This is an OCR derived Pdf, so there may still be some minor typos. The ECHR has so far only published the press release (upon which some German lawyers commented. Go figure. Yes Udo Vetter, looking at your comments section. Oh Lordy, you seem to attract the intellectual crème de la crème).
This is a preliminary post. More will follow on particular subjects.
. . . . . . . .
The subject of contention was this image of Nazi Heinrich Himmler and his quote. Original blog post here.
 |
| Disclaimer for da hypocritic Germans. |
Honorable Judges, It pains me immensely to relate there being unfortunately a couple of flaws in your reasoning based on misstatements and odd phrasing. AND a glaring omission of a vital document! Che ne dici.
 |
| Jürgen Sonneck, alias C. Paucher, perfers den anonymity. In particular on the Internet. Seedy as he is. Here he is on the left. |
We will learn more about balding Jürgen below. He is quite a cunning and scheming delta-male and part of a censorship gang of the Munich labor agencies.
To learn more about the court proceedings in Munich back then, please read here 'Case 2' and about the judge Bassler here.
Let's first dig a little into the fallacy of mood affiliation with Tyler Cowen because the court is pretty heavy on it:
"It seems to me that people are first choosing a mood or attitude, and then finding the disparate views which match to that mood and, to themselves, justifying those views by the mood. I call this the “fallacy of mood affiliation,” and it is one of the most underreported fallacies in human reasoning."We have now formed a framework which might be helpful dissecting the reasoning of the Judges. Following here are a couple of their statements:
 |
| Judge Mose |
1. "In January 2015 the Munich District Court convicted Mr Nix of, among other things, using symbols of unconstitutional organisations after posting the picture of Himmler. The decision was upheld on appeal."
In May 2017 Judge Burhoff reported on his popular law website:
'Stunned, if a jury court has for years no internal chamber distribution plan, or: Mia san mia?'
This was about the Landgericht München in 2015! Sure, it pertains to the jury court, but it can be pretty safely assumed for all Landgericht München courts. The very court where my appeals were held. So the start was auspicious.
Again, here are some details about the judge Mrs. Bassler from the LG Munich and her double standards.
There is even more. Judge Basler was the judge in ALL three cases against me. Could this be a 'FERRANTELLI AND SANTANGELO v. ITALY (Application no. 19874/92), paragraphs 58-60 ("double circumstance") and here a Bavarian "triple circumstance"?
2. "In March 2014, the employment office sent a letter to his daughter, who is of German-Nepalese origin. It asked the daughter, who was eighteen and scheduled to complete her schooling in the summer of 2015 at the earliest, to complete a questionnaire on whether she intended to continue schooling beyond September 2014, or to commence vocational training or tertiary studies."
Oops, here comes a classic case of mood affiliation. The letter was an obvious red herring. The German judge Angelika Nußberger should have sensed that out of the context of my blog posts.
A Jobcenter staff will never ever mention the subject of tertiary studies because then he would run the risk of losing one of his most precious resources for earning points/bonuses/keeping his job, that guy sitting in front of him in his office, or the one he has invited. He/she is his asset and he will squeeze it, and that means into a job. Referring a young person into a job, any job, earns him more points than a 40 year old. At university that person is gone forever and is of no value to him. You refer some people to tertiary studies and you can be sure that your JC contract will not be renewed.
This is how German Jobcenters work, like crooks agencies: deceit, fraud, falsifications and cunning. The SPIEGEL has a good article: 'With all means available' (Mit allen Mitteln) in German (I will translate it sometime later).
Here is the timeline with exchange:
In a letter dated March 5, 2014 to my daughter with the subject 'Your further career from September 2014' Jean-Marc Vincent, Jobcenter München - Employment Agency U25, requested among others the sending of the intermediate school certificate.
I was expecting such a contact after I had read two articles in DER SPIEGEL and deliberately played stupid, because that is often the best way the other side opens up.
This is what I wrote:
Good morning Jean-Marc Vincent,
My daughter xxx recently received a letter from you. In it you request the submission of the school interim certificate.
What is the purpose of this request? I look forward to an explanation.
Salut et au revoir,
(This is a Google translate and my deliberately naive tenor is lost in translation.)
