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

German Labor Ministry BMAS prefers things covered up and not published on the net

cc JC, Dieter Reiter, SG, LSG, BSG

Howdy Anette @BMAS_Bund ,

Two things upfront, sweetheart. Don’t bullshit me. Don’t get smug on me. Haiyaa, Uncle Roger don’t like. There is no case needed with the IFG. You’re a pathetic little liar. And if you need one court case, it’s right there, pumpkin pie: Case 51482/18 (ECHR Single-Judge decision). Gabisce!

Here’s daddy’s suggestion, honey. Publish the crap (i.e. your reply to me from Sept.) on the interwebz at ‘FragDenStaat‘ and we take it from there. Okidokey? I treasure openness and it will get friggin’ open. Will it get embarrassing? You fuckin’ betcha, chiquita. Keywords: your civil servant criminals Martina Musati, Manni Jäger and the ball less fucktard. You might leisurely add to those freaks the racist criminals A. Farrenkopf, S. Nowack et al. from the friggin’ Jobcenter.

The question is simple:

What is the purpose of a ‘Freedom of Information Act’ when it covers criminals funded by BMAS? We are talking libel and black mailing.

Honey, since we are at it, could you mayhaps tell me why some bloke claims his name to be rotten fuckface C. Paucher when in reality his name is racist Jürgen Sonneck, formerly Jobcenter Munich? Ask Dieter Reiter, he prolly can give assistance. Better yet, here is the address of the idiot:

Landeshauptstadt München – Referat für Bildung und Sport
Bayerstraße 28, 80335 München
Telefon: +49 89 23396777

And get this, no fuckin’ civil servant shitface of you insufferable Krauts sends me and my daughter police using a false name. We clear, sugar tits? Tell pancake face, aka Hubsi Heil, I expect full damages and make sure my daughter gets a new Mac, you fuckin’ Ugly Racist Germans.

So, Princess Peach, get the stuff done on FdS and one more thing, lift the fucking block of @ErebusSagace.

Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a Naziland.

Preciate taking your time, Sugar Plum.

Cheerio

Martina Musati should not again invoke Germany’s Nazi-style NetzDG to get a post deleted

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Klage wg. Nötigung gg. Martina Musati. Mildernd ihr Mangel an Bourdieuschen Cultural Capital und damit Hindernis am Heiratsmarkt laut Harvard Studie

This following suit dated Nov. 2017 and submitted to the Social Court Munich, was published around the date given therein. In March 2019 we received a notice from Google that a complaint had been made by an unnamed person based the German NetzDG (the GOOG refused to disclose the name, so I filed a suit based on the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ IFG and this suit is still running) who wanted to have a blog post (exactly this one below which is now again published) taken down. See here. I refused the request and then came the funny part. That post was blocked in the UK, NOT in Germany. However, as I was working on the appeal to the court some days ago to get the name of the complainant released, I checked back and discovered that Google had followed up and had deleted the post which featured exactly what you can read in this post here. So what you are reading here is hate speech (?) and/or defamation according to Germany’s NetzDG. (sorry, only in German)


Sozialgericht München
Richelstr. 11
80634 München

28. Nov. 2017

Sehr geehrtes Gericht,

Ich erhebe hiermit unter Bezug auf Artikel 13 EMRK

KLAGE

gegen Martina Musati, Agentur für Arbeit, Nordbahnhofstrasse 30-34, 70191 Stuttgart,

wegen Nötigung § 240 STGB mit der impliziten Intention mir und meiner tibetischen Tochter Schaden zuzufügen und verbunden mit der

  • Verletzung der Grundrechte Art. 5 Abs. 1; Art 3 Abs. 1; Art. 6 Abs. 1.
  • Verletzung des Artikels 10 EMRK
  • § 193 STGB und
  • § 226 BGB.

Der Art. 13 EMRK garantiert das Recht auf wirksame Beschwerde.

Jede Person, die in ihren in dieser Konvention anerkannten Rechten oder Freiheiten verletzt worden ist, hat das Recht, bei einer innerstaatlichen Instanz eine wirksame Beschwerde zu erheben. auch wenn die Verletzung von Personen begangen worden ist die in amtlicher Eigenschaft gehandelt haben.

Dieses Recht wurde und wird mir und meiner Tochter seid Jahren durch die bayerische Justiz genommen, als ausnahmslos ALLE unsere Strafanzeigen und Widersprüche konsequent abgelehnt wurden und ebensowenig Verweise auf BGH Entscheidungen gewürdigt wurden. Des weiteren wurde von der Münchner Justiz mehrere Male PKH abgelehnt So wurde z.B. meine Strafanzeige vom 08. Jan. 2015 gegen das ledige Fräulein Musati von der Staatsanwaltschaft München wie in einer Bananen Republik abgebügelt. Daher diese und weitere Klageeinreichungen vor dem SG München, denn die bislang ergangenen Strafanzeigen stammen ausnahmslos von staatlichen Behörden involviert in das Hartz 4 Regime und kriminell bestrebt, einen Blogger mundtot zu machen in der Art von Nazi Heinrich Himmlers ‘Aktion Arbeitsscheu Reich’.

Begründung

Mit Schreiben vom 16. August 2012 machte das ledige Fräulein & damalige GFin des Jobcenter München, Musati, ‘Beseitigungsanspruch und Unterlassungserklärung’ wegen ‘diffamierender Beiträge im Internet geltend (siehe Anlage ‘Unterlassungserklärung’) und forderte nassforsch die Löschung eines Blog Posts (siehe Anlage ‘Blog Post BMAS’) oder mit einer Vertragsstrafe in Höhe von € 10.000,- bedacht zu werden.

Auffallend ist des ledigen Fräulein Musatis Ermangelung an ‘Cultural Capital’, wie es der französische Sozialphilosoph Pierre Bourdieu erkenntniserweiternd formulierte, um also drei Tage feminin kreativ tätig sein zu müssen, das Schreiben des Manfred Jäger vom 13. August 2012 wortgleich zu reproduzieren.

Es sei darauf hingewiesen, das Fräulein Musati verzichtete auf den in integren Kreisen üblichen Usus der Quellenangabe. Ein weiterer beklagenswerter Mangel Bourdieuschen ‘Symbolic Capitals’ als auch eine mögliche Validierung der Harvard University Studie ‘Acting Wife: Marriage Market Incentives and Labor Market Investments’ (Bursztyn, Fujiwara, Pallais), wonach alleinstehende Frauen karrierefördernde Maflnahmen vermeiden, weil diese Handlungen unerwünschte Eigenschaften wie Ehrgeiz auf dem Heiratsmarkt signalisieren.

Jedenfalls lässt sich aus der Konstellation unschwer ihre nachtrottende Komplizenschaft mit dem Medien-Zensur-Trio Bechheim/Bockes/Jäger der Agentur für Arbeit München deduzieren, dessen Details in meiner Klage gegen Manfred Jäger vom 30. Okt. 2017 ausgeführt wurden.

Frappant signalisiert sich ferner ein Manko an ‘Social’ cum ‘Cultural Capital’, als das ledige Fräulein Musati explizit in ihrem Nötigungsschreiben ihre Aversion gegen meine sorgsam gewählten und wohl temperierten Begriffe wie ‘restringierte Elokution’ als auch das ‘Dilbert Principle’ ventiliert. Fast ist man geneigt zu glauben, nicht einmal ein Window dressing mittels Darbietung seiner arrivierten Halbbildung ist einem Hartz 4 Rezipienten gestattet.

Fräulein Musati verkennt in ihrer sozialen Eingewobenheit die Existenz eines Gesetzes, genannt Freie Meinungsäusserung. So vernimmt man aus dem Artikel 10 der EMRK.

(1) Jede Person hat das Recht auf freie Meinungsäusserung. Dieses Recht schliesst die Meinungsfreiheit und die Freiheit ein Informationen und Ideen ohne behördliche Eingriffe und ohne Rücksicht auf Staatsgrenzen zu empfangen und weiterzugeben.

Das Fräulein Musati stellt sich keck ausserhalb einer demokratischen Rechtsnorm und scheint von der femininen Eitelkeit affektiert die Reproduktion eines dümmlichen Schreibens einer übergewichtigen Person plumper Provenienz würde juristische Validität garantieren und ein Hartz 4 Rezipient bei einer vakuösen Forderung von €10.000,- von Herzflimmern übermannt werden.

