Lawbreaker

Case 1

Judge Grain started off ominously by suggesting to me if I agree to be a mental case, the verdict could be lenient. Hm, tempting.

In the first court hearing I lamented that two written requests to see the case file had not been answered. Judge Grain suggested: "Then send another request."

Fast forward, the court, the prosecutors and my crooked court appointed "lawyer" Aglaia Muth adamantly refused over three years to release the case files! Only after I referred to the decision 'Foucher v. France' by the ECHR did they give up and had to show the files.

Crook & lawyer
Aglaia Muth

My crook & court appointed defense "lawyer" Aglaia Muth.

The court proceedings went as follows:

• In a pre-trial letter Judge Grain questioned my sanity and alluded to the possibility of having me assessed. The implied suggestion was to plead guilty and face a lenient sentence.
• My court-appointed "lawyer" encouraged me to concur.
• After my "lawyer" had seen the case files she told me she tends to agree with the judge.
• In the first trial in Feb. 2014 my "lawyer" did not say a single word in my defense. Protocol says "Defense lawyer of the accused pleaded: Punishment at the court's discretion.The accused shall be given the opportunity to draw his important data from the computer before its impoundment."
• She refused to disclose the initial criminal complaint with police! 
• In the appeals hearing she sat again completely disengaged. Upon being questioned by Judge Bassler she said 'It may be possible that such Merkel-Nazi images had appeared in the German media but she could not recall exactly.'
• Protocol of appeals hearing says: "The defense lawyer puts the penalty at the discretion of the court."
• All defense documents were prepared by me. There does not exist a single written page of my "defense lawyer"!
• After I lost the final appeals, "defense lawyer" Muth mailed me the final verdict without writing city and post code on the envelope (!!!) so that I received it 14 days later!

Meet bald prosecutor Peter Preuss. Peter is into stare-downs during trials. Unfortunately, he hadn't figured out to slightly defocus when he looked at me.

Peter Preuss, the Munich court and my court appointed "lawyer" adamantly refused to grant access to the criminal complaint letter.

 Even a letter from my daughter with the request to divulge the name of the complainant was two times refused and brushed off in primitive Bavarian style by prosecutor Peter Preuss citing a "legitimate interest of protection" for the complainant. It later turned out the Chief of the Employment Agency in the city of Ingolstadt Mr. Jäger was afforded this "legitimate interest of protection".

Does this ridiculous dude exude any form, let alone style, that deserves a "legitimate interest of protection"?

Manfred Jäger proudly displays his
legitimate interest of protection.

Lawbreaker and blackmailer Manfred Jager (right), head of the employment agency Ingolstadt.

Sends clumsy coercion letter demanding € 10,000.00 if blog posts and open letter to the BMAS

(Federal Ministry of Labor) are not deleted.

Other members of the plot, C. Bockes (left) sends a fax to the police from the Munich Employment Agency in 2012 and offers a secret telephone conversation with C. Bechheim (center). Access to files denied by Munich Court and fly-by-night lawyer and crook Aglaia Muth from 2013 to July 2017! This is a violation of Article 6 ECHR.

Among others, they wanted a blog post about Zalando deleted.

Munich prosecutor Peter Preuss covered the blokes citing "protectable interests".

. . . . . . . . .

Jurgen Sonneck

Jurgen Sonneck alias 'C. Paucher'

Has the magnificent idea to send an online criminal complaint to the Munich police using the wrong name 'C. Paucher'. Useful idiot forgets that the IP address is transmitted as well. This as a civil servant paid with tax payers money!

Complains about an internet meme with Marissa Mayer. Subsequently, court orders confiscation of all IT equipment including router and, in addition, confiscates smart phone without court order!

After I had sent letters to the president of Munich police and various ministries in Berlin in June/July

Meme forbidden in Germany.
Contravenes allegedly Criminal Code 86a

2017 he became too hot and was transferred under cover of the night to the Department for Education and Sports mid July 2017.

Is covered by Munich Police and Kangaroo Court Munich.

Munich court sees contravention of Criminal Code 86a. Federal Constitutional Court is not interested and does not accept the case.

Have sent complaint to the ECHR in October 2018 which hopefully accepts it.

Bayes Net in Case Jurgen Sonneck

Bayes Net Jurgen Sonneck case

The Federal Court of Justice stated in its judgment 2 StR 112/14 - Judgment of 24 March 2016 (LG Bonn):

"Insofar as biostatistical probabilistic calculations are mainly used, the underlying mathematical laws of thought must be observed; This includes the Bayes theorem, which describes the logically correct handling of uncertainties. Its application does not lead to a mathematization of the evaluation of evidence, but results from the necessity to observe the system-immanent laws of thought within mathematical probability calculations. These can not be ignored by reference to an alleged "objective" approach to avoid logical fallacies."

(Google translate)

See also

The logic of judicial conviction

Max Planck Research Group "Intuitive Experts"

Summary

The Code of Civil Procedure assumes that judges freely form their beliefs about the truth of disputed facts. In assessing evidence, judges must at the same time hold many partial convictions that can influence each other. Using so-called Bayesian networks, these partial beliefs and their (in) dependencies can be represented graphically. The representation by means of a Bayesian network enforces the consistency of the partial beliefs and allows to examine how different assumptions affect the formation of beliefs.

(Google translate)