Personal report about German Jobcenter and conniving courts to European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)

Council of Europe
Avenue de l’Europe
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex


cc BMAS, BMFSFJ, BMJV, Kanzleramt, SG, LSG, BSG, JC Munich, OLG Munich and the completely ridiculous window puppets at FADA

05. April 2021

To whom it may concern (1),

The following is an account of my/our personal experience in Germany and its internationally known institutional racism within the criminal government-funded Jobcenter Munich and assisted in this by the Social Court Munich and other Kangaroo Courts in Bavaria. I felt motivated after I had read your latest REPORT ON GERMANY, published on 17 March 2020, and deemed it appropriate to add a personal note in order to spice things up a little. Besides, racism needs names.

My daughter, born in Kathmandu, is of Tibetan/German parentage – IOW in clumsy German parlance a ‘migrant’ – and started attending school in Germany from the age of nine in 2005. She graduated in 2013 and then switched over to the Fachoberschule where she earned the so-called Fachoberschulreife. Germans like to separate in classes. Typical as well for Germany, migrants are concentrated in certain concentrated schools so that they do not mix with pur sang Germans.

This can lead to entertaining linguistic twists bordering on the silly. As Reich’s TV ‘Tagesschau’ reported, an Expert Commission on Integration Ability recommends that the term “migration background” no longer be used in the future. Instead, the commission appointed by the federal government proposes to speak of “immigrants and their (direct) descendants”. Wittgenstein would shudder and I need to take a stiff drink. Right from the start I wish to express that the only thing German about me is that birth certificate. Apart from that, nothing whatsoever. When it comes to Germans I feel exactly like the late and best German movie director ever, R. W. Fassbinder (my apologies to the other Werner). He loathed Germans.

So here goes. To begin with, the Jobcenter Munich (in the following ‘JC’) refused to cover the school bus fare once my daughter started to attend the Fachoberschule. Higher education for migrants is looked upon as wasteful spending when plum jobs with low pay beckon. The JC, however, had much more in store and in this it was assisted with generous help from the Social Court Munich (in the following ‘SC’) and its blueprint, the Bavarian LSG (in the following ‘LSG’). The JC was headed till mid 2015 by the multiple racist criminal (coercion) Martina Musati (now BA in Stuttgart) and was followed by multiple racist criminal Anette Farrenkopf, and in Munich-Pasing it is Sabine Nowack.

  1. Two times the JC had legally earned money stolen from my daughter, in 2014 and 2017. Assisted by courts, and, not to forget, a lawyer in jurido-erotic relationships with the court and the opposing party (2). The Ugly Germans do it the proper legal way.

In 2014 my daughter started jobbing for some days during the week and some weeks during the summer vacation. This turned out to be a mistake as the JC claimed money she had earned during the summer vacation of 2014. I had to turn to a lawyer as this money was legally earned. In this case S 42 AS 515/15 “Judge” Ehegartner showed no interest whatsoever over all those years. Only due to my perseverance did the JC finally in 2020 agree to pay back € 200,-. Of course no interest was paid and so I had to file yet another suit which is pending.

2. Not done with that theft, the JC had yet a second time money earned during the summer vacation of 2015 stolen from my daughter. This time though way more intelligent and devious. There is a learning process going on in that federal criminal entity and the social courts. Assisted in this heinous act by none other than the SC and the LSG courts. The judges names at the LSG are Ocker, Braun and Karl. All three fancy to wear some belly button glitter, aka a doctor title in law.

In this case S 42 AS 2594/16 “judge” Ehegartner of the SC in association with the JC suppressed two documents sent by Gmail (proof exists). Those documents show it was 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. The protocol fails to mention any of this! At the beginning of the session, I demanded the hearing to be postponed due to the fact that the court had failed to provide the names of the judges (Article 101 Basic Law). It should be mentioned that the invitation to the court hearing was addressed to my daughter! This was denied and the judges had the audacity to call my/her request “abuse of law”. Judges in Germany do not even realize their racism, it is in their DNA. Their class bias is palpable, particularly in the province of Bavaria.

When I contacted the Federal Social Court (BSG), I received one response and after that they decided it is better to stay quiet (B 4 AS 66/20 C). The BSG is supervised by whom? The neoliberal Ministry of Labor BMAS. Go figure.

It gets even better in the corrupt country 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. This was a completely new assertion, never mentioned in all those years, and a pretty stupid one at that. So in January 2021 I demanded to see the Email server logs. With letter of Feb. 10, 2021 the JC – and get this: none other than the Data Protection Officer Marija Weiß of the JC – refused access to those server logs. Now we know what data protection is all about. It protects civil servant criminals. No comment required. A request with the Munich public prosecutor went nowhere as expected.

3. Social Court deliberately inactive to force you to file Complaint of Inactivity and subsequently incur court fee of € 584.00.

In January 2017, my daughter received a threat of execution for the amount of € 290,- (that money from her vacation job 2015) from the Recklinghausen Employment Agency Collection Service of the Federal Agency for Labor. It says there:

You certainly do not want

  • the amount of the receivable to increase
  • your payment transactions to be affected by an attachment of your account
  • you are summoned to make a statement of assets and liabilities, which may be followed by an entry in the debtors’ register
  • or visits by the enforcement officer become necessary.

This is how these Ugly Germans operate. They make it very clear, you don’t comply, we wreck your credit rating and that right before you even enter the labor market. Capisce! So shut up and pay.

According to the Guiding principle of the Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of 14.02.2018, B 14 AS 12/17 R, the following requirements must be met in order to pass on personal data:

“Without a transfer decision of the board of trustees of a joint institution pursuant to Social Code II that satisfies the principles of clarity of norms and freedom from contradiction, the transfer of sovereign powers to one of its trustees is invalid.”

“The transfer resolution pursuant to Section 44c (2) sentence 2 no. 4 SGB II must be worded in such a way that the nature and scope of the tasks to be transferred can be readily inferred from it itself.”

I requested that ‘transfer decision of the board of trustees’ from the JC in a suit filed with the SC in Oct. 2019 (Case S 42 AS 844/20). After a complaint of inactivity on May 19, 2020, “judge” & Aide de Camp of the JC, Ehegartner, dutifully referred the case to the LSG. The LSG demanded a court fee of € 584.00 + € 60.00 (Case L 8 SF 218/20 EK), required when one files a complaint of inactivity. Neat, isn’t it. The name of the LSG judge is Mrs. Hall. The Information Freedom Act (IFG) is basically worth zippo in Germany.

Anticipating their decision, I contacted the BfDI in this case and the JC began to move. Finally in Jan. 2021 I received the ‘transfer decision of the board of trustees’ in a Pdf document. That transfer decision was not signed and without any date! It was a plain, simple template. Unfortunately, the criminals at the JC were so stupid to forget (what every fairly professional criminal knows) to remove the meta data. These showed that the Pdf was generated from a MS Word document 2.5 hours before it was sent to me by email. Enough said. The threat of execution constitutes coercion.

4. Sublease contract of migrant is “not credible”.

In the case ‘sublease contract with my daughter’ (Case S 42 AS 1638/17) “judge” Ehegartner claimed I did not object against the JC decision of Nov. 2016. 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 (Case S 51 AS 1420/17 ER). Attached there is a readable copy of the sub-lease. So for almost two years the court was aware of this document. Another case of suppression of documents (Section 274 StGB) and absolutely no qualms with German judges.

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”. Obviously the document exists and the JC has seen it. I demanded to see the email server log as well and it was refused! Criminals always follow a pattern and the Federal Ministry for Labor BMAS should insist that with a funding of 100 plus million Euros a year it can expect to see civil servants at the JC operate in professional criminal ways and that entails not contradicting each other.

5. “Judge” Ehegartner protects a civil servant criminal and full-blown idiot who used a false name with police.

The absolute highlight and bummer of a case happened in May 2016. 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’. Just google “Jürgen Sonneck, C. Paucher”, it is plain sickening. The sole purpose of this civil servant criminal creep 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 that 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.

6. “Judge” Ehegartner does not care about a law and suppresses a power of attorney of a migrant. Suppression of documents is his modus operandi.

In the case ‘placement budget’ (‘Vermittlungsbudget’) (Case S 42 AS 165/17 ) my lawsuit was discontinued in Oct. 2020, after “judge” Ehegartner dismissed the case with the statement, “action (is) unfounded for lack of legitimisation. The case concerns his daughter, which is why the lawsuit should have been filed by her in her own name. An interpretation to this effect is not possible” (see transcript of the SC from 23.10.2020).

This assertion is patently and deliberately false. Firstly, according to section 73, 6 and 7 SGG I am very well legitimated as father of my Tibetan daughter to represent her. Secondly, my daughter communicated the power of attorney to this “court” by fax dated Oct. 29, 2019. In her power of attorney my daughter expressly stated she “wishes no more to be contacted in these never ending disputes”. This document was deliberately suppressed by this “judge”, yet again! My lawyer applauded the decision!!! However, she is excused. She is on Pinterest social networking, ya know.

7. “Judge” Ehegartner wants a migrant on display, or settle her with a fine of € 1,000.

Migrant voyeurism anybody? Because “judge” Ehegartner is in for it. The level of antiquity, lack of sophistication, crudeness among judges, in particular Bavarian ones, is well known and ”judge” Ehegartner is not afraid of anything either. He cites my daughter, concerning her own lawsuit, under penalty of € 1,000.00 in case of her non-appearance before his Kangaroo Court. This can hardly be surpassed in primitivity, but is no surprise in Germany with its internationally known institutional racism.

8. “Judge” Ehegartner suppressed yet another communication concerning my daughter.

In the case S 42 AS 1398/16 concerning the Right of Access (Wahrnehmung des Umgangsrechts), which means the right of a child to visit one of her parents in case of separate domiciles. My case file expressly mentioned a communication with the head of the department responsible for such cases and my subsequent request to send me the form to apply for the assumption of costs. After that, communication plain stopped BTW! Nowhere is this mentioned in his decision. It should be mentioned 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.

9. EU rights do not interest the JC at all.

The European Commission issued the following on the subject of data protection. You have the right to:

ask for incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete personal data to be corrected;

I informed the JC about this in August 2020 and requested the correction regarding the false statement of the JC that we did not send the two documents concerning the vacation job of my daughter. The EU Commission page further states:

If the company/organisation has a Data Protection Officer (‘DPO’) you may address your request to the DPO. The company/organisation must respond to your requests without undue delay and at the latest within 1 month. If the company/organisation doesn’t intend to comply with your request they must state the reason why.

There was no response from the criminal entity JC funded by BMAS.

All claims laid down here can be substantiated with documents.

It might be of interest that in three cases I finally took a lawyer. She turned out to be – it is impossible to put it any other way – a total pain in the ass and a waste of time. The lady is just a joke on two legs with a presence on Pinterest. Or with Jeremy Bentham, “Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished”.

So far, I have filed ten complaints against this “judge” Ehegartner to get him dismissed on reasons of bias. All were thrown out because I just seem to be “not content with his decisions”. Quelle surprise.

I have lived a good deal of my life in S. Asia and experienced first and second hand the corruptest courts in loco. There is only a slight difference to German courts. German judges and prosecutors do not drape a towel over their chairs, do not have a room fan placed next to their desk, and do not have pens in a particular ink color.

The rhetorical question stands, how many migrants, who are/were not fully familiar with the German language and their rights, has this “judge” and this Kangaroo Court SC harmed in the disgusting racist country Germany with her insufferable Germans!

10. Munich public prosecutors don’t want to see anything, hear anything.

The Munich public prosecutors dismissed ALL my criminal complaints against the criminal civil servants of the Munich JC. In November 2020 I filed a criminal complaint with the Munich public prosecutor against JC Man. Dir. Farrenkopf for violation of Sections 44 (1) and 43 (1) BDSG with regard to the illegal transfer of personal data of my daughter to the Employment Agency Collection Service of the Federal Agency for Labor. Pursuant to Section 44 of the BDSG, anyone who commits an intentional act described in Section 43 (1) of the BDSG with the intention of enriching himself or another person or causing damage to another person shall be liable to prosecution. The prerequisite for criminal liability is that the act is committed intentionally.

The response in November 2020 of the Munich prosecutor referred to Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) Section 152 Prosecuting Authority; Principle of Legality

(2) Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be obliged to intervene in respect of all prosecutable offences, provided there are sufficient factual indications.

and, correctly, saw no evidence of suppression of documents at this stage. That’s when I requested to see the email server logs from the JC, which they refuse to release. So we are looking at a Catch 22.

In the case ‘Sublease contract’ I filed a criminal complaint against JC civil servant Silke Strama with Munich public prosecutor in January 2021. So far no response. Quelle surprise.

In all cases the Federal Ministries of Justice and Labor including the completely ridiculous Family Minister Giffey were CC-ed by me. It was met with icy silence. The German way.

Furthermore, upon public notification of these events sent to the Federal Ministries, the neoliberal BMAS (Labor Ministry, incidentally partly operating out of former Nazi offices) and BMFSFJ (Ministry for Family Affairs) the Twitter handle @ErebusSagace was immediately blocked. One can clearly see the rampant corruption in Germany in the sordid saga of Wirecard and the international finance press, at the forefront the FT and Bloomberg, is just plain stunned but not surprised.

11. Corporate racism and the dress dolls at the FADA

It only completes the picture when the Rossmann drugstore chain refused access to an African couple to a shop in Northrhine Westfalia during the period of Corona restrictions and my emails sent to Rossmann AND the ludicrous dress dolls at FADA (3) in April 2020 remained unanswered.

Did I mention the Syrian refugee Tareq Alaows? After five years in The Reich he speaks excellent German. As the first Syrian refugee, the human rights activist wanted to enter parliament for the Green Party. But then there were … Oh for fuck’s sake, it is just so sickening with these Ugly Germans.

Before I extend a hearty Namaskar, I should perhaps mention that

the government funded criminals at the Jobcenter Munich tried to coax my daughter out of school into a pisser job in 2014.

That would be here and on the Interwebz like here. BTW, pictures not showing there were deleted by Google on intervention by the German government.


Doctorates awarded, if any, have been omitted with reference to Wittgenstein’s dislike of academic rituals and his congratulations on Norman Malcolm’s Ph.D. which he combined with a cutting criticism of academic life:

“My hearty congratulations on your Ph.D.! And may you now make good use of it! By this I mean: may you not deceive yourself or your students. For that is exactly what you will be expected to do, if I am not very much mistaken. And it will be very difficult & perhaps impossible not to; & may you have the strength to resign in that case.” (quoted from: ALLAN JANIK – Wider die Slumlords der Philosophie)



(1) I am well aware that “ECRI is not mandated to deal with individual complaints”. Never would I confuse the EU with anything democratic and neither would Perry Anderson in ‘Ever Closer Union?‘. Run by Germany, one has only to look into that country’s fairly recent past and Victor Hugo’s letter to Baudelaire springs to mind, although in a different sense, “… you give us a new kind of shudder”. But hey, I take the chance, perhaps it’s for the greater good.

(2) US-based lawyer Dan Hull wrote in an email to me on June 3, 2016: “Many German lawyers are assholes.” (What about Paris). Truer words were never spoken.

(3) While the ECRI report of March 17, 2020 correctly criticizes that “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”, it fails to realize that this is not a bug but a feature. This is how things get sanitized in a democratic country that is high on pretensions.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Listed below are the contact details of the persons directly or indirectly involved:

1.Jobcenter im Sozialbürgerhaus Orleansplatz
Anette Farrenkopf
Orleansplatz 11
81667 München

2. Jobcenter im Sozialbürgerhaus Pasing
Sabine Nowack
Landsberger Straße 486
81241 München

3. Sozialgericht München
Präsidentin Edith Mente
Richelstraße 11
80634 München

4. Bayerisches Landessozialgericht
Präsident Günther Kolbe
Ludwigstraße 15
80539 München

5.Oberlandesgericht München
Präsident Peter Küspert
Nymphenburger Straße 16
80335 München

6. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS)
Wilhelmstraße 49
10117 Berlin

7. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz
Mohrenstraße 37
10117 Berlin

8. Bundesministeriums für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend
Franziska Giffey with faked doctorate
Glinkastraße 24
10117 Berlin

“Publicity is the very soul of justice.” (Jeremy Bentham) – Not in Germany

Honorable Justice Minister Lambrecht,

Honorable Labor Minister Heil,

Eminent President of the Munich Social Court, Mrs. Mente,

Eminent President of the Bavarian LSC, Mr. Kolbe,

Treasured President of the Federal Social Court, Mr. Schlegel,

Sep. 23, 2020

“Publicity is the very soul of justice.” (Jeremy Bentham)

I am sure we can agree on that statement by the English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer. By which I would like to point to the Pdf ‘COMMUNICATING JUDICIAL DECISIONS: A BLACK BOX OR TRANSPARENCY?1 published by a Czech legal team where they start by referring to a judge from the Court of Justice of the European Union.

“What degree of openness ought to apply to the Court when it is carrying out its judicial tasks?” asks the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter as “CJEU”) Michal Bobek in a case currently pending before the Court of Justice, Commission v. Patrick Breyer. 

A very pertinent question indeed and they continue under OPENNESS AS A RISING PRINCIPLE OF THE EUROPEAN JUDICIARY:

Transparency means disclosing the way the judge reached his or her decision to the public. The elements of transparency include: public hearings …, publication of dissenting opinions, information about decision-making process …, presentation of judges (including photos and biographical information), …

It is here that the question needs to be raised why are “judges” of the Social Court Munich and the Bavarian State Social Court not given that element of transparency, i.e. their respective photo and professional CV published? It needs to be raised even more so in racist Germany.

Why are these three “judges” not afforded their deserved publicity, German Justice Ministry BMJV?

After all, it is quite a feat of the “judges” Ehegartner, Ocker, Braun and Karl to suppress two documents – the existence of which was referred to them on several occasions – in collusion with the racist and criminal government agency Jobcenter Munich in order to defraud a migrant of lawfully earned money during her vacation.

Same here.

Gentlemen, ladies, the privilege of having their faces shown to the public and their professional CV published should not be deprived these four “judges” of cunning. Even less so in a country internationally known for its Institutional Racism. Criminal judges deserve respect!

A democracy that claims to be one should know and live up to it:

“Without publicity, no good is permanent; under the auspices of publicity, no evil can continue.”

I am looking forward hearing from you and would not suggest to stay quiet. I would also seriously suggest you Germans return the stolen money.

Patere legem quam ipse tulisti



Team Czech Republic

Daniel Askari, Kristina Blažková, Kristina Rademacherová. Tutor: Jan Chmel

Beschwerde bei Bundesdatenschutz Beauftragten über Jobcenter und SG München


Berliner Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit
behördlicher Datenschutzbeauftragter
Friedrichstr. 219
10969 Berlin

cc Jobcenter München, SG München, Bayer. LSG

07. Sep. 2020

Beschwerde als Bürger (1)

Guten Tag,

Die Beschwerde richtet sich primär gegen Mitarbeiter des JC München (GFin Farrenkopf, Nowack, Strama, Erhardt, die Person anwesend zur Verhandlung am 01. Okt. 2019 im LSG und des anonymen Senders der Zahlungsaufforderung vom 10. Feb. 2020) und sekundär in Komplizenschaft die beiden SGs in München (die “Richter” Ehegartner, Ocker, Karl und Braun). Alle Strafanzeigen gegen diese Gestalten wurden von der Staatsanwaltschaft München wie üblich abgewiesen.

Der Sachverhalt

Nach Unterdrückung von zwei Dokumenten, nachweislich eingesendet von mir und meiner tibetischen Tochter im Jan. 2016 an Frau Strama im JC per Email, die die Herkunft des auf meiner Tochters Konto eingegangenen Zahlungen als Sommerferien Verdienst (und damit legal verdient) belegen, erhielten wir mehrere Zahlungsaufforderungen vom Inkassobüro der Bundesagentur für Arbeit Recklinghausen bis hin zur Androhung der Zwangsvollstreckung. Alle Hinweise auf diese zwei Dokumente wurden in den Gerichtsurteilen unterdrückt. Dies sollte im Rassistenland Deutschland nicht weiter verwundern.

Das BSG stellte in einem Urteil vom 14.02.2018, B 14 AS 12/17 R fest, dass die verfassungsmässige Unabdingbarkeit das Vorhandensein einer Übertragungsentscheidung verlangt. Rn 17 besagt:

c) Die grundsätzlich ausschließliche Zuständigkeit der gemeinsamen Einrichtung nach § 44b Abs 1 Satz 2 Halbsatz 1 SGB II umfasst auch Mahnungen und Mahngebührenbescheide nach dem VwVG. Dabei kann offenbleiben, ob öffentlich-rechtlich begründete Forderungen schon aus Gründen des Sozialdatenschutzes grundsätzlich nur von dem Sozialleistungsträger gemahnt werden dürfen, dem sie zustehen. Denn jedenfalls soweit eine Maßnahme der Vollstreckung dem VwVG zuzurechnen ist und deshalb eine öffentlich-rechtlich verliehene Kompetenz voraussetzt, bewirkt sie Rechtsfolgen nur unter Wahrung der gesetzlichen Zuständigkeitsordnung; ansonsten ist sie unwirksam (arg § 40 Abs 3 Nr 1 SGB X).
Weiters sind die Rn 19, 22, 23, 27 und 29 ebenda von Interesse.