In des Fräulein Musatis Brief ‘Beseitigungsanspruch und Unterlassungserklärung’ stellt die Behauptung der Diffamierung allein schon eine schnippische Aversion zur freien Meinung dar, handelte es sich bei dem Blog Post um eine offene Email an das Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, die sich auf tatsächliche und belegbare Ereignisse zu Zeiten des ledigen Fräuleins Regnum beim Jobcenter bezieht. Daneben ist auch nicht der volle Inhalt des Posts auf meiner Website angegeben (siehe Anlage ihres Briefes und der tatsächliche Blog Post). Er ist damit seiner tiefen intellektuellen Verve beraubt und verliert an Amplitude.

Das Fräulein Musati desavouiert sich in ihrem vierseitigen Erpresserbrief in für mich als Chevalier peinlich anmutendem Lapsus, wenn sie den Satz “Ist Martina Musati gar ein weiterer Beleg fur die Validität des Dilbert Principle?” gelöscht sehen mochte. Dem linguistischen Connaisseur ist hier sofort Betteridge’s law geläufig, ebenso der Fakt, dass Dilbert in top US Finanzmedien abgedruckt wurde/wird. Vielleicht nicht ganz das Metier der talentierten Mademoiselle. Diese Ignoranz scheint einmal mehr den Dunning-Kruger Effekt zu validieren.

Auch nimmt prätentiöse Dame Anstoss an dem Begriff ‘Kaschemme’ und sieht einen Beleg für ‘grob geschäftsschädigende Inhalte (Schreiben S. 2). Hier, denke ich, unterschlug hyperbolisches Prosecco-Genre die polnische Etymologie, wonach eine Kaschemme eine Kneipe oder Schenke ist. In jedem Fall ein profitables Serviceunternehmen und nicht auf Steuergeldern herumlungernd.

Des Fräuleins erpresserische Aufforderung den Blog Post zu löschen oder ‘unter Ausschluss der Einrede des Fortsetzungszusammenhangs’ eine ‘fällig werdende Vertragsstrafe in Höhe von € 10.000 (in Worten: zehntausend Euro) zu zahlen, grenzt an amazonenhafte Wegelagerei garniert mit femininer Selbstgefälligkeit.

Die offene Email wurde zu einem Zeitpunkt geschrieben, als das Jobcenter München die monatlichen Zahlungen drastisch gesenkt hatte für mich und meine damals sechszehnjährige Tochter und auf keinerlei Kontaktersuchen reagierte. Ich musste schlussendlich einen Anwalt für eine erfolgreiche Klage beim Sozialgericht bemühen.

Nach der Anzeige durch ein Mitglied des staatlich-deutschen Zensur-Trios wurde mein Computer für 25 Monate beschlagnahmt aufgrund eines richterlichen Beschlusses OHNE (!) Unterschrift des Richters und mein Geschäft bewusst durch das Jobcenter München/Arbeitsagentur schwer geschädigt. Für diesen Nutzungsausfall des Computers fordere ich selbstverständlich Schadensersatz.

Fräulein Musati scheint an der Ansicht ihr Plaisier zu finden, freie Meinungsäusserung und eine Zugehörigkeit zur Kaste Hartz 4 seien noninklusiv im neoliberalen Wirtschaftssystem.

Das Anliegen des Fräulein Musati war keineswegs irgend ein Recht gewahrt zu sehen, sondern es ging ihr zum einen, und hier sei noch einmal der französische Sozialphilosoph Bourdieu bemüht, aus der unbewussten Erkenntnis, primär kein wirtschaftliches Gut oder Mittel zur Akkumulation ökonomischem Kapitals zu sein, vielmehr symbolisches Instrument zur Steigerung des Ansehens und des sozialen Beziehungsnetzes der Männer, eigenes ‘Symbolic Capital’ zu erheischen.

Zum anderen ging es dieser Behörde Jobcenter in Zusammenrottung mit dem Medien-Zensur-Trio Bechheim/Bockes/Jäger der Agentur für Arbeit München um die Unterdrückung von Berichten und Erlebnissen mit einer neoliberalen staatlichen ‘Behörde für die Bereitstellung wohlfeiler Humanresourcen zur Promotion des Export Surplusses’ und die Knebelung eines Bloggers im Verbund mit einer Justiz und einer verbrecherischen Anwältin. Der § 226 BGB erklärt die Ausübung eines Rechts für unzulässig, wenn sie nur den Zweck haben kann, einem anderen Schaden zuzufügen.

Ich bitte Sie daher, ein Ermittlungsverfahren gegen das ledige Fräulein Musati einzuleiten und mich über das Ergebnis des Ermittlungsverfahrens zu informieren.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen