C R I M I N A L C O M P L A I N T against Jürgen Sonneck, Jobcenter Munich

Jürgen Sonneck, alias C. Paucher, bevorzugt
den dunklen Siff der Anonymität.
Insbesondere auf dem Internet.
Hier ist er links zu sehen.

English  version  (for chronological  documentation  and  presentation at  the  USCIS.gov)

State Prosecutor München I
Linprunstraße 25
80097 München

Jan. 10, 2016

C R I M I N A L   C O M P L A I N T

Accused:  Jürgen Sonneck, Jobcenter München, Mühldorfstr. 1, 81671 München

Offense:    Infringement of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
                     Infringement of Article 5 of the Basic Law of Germany
                     § 226 BGB (chicanery)

When and where: May 15, 2014 in Munich

The undersigned is informed and believes that

Count 1

On May 15, 2014 Jürgen Sonneck, second in charge of the Jobcenter Munich, submitted a complaint at the Munich police against my father because he had published and commented on statements against my person made by Jobcenter staff Jean-Marc Vincent. These statements included the demand to see the school mid-term results, although no legal basis exists for this request. In addition, the statement alleged that I might need private lessons. This is an affront against me because nobody at the Jobcenter Munich has ever seen me, has ever talked with me, knows anything about me, except that I exist. I have reasons to believe that my being a so-called migrant led to this assumption. I view such allegations as discriminating and potentially racist.

In addition, the suggestion to offer me private lessons looked like a decoy to furnish my mid-term results upon which the Jobcenter Munich would try to lure me out of school and into a low-wage job. This assumption is based on incidences reported in a SPIEGEL article titled 'By all means available' and another report in the same magazine.

Count 2

Further evidence for this assumption was the offer to help me in signing up for the German Labor Agency's job portal. The offer is firstly ludicrous as job offers can be seen without signing up and secondly, I am not looking for a job when my school term is for another one and a half years.

Count 3

It may be assumed that by offering help in signing up to the jobs portal the Jobcenter intended to get hold of my email address and cell phone number. It is a well-known fact and it has been widely reported in the press that the German Labor Agency scours the social networks and spies on people.

Count 4

My father wrote about this incident in four blog posts. In one of them he used the image of Heinrich Himmler in Nazi uniform together with a pertinent quote made by Himmler. This quote stated that school education is granted with the express permission of the police only. The quote resembles in an uncanny way the ways and means in which the Jobcenter operates. The blog post is linked to the website of the German state media company RBB in Berlin. On this website are several Nazi images displayed. An assumption of any form of Nazi glorification is out of the question.
The Jobcenter subsequently took exception to this and by filing a complaint with the Munich police, the Jobcenter München intended to have this post purged and my father fined.

The blog posts of my father covered real life incidents perpetrated by a German government agency. By filing a complaint Mr. Sonneck intended to infringe the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression and the freedom of press because the Jobcenter does not want any critical reports about its conduct.

With repeated criminal complaints against my father the Jobcenter's intention is not based on seeing justice administered. It is based on crushing any dissent, on getting any negative reports about the Jobcenter deleted and, most importantly, on seeing us financially ruined, unable to pay the fines and subsequently getting my father imprisoned and me out of school.

§ 226 BGB declares the exercise of a right to be inadmissible if it can only have the purpose to inflict another's loss.

Lastly, Mr Sonneck's assertion that the term "sliming staff Jean-Marc Vincent" would qualify as libel is utterly ridiculous and raises doubts that he has the full grasp of the German language.

= = = = = =

As expected, the prosecution refused to follow up on the case. The "reasons" cited by eminent prosecutor DOCTOR Beckstein:

1. Whether demanding to see the term sheet is legal or not has to be decided by a court.

This is pure bullshit as courts have decided that it is not legal.

2. The accusations of my daughter are "baseless and outrageous".

3. Doc Beckstein again addressed my daughter "Dear Mister ..."

The clumsiness of Bavarians is mind-boggling.

Doc Becki suggested the option of a comlaint at the Munich kangaroo court ... and my daughter yawned and asked me to handle it.