This was J-M V.'s answer:
Good day, Mr. xxx,
Thank you for your first answer.
Within the scope of my consulting assignment according to SGB II, I am the contact person of your daughter xxx in the transition from school education to vocational training or studies.
For tailor-made advice, I need information on the current state of affairs (school interim certificate), in particular also on whether the desired school graduation is achieved in the summer, or whether, if necessary, tutoring funded by the Jobcenter should be offered. Therefore I ask you or xxx to present me the named documents.
Thank you and
Best regards
Jean-Marc VINCENT
Jobcenter München Employment Agency U25
The Jobcenter had never cared about her, nobody had ever seen her but based on her migrant status a level of stupidity was assumed and her progress being questioned. So it was absolutely clear from the start, this ploy was about a job for my daughter instead of her continuing school. Besides, it is a little tough to get from offering tutoring to talk about tertiary studies. It was BS from the start.
3. "The post however did not contain any reference or visible link to the earlier posts and it had not been immediately understandable for a reader that it was part of a series of entries."
There is no visible link to connected posts? Oh yes, there is. You just did not bother to check. At the end of every post there are two links, 'newer post' and 'older post'. Clicking on 'newer post' leads to the following post about the incident and from that post as well to the next.
Secondly, my first post announces another follow-up post:
"... werde ich mich im nächsten Post mit Ihrem Nachsatz
insbesondere auch darüber, ob der angestrebte Schulabschluss im Sommer erreicht wird, oder ob gegebenenfalls ein vom Jobcenter finanzierter Förderunterricht angeboten werden sollte, beschäftigen"
"... I will be dealing in the next post with your postscript
in particular, whether the intended graduation is achieved in the summer, or whether, if appropriate, tutoring should be offered."
The screwd-up Jobcenter did not even cover the bus fare and now they pretended to offer tutoring because migrants are stupid.
4. "Furthermore, Mr Nix had made no reference to his daughter’s German-Nepalese origin or the fact that he himself received social welfare benefits."
Now that is two statements and they are both wrong! The judges should clearly scan their own phrasing and with regard to the first statement, logical thinking can be advantageous.
a) While it is true that I did not state her German-Nepalese origin (I was after all conversing with that Jobcenter bloke Jean-Marc Vincent in public), why should that matter? The fact that the Court himself wrote "that that institution intended to push his daughter, in a racist and discriminatory manner" makes is crystal clear that she is of either mixed origin or foreign origin. It is not possible for a German agency to act racist against a genuine German.
Besides, why would nationality matter in the first place? After all, it is about the push into a low-wage job. It is assumed that the esteemed judges in Strassbourg are aware of the sole function of Jobcenters in a neoliberal economy. It is about cheap labor for the benefit of Germany's exports industry. That should be known by the German judge, but then again, you want to keep your doormat clean, right.
b) Now to the biggest nonsense and another example of mood affiliation. "Mr Nix had made no reference to ... the fact that he himself received social welfare benefits."
I am sorry, but that hurts. I am clinging to my swivel chair and am biting into the desk, lest I fall to the floor. Gentlemen, lady, it is impossible that a daughter (at that time 18 years of age) going full time to school receives Hartz 4 and the father does not. It is logically implied that he does.
 |
| Judge Nussberger |
It also evades me why this should have mattered in the underlying case.
5. "It had not been clear why the request from the employment office staff member could be compared to what had happened in the Nazi regime."
No? That is fairly easy to explain. Let's look at Heinrich Himmler's quote again:
"Parents who want to provide their children from the outset a better education both in the elementary school and later at a secondary school, have to submit an application to the Higher SS and police leaders."What was the Nazi regime's human resources requirement in those war years? Workers und soldiers.
What is the human resources requirement of the world leader in exports, Germany? A cheap labor supply. You achieve this by shortening the length of school attendance. Just read the Spiegel article, it explains it very well.
Is that all? No! Let's sprinkle in a little bit of economics. Keeping inflation low is important when purchasing power is diminished due to low wages. Hitler managed that with his SS. Simple and straightforward, and he had the benefit of a sovereign currency, read printing press, which Germany does not. (I could go on and bring in the Black Zero of then financial Zen Master Schauble.)
