Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth
Glinkastraße 24
10117 Berlin
by Email
cc Justiziariat BMAS
Social Court Munich
VG 2 K 215.19
Dear Ms Undersecretary Virnich, Mr/Mrs Dr Tasma,
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a man in possession of a lawful desire, must be in want of his right. I take the liberty to respond to your statement dated Oct. 14, 2019 and sent to the Berlin Administrative Court on the subject of my writ about 'The policy of the ministry on blocking on Twitter'. This writ was sent by me to the Social Court Munich, NOT the Berlin Administrative Court! The Social Court Munich forwarded my writ to the Ministry BMFSFJ which means 'Litispendenz' lies with the SCM and so the above file # serves only as an identifier.
I associate a ministry for family affairs like the BMFSFJ among others with righteousness and probity. After all, that is what parents should instill in their offspring. Unfortunately, in your statement you chose to present yourself with rather different credentials.
Right in the first paragraph you claim the Ministry did not receive my email of June 25, 2018 with a Pdf attachment and in addition lament the absence of an email protocol. Really? Well here it is.
The Ministry did of course receive my email but chose to ignore it in typical German fashion. To a certain extent that is understandable. After all, who wants to hear about a screwed up civil servant Jürgen Sonneck with the asshatted idea of sending an email complaint to police using the false name 'C. Paucher' and everything is covered up right up to the Euro clowns at the ECHR!
Secondly, you claim the Ministry did not receive my fax sent on Jan. 13, 2019. You further substantiate that by pointing out that my writ did not include a fax transmission report. That is correct as I did not deem it necessary to print one out. I was rather under the, delusory and naive as it now turns out, assumption staff at a German ministry would act in decency and integrity.
I think we can at this point agree that your credibility has been damaged right on the very first page of your letter.
It does not get any better when you claim I did not mention the Twitter handle. I did so in my email of Aug 28, 2018 to the @RegSprecher Mr Seibert. When this did not elicit a response - quelle surprise -, I dispatched a second email to him on Sep 6, 2018 upon which he wrote to the BMFSFJ. You see, my experience with Germans at large is they are not exactly communicative and this was further proven when two emails to Mrs Henschen of the pompously named Ministry of Culture and Media all went unanswered. Likewise two very recent emails and tweets to the Minister of State for Culture and Media Mrs Grütters.
Completely incomprehensible to me is your objection a legal request would be missing in my writ. I may not be the reincarnation of Hegel but my rudimentary grasp and comprehension of the German language provides me a quite satisfying level of certainty that the question "What tweets have made the blocking of the Twitter account @ErebusSagace by BMAS and BMFSFJ necessary and what are the general criteria of the Federal Government for blocking on Twitter?" can be understood as a request. Would you fancy to agree?
I assume, this paper is known to all of you:
Access to police public relations on social media ("Twitter"), © 2018 Deutscher Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18.
Turns out, it is just a paper without any value as you refuse to honor it.
As so often in Germany, when someone insists on a legal right a grumbling lust ("querulantisches Begehren"), as you chose to phrase it, for information is disapprovingly detected by authorities and rebuked. You did not stop there but further accused me of libel. I shall address that accusation in a second email.
So without further ado, what stops the German government and its Ministries to simply publish their 'Policy on Blocking on Twitter'? Is there anything to hide; is tradition running its course?
May I lastly enquire in what subject you gained your prestigious doctor title, dear Mr/Mrs Tasma? Math, chemistry and physics are sciences, all else is vanity subjects; law a crude craft.
Thank you for granting me the privilege to address some salient points that, it is to be hoped, advance the quality of a democracy. All the more so as the BMJV presently runs a hip campaign "We are a State of Law". Allons enfants.
Sincerely,
P.S.: I may confess that my mind is not agreeably engaged for any further communication with the Berlin Administrative Court as I do not have the pleasure of understanding their involvement and have never desired their good opinion in the first place.
Written in English for wider readership.
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to persons living or dead or with fictitious events or characters is purely coincidental.
