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.
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.
(1) The comments to this article are pretty unanimous.
cc ECRI, BMJV, BMFSFJ, BMAS, SC, Bav. SC, Federal SC
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.
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.
“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? The name of the racist and criminal judge is Ehegartner, Social Kangaroo Court Munich.
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.”
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?”
“It is inconceivable that policymakers today, aided by their theoretical understanding of the mechanisms and by the statistical information at their disposal, would begin to make the serious errors committed by the governments in 1929-32.” J. Tobin