Germany achieves this via cheap labor costs and that is what Jobcenters are all about. Here is Paul Krugman with a graph.
Looks all like the Jobcenters' purpose is doing its job. That was not difficult, honorable judges.
6. "The Court largely endorsed the domestic courts’ approach, including their view of why Mr Nix had used the picture of Himmler with the swastika, in particular that it had been used as an “eyecatching device”. However, banning the use of such images in that way had been one of the aims of the national legislation criminalising the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations."
So a picture of Nazi personality with the swastika is an "eye-catching device" which is not covered. Let us verify this bold statement.
I pointed to this magazine cover in the court of appeal!
 |
| This SPIEGEL cover raised some hackles. |
There is nothing right in that pathetic article about Greece after 2012. It is an attack on Greece and the Greek people. Judge Bassler of the Munich court had the audacity to claim the article in The Spiegel was explaining historic events of that time. It is a blatant lie as the article is a primitive piece of shoddy journalism that deals about the Nazi occupation of that time with one single sentence that says 'Manolis Glezos tricked Adolf Hitler' and this at a time when the German media ran the most primitive anti-Greece campaign against the Tsipras government.
The Spiegel piece (German version) reads the following: The Greek demands for Nazi-time reparations are an act of despair; high jobless rate being the fault of the Greeks; the powerless Greeks are making noise to get an audience. The rest of the article is neo-liberal nonsense claiming Germany never intended to dominate economically in Europe, it was just a coincidence. The ludicrous article ends by claiming the "Germans are the most respected peoples in the world".
Of course, judge Bassler had never ever read that article. As a judge in a kangaroo court you have to get the jurymen on your side, no matter what lie is necessary.
These articles are by no means critical in any form, often they come across as pretty entertaining. The weekly so-called Nazi documentaries on TV (often 3-5 times a week) are subtle propaganda. At least Der SPIEGEL is honest about it: "Hitler always sells" (see Spiegel article 'How hitler is the Spiegel?) and airing them is cheap.
How about my open letter to Munich prosecutor Steinkraus-Koch which the ECHR mentions in passing? "Does senior prosecutor Steinkraus-Koch know about the infinite Nazi pictures in German media?" All those pictures in there do not contravene criminal code 86 and mine did? That requires stretching perceptions to the limit.
ECHR decision (Case 35285/16) follow-up: Nazi pics as “eyecatching device” not covered by Art. 10. Let's fact-check.
7. "It then held that Mr Nix must have been aware of the legislation in question, not least because he had been convicted for publishing a picture of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Nazi uniform with a swastika armband and a painted Hitler moustache some six weeks before he had published the blog post at issue."
Oops, the judges should not have mentioned that case and certainly not as supporting evidence. Would the esteemed Court please explain to me why my post contravenes the German legislation (I will deal with this case in a special post later).
 |
| Merkel-Nazi on German TV |
 |
| Merkel-Nazi in the newspapers |
 |
| My blog post linked to RTonline |
Seriously judges, you have to be kidding.
Read about the whole Munich Kangaroo Court case here ('Case 1').
Perhaps being a Straussian would help to understand the Court in Strasbourg, or I may be living a little too close to the First Amendment.
ECHR decision (Case 35285/16) follow-up: "... because he had been convicted for publishing a picture of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Nazi uniform with a swastika armband and a painted Hitler moustache some six weeks before"
The Court further stated in
47. In the light of their historical role and experience, States which have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis (ibid., § 243, with further references). The Court considers that the legislature‘s choice to criminally sanction the use of Nazi symbols, to ban the use of such symbols from German political life, to maintain political peace (also taking into account the perception of foreign observers), and to prevent the revival of Nazism (see paragraph 30 above) must be seen against this background.
Noble words ... and here comes Bavaria with a Neonazi judge!! How is that for a change?!
