Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
c/o Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
February 23, 2016
Dear Mr Kaye,
My daughter and I would like to call on you and ask for your help. We are being harassed by the German government agency 'Jobcenter Munich' (in the following JC M) with unrelenting criminal complaints. All complaints are in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This agency is being aided in its ongoing infringements of free speech on the internet against us by the Munich courts. All our criminal complaints against staff of said agency have been rejected by the Munich prosecution.
Case 1
In 2012 I started a business in home decor with manufacturing in Asia and sales via the internet. From the beginning my business incurred serious financial strains as the JC M deducted most of the revenue leading to a cash crunch and stalling all product development. Despite repeated requests no remedy was available and any communication refused. I started to write a blog (http://meinjobcenter.blogspot.com) about my experiences with the JC M including an open email to the BMAS (German Ministry of Labor).
August 2012, the JC M managing director Martina Musati and Manfred Jäger of the Munich Labor Agency each sent letters demanding the take down of the blog post or face a fine of € 10,000 (ten thousand). I published my refusal in blog posts.
In 2015 I filed a criminal complaint against Mrs Musati for coercion which was rejected by Munich prosecutor Bombe citing lack of proof that the financial threat was meant seriously.
Upon my consideration to take a lawyer against Martina Musati in this case, I received this advice from one lawