 |
| The German Spanish Inquisition, aka BVerfG |
"Golf is a game where white men can dress up as black pimps and get away with it."
As you might expect when some folks in the high echelons of society dress like the Spanish Inquisition, judicial standards tend to take some surprising turns. Lest we forget, these noble purveyors of justice are all unelected!
Here are some bewildering decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Germans can turn pretty prickly for example when the peas roll too close to their mashed potatoes (1). It gets almost unbearable for Germans when they see a headscarf. The CC had to decide on two occasions, 2003 and 2014. The first decision was contra headscarf in schools, but in 2014 the Red Robes changed their minds to pro. These noble guys have two sets of rules in their arsenal. In November 2011 they delivered, by German standards, a real master piece. Contrary to § 130 STGB they saw the denial of the Holocaust by a known Neonazi protected by free speech! Their decision was published months later and was met with astonishment in the press (2). In 2014 they had to deal with the legality of the OMT program of the European Central Bank. Clearly displaying a lack of understanding what OMT does and a hesitation to block it, they passed the case on to the European Court.
Denying this is OK with the FCC.
The Constitutional Court explains why:
"The decisive criterion whether a public dissemination exists, is by accepted understanding always that a publication is made available to a larger, uncontrollable group of persons."
In other words, be a Nazi clandestinely.
Oh, by the way, our constitutional complaint was rejected as expected. Rejected after remaining intensively UNread. How that happens is described below (3) by Dr Ulrich Brosa who happened to have his complaint as well rejected, took it to the European Court and won his case. Our rejection letter reads like this and more or less exactly like Dr Brosa's.
"The constitutional complaint is not taken to decision because it is inadmissible. From a further justification is in accordance with § 93d para. 1 sentence 3 BVerfGG being desisted."
Of course the decision is incontestable.
Kirchhof and Masing were two of the judges who decided that denying the Holocaust is protected by free speech! Susanne Baer is a judge of very low professional credentials in the field of law but all the more engaged in gender politics.
What had happened? What was inadmissable? This:
The blog post covers how a 60 year old (!) Jobcenter (which is the German government agency charged with purveying workers remunerated at, according to a latest IMF study, 30% below the wage rate of continuously employed workers) dude hits on my 18-year old daughter without ever having seen her and without knowing anything about her questioning her passing the school successfully. Goes on in his discriminatory rant and proposes private tutoring and tops it off by proffering his "Help to sign up with the German Jobs Portal".
I called him a "slimy staff" and the dude did not like this and sued for defamation. Defamation law suits are rampant in Germany and they infringe on free speech. That's how ridiculously screwed up laws are in Germany. The historical parallels are obvious.
What's important to remember is, the CC judges are all unelected! They are suggested by political parties.
1) Each arrived in Karlsruhe constitutional complaint is of governmental (!) Officials, taken for example from Reg.Dir.Dr.Hiegert in reception. The government officials and employees are looking immediately for an excuse the constitutional complaint as inadmissible to throw in the trash. Commonly the claim, an appointment is missed or the legal process has not been exhausted.The latter is a bloomer (you can not exhaust one way), but is so in the Federal Constitutional Court Act § 90. In this type of rejection demands on the accuracy of the complainants will be provided, never meet the judicial members themselves. "Scientific assistant at the Federal Constitutional Court" - Then come the constitutional complaints in the catches anonymous legal secretaries.The rights officers decide on the type of rejection: "not allowed", "unfounded" or "not admitted for decision". Formally, the decisions of legal secretaries to be approved by one chamber (3 judges) of the Federal Constitutional Court. The vote of the chamber takes no more than minutes.
2) The constitutional complaint is rejected as unfounded. Substance is not the rule. Provides the Federal Constitutional Court but a justification of this is to see that it comes from a legal secretaries who had no desire to thoroughly read the complaint, but would like for it to make a career in the state apparatus.
3) The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision. The wording means that the rights officers have no excuse found rid of the complaint, but politically insignificant or ungenehm would to edit them seriously. The object of the right speakers is certainly the judges of the Constitutional Court, which are representatives of the ruling parties on a regular basis, to draw attention to the politically interesting cases. The question: "Is the Federal Constitutional Court the Best German court" we can answer with a radiant YES: "The Federal Constitutional Court is the best German propaganda-court"
4) Anyone who believes that sloppiness and political machinations in the Federal Constitutional Court would be corrected the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, gets there at Renate Jaeger, a former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court. Hunter sitting in the European Court, since this court has produced decisions by which the Federal Constitutional Court has been disgraced. The German R.Jäger has announced the European Court of Human Rights should kindly take care of other states because there is something give as Great as the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany.
"The constitutional complaint is not taken to decision because it is inadmissible. From a further justification is in accordance with § 93d para. 1 sentence 3 BVerfGG being desisted."
Kirchhof Masing Baer
Of course the decision is incontestable.
 |
| Starting from right: Baer, Masing, Kirchhof |
Kirchhof and Masing were two of the judges who decided that denying the Holocaust is protected by free speech! Susanne Baer is a judge of very low professional credentials in the field of law but all the more engaged in gender politics.
