Das Bundeskabinett hatte am 19. September 2018 die Erhöhung der bundeseinheitlichen Regelsätze zum 1. Januar 2019 beschlossen. Aus diesem Grund hatte der Stadtrat am 27. November 2018 die Erhöhung der Regelsätze wie folgt beschlossen: Haushaltsvorstand beziehungsweise Alleinstehende, Alleinerziehende: von 424 Euro auf 445 Euro. Die Münchner Sozialgerichte kümmerten sich in ihrer Kungelei mit dem Jobcenter München nicht darum. Das LSG erging sich stattdessen in rechtsbrechender Nötigung § 240 Abs. 1 und 2 StGB, um dem Ganzen das bekannte Voralpen Timbre der Eingeborenen zu geben.
Präsident des Bayer. LSG Kolbe,
Zur Ihrer Rekapitulation:
Widerspruch beim JC vom 15. Aug. 2019.
Klage vom 10. Sept. 2019.
Eine Strafanzeige gegen die JC Mitarbeiter Strama und Nowack vom 22.09.2019 wurde von StA und begeistertem Schwimmer Heidenreich in bewährter Blaupause nach § 152 Abs. 2 StPO abgelehnt.
Durch Verweigerung der Erhöhung liegt Verstoss gegen § 17 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 2 SGB I vor.
Untätigkeitsklage vom 23. Mai 2020 gegen den Büttel des JC München “Richter” Ehegartner. Sein und des LSGs schäbiges und betrügerisches Verhalten ist eine
“(2) Ein Richterspruch verstößt nach ständiger Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts gegen den allgemeinen Gleichheitssatz in seiner Ausprägung als Verbot objektiver Willkür (Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG), wenn er unter keinem denkbaren Aspekt rechtlich vertretbar ist und sich daher der Schluss aufdrängt, dass er auf sachfremden Erwägungen beruht. Das ist anhand objektiver Kriterien festzustellen. Schuldhaftes Handeln des Richters ist nicht erforderlich. Schlechterdings unhaltbar ist eine fachgerichtliche Entscheidung etwa dann, wenn der Inhalt einer Norm in nicht mehr nachvollziehbarer Weise angewendet wird. Von willkürlicher Missdeutung kann jedoch nicht gesprochen werden, wenn das Gericht sich mit der Rechtslage eingehend auseinandersetzt und seine Auffassung nicht jedes sachlichen Grundes entbehrt (vgl. BVerfG, Beschluss der 2. Kammer des Zweiten Senats vom 27. Mai 2020 – 2 BvR 2054/19 -, Rn. 35; stRspr).”
Auf S. 3 des Beschlusses des LSG vom 01. Okt. 2020 – dieser fällt in den Zeitraum der hinterhältigen Verleumdungen durch die Präsidentin des SG Mente und dieses “Richters” Ehegartner vom Juni 2020 bis Juni 2021 (Az. 845 Ds 259 Js 153060/20)! – mit Az. L 8 SF 223/20 EK heisst es tatsächlich dreist:
“Die Zustellung der Klage wird gem. §§ 12 Abs. 1 S. 1 GKG, 12 a S. 1 GKG erst nach Zahlung der Gebühr für das Verfahren erfolgen. Die Streitsache wird gem. § 94 S. 2 SGG erst mit Zustellung der Klage rechtshängig werden. Darauf ist der Kläger hinzuweisen.”
Hinterhältig führt das LSG den § 12 Abs. 1 S. 1 GKG an und verschweigt bewusst den § 12 Abs. 2 GKG! Quelle surprise.
Weit bedeutender ist aber, dass dies ein Verstoss gegen § 240 Abs. 1 und 2 StGB Nötigung darstellt. Ich habe dies gleich lösungsorientiert geCCed u.a. an die Hütte JC. Ich denke ein kurzer Zeitraum zur Begleichung des ausstehenden Betrags sollte genügen. So bis Ende Oktober. Ich werde anderenfalls Strafanzeige gegen Richterin Hall einreichen.
“And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord, That you should fashion, wrest or bow your reading Or nicely charge your understanding soul With opening titles miscreate, whose right Suits not in native colours with the truth.” Hal – Henry V
Übrigens sind etliche Punkte der Verleumdungen durch die Präsidentin des SG Lady Macbeth Mente und Kompagnon Ehegartner bei Gericht den Bach runter gegangen. Weitere werden meinen kritischen, exzellent argumentierten Ausführungen u.a. basierend auf Linguistik (Ludwig Wittgenstein), NSU Morde, American Blacks, diesen Grünen Politiker, der nach Bedrohung seine Kandidatur zurückzog im Rassistenland Deutschland etc. nicht stand halten in der Berufung. Mehr in weiteren Blog Posts u.a. mit den Fragen an Sie, die Präsidentin des SG und diesem “Richter” Ehegartner. Ich hätte sie drei so gern gesehen und im Gerichtssaal gegrillt. Stichwort: Streisand Effect.