Glinkastraße 24
10117 Berlin
by Email
cc Justiziariat BMAS
Social Court Munich
VG 2 K 215.19
Dear Ms Undersecretary Virnich, Mr/Mrs Dr Tasma,
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a man in possession of a lawful desire, must be in want of his right. I take the liberty to respond to your statement dated Oct. 14, 2019 and sent to the Berlin Administrative Court on the subject of my writ about 'The policy of the ministry on blocking on Twitter'. This writ was sent by me to the Social Court Munich, NOT the Berlin Administrative Court! The Social Court Munich forwarded my writ to the Ministry BMFSFJ which means 'Litispendenz' lies with the SCM and so the above file # serves only as an identifier.
I associate a ministry for family affairs like the BMFSFJ among others with righteousness and probity. After all, that is what parents should instill in their offspring. Unfortunately, in your statement you chose to present yourself with rather different credentials.
Right in the first paragraph you claim the Ministry did not receive my email of June 25, 2018 with a Pdf attachment and in addition lament the absence of an email protocol. Really? Well here it is.
The Ministry did of course receive my email but chose to ignore it in typical German fashion. To a certain extent that is understandable. After all, who wants to hear about a screwed up civil servant Jürgen Sonneck with the asshatted idea of sending an email complaint to police using the false name 'C. Paucher' and everything is covered up right up to the Euro clowns at the ECHR!
Secondly, you claim the Ministry did not receive my fax sent on Jan. 13, 2019. You further substantiate that by pointing out that my writ did not include a fax transmission report. That is correct as I did not deem it necessary to print one out. I was rather under the, delusory and naive as it now turns out, assumption staff at a German ministry would act in decency and integrity.
I think we can at this point agree that your credibility has been damaged right on the very first page of your letter.
It does not get any better when you claim I did not mention the Twitter handle. I did so in my email of Aug 28, 2018 to the @RegSprecher Mr Seibert. When this did not elicit a response - quelle surprise -, I dispatched a second email to him on Sep 6, 2018 upon which he wrote to the BMFSFJ. You see, my experience with Germans at large is they are not exactly communicative and this was further proven when two emails to Mrs Henschen of the pompously named Ministry of Culture and Media all went unanswered. Likewise two very recent emails and tweets to the Minister of State for Culture and Media Mrs Grütters.
Completely incomprehensible to me is your objection a legal request would be missing in my writ. I may not be the reincarnation of Hegel but my rudimentary grasp and comprehension of the German language provides me a quite satisfying level of certainty that the question "What tweets have made the blocking of the Twitter account @ErebusSagace by BMAS and BMFSFJ necessary and what are the general criteria of the Federal Government for blocking on Twitter?" can be understood as a request. Would you fancy to agree?
I assume, this paper is known to all of you:
Access to police public relations on social media ("Twitter"), © 2018 Deutscher Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18.
Turns out, it is just a paper without any value as you refuse to honor it.
As so often in Germany, when someone insists on a legal right a grumbling lust ("querulantisches Begehren"), as you chose to phrase it, for information is disapprovingly detected by authorities and rebuked. You did not stop there but further accused me of libel. I shall address that accusation in a second email.
So without further ado, what stops the German government and its Ministries to simply publish their 'Policy on Blocking on Twitter'? Is there anything to hide; is tradition running its course?
May I lastly enquire in what subject you gained your prestigious doctor title, dear Mr/Mrs Tasma? Math, chemistry and physics are sciences, all else is vanity subjects; law a crude craft.
Thank you for granting me the privilege to address some salient points that, it is to be hoped, advance the quality of a democracy. All the more so as the BMJV presently runs a hip campaign "We are a State of Law". Allons enfants.
Sincerely,
P.S.: I may confess that my mind is not agreeably engaged for any further communication with the Berlin Administrative Court as I do not have the pleasure of understanding their involvement and have never desired their good opinion in the first place.
Written in English for wider readership.
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to persons living or dead or with fictitious events or characters is purely coincidental.
Follow-up: Surely the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs BMFSFJ can substantiate the allegedly committed instances of libel.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.