Mit Klage vom 13. Okt. 2019 (Az. S 42 AS 844/20) hatte ich die Übersendung der “Übertragungsentscheidung der Trägerversammlung einer gemeinsamen Einrichtung” gefordert unter Bezug auf das IFG. Wie zu erwarten, setzte diese Spinnweben an unter Büttel und Mannequin des JC, dem carissus “Richter” Ehegartner. Nach Untätigkeitsklage vom 19. Mai 2020 kam “Richter” Ehegartner pflichtgemäss dem Sendungsauftrag des JC nach und verwies den Fall an das LSG der bukolischen Provinz Bayern. Der Fall ist kostenpflichtig (!!!) unter Az. L 8 SF 218/20 EK und man kann unschwer erkennen, das IFG existiert für sozialen Abschaum nicht.

Mit Fax vom 06. Sep. 2020 reichte ich Klage basierend auf § 35 SGB I beim SG München ein unter Kungelrichter und Paramour des JC München Ehegartner. Das Ergebnis ist absehbar.

Es ist unschwer bei diesem typisch bayrisch korrupten Verfahren zu erkennen, es existiert keine Übertragungsentscheidung der Trägerversammlung.

Verantwortliche Stelle

Jobcenter im Sozialbürgerhaus Orleansplatz
Orleansplatz 11, 81667 München

Jobcenter im Sozialbürgerhaus Pasing
Landsberger Straße 486, 81241 München


Die Übertragung der persönlichen Daten meiner Tochter an die BA fand also unter Brechung des Datenschutzes statt. Nicht genug damit. Durch diese staatliche, rassistische Verbrecher-Behörde Jobcenter München mit seinen bandenmässigen Betrügern erhielt meine Tochter diese Androhungen im widerlichen Rassistenland Deutschland.

Vollstreckungsandrohung durch BA Inkasso Recklinghausen (wörtlicher Auszug):

Sie möchten sicherlich nicht, dass

  • sich der Forderungsbetrag erhöht
  • Ihr Zahlungsverkehr durch eine Kontopfändung beeinträchtigt wird
  • Sie zu einer Abnahme einer Vermögensauskunft vorgeladen werden, der eine Eintragung ins
    Schuldnerverzeichnis folgen kann
    oder Besuche des Vollziehungsbeamten notwendig werden.

Das für Sie zuständige Jobcenter hat die Bundesagentur für Arbeit mit der Wahrnehmung des Forderungseinzugs beauftragt (§ 44c Abs. 2 Satz 2 Nr. 4 i. V. m. § 44b Abs. 4 SGB II).
(rote Editierung durch mich und alle relevanten Dokumente sind vorhanden)

Das JC München ist im übrigen die versiffte und kriminelle Behörde, aus der der damalige stellv. GF Jürgen Sonneck in seiner völligen Verblödung in 2015 eine verleumdende Anzeige per Email an die Polizei München unter dem falschen Namen “C. Paucher” sandte und uns Polizei ins Haus. Dies im Glauben er würde unerkannt bleiben.

Abschliessend die zynische und rhetorische Frage: wieviele Menschen – und insbesondere Migranten, die der deutschen Sprache und Rechte nicht ausreichend mächtig sind – wurden durch diese Behörde und diese “richterlichen” Kumpanen betrogen?

Mit besten Grüssen

(1) Ich bin Deutscher ausschliesslich basierend auf der Geburtsurkunde.

Info für die Verbrecherbehörde Jobcenter München über ‘Rechte für Bürger’ gemäss der Europäischen Kommission

Jobcenter München
Orleansplatz 11
81667 München

18. Aug. 2020

cc BMAS; BMJV, BSG; Bayer. LSG, SG München

Guten Tag,

Die Europäische Kommission erliess zum Thema Datenschutz u.a. Folgendes.

Sie haben das Recht auf

Beantragung einer Korrektur von falschen, unrichtigen oder unvollständigen personenbezogenen Daten.

  • Dies betrifft die Aussage im Brief des Jobcenters vom 14. April 2016 von Frau Erhardt, ich hätte auf die Anhörung vom 10. Dezember 2015 nicht geantwortet. Diese Behauptung ist gelogen. Zwei Dokumente wurden nachweislich im Jan. 2016 an Frau Strama gesandt.
  • Es betrifft ebenso die bewusste Unterschlagung meines Hinweises auf die Übersendung der zwei Dokumente in den Urteilen des SG München (Az. S 42 AS 2594/16) und Az. L 15 AS 551/19 des Bayer. LSG.

Weiters verlange ich bei allen Kommunikationen die Namensangabe des Schreibenden und dessen interne Emailadresse. Keine Sammeladresse. (siehe hier)

Ebenso verlange ich Erhalt der personenbezogenen Daten in einem maschinenlesbaren Format und auf Übermittlung dieser Daten an einen anderen Verantwortlichen („Datenübertragbarkeit“).

Das Unternehmen/die Organisation muss Ihre Anträge unverzüglich und spätestens innerhalb eines Monats beantworten.

Diese Rechte gelten in der gesamten EU, ganz gleich, wo die Daten verarbeitet und wo das Unternehmen ansässig ist.

Die explizit genannten Änderungen verlange ich somit bis zum 20. Sept. 2020.

Si valetis, bene est. Ego equidem valeo

BSG Vize Präsident Voelzke nimmt “summarische Prüfung des Streitstoffs” nicht so ernst bei Migranten-Gesockse


BSG Richter Prof. Dr. Voelzke (Vize Präs. BSG !), Nicola Behrend, Dr. Burkiczak


Wilhelmstraße 49
10117 Berlin

Bundesarbeitsminister H. Heil

Graf-Bernadotte-Platz 5
34119 Kassel

Richter Prof. Dr. Voelzke (Vize Präs. BSG !), Nicola Behrend, Dr. Burkiczak

20. Juli 2020

BSG Az.: 21. Jan. 2020 – B 4 AS 19/20 BH
Bayerisches LSG 01.10.2019 – L 15 AS 551/19
SG München 16.07.2019 – S 42 AS 2594/16

Rechtmässig verdientes Geld meiner tibetischen Tochter vom kriminellen und rassistischen Jobcenter München durch Unterdrückung von Dokumenten (§ 274 StGB) mit Hilfe deutscher Gerichte im rassistischen Deutschland gestohlen!

Guten Tag Arbeitsminister, Richter

“Ich hatte hier mit meinen liebsten ästhetischen Eindrücken zu kämpfen und mich bemüht, die intellektuelle Ehrlichkeit an ihre äußersten, grausamsten Grenzen zu bringen” (Marcel Proust), aber wenn ich hier auf Wikipedia lese:

“Als Behörde ist das Bundessozialgericht – wie das Bundesarbeitsgericht – ressortmäßig dem Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales unterstellt und unterliegt dessen allgemeiner Dienstaufsicht.”

Ein Gericht unter Aufsicht eines Ministeriums! Interessant, aber in Zeiten des Neoliberalismus nicht überraschend. MAW, Arbeitsminister Hubertus Heil, das wären Sie. Übrigens habe ich Ihr Ministerium mehrmals schriftlich kontaktiert, wurde aber immer von dieser typisch deutschen Art der Gleichgültigkeit und des Schweigens begrüßt. Erlauben Sie mir, direkt zur Sache zu kommen. Die Entscheidung des BSG B 4 AS 19/20 BH lautet unter Begründung 2:

Nach $ 160 Abs 2 SGG ist die Revision nur zuzulassen, wenn die Rechtssache grundsätzliche Bedeutung hat (Nr 1), … oder wenn ein Verfahrensmangel geltend gemacht wird, auf dem die angefochtene Entscheidung beruhen kann (Nr 3). Ein solcher Zulassungsgrund ist weder nach dem Vorbringen des Klägers noch nach summarischer Prüfung des Streitstoffs aufgrund des Inhalts der beigezogenen Verfahrensakte ersichtlich.

Bei allem Respekt vor den Richtern – einer von ihnen nicht weniger als der Vizepräsident! – Ich habe ernsthafte Zweifel daran, dass irgendeine Form „summarischer Prüfung des Streitstoffs aufgrund des Inhalts der beigezogenen Verfahrensakte “ durchgeführt wurde.

Wäre die Sorgfaltspflicht angewendet worden, wie das professionelle Credo eines Richters nahelegen würde, hätte ein einfacher Blick auf meine Berufung vom 10. August 2019 auf Seite 2 Folgendes und damit den eindeutigen Beweis für die Unterdrückung von zwei Dokumenten durch das JC UND das SG München mit seinem kriminellen und rassistischen „Richter“ Ehegartner, einem Mehrfachmittäter in Sachen Betrug, UND den Bayer. LSG Richtern Braun, Ocker und Karl geliefert!

Das Gericht hat diesen Brief BEWUSST unterschlagen, denn es heisst dort dreckig gelogen: “Auf meine Anhörung vom 10. Dezember 2015 haben Sie nicht geantwortet. Daher habe ich nach Aktenlage entschieden. Die Entscheidung ist wegen Erzielung von Einkommen aufzuheben …”. Selbstverständlich wurde im Jan. 2016 per Email auf die Anhörung geantwortet (Anlagen 1 und 2). Die Lügnerin Erhardt erhielt mit Email vom 21. April 2016 die Mitteilung des Bf., dass sehr wohl auf das Schreiben vom 10. Dez. 2015 geantwortet wurde. Diese Email liegt dem Kungelgericht SG München vor im Schreiben des Bf. vom 29. April 2017 (siehe dort Anhang 4) sowie Schreiben vom 06. März 2017 (siehe dort Anlage 1).

Daraus ergibt sich, dass allein schon die Zahlungsaufforderungen der staatlichen Verbrecher-Behörde JC nicht rechtmässig erfolgt sind, da sie auf einer Lüge basierten! Lügen sind der Modus operandi des JC generell.

Dies wird in der Entscheidung der LSG vom 01.10.2019 – L 15 AS 551/19 nirgends erwähnt! Ich hatte sogar während der Gerichtsverhandlung am 1. Oktober 2019 ausdrücklich auf diese Tatsache der Unterdrückung von Dokumenten hingewiesen. Alles wurde unter den Teppich des Schweigens gekehrt.

Nicht genug damit, es wurden mehrere Strafanzeigen gegen Beamte des Jobcenters und rassistische Absprachen von „Richtern“ von der Münchner Staatsanwaltschaft abgewiesen.

Zusammenfassend glaube ich, dass auf der Grundlage dieser Tatsachen die „Rechtssache grundsätzliche Bedeutung hat“. Es ist traurig, aber nicht überraschend in Deutschland, dass Richter zu glauben scheinen, Hartz 4-Empfänger seien von geringer Intelligenz und entsprechend behandelt und geschubst werden können. Es ist der allgemeine Defekt des Hässlichen Deutschen, der auf der Tradition der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts beruht. Es ist ihr DNA. Die Zeit ist überfällig, das gestohlene Geld zurückzugeben, wie ich denke.

Lassen Sie mich klar sagen, dass in einer rechtsstaatlichen Gesellschaft Einzelpersonen und umso mehr Beamte wie die JC-Geschäftsführerin Anette Farrenkopf und Sabine Nowack ins Gefängnis geworfen würden, weil meine Fälle sicherlich keine Einzelfälle sind. Ich bin mehr als sicher, dass angesichts des grassierenden institutionellen Rassismus in Deutschland und des professionellen kriminellen Verhaltens dieser abscheulichen und rassistischen Arbeitsbehörde insbesondere Ausländer von dieser lügnerischen und kriminellen Bande von Beamten im JC München über den Tisch gezogen wurden und werden.

Ein gesichtswahrender und humanistischer Ansatz eines Ministers mit Integrität wäre, unmissverständlich vorzuschlagen, dass die beiden genannten Personen herabgestuft und in ein anderes Regierungsbüro in einem Dorf in der bayerischen Provinz verlegt werden.

Gestatten Sie mir, mit einer Bewertung abzuschließen, die auf persönlichen Erfahrungen aus erster und zweiter Hand in Südasien und seinen Gerichten vor Ort basiert. In Deutschland gibt es keinen Unterschied zu den korruptesten Gerichten in Südasien, mit der einzigen Ausnahme, dass in Deutschland Staatsanwälte und Richter kein Handtuch über ihre Bürostühle hängen.

Si tu vales, bene est; ego quoque valeo


Das Handtuch in asiatischen Amtsstuben. Nicht zu vergessen die verschieden farbigen Stifte zur Unterzeichnungsberechtigung.