"Maik B. worked for a year as a judge in Lichtenfels in Upper Franconia - although the Bavarian state security had been warned long before the active right-wing extremists. His cover as blown because the lawyer was in the wrong gym." - Sueddeutsche Zeitung
 |
| Marc B. - Neonazi judge in Bavaria |
Hitler addresses ECHR. Debunks Germany’s “criminal sanctioning of use of Nazi symbols” as virtue signalling deflecting from him having been a true Keynesian
Now the biggest ECHR bummer
Lastly, and that is the most glaring shortcoming of the ECHR decision, why was the letter from Munich prosecutor Hummer not mentioned??? Was it deliberately kept under wraps? It smells a little ...
 |
| OLG Prosecutor Hummer letter |
In that letter with File #: 15 Ss 340/15 of July 8, 2015 senior prosecutor Hummer from the OLG Munich (Higher Regional Court) in all seriousness expressly forbade me to criticize historic falsifications in TV documentaries about the Nazi era like in the movie 'The Rise of Evil' which Spiegel magazine called "Hitler for dummies" and which Wikipedia described in German and English.
His letter contained the following incredible paragraph:
"Apart from that, comparisons between the act of the accused on the one hand and press and TV-coverage on the other hand are out of the question, because the latter regularly serve as political information, report on events of current affairs or history and therefore are according to § 86 no. 3 in conjunction with § 86 a no. 3 Penal Code exempted from the offense. The actions of the defendant, however, do not fall under that exception as the Court of Appeal has set out in detail and without any error of law (UA p.7)."
It is requested,
to reject the appeal of the accused against the judgment of the district court Munich I from 06.05.2015 by resolution according to § 349 exp. 2 StPO as unfounded subject to charge.(Bold by me)
In German it says " "Im Übrigen verbieten sich Vergleiche ..." which literally translates to "Among others, it is forbidden in itself to compare ..."!
IOW, accept unquestioned what German TV (Germany has a mandatory media fee! You don't pay, you go to prison! Hello, my name is Joseph Goebbels, have you heard of me?) tells you and refrain from any critique.
. . . . . . . . . .
Concluding now with that public employee friggin' fucktard Jürgen Sonneck.
|
| Jürgen Sonneck, alias C. Paucher, perfers den anonymity. In particular on the Internet. Seedy as he is. Here he is on the left. |
This time he used a false name because he felt absolutely sure to be covered yet again by the police and the Munich court. However, in the meantime I had discovered a way to gain access to the case file where I gleaned the most important information, the IP address from where the email had been sent!
Was not difficult to sniff that primitive bloke out. Contacted a couple of times the German Labor Ministry and the Justice Ministry in Berlin with damning evidence. Took them some time until even they realized it reeks too much of rotten shit and they could not hold on to slimeball Jürgen. He is no more deputy CEO at the Jobcenter Munich since mid 2017. Please read here about 'Case 3'.
No fuckingbody at the German Labor Ministry ever responded to my various letters and Pdf. It was all hushed up in typical German style. Welcome to fucking corrupt Germany.
Coda
As a World Citizen and in particular an Asiaphile, I take exception to Germany's attempt to put the swastika in a roundly negative light. I feel such an interpretation of a symbol that dates back to at least 5,000 years of history is a unilateral interpretation of a symbol and an indication of a Western cultural imperialism. It testifies to ignorance and presumptuous bigotry.
The swastika has historically occupied a double symbolism. The original and basic symbolism is that of a sign of happiness and wellbeing, and this since at least 5,000 years. The swastika is an integral part of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism.
To me, who has lived in Asia for a long time and regards this continent as his homeland, the swastika is a clearly religious symbol, pleasant to look at on temples and statues. The swastika is a symbol of daily life in South Asia, it is even used on company emblems, signboards of shops, design component in Tibetan carpets and other residential applications.
The Nazi usurpation of this symbol is a heinous travesty and only lasted a decade. The rapid decline of National Socialism in Germany is a testament to the power and ultimately benevolent energy of this symbol. For example, in 2005 the Hindu Forum of Britain and other states voted against a supercilious EU initiative to ban the swastika. An EU that will not even look back on one hundredth of the historic period of the swastika when it finally breaks apart.
My daughter plans to leave Germany and relinquish her German citizenship after all these experiences. It would be one of the happiest days of my life. What this country Germany needs is a First Amendment and the closure of the Munich Kangaroo Courts.
And to the ECHR, you can do better. I am sure.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.