Dear black Americans, you claim to be racially discriminated. This is blatant nonsense.

Matter of fact, it “lacks any logic and factual context”.

Who says? A judge in Germany! Bear in mind, Germans are very meticulous and opinionated. They do not rush to conclusions, all is based on reasoning. Hegel, Kant, and the like.

Let’s first have a look at the Pdf ‘Denying Racism: Elite Discourse and Racism‘ – Teun A. van Dijk

The Forms and Functions of Racism Denials

The many forms denials of racism may take are part of a well-known overall discourse and interaction strategy, viz. that of positive self-presentation or keeping face (Brown and Levinson 1987; Goffman 1967; Tedeschi 1981). Given general social norms that prohibit explicit dis- crimination and outgroup derogation, white group members usually do not want to be seen as racists . When they want to say something negative about minorities, they will tend to use denials, disclaimers or other forms that are intended to avoid a negative impression with their listeners or their readers. That is denials have the function of blocking negative inferences of the recipients about the attitudes of the speaker or writer. Such denials may not only be personal, but especially in elite dis- course, they may also pertain to our group in general: We British (Dutch, French) are not racist … That is in talk about minorities, white people often speak as dominant group members.

Let’s fact-check. So without further ado, here is an excerpt from the court ruling of Munich judge Walter from Oct. 2021:

excerpt of Munich Local Court ruling, Ref.: 845 Ds 259 Js 153060/20

This translates to:

“The “Tibetan” daughter and the associated accusations of racism against Judge Ehegartner, are mere eyewash, since the defendant’s daughter is a German citizen. The statement made is therefore devoid of any logic and factual context, but rather brings the animosity of the defendant to the fore.”

Now by applying elite discourse we put that in context with black Americans and, bingo, no racism. Can’t be. Because …

“The black Americans and accompanying accusations of racism against the U.S. turn out to be mere window dressing, since black Americans are American citizens. The statement made thereafter lacks any logic and factual context, but rather brings the animosity of black Americans to the fore.”

As van Dijk’s paper concludes:

Racism, defined as a system of racial and ethnic inequality, can survive only when it is daily reproduced through multiple acts of exclusion, inferiorisation or marginalisation. Such acts need to be sustained by an ideological system and by a set of attitudes that legitimate difference and dominance. Discourse is the principal means for the construction and reproduction of this socio-cognitive framework. At the same time, there are norms and values of tolerance and democratic humanitarian- ism, which may be felt to be inconsistent with biased attitudes and negative text and talk about minorities. To manage such contradictions, white speakers engage in strategies of positive self-presentation in order to be able credibly to present the others in a negative light. Dis- claimers, mitigations, euphemisms, transfers, and many other forms of racism denial are the routine moves in social face-keeping, so that ingroup members are able to come to terms with their own prejudices. At the same time, these denials of racism have important social and political functions, e.g. in the management of ethnic affairs and the de-legitimation of resistance. We have seen that, especially in elite discourse, for instance in the media and in the legislature, the official versions of own-group tolerance, and the rejection of racism as an implied or explicit accusation, are crucial for the self-image of the elite as being tolerant, understanding leaders. However, we have also seen how these strategies of denial at the same time confirm their special role in the formulation and the reproduction of racism.

. . . . . .

Self-love for ever creeps out, like a snake, to sting anything which happens to stumble upon it.
Lord Byron

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

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.

Howdy guys @fragdenstaat – Mind if I call your thing ‘Federal Circuitous Bullshitting Platform’?

Di niente.

In which I elegantly steered the subject in the desired direction. Why did it take you blokes more than a year to depublish this:

Subject: “Is a civil servant operating under a false name engaged in administrative activity under public law within the meaning of § 1 SGB X?” („Ist ein Beamter operierend unter falschem Namen in öffentlich-rechtlicher Verwaltungstätigkeit im Sinne des § 1 SGB X tätig?“)

Here is their website.