What had happened? What was inadmissable? This:
Sonntag, 23. März 2014
Jean-Marc Vincent offers "precisely fitting" integration into the Low-Wage country
Parents who want to provide their children a better education from the outset both in elementary school and later at a high school, have to submit an application with the Higher SS and Police Leaders.
"Einige Gedanken über die Behandlung der Fremdvölkischen im Osten" von Heinrich Himmler, 15. Mai 1940
Quelle: Kühnl, Reinhard
"Der deutsche Faschismus in Quellen und Dokumenten."
Köln, 1978
Bildquelle: Daily Mail
The blog post covers how a 60 year old (!) Jobcenter (which is the German government agency charged with purveying workers remunerated at, according to a latest IMF study, 30% below the wage rate of continuously employed workers) dude hits on my 18-year old daughter without ever having seen her and without knowing anything about her questioning her passing the school successfully. Goes on in his discriminatory rant and proposes private tutoring and tops it off by proffering his "Help to sign up with the German Jobs Portal".
I called him a "slimy staff" and the dude did not like this and sued for defamation. Defamation law suits are rampant in Germany and they infringe on free speech. That's how ridiculously screwed up laws are in Germany. The historical parallels are obvious.
. . . . . . . . . . .
The decision of the CC (bearing in mind our constitutional complaint had never been read by the trio) proves two things.
- One, and Germany is well-known for it, is institutionalized racism.
- Second, do not criticize a government agency which is instrumentally important in securing the supply of cheap labor in order to keep Germany's exports industry humming and refrain from uttering your opinion in public on a blog. That however is inconsistent with free speech.
The Federal Constitutional Court basically decreed:
- A government agency can suggest additional private lessons in school, although it does not know anything about the concerned person. What it knows though is, she is a migrant and these migrant are probably stupid.
- A government agency can try to coax you out of school and into a job.
- A government agency clerk has personal advantages if he/she succeeds in interrupting further education of a student by placing him/her in a low-paying job. That's OK.
- Do not criticize this by pointing to conspicuous parallels how the Nazi conducted admission to school education! Especially not when Bavarian courts are after you. Courts notorious for their Neonazi affinity.
___________________
(1) A tasty tool of change - LA Times
Denying the holocaust is protected by free speech as long as it is done in a small group! Since the denial of the Holocaust viewed as such is "considered proven untrue is not covered by the freedom of expression", "in the overall context of the respective essays, however, the respective Holocaust denying statements are inextricably linked to expressions of opinion." The decision of the Constitutional Court explains why: "The decisive criterion whether a public dissemination exists, is by accepted understanding always that a publication is made available to a larger, uncontrollable group of persons." I am sorry, but this is arbitrary.
(3) Here, the resolution of the code kindly elaborated by German Dr. Brosa who unsurprisingly got kicked in the ass by the German CC, but then took his case to the ECHR and ultimately won. (just a Google translate but you get the gist how the German Constitutional Court gets rid of most of the cases). After all, only about 2,8% of all submitted cases get accepted in a year. The rest goes straight into the trash bin and so it is a lottery with the odds stacked against you.
What's important to remember is, the CC judges are all unelected! They are suggested by political parties.
1) Each arrived in Karlsruhe constitutional complaint is of governmental (!) Officials, taken for example from Reg.Dir.Dr.Hiegert in reception. The government officials and employees are looking immediately for an excuse the constitutional complaint as inadmissible to throw in the trash. Commonly the claim, an appointment is missed or the legal process has not been exhausted.The latter is a bloomer (you can not exhaust one way), but is so in the Federal Constitutional Court Act § 90. In this type of rejection demands on the accuracy of the complainants will be provided, never meet the judicial members themselves. "Scientific assistant at the Federal Constitutional Court" - Then come the constitutional complaints in the catches anonymous legal secretaries.The rights officers decide on the type of rejection: "not allowed", "unfounded" or "not admitted for decision". Formally, the decisions of legal secretaries to be approved by one chamber (3 judges) of the Federal Constitutional Court. The vote of the chamber takes no more than minutes.
2) The constitutional complaint is rejected as unfounded. Substance is not the rule. Provides the Federal Constitutional Court but a justification of this is to see that it comes from a legal secretaries who had no desire to thoroughly read the complaint, but would like for it to make a career in the state apparatus.
3) The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision. The wording means that the rights officers have no excuse found rid of the complaint, but politically insignificant or ungenehm would to edit them seriously. The object of the right speakers is certainly the judges of the Constitutional Court, which are representatives of the ruling parties on a regular basis, to draw attention to the politically interesting cases. The question: "Is the Federal Constitutional Court the Best German court" we can answer with a radiant YES: "The Federal Constitutional Court is the best German propaganda-court"
4) Anyone who believes that sloppiness and political machinations in the Federal Constitutional Court would be corrected the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, gets there at Renate Jaeger, a former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court. Hunter sitting in the European Court, since this court has produced decisions by which the Federal Constitutional Court has been disgraced. The German R.Jäger has announced the European Court of Human Rights should kindly take care of other states because there is something give as Great as the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.