Federal Ministry of Justice, a stalking judge in Germany? Surely you must be kidding

F A X

Federal Ministry of Justice
Berlin 
Fax: 030/ 18 580 – 95 25

cc Social Kangaroo Court Munich, criminal Jobcenter Munich, Public Prosec. Munich

March 19, 2022

Ref.: That racist, stalker & “judge” Ehegartner of the Social Kangaroo Court Munich

To whom it may concern,

When dealing with a lady, common courtesy and dignity suggest a comportment of a man commensurate that of a gentleman. A proper education, not steeped in blasé attitude and cockiness, would propound to act like a chevalier. In certain quarters of the exalted discipline of law this noble demeanour seems to be alien. Enter the bucolic province of Bavaria with Master Robert Shallow Ehegartner.

I would appreciate if you at the BMJ would get in touch with the esteemed President of the Munich Social Kangaroo Court Mrs. Mente. For the sake of completeness, madame is adorned with a PhD in law, iow, Diplom Rechtsanwalt. Di niente.

In which I take umbrage about the boorish conduct of Munich Social Court “judge” Robert Shallow, Esquire Ehegartner. I do not take it lightly when said person feels entitled to stalk my Tibetan daughter. When a woman explicitly and in writing tells a court that she wishes “no contact in any form from the social courts regarding the ongoing disputes”, then that should be pretty fuckin’ clear!  That is where everything stops. No contact. No bullshitting. Are we clear?!

In a letter of Feb. 24, 2022 and received by me on Feb. 26, 2022, this Falstaffian “judge” asks my daughter to comment on case S 42 AS 2594/16 by March 2, 2022. Turns out, this despicable provincial Law Lord of ill intent had already handed down his verdict (based on suppression of two documents to cover up fraud by the criminal labor office Jobcenter) on Feb. 10, 2022. This is how a real Kangaroo Court acts in racist Germany. This is how a sly deemster deals. This is how a rotten judge indulges in migrant voyeurism in racist Germany. Quelle surprise.

On March 13, 2022 I have filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor of Munich against the Punkah Wallah in the Zenana of the Jobcenter, “judge” Ehegartner for stalking my daughter. As can be expected in corrupt Germany, this will go nowhere.

Bullshit Ability may indeed be considered an honest signal of intelligence according to Martin Harry Turpin et al, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, but it should be put to practice in appropriate situations, certainly not in a court of law.

Perhaps I am a tad too sensitive. It is just this bucolic rough charm of the sweaty Aborigines of this pre-Alpine province that is so alien to me and repugnant. They disgust me.

Words fail me to express my gratitude for your understanding and readiness to address these unpleasant incidences. I trust that I have made myself fuckin’ clear. Please refrain from sending me those disclaimers/jurisdiction/federal structure yaddayadda pointers and whatevs you dig up. If you, chances very slim with those politicians one would not wish to ever meet at a party or anywhere, should elect to reply, I would politely discourage. Politicians and associated persons affect my mood in a deflationary way. In plain French, I can not stand them.

Gnōthi Seauton,

The Honorable President of the Social Kangaroo Court Munich Edith Mente (Diplom Rechtsanwalt)

Fly-by-night lawyer anyone?

JujuBee Hein-Schnieder

F A X

Sozialgericht München
Fax: 13062-314

Lawyer Hein-Schnieder
Fax: 23888020

13. März 2022

Reference: 
S 42 AS 2594/16 (stolen vacation job wage of daughter)
S 42 AS 165/17

Lawyer Hein-Schnieder,
President Social Court Munich Mente,

I have received that fax the lawyer had sent to the court on the exact day of the court hearing, Feb 10, 2022, duration 11am to 12.35pm to cover fourteen cases and including a recess. Remarkable, to say the least. Receipt of fax at court was at 11.56am. Thank you.

It should be noted, the fax was signed on behalf of lawyer Hein-Schnieder by lawyer Maurer.

Unfortunately, still missing is an answer to my enquiry

  • who contacted the lawyer from the court?
  • What did that person from the court say?

You both would not have anything to hide, would you? The chronology points to a lot of hurry on both sides, does it not?

I am looking eagerly forward to get those details. I have an enquiring mind, a mind that yearns to be satisfied, s’il vous plaît.

Kindly further allow a question to you both. You are aware of the ZPO, BGB, BRAO?

Lastly, professional conduct of a lawyer – one who is not a fly-by-night-lawyer – would suggest that such an eminent lawyer would kindly get on the seat of his/her pants and pen a reason for terminating the mandate. 

This prolixic friend of proper style and conduct feels perturbed that he even has to mention this. Apparently, the customs of the aborigines of this bucolic pre-alpine province are different. They are alien to him and he feels disaffected.

Thank you,

President of Kangaroo Court SG München Mente

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

Placeholder

A person who deems himself exalted deserves a dedicated place. One such person would no doubt be the racist “judge” Ehegartner. He plies his trade with questionable means at the Social Court in Munich. More on this later…

To give him the richly deserved presence, a new Category has been added: “Racist judge Ehegartner”. Unfortunately, no photo available. Perhaps the brown tradition of Germany?

These here think that publicity without transparency contributes to a deity-like perception of judiciary.

COMMUNICATING JUDICIAL DECISIONS: A BLACK BOX OR TRANSPARENCY?
Team Czech Republic
Daniel Askari, Kristina Blažková, Kristina Rademacherová Tutor: Jan Chmel

“Our empirical findings show that publicity and transparency do not correlate. Publicity without transparency contributes to a deity-like perception of judiciary where judges decide cases from an inaccessible divine position.”