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

Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, I am pretty conservative when the Nepali mother of a migrant is being defrauded by a judge of a social court

cc ECRI, BMJV, BMFSFJ, BMAS, SC, Bav. SC, Federal SC

Nancy Böhning could have relieved Bernhard from his suffering

Bernhard Franke,

you are the interim’s guy heading the FADA, aka the Anti Discrimination Agency of racist Germany. That’s quite a stretch. IOW, the FADA is a false flag organization, or if you prefer, a conduit for hypocritical conflict management. It is also, so it seems, an SPD organization with lucrative posts.

You received two complaints – so far – on July 26 and Aug. 3, 2021 with a complaint about the President of the Social Court Munich Edith Mente and racist “judge” Ehegartner respectively. So far no response. You know, Bernhard, I am pretty conservative when the Nepali mother of a migrant is being defrauded by a judge of a social court. But then I do not know the FADA’s standards.

It is a pity indeed when “Bar Camp” woman Nancy Böhning‘s (FFS, don’t read the comments) application got derailed by a contending bitch woman. It is also disconcerting when the Administrative Court Berlin had to get involved in the selection process of your successor and one can bet the farm on it that person will/has to be a, err, woman. So much about anti discrimination. This here reads like the whole thing FADA resembles a swamp; besides that, only female names appear. And that article is from April 2019!

Anyway. Bernhard, the pictures on the internet show you mostly in a suffering mood and I can relate to that. Well, in some you look drowsy. Being a male place holder has to sour one’s mood. Makes one placid.

Still, I would appreciate if you, or any other of your distinguished comrades-in-arms could assemble a response. It’s just the decent way to deal with something so sleazy. Glad you agree. Decades of sports have instilled in me a decent level of tenaciousness.

Thank you

Complaint about “judge” Ehegartner, Social Court Munich, with the German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency

Nothing will stop Monsignor Franke to burn the midnight oil to once and for all exterminate racism and discrimination for the greater good in Germany.

By Email

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

Aug. 3, 2021

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

Complaint about racist “judge” Ehegartner, Social Court Munich, engaged in suppression of documents to enable fraud and advance his career

To whom it may concern, perhaps Bernhard Franke?

Further to my complaint about the president of the Social Court Munich (in the following ‘SC’), Edith Mente, from July 26, 2021 I would like to file a directly related complaint about “judge” Ehegartner of the SC.

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.”

Jean Baudrillard – Screened out

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?”

(Jean Baudrillard – Screened Out, Verso 2002)

Add to this the entertaining antics of finding a successor. Plus, the FADA would never dare to file a single suit against racist German police.


Five Exhibits attached

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

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

LEHMANN Sylvia Sylvia.LEHMANN@coe.int

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.

Coda

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)

Sincerely,

xxx

(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
jobcenter-muenchen.sbh-orleansplatz@jobcenter-ge.de

2. Jobcenter im Sozialbürgerhaus Pasing
Sabine Nowack
Landsberger Straße 486
81241 München
jobcenter-muenchen.pasing@jobcenter-ge.de

Silke.Strama@jobcenter-ge.de

3. Sozialgericht München
Präsidentin Edith Mente
Richelstraße 11
80634 München
E-Mail: vorzimmer@sg-m.bayern.de

4. Bayerisches Landessozialgericht
Präsident Günther Kolbe
Ludwigstraße 15
80539 München
E-Mail: vorzimmer@lsg.bayern.de

5.Oberlandesgericht München
Präsident Peter Küspert
Nymphenburger Straße 16
80335 München
E-Mail: poststelle@olg-m.bayern.de

6. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS)
Wilhelmstraße 49
10117 Berlin
za4-justiziariat@bmas.bund.de
justiziariat@bmas.bund.de

7. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz
Mohrenstraße 37
10117 Berlin
E-Mail: poststelle@bmjv.bund.de

8. Bundesministeriums für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend
Franziska Giffey with faked doctorate
Glinkastraße 24
10117 Berlin
Z12@bmfsfj.bund.de
gabriele.frenz-ferger@bmfsfj.bund.de