Significantly Insignificant? The Life in the Margins of that Strasbourg ECtHR

Excerpts from my complaint “Complaint with the ECtHR about tricky Munich judge“. BTW, my second greatly treasured Single judge decision.

“According to the C.’s knowledge, the President of SC Mrs. Mente was in contact with the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office in the period from June 2, 2020 to June 16, 2021 (A PSC 1, PSC 2) due to alleged insults of Judge E. by the C. (Az. 845 Ds 259 Js 153060/20) The C. is perplexed, how a court, which is in contact with the public prosecutor’s office Munich over a period of one year and was “supplied” in this period with submissions against the C. by Judge E., is able to judge independently and unprejudiced. Several negative decisions by Judge E. fell into this period. One wonders why a president of a social court does not preemptively relieve the judge of the cases. Perhaps it was assumed that the public prosecutor’s office would not grant access to the files. “False face must hide what the false heart doth know.””

A judge who files a criminal complaint for alleged insult is at the same time able to judge independently and unbiased? Seriously, ECtHR? That’s bold.

“Even more perplexing is why a judge is so eager to continue to judge after these declarations of no confidence. To suppress documents, to table fraudulent decisions in disregard of the BSG judgment of 24.11.2010 – B 11 AL 35/09 R (keyword “allowance” (“Freibetrag”)), to accept open racist insinuations from the JC unquestioned (sublease contract of the daughter deemed not credible), to ignore an important witness summons.”

A judge who waves through fraud by disregarding vital parts of a court decision of a higher court is acting properly? You must be kidding, ECtHR.

“A monetary adjustment from 2019 onwards decided by the Federal Cabinet, to which the JC deliberately did not comply (action in Sept. 2019, S 42 AS 1968/19), leaves him cold and he passes a complaint for failure to act of May 2020 on to the Bavarian LSG at a cost of € 560.00. There is nothing at all to decide for a judge here. It is virtually a law.”

What exactly is the purpose of a law then, ECtHR?

“He forces the C.’s daughter to appear in court in person under the threat of a penalty payment of € 1,000 in the event of non-appearance. (A 15) This in a case in which part of her earnings from a vacation job were requested by the JC by threatening confiscation. (S 42 AS 2594/16)”

So the ECtHR is of the opinion a judge can blatantly indulge in migrant voyeurism by forcing a migrant to appear in his court who has been defrauded by the Jobcenter Munich of her legally earned money during a vacation job? Interesting take, ECtHR. Kudos.

Not done with that, “Judge” Ehegartner resorts to a blatant lie. The power of attorney of my Tibetan daughter allegedly did not exist. Why not, after all, this is racist Germany, almost anything goes. Trouble is, the POA was faxed to the Munich court in Oct. 2019.

“Judge E. had deliberately falsely claimed at the hearing in Oct. 2020 in the presence of C’s lawyer that the C.’s daughter had not sent a power of representation (A 9) to the SC.”

Suppression of documents is “judge” Ehegartner’s go-to means.

“The part of the chairman of the 42nd chamber of the Munich SC, Judge Ehegartner (hereinafter ‘Judge E.’), in the representation of the interests of the JC includes suppression of documents, refusal to allow the lawyer to inspect files over two years in three cases concerning the C.’s daughter. He communicates with the C. instead of the lawyer. Not an isolated case at the SC according to Google Reviews!”

What would then be the purpose of Art. 6 3c ECHR (to defend himself through legal assistance)? Refusal of inspection of court files by the lawyer is condoned by the ECtHR? All that is deemed dispensable when a court from the Western part of Europe is involved, right? It is fairly obvious that the ECtHR is heavily negatively biased towards Eastern countries, ain’t it so?

“He insists on electronic forms of communication that do not exist at the JC.”

A whole slew of decisions is based on this requirement. The Jobcenter does not provide any form of submitting documents with a qualified electronic signature. This is Bavaria where hibernation in public offices runs twelve months. And get this, I sent an email to the criminal head of the JC, Anette Farrenkopf, in June requesting the name of Electronic Signature Card(s) they accept. No answer.

. . . . . . . . . .

Dinah Shelton, Professor of International Law Emeritus, provides an explanation in the Pdf ‘Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights‘:

As states do not like to be found in violation of their human rights obligations, it is not surprising that they would seek to limit admissibility, even (or especially) in respect to meritorious claims.

Currently, the Registry undertakes an initial evaluation of applications. A nonjudicial rapporteur23 from the Registry decides whether the application should be assigned to a single judge, a Committee or a Chamber, and assists the single judges, transmitting the lists of cases deemed inadmissible to the judges for approval. The President of the Court decides on the number of judges designated to sit as single judges and appoints them to serve for a period of one year.24 The Rules of Court provide that where the material submitted by the applicant is ‘on its own’ sufficient to disclose that the application is inadmissible or should be struck out of the list, it is to be considered by a single judge unless there is some special reason to act to the contrary.25 The single judge may declare inadmissible or strike out the application without further examination or appeal, notifying the applicant of the decision by letter. As Cameron has noted and judges on the Court have confirmed in discussions with the author, the lists transmitted electronically to the single judges contain only one or two sentence summaries of each matter recommended for dismissal, identify- ing the right being invoked; the judges do not see the applications26 and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry.27 Once the application is rejected, the author of it is sent a form letter so indicating, without explanation or reasoned decision, simply stating that ‘taking ac- count of all the elements in its possession, and to the extent that it is able to evaluate the allegations formulated’, the Court sees no reason to proceed.

She cites a further convenient fact in footnote 24:

The problem of a ‘hidden judiciary’ of secretariat lawyers making the actual decisions is not unique to the European system. Cameron notes that this can create problems of integrity when the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states: see ibid. at 34.

For convenience sake (from Antoine Buyse’s Pdf ‘Significantly Insignificant? The Life in the Margins of the Admissibility Criterion in Article 35 § 3 (b) ECHR‘):

It could thus very well be that the admissibility criterion may continue its life in the margins of the Convention system. At the very least, it will become more invisible, since decisions by single judges usually remain unpublished.

There you go.

I am perplexed, ECtHR.

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)

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

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.