Fraud by judge of Social Court becomes socially acceptable in racist Germany

Even if public prosecutor Ken Heidenreich would turn his other blind eye on this case, there is nothing to see of any misconduct.

By Email

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

Sept. 15, 2021

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

Complaint about three judges of the Munich County Court and public prosecutor Heidenreich

To whom it may concern, perhaps interims Bernie,

I. On Sept. 6, 2021 I had to file a complaint with the County Court Munich after my complaint with the Local Court on Aug. 16, 2021 received, as was to be expected, an unsatisfactory decision of Aug. 26, 2021 (File # 845 Ds 259 Js 153060/20 – 28 Qs 23/21). On about two pages the judges Hillmeier, Schumann and Eser wasted valuable resources of thin sheet material made from plant fibers – which raises the subject of ecological sustainability, it should be noted in passing – by committing themselves to the subject of a ‘public defender’. This was never an issue in my complaint of Aug. 16, 2021. Unfortunately, the pressing subject of sticking to laws received exceedingly scant attention. Quelle surprise. Institutional racism has now three more names.

I had referred to

  • my right to be heard in preliminary proceedings pursuant to Section 163a (1) sentence 1 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO).
  • Further, my Dec. 2020 criminal complaint against “judge” Ehegartner was ignored. It is however neatly placed in the court file Exhibit 46 and 48 enjoying a prolonged sleep.
  • I took the liberty yet again to point to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court 2 BvR 1304/12 and here the marginal no. 14 and marginal no. 15 c, and
  • lastly, I could not help but feel the obligation to acquaint the august court with an introduction to the ‘Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (updated on 30 April 2021) and here to section 174. There it reads:

“In any case, in systems where the prosecuting authorities are obliged by law to take into consideration both the facts for and against the suspect, a procedure whereby the prosecuting authorities themselves attempt to assess what may or may not be relevant to the case, without any further procedural safeguards for the rights of the defence, cannot comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (Natunen v. Finland, §§ 47-49; Matanović v. Croatia, §§ 158, 181- 182).”

Alas, it proved fruitless and I was left with the impression of having talked to a brick wall. I do believe further elaborations would be redundant, as the general trend of this court of the province of Bavaria is self-explaining by now. A highly questionable “judge” of a Social Court who stops at nothing and who even after thirteen attempts of me to get rid of his sorry soul, insists on carrying on with his sordid deeds, has to be protected. By breaking laws, that is.

II. This impression was reinforced when public prosecutor Heidenreich applied his trademark rejection on Aug. 06, 2021 (# 120 Js 165253/21), which in exquisite Bavarian prose manifests itself to the discerned eye thus:

Pursuant to Section 152 (2) of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), preliminary proceedings for prosecutable criminal offenses may only be initiated if there are sufficient grounds for doing so. According to criminalistic experience, these must make it appear possible that a prosecutable criminal offense has been committed.
Mere suspicions do not justify charging someone with a crime.
There are no apparent indications of criminally relevant conduct.

For the sake of completeness, I should mention that the Munich prosecution has so far, and will always, refused to follow up on ALL criminal complaints I have filed. The Bavarian Nolle prosequi.

I have attached my criminal complaint against “judge” Ehegartner and the president of the Social Court. The fraud and the means by which this career-obsessed “judge” and individual of questionable and indecent intentions operates are stunning and the evidence damning. It should be added that in case 3 (Wahrnehmung des Umgangsrechts) this heinous “judge” does not even stop at defrauding the Nepali mother of my daughter. She had taken a loan of € 735.00 to cover the cost of a plane ticket to Nepal so that she could see her daughter after four years. “Judge” Ehegartner is a despicable person through and through and plies his trade with abandon in consensus with the Jobcenter Munich as is demonstrated in case 8 (Regelsatz), where blatant fraud flies into one’s face.

And, speaking of Munich prosecution, this just in today from the international press: “Would you be interested in some German gangsters?”

One comment (1) in DER SPIEGEL about the Federal Conduit for Hypocritical Conflict Management, aka the Federal Anti Discrimination Agency, reads:

“Anyone who, as a disadvantaged person, expects a concrete solution to his or her problem from this authority is naive anyway. I can also talk to a wall. The message is counted there and filed away. Once a year, there is a small report on how many letters/emails have been received. You don’t need a manager for that, the clerk does it.”

My complaint would be remiss if the question “COMMUNICATING JUDICIAL DECISIONS: A BLACK BOX OR TRANSPARENCY?”, posed by Team Czech Republic with Daniel Askari, Kristina Blažková and Kristina Rademacherová, would not be raised. Considering that “publicity is the very soul of justice”, as Jeremy Bentham rightfully stated, one should assume that “elements of transparency include: … presentation of judges (including photos and biographical information), …” and be made publicly available.

It is therefore surprising how hard it is to obtain pictures of German judges, unlike in the USA for example. Is tradition still reigning supreme, the brown rug so alluring, an interested soul may ask?

Anyway FADA, no response is not an option. At all!

Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit.

(signed)

(1) The comments to this article are pretty unanimous.


Criminal complaint attached ‘Exhibit1