For the sake of completeness it should be mentioned that you at the FADA already received a seven-page report of these sorry events in April 2021. In typical German fashion you chose to remain silent. I am pretty disappointed, Bernhard Franke.
The following cases deal exclusively with cases regarding my Tibetan daughter. In four court cases this “judge” decided against her with the explicit and planned intention and systematic execution of defrauding her. By means of 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!
Career-obsessed and devoid of any ethical guidelines and moral inhibitions, this “judge” followed a path towards his personal professional gain at the cost of the wellbeing of another human being who, in some of these court cases, was still in the stage of being an adolescent. That shows his character.
Unconcerned about Germany’s Basic Law, in particular Art. 97 GG, he continued deciding in cases concerning me and my daughter while at the same time advancing over the time frame of months material he deemed to be insulting him to the president of the SC who forwarded it to the Munich public prosecutor. A judge, steeped in democratic values and solidly based on the Basic Law, would have relinquished his role as judge. It only shows his true stripes.
The first three cases given here below were already in the advanced stages of delay and arrears when I finally decided to take a lawyer. Procrastination is a way of judges to show their indifference.
1. Case S 42 AS 165/17 – S 42 AS 1207/20 Vermittlungsbudget (Exhibit 1) – It should be mentioned that the case S 42 AS 515/15 mentioned in Exhibit 1 refers to the first instance in which the criminal government agency Jobcenter Munich (in the following ‘JC’) stole money that my daughter had legally earned during a summer vacation job. The SC did not care in any way; it was the JC’s decision to finally pay back € 200.00 in 2020 without interest!
In case S 42 AS 165/17 – S 42 AS 1207/20 “Judge” Ehegartner dished up a blatant lie claiming my daughter did not furnish a power of attorney. The power of attorney is clearly mentioned in Exhibit 2. Apart from that, § 73 Abs. 6 SGG explicitly states that a parent does not need a POA. Regardless, “judge” Ehegartner shut down the case. Suppressing documents is his modus operandi.
You may wish to consult my seven-page report sent to you (and others) of April 5, 2021.
2. Case S 42 AS 1398/16 Wahrnehmung des Umgangsrechts (Exhibit 3) – The case covers the Right of the Visit of a Parent (Wahrnehmung des Umgangsrechts) in case of separate domiciles. My complaint expressly mentioned a communication with the head of the Youth Office and my subsequent request to send me the form to apply for the assumption of the costs. Upon which communication ceased. Nowhere is this mentioned in his decision. It should be noted that my wife took out a loan to cover the cost of an air ticket to Nepal so that our daughter could see her after 4 years! This “judge” did not care. He is in bed with the JC. He deems this expression an insult which is absolutely ridiculous given the context.
Reference here is the BGH ruling of August 2, 2018 – III ZR 466/16:
Requirements for the duty of the social welfare agency to provide advice in the case of a clearly recognizable need for advice.
3. Case S 42 AS 2594/16 Summer vacation job – The second incident of theft of legally earned money committed by the criminal government agency JC funded by the BMAS.
“Judge” Ehegartner in collusion with the JC suppressed two documents sent by Gmail (proof exists). Those documents clearly indicate a vacation job. Suppression of documents is a criminal act according to section 274 StGB. The LSG (case L 15 AS 551/19) as well resorted to suppression of these two documents although I had their existence expressly mentioned in my complaint and verbally as well during the court hearing on Oct. 1, 2019. My reference to p. 2 of my appeal, pointing to two forms sent by me and my daughter to the JC, which show the earnings as vacation earnings, were completely ignored. In the protocol nothing of it is mentioned. (Exhibit 4)
It gets even better in corrupt Germany. I learned via The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI) in a letter dated Dec. 15, 2020 that the JC claims it never received those two emails containing the documents. Accordingly, in January 2021 I demanded to see the Email server logs. In a letter of Feb. 10, 2021 the JC – and get this: none other than the Data Protection Officer M. Weiß of the JC – refused access to those server logs. A request with the Munich public prosecutor to confiscate the logs went nowhere as expected.
You may wish to consult my seven-page report sent to you (and others) of April 5, 2021. No response from the FADA.
4. Case S 42 AS 1638/17 Sublease contract – ”Judge” Ehegartner claimed I did not object against the JC decision of Nov. 2016. FFS, the sublease was signed in 2017 !!! In addition, he lamented the letter sent by me on May 19, 2019 to the SC with a copy of the email to the JC included a “not readable file ‘Untermietvertrag.jpg'” attached. This “judge” was misappropriating my letter of June 27, 2017. Attached there is a readable copy of the sub-lease. So for almost three years the court was aware of this document. Another case of suppression of documents (Section 274 StGB) and absolutely no qualms with German judges both at the SC and the LSG!
Yet it would not be the criminal JC if it could not come up with a new version. This time, Mrs. Strama of the JC claimed – yet again – not to have received my email with the contract attached. Strangely enough, Mrs. Preukschat of the JC called the contract in a response to the SC in typical racist manner “not credible” and commented it. Obviously the document exists and the JC is in possession of it. I demanded to see the email server log as well and it was refused!
