 2594/16 (Ferienverdienst meiner Tochter) angesprochen.
  5. Schreiben des JC vom 03. Feb. 2022 in Sachen S 42 AS 992/18. Verweis auf § 580 Abs. 5 ZPO. Verleumder und Dummdödel Jürgen Sonneck wurde nicht geladen zu meiner Vernehmung. Dies ist ein Verstoss gegen Art. 6 Abs. 3 d EMRK. Ebenso bietet das JC keine Möglichkeit zur Eingabe einer “formgerechten Email (S 84 SGG) mit qualifizierter elektronische Signatur”. § 179 Abs. 2 SGG!
  6. In Schreiben vom 04. Feb. 2022 zu S 42 AS 1656/21 (Eidesstattliche Vers. Frau Strama) lügt wie zu erwarten Frau/Fräulein Schulte. Mein Verlangen einer EV wurde bislang nie verhandelt, geschweige beschieden. Es ist offensichtlich, dass Frau Strama lügt.
  7. Schreiben des JC vom 04. Feb. 2022 zu S 42 AS 873/20 (Regelsatz). Klarer Verstoss und damit Betrug durch “Richter” Ehegartner nach § 580 Abs. 5 ZPO, denn der Regelsatzbeschluss vom Bundeskabinett verabschiedet hat quasi Gesetzescharakter. Die Verbrecherbande JC legte einen Bescheid vom Nov. 2018 vor. Die Regelsatzanpassung galt ab Jan. 2019. Siehe mein Schreiben an den Kangaroo Court SG vom 24. Juni 2020.
  8. Schreiben vom 07. Feb. 2022 zu S 42 AS 1297/20 enthält eine weitere dreckige Lüge dieser Schnecke vom JC. Es läge keine Klage vor zur Korrekturvon falschen, unrichtigen oder unvollständigen personenbezogenen Daten entsprechend des Erlasses der Europäischen Kommission zum Thema Datenschutz u.a. Folgendes. (https:// ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/my-rights/what-are-my- rights_de). Oh doch, mit Az. S 42 AS 1569/20 vom 21. Sept. 2020. 
  9. Schreiben vom 07. Feb. 2022 zu Az S 42 AS 709/21 (Untermietvertrag) lügt Tante Schulte erneut dreckig. Es gäbe von mir keinen Widerspruch zum Bescheid vom 25.03.2019 von Urkundenunterdrückerin Strama. Er kam per Email mit Pdf am 31.03.2019.
  10. Schreiben vom 07. Feb. 2022 zu Az. S 42 AS 2000/20 (sozialrechtl. Herstellungsanspr. Sonneck/JC). Die Frage stellt sich, ist Frau/Fräulein Schulte völlig verblödet? In den letzten zwei Abschnitten bestätigt das JC den Volltrottel J. Sonneck alias ‘C. Paucher’ als den Anzeigenden. Ist dieses JC noch zu retten? So etwas streitet man rigoros ab. Das ist ein Diktum unter Kriminellen.

Des weiteren kann man sich über dieses Konglomerat JC/SG vor Lachen nur noch bepissen. Das Schreiben zu S 42 AS 1297/20 vom JC stammt vom 07. Feb. 2022 und wurde vom SG am 09.02.2022 an mich gesendet. Verhandlung war am 10. Feb. 2022. Hallo im korrupten Shithole Bayern.

Fazit: Das reichsdeutsche BMAS unter Leitung des Socialist Fat Fuck Hubsi Heil muss sein dreckig lügendes Personal besser trainieren.

Verbum sap

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

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)