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.”

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.

Selecting your lawyer in Germany

“There are a lot of assholes among German lawyers.”

Dan Hull from ‘What about Paris?‘ in an email.

OK, that got off on a bad but true note. Anyway, let’s try not to get distracted in the search but rather focused.

1. Someone with a doctor title adds of course to your standing, but they are often conceited and smug, so go for second best and that is
2. a lawyer with a hyphenated name. You can’t go wrong with that. After all, you’ve heard George Carlin. Heinz, the Baron Krauss von Espy wouldn’t be bad either but that’s a dandy and pretty rare these days.
3. So basics are settled. Now you want to have some spark. Only a Princess Peach legal eagle can deliver that.
4. Next, this being the decade of social media, a presence on Pinterest is de rigueur.
5. Now move on to body language. So important like MSG as Uncle Roger would say. Well look at these blokes. Crossed arms. Haiyaa, so bad.

Once upon a time this was considered a power pose designed to impart strength and competence, but not in 2020.

This is not what you want. You want a pro-active bitch. One that jumps at every opportunity to serve you and advance your interests. Sweating altruism.

Clients want their lawyers trusted advisors to sit on the same side of the table with them, to provide the guidance, simplicity, and hand-holding to empower them to make smart choices. The best lawyers are more interested in making their clients look good as opposed to themselves, and this applies to all practice areas.

“UNCROSS YOUR ARMS
Consider updating your headshot and firm photos. Natural lighting, a warm smile, a soft background and possibly nixing the tie will make you and your firm much more approachable.”

As it so happened, that is exactly my lawyer, I mean trusted advisor. It is now time to introduce her and I do this with the utmost humbleness as I am only too aware of my inferiority in the presence of her shining light and her judicial omniscience. Ladies & gentlemen, Sonja Hein-Schnieder, my trusted adviser in Munich, Mediator cum Certified Disability Management Professional. Presence on Pinterest? Checked. Did I mention ‘Reboarding‘? She’s into that as well. Gee, I am scrambling for air. That is quite a mouth full and all that since November 2018. Yep, it’s been two years now. That’s nothing to sneeze at, righty so?

Take a look at her posture, her uncompromizing, unadulterated body language. Her upper body turned 45 degrees toward you, the client. Attentive to your needs. The lower body, though not visible, clearly trained in a forward motion from left to right. Left to right signifies progress, solution-driven professional commitment towards your personal greater good. Going for the kill.

Sonja Hein-Schnieder in solution-driven professional pose.

OK, in an open talk with the Munich Chamber of Lawyers she aired some grievance. The missus is not happy widda moneyz and is all in for some pecuniar optimization.

“The reward for our performance is another point where I would like to see optimization. The RVG provides framework fees in social law which, due to the complexity of the factual and legal situation, often do not compensate for the effort required to process the mandate. Despite all the euphoria for social law, disillusionment occurs at the latest when one has to fight for the medium fee even for mandates with considerable effort.”

Absolutely honey, you nailed it. Can you blame her? Not at all. It’s the relationship that we have that counts, not the smackeroos. So how is it, I hear you asking. Great, all peaches and roses. We enjoy an AC relationship. When she’s there, I am not and vice versa. IOW, we are a force present 24/7/365. Actually, it’s 730 as you correctly figured.

When I proffer details, she smartly realigns them in the proper judicial context where they, perhaps a little surprising to the uninitiated lay person in all things legal & beyond, are rendered into a state of non-being. My legal eagle Sonja Hein-Schnieder flies in a judicial Nirvana where the study of case files is a trifle mundane, plebeian, contrived, unnatural, superfluous. You catch my drift? The Missus Sonja prefers relationship management. That means she professes a keen interest to be closely aligned, for your good mind you, with the judge AND the opposing party. You could call it kind of a juridico-sexual promiscuous relationship.

So after two years with three different cases she has achieved absolutely nothing, zippo and that with aplomb. Suppression of two documents and thereby theft of money from my daughter by the opposing party elicited no interest in sugar babe. Her single-best performance was to withdraw a lawsuit in Oct. 2020 involving my daughter, contrary to the law, and without telling me in advance. A complete breach of professional obligations. That is quite an achievement. Has she bothered to read the case files? Yes and no. Yes, as she disclosed during a phone call once and no, as she wrote after she had withdrawn the law suit.

An email sent to her on Nov. 6, asking to explain her decision which was in total breach of a lawyer’s obligation and professional conduct remained unanswered! Nuff said, see the lede.