In light of this, one would expect from a judge not steeped in institutionalized racism to enquire as to why the sublease contract of my daughter was deemed “not credible”. “Judge” Ehegartner refrained from doing so. Article 3 Basic Law anybody?
One would also expect from a judge to express puzzlement as to why the JC seems to reliably not receive important documents in several cases when in other cases it does? “Judge” Ehegartner would not even dream of questioning a government agency he cozies up with.
5. “Girls just want to have fun” and just like Cyndi Lauper “Judge” Ehegartner wants to have his fun. What better way than with a migrant in racist Germany and indulge in some migrant voyeurism. This “judge” stops at no crudity. In case S 42 AS 515/15 (we remember, the first case of theft of legally earned money during my daughter’s summer vacation committed under the criminal managing director Martina Musati of the JC back then) pandering “judge” Ehegartner requests my daughter’s appearance in his Kangaroo court or face a fine of up to € 1,000.00. (Exhibit 5) Anybody surprised by this has not understood racist Germany.
6. S 42 AS 992/18 Computer Tablet – The absolute highlight and bummer of a case happened in May 2015. The JC deputy managing director Jürgen Sonneck had the hare-brained idea to send a libelous criminal complaint to Munich police by email using the false name ‘C. Paucher’. Googling “Jürgen Sonneck, C. Paucher” reveals the sordid incident; the full-blown idiot did not even use a VPN. His sole purpose was to inflict damage to derive, in that typical German way, Schadenfreude. In Nazi-style, police confiscated all our computer equipment including smartphone (smartphone without court order!). Had my daughter been at home, they would have taken hers as well. The Macbook of my daughter, who needed it for school, was weeks later returned deliberately damaged by Munich authorities. It can not be used anymore. In Jan. 2017 I had it shipped to the Ministry of Labor BMAS in Berlin with a letter attached. No response from the hideously fat then labor minister Nahles. Instead, it was sent to the Federal Criminal Agency BKA without giving any notice, as I learned three years later.
Regarding the case S 42 AS 992/18 – L 16 AS 509/20 NZB (tablet costs as a temporary replacement for the laptop), I demanded the summoning of the Bavarian civil servant Jürgen Sonneck alias C. Paucher with reference to section 445 ZPO. This “judge” did not respond in any form and rather resorted to protecting him. “Judge” Ehegartner and the LSG decided against the costs being covered by the JC.
“Judge” Ehegartner protects a racist civil servant criminal who used a false name with police and who was funded by the federal ministry BMAS. “Judge” Ehegartner feels insulted when he is confronted with what he does, suppress documents with the intent of assisting fraud.
One wonders how he, in the wider context of the Trolley Problem, choses to “resolve the permissibility of the sort of conduct that accounts for virtually all harm to others outside of the criminal context: socially useful conduct that poses some risk of harm to as yet unidentified others”.
Consequently, the question suggests itself to be asked, is it likely these are singular instances? Is it not rather conceivable to assume a pattern in conduct. A pattern based on a status-induced feeling of superiority and therefore of being beyond reproach. And would it be farfetched that particularly migrants appear as easy prey in a court system known for its institutionalized racism? Or, as someone on Twitter wrote, “to be fucked over”.
This should suffice. Further disturbing episodes can be found here. “Judge” Ehegartner’s conduct is abominable. He delivered his decisions with a remarkable brazenness and impressive cheekiness, all the while eagerly supplying the president of the SC with documents to whitewash himself and to accuse. Article 97 Basic Law appears to be dispensable for the SC.
FADA’s interim head Bernhard Franke in Sept. 2020: “The state owes it to those affected. It must ensure that all people can live in Germany without fear of discrimination and racist hostility and can participate in society on an equal footing” and “The mainstay of such a strategy is strong protection against discrimination, which has an impact on everyday life.” Noble, vacuous words, never backed up by action because the agency deliberately lacks any power of execution (2).
“Democracy is no exception to the rule that systems never function better than when running counter to their own rules and operating in spite of their own principles. This is their fundamental vice and systems, like individuals, draw their strength from their vices.”
I strongly suggest the FADA responds to these two reports in a timely fashion and in a way that does not insult my intelligence. At present the FADA is subordinate to the BMFSFJ which, since a couple of months, was included into the portfolio of the BMJV. This scenario should almost guarantee a quality reply one would think. Staying quiet would give the impression of disingenuousness.
Yours ’til Niagara Falls,
(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
(2) In short, the FADA is a simulacrum.
“…what if the sign did not relate either to the object or to meaning, but to the promotion of the sign as sign? And what if information did not relate either to the event or the facts, but to the promotion of information itself as event?”
“It is inconceivable that policymakers today, aided by their theoretical understanding of the mechanisms and by the statistical information at their disposal, would begin to make the serious errors committed by the governments in 1929-32.” J. Tobin