Section 160 and 163a Code of Criminal Procedure superfluous in racist Germany when a fuckin’ migrant is defrauded by a racist and criminal judge

Chrissy Lambrecht @BMJV_Bund

Section 160 and 163a Code of Criminal Procedure superfluous in racist Germany when a fuckin’ migrant is defrauded by a racist and criminal judge? The name of the racist and criminal judge is Ehegartner, Social Kangaroo Court Munich.

Strafanzeige gegen Bundesjustizministerin Christine Lambrecht wegen Verleumdung von US Präsident Trump

F A X

Staatsanwaltschaft
Turmstraße 91
10559 Berlin

‘Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong!
Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice!’
Nietzsche

10. Jan. 2021

Ich erstatte Strafanzeige gegen

Bundesministerin Christine Lambrecht,
Behördenleiterin des Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz

wegen Verleumdung (§ 187 StGB) des amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump und Verstoss gegen Art 5 GG.

Am 07. Januar 2021 twitterte die Behördenleiterin des BMJV, Christine Lambrecht, unmittelbar nach den Ereignissen im Capitol von Washington vom 06. Januar ihren Kommentar zur Blockierung des amtierenden (!) Präsidenten der USA, Donald J. Trump, auf Facebook und Twitter. Sie versieht diesen Tweet auch noch mit dem Hashtag “Demokratie”! Der Tweet lautet:

“Twitter und Facebook haben die Accounts des amtierenden US-Präsidenten Trump gesperrt. #Capitol #Demokratie
Dass Twitter und Facebook Trumps Flut der Lügen jetzt unterbrechen, ist eine viel zu späte Einsicht. Wut, Hass und Aggression waren viel zu lange ein Teil des Geschäftsmodells, mit dem die Plattformen reich geworden sind. Wir werden in Europa verbindliche Pflichten für die Internetplattformen schaffen, um Wahlen zu schützen, Hetze zu löschen und gegen Lügen konsequent vorzugehen.
Christine Lambrecht, Bundesministerin der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz”


Diese sozialistische Ministerin unterstellt dem amtierenden amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump DIREKT NACH den Vorfällen im Capitol zu Washington vom 06. Jan. 2021, er hätte Hetze und Aggression geschürt in seiner Rede vom gleichen Tag. Implizit beschuldigt sie ihn damit zur Aufstachelung und macht ihn verantwortlich für die Vorfälle im Capitol. Es steht ausser Zweifel, sie hat es nicht für nötig befunden, Trumps Rede überhaupt zu lesen.

Damit begeht diese durchtriebene Bundesministerin genau das, was sie Trump vorwirft: sie lügt schäbig und genau, wie man es von einem Politiker erwartet. Hier ist die Rede von Präsident Trump nachzulesen.

Gut, dass man nicht angewiesen ist auf die deutsche Shitpaper Presse und seine schwanzlutschenden (1) Journalisten, sondern dass es integre Blogger gibt wie Ann Althouse, Rechtsprofessor an der University of Wisconsin Law School, jetzt emeritierter Professor. Im Blog Post “The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th.” befasst sie sich mit Trumps Rede. Hier ist ihr Post übersetzt:

Hier ist das Transkript. Ich las die gesamte Rede – die über eine Stunde dauerte – und suchte nach den Sätzen, die am meisten der Interpretation unterliegen, dass er die Menge dazu aufrief, in das Kapitol einzubrechen oder irgendeine Art von Gewalttat zu begehen. Ich mache das, weil mir klar wurde, dass ich keine Zitate von Trump gesehen habe, sondern nur die Behauptung, dass die Rede eine Anstiftung und eine Ursache-Wirkungs-Schlussfolgerung war, die auf der Abfolge der Ereignisse beruhte: Er sprach und dann handelten sie.
Es gibt Stellen, an denen er eindeutig von einem friedlichen Protestmarsch sprach. Er sagt: “Ich weiß, dass alle hier bald zum Kapitol marschieren werden, um friedlich und patriotisch Ihre Stimmen zu Gehör zu bringen.” Und: “Also werden wir die Pennsylvania Avenue entlang gehen … Also gehen wir die Pennsylvania Avenue entlang.”
Aber hier sind die 7 gewalttätigsten Aussagen. Wenn Sie etwas Gewalttätigeres oder mehr im Zusammenhang mit der Idee finden, in das Kapitol einzubrechen und das Verfahren physisch zu stören, lassen Sie es mich wissen und ich werde es der Liste hinzufügen. Folgendes habe ich gefunden und in die Reihenfolge von am wenigsten bis am gewalttätigsten gebracht:

7. Wir gehen zum Kapitol hinunter und werden unsere tapferen Senatoren und Kongressabgeordneten anfeuern. Wir werden einigen von ihnen wahrscheinlich nicht so viel zujubeln, weil Sie unser Land niemals mit Schwäche zurückerobern werden. Man muss Stärke zeigen und man muss stark sein.

6. Um einen Lieblingsbegriff zu verwenden, den Sie alle wirklich erfunden haben, werden wir den Diebstahl stoppen…. Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass sie Ihre Stimmen zum Schweigen bringen.

5. Die Republikaner müssen härter werden. Sie werden keine republikanische Partei haben, wenn Sie nicht härter werden.

4. Wir werden jemanden dort haben, der nicht dort sein sollte, und unser Land wird zerstört, und wir werden nicht dafür eintreten.

3. Wir werden niemals aufgeben. Wir werden niemals zugeben, es passiert nicht. Sie geben nicht zu, wenn es um Diebstahl geht.

2. Wir werden es nicht zulassen. Ich werde es nicht zulassen.

1. Gemeinsam sind wir entschlossen, die Regierung des Volkes, des Volkes und des Volkes zu verteidigen und zu bewahren.” (Ende)

Diese Ministerin unterstellt dem amtierenden Präsidenten – gewählt von 75 Millionen Menschen – des Landes, das Deutschland von den Nazis befreit hat und die mittels Sozialisten an die Macht kamen, Äusserungen, die er belegbar nicht getätigt hat und befürwortet seine Knebelung. Die Aussicht, die sie für Europa macht, lässt nur erschauern. Diese Ministerin sollte ihres Amtes enthoben werden. Doch Eingriff in die freie Meinungsäusserung liegt im DNA dieser Deutschen.

Cadit quaestio

(1) Ich bedauere den Terminus, aber mir fällt bei deutschen Journalisten nichts anderes mehr ein. Einen Günter Gaus gibt es leider nicht mehr.

Criminal complaint against Head of German Federal Ministry of Justice for defamation of the US President Trump

Public Prosecutor’s Office
Turmstrasse 91
10559 Berlin

‘Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong!
Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice!’

Nietzsche

Jan. 10, 2021

I’m filing a criminal complaint against the

Federal Minister Christine Lambrecht,
Head of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection

for defamation (§ 187 StGB) of the American President Donald J. Trump and violation of Art 5 Basic Law.

On January 7th, 2021, the head of the BMJV, Christine Lambrecht, tweeted her comment on the blocking of the incumbent (!) President of the USA, Donald J. Trump, on Facebook and Twitter. She even uses the hashtag “Democracy”! The tweet reads:

“Twitter and Facebook have blocked the accounts of the incumbent US President Trump. #Capitol #Democracy

That Twitter and Facebook now interrupt Trump’s flood of lies is far too late a conclusion. Anger, hatred and aggression have been part of the business model that made the platforms rich for far too long.
We will create binding obligations for Internet platforms in Europe in order to protect elections, erase hate speech and consistently take action against lies.

Christine Lambrecht, Federal Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection”

This socialist minister accuses the incumbent American President Donald J. Trump DIRECTLY AFTER the incidents in the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, that he had stirred up hatred and aggression in his speech on the same day. She implicitly accuses him of incitement and makes him responsible for the incidents in the Capitol. There is no doubt she did not even bother to read Trump’s speech.

This sly Federal Minister is doing exactly what she accuses Trump of: she lies shabbily and exactly as one would expect from a politician. Read President Trump’s speech here.

It’s good that you don’t have to rely on the German shitpaper press and its cock-sucking (1) journalists, but that there are bloggers with integrity like Ann Althouse, law professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, now professor emeritus. In the blog post “The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th.” she covers Trump’s speech. Here is her post translated:

Here‘s the transcript. I read the entire speech — which was over an hour — looking for the sentences that are most subject to the interpretation that he was inciting the crowd to break into the Capitol building or commit any sort of act of violence. I’m doing this because I realized I wasn’t seeing quotes from Trump, just assertions that the speech was an incitement and cause-and-effect inferences based on the sequence of events: He spoke and then they acted.
There are places where he clearly talked about a peaceful protest march. He says: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” And: “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue… So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
But here are the 7 most violent statements. Please, if you can find anything more violent or more related to the idea of breaking into the Capitol and physically disrupting the proceedings, let me know, and I’ll add it to the list. This is what I’ve found and have put in order from least to most violent:

7. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.

6. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal…. We will not let them silence your voices.

5. The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.

4. [W]e’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.

3. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.

2. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.

1. Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.” (End)

This minister insinuates that the incumbent president – elected by 75 million people – of the country that liberated Germany from the Nazis and that came to power via the indirect assistence of socialists, made public statements that he clearly has not made and supports his gagging. The prospect she opens up for Europe can only make one shiver. This minister should be removed from office. But encroachment on freedom of expression is in the DNA of these Germans.

Cadit quaestio


(1) I regret the term, but I can’t think of any better way to describe German journalists. Unfortunately, there is no longer a Günter Gaus.

German Minister of Justice disseminates blatant lies, spews anger against US President Trump

‘Mistrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong! Mistrust all those who talk much about their justice!’

Nietzsche

German Justice Ministry’s tweet against US President Trump hails his removal from Twitter and FB.

Above the tweet @BMJV_Bund from Jan. 7, 2021.

Translate:

“Twitter and Facebock have blocked the accounts of the incumbent US President Trump. #Capitol #Democracy

That Twitter and Facebook now interrupt Trump’s flood of lies is far too late a conclusion. Anger, hatred and aggression have been part of the business model that made the platforms rich for far too long.
We will create binding obligations for Internet platforms in Europe in order to protect elections, erase hate speech and consistently take action against lies.”

That is one heck of a sinister statement by a minister of justice who, btw, is a socialist. Keep in mind, this tweet from the BMJV was published right after the Capitol incident on Jan. 6. This minister accuses President Trump of hate speech and aggression. The minister has obviously no respect for the First Amendment. She has with absolute certainty not read the transcript of Trump’s speech from that day in Jan. 6 and not listened to it. (Merkel after 16 years in office still needs an interpreter when an English-speaking guest talks).

The German Minister of Justice anchors the intention of Germany (and that is Europe) on lies of Trump. That’s pretty disingenuous. Nobody would be surprised when told that politicians (Trump is not one) do lie. Most people would certainly prefer not to be lied to but nobody raises an eyebrow when politicians do so. It is a given. You live with that. You expect it.

For this German minister it took way too long that platform companies – they are not media houses! – infringed free speech. This in reference to the President of the United States Donald J. Trump still in office. A president that 75 million of US citizens voted for. It tells you everything about socialists. Socialists, who sealed Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Hello “Bücherverbrennung”! Say what you want, it is in the German DNA.

But lies are only her false flag as she quickly moves on to the real intention of Germany/Europe and that is two-fold. Citing anger as reprehensible shows how low her threshold of acceptable free speech is. Her cliffhanger though is ‘hate speech’ and, secondly, it irks her that US companies reap all the financial benefits. At this point it is not quite clear, is she now more concerned about alleged hate speech or is it the profits Twitter generates? Looking at net income of Twitter gives you a pretty mixed picture over 5 years and that is an American company. One can expect a European Twitter would be funded by the EU and be a continuous loss maker. The Germans will also make sure a Tweet Gestapo keeps everything neat and those who transgress will be, err, concentrated.

Citing hate speech as a profit center for FB and Twitter is daft and shows only that this socialist politician has no idea how advertising works. It’s hard to imagine that a Twitter user will buy a BMW when seeing a Trump rant and right below a car ad. That Twitter shares lost some 1.3% the day Trump was 86ed is nothing special and does not prove anything.

It gets even better. Germany wants binding obligations to protect elections. Trump won by a fair election four years ago. Since that day German news sites have been chock full of articles about Trump, all of them negative. Articles three rows deep that you could get the impression this is a US news site in German. The meddling of Russians bullshit story, Muller, alleged sex offences, the undying hope that Trump would finally fall … the German media fell for everything and never understood Trump, a movement. The recent US election has at least some question marks to account for.

Keep in mind again, this tweet of the BMJV was published right after the Capitol incident on Jan. 6. It accuses President Trump of hate speech and aggression. Tongue in cheek she probably also alludes to alleged incitement of violence by Trump on that day in January. Here is Ann Althouse, law professor at University of Wisconsin Law School, now a professor emerita, and her post:

The 7 most violence-inciting statements in Donald Trump’s speech to the crowd on January 6th.

Heres the transcript. I read the entire speech — which was over an hour — looking for the sentences that are most subject to the interpretation that he was inciting the crowd to break into the Capitol building or commit any sort of act of violence. I’m doing this because I realized I wasn’t seeing quotes from Trump, just assertions that the speech was an incitement and cause-and-effect inferences based on the sequence of events: He spoke and then they acted. 
There are places where he clearly talked about a peaceful protest march. He says: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” And: “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue… So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
But here are the 7 most violent statements. Please, if you can find anything more violent or more related to the idea of breaking into the Capitol and physically disrupting the proceedings, let me know, and I’ll add it to the list. This is what I’ve found and have put in order from least to most violent:

7. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. 

6. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal…. We will not let them silence your voices.  

5. The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican party if you don’t get tougher.  

4. [W]e’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.  

3. We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.

2. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen. 

1. Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people. 

Finally, here is again Althouse about

Twitter has “permanently suspended” Donald Trump “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

That is excellent reporting by a blogger. The German Justice Minister is engaging in libel, disseminating blatant lies and spewing pathetic anger based on ignorance against the head of a country that freed Germany from the Nazis. Besides, a Turkish cleaning lady wears better hair.

Justice Minister Lambrecht

Wittgenstein would wave the fire poker in the face of German Justice Minister Lambrecht

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

HL Mencken

This following tweet of the German socialist Justice Minister C. Lambrecht is embarrassing. She does not even understand the function of language.

The text reads:

Combating #Racism and #Right-Right Radicalism: Federal Cabinet Adopts Catalog of Measures – u. a. Art. 3 of the Basic Law should be changed.

There is a link to a press release.

“We are replacing the term ‘race’ in the Basic Law with a contemporary term that does justice to the will of the Basic Law: never again racism. We will quickly make a formulation proposal.”

First of all, the will of a law is never that there will be no more theft, murder, racism, stolen cycle valves … The will of a law is you better be a decent person and not do those things because it will be better for the society ultimately.

The thought of combatting racism by changing the word ‘race’ for something other is based on motivated reasoning.

“Motivated reasoning is a phenomenon … that uses emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence”.

Precisely what they are trying do in Germany. Exterminate (yep, they were good at that and books as well) the term ‘race’. It reminds one of Hamlet’s words: “Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” To which Wittgenstein adds in his ‘Lecture on Ethics’ – Delivered in November 1929 to the Heretics Society, Cambridge University.

But this again could lead to a misunderstanding. What Hamlet says seems to imply that good and bad, though not qualities of the world outside us, are attributes to our states of mind. But what I mean is that a state of mind, so far as we mean by that a fact which we can describe, is in no ethical sense good or bad.

If for instance in our world-book we read the description of a murder with all its details physical and psychological, the mere description of these facts will contain nothing which we could call an ethical proposition. The murder will be on exactly the same level as any other event, for instance the falling of a stone. Certainly the reading of description might cause us pain or rage or any other emotion, or we might read about the pain or rage caused by this murder in other people when they have heard of it, but there will simply be facts, facts, and facts but no Ethics.

Back to the proposition they have not understood the function of a language in planning this. Fortunately, we have the authority of Wittgenstein and his ‘Philosophical Investigations’ (PI). There it reads in paragraph 46.

What lies behind the idea that names really signify simples?—
Socrates says in the Theaetetus: “If I make no mistake, I have heard some people say this: there is no definition of the primary elements— so to speak—out of which we and everything else are composed; for everything that exists in its own right can only be named, no other determination is possible, neither that it is nor that it is not . . . . . But what exists in its own right has to be . . . . . named without any other determination. In consequence it is impossible to give an account of any primary element; for it, nothing is possible but the bare name; its name is all it has. But just as what consists of these primary elements is itself complex, so the names of the elements become descriptive language by being compounded together. For the essence of speech is the composition of names.

Let’s assume for a moment the word for the color ‘red’ and the color ‘yellow’ should also be replaced by some “racism-sensitive” words (as it says under #5 of the BMJV press release) because there could possibly be some negative connotation with the American Indians and the Chinese. Don’t laugh, students in a UK unversity want the word ‘black’ be banned. To which Wittgenstein says in 50 of PI:

… Let us imagine samples of colour being preserved in Paris like the standard metre. We define: “sepia” means the colour of the standard sepia which is there kept hermetically sealed. Then it will make no sense to say of this sample either that it is of this colour or that it is not.
We can put it like this: This sample is an instrument of the language used in ascriptions of colour. In this language-game it is not some- thing that is represented, but is a means of representation.—And just this goes for an element in language-game when we name it by uttering the word “R”: this gives this object a role in our language- game; it is now a means of representation. And to say “If it did not exist, it could have no name” is to say as much and as little as: if this thing did not exist, we could not use it in our language-game.

IOW, if race did not exist, we could not have a word for it and if you replace it you might make a contribution to Guffipedia. It would not change anything, just make it sound funnier or weird. Or saw your branch off on which you are sitting.

“55. What the names in language signify must be indestructible; for it must be possible to describe the state of affairs in which everything destructible is destroyed. And this description will contain words; and what corresponds to these cannot then be destroyed, for otherwise the words would have no meaning.” I must not saw off the branch on which I am sitting.

And here comes Wittgenstein’s strongest aphorism:

580. An inner process stands in need of outward criteria.

Once you get on this, the BMJV’S path, it can get very tricky. ‘The dangerous logic of anti-racism‘. Just read it.

How shallow she is! I sometimes worry that she will grow up to become a lawyer.’

(slightly edited)

On the derivation of the word ‘race’ read this.