German Justice Minister Maas, while Hitler had his SS and Roland Freisler, you have your rigged courts when it comes to free speech.

Case 2 (of 3 - all brought on by German labor agencies infringing my right to free speech)

cc Labor Minister Nahles,

No speech without permit
in Germany.

Justice Minster Maas,

It is now obvious that your country's labor agencies infringed my right to free speech on so far three occasions and altogether two computer confiscations. The last confiscation included ALL IT equipment.

It is further obvious that if the speech does not please, a German court's verdict is guilty by default. Why care about laws and ECHR decisions, when lies and rigged courts do the trick?

Your social-fascist Jobcenters, and I am referring here to the criminal one in Munich, show a peculiar disdain for publication of their racist and discriminating conduct when it comes to forcing young people into low-wage jobs. Your country is not exactly a paragon of integration, to say the least, and racism a well-received form of self-positioning among the populace. Among politicians it is a guarantee for votes.

Publication of picture of Himmler AND his quote is forbidden in Germany!

We have submitted a complaint about this particular case to the European Court of Human Rights with the Complaint No. 35285/16 as the German Constitutional Court showed no interest.

Germany's efforts of integration can best be described as an exercise in securing a pliable work force to ensure a cheap labor supply for its export oriented neoliberal economy. Any deviation and any critique has to be suppressed 'By all Means'. While Hitler had his SS and Roland Freisler, you have your courts.

In this particular case in 2015 the judge was again Mrs Bassler, same as in Case 1 in 2013. Oh, she was also judge in Case 3 in 2017! (more about that in another letter, and it will get really dirty. After all, we are talking about rotten Bavarian courts.) What a coincidence, wouldn't you think so, Minister? Based on a decision of the ECHR (Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, No. 48/1995/554/640) I objected to Judge Bassler for the reason of this being not a double but a triple (!) coincidence.

The template response came within 45 minutes in which Judge Mrs Hansen apparently set out to prove that a lie would be the appropriate response against a nasty blogger and it reads like this:

"From the point of view of a wise defendant (I am a sucker of this condescending drivel), the circumstances set out in the request for refusal are not capable of justifying the apprehension of the rejected professor.

1. The refusal of a judge for fear of bias is justified in accordance with Article 24 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the respondent has reason to believe that the facts which are known to him are reasonable. That the rejected judge takes an inner attitude toward him which can adversely affect his impartiality and impartiality (RGSt 61, 67, BGHSt 1. 34. 36, 21. 85, 86). The referee must spend reasonable reasons for his rejection campaign, which is clear to any uninvolved third party (BGH JR 1957, 68).

2. The application for refusal is not based on the application of these principles.

.....

In fact, the dismissed judge worked in two previous proceedings against the accused (Az: 18 Ns 112 Js 203869/12, 18 Ns 112 Js 170286/14), which also ended with a conviction. This does not, however, give rise to any apprehension because, as is apparent from the business distribution plan valid for the year of receipt, the responsibility for the procedures at that time as well as for the current procedure from the internal court division of the District Court Munich I. This, in turn, is the outflow of the constitutionally protected right to the legal judge. The court internal business division assigns each procedure according to certain criteria to a criminal chamber. The assignment takes place upon receipt of the procedure without the participation of the judges and without the person of the accused or the judge. This was also the case here. The 18th Criminal Chamber was and is, among other things, responsible for appeals against judgments of the District Court in criminal matters pursuant to Section 86a. 90a para. 1 and 2, 130 and 187a of the Penal Code, so that the same applies to the three proceedings concerned. An action by the statutory judge does not give rise to any concern of bias."

Very well, except that it is a COMPLETE FUCKING LIE!

Enter the Decision of the Federal Court of Justice with the file number AZ 1 StR 493/16 of February 8, 2017 which proves Judge Hansen is a blatant lier! Am I surprised? Heck no, this is the well-known rotten judiciary of Bavaria.

In this decision the Federal Court of Justice stated in Paragraph 2 on page 2:

"The appeal has been successful with a procedural complaint under Section 338 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal rightly submits that the 1st Criminal Court of the Munich District Court I, which ruled in this case, did not have the necessary internal distribution for the year 2015."

The Munich jury had evidently not a valid business distribution plan for years, that is, it had not determined which judge to adopt which procedure. This could lead to the fact that some trials had to be rewound against already condemned murderers. A Munich attorney had Complained about the wrong practice in a case and complained to the Federal Supreme Court.

The Munich jury may have passed judgments for years without any legal basis, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung wrote.

I reiterate firmly: No German infringes my right to freedom of expression!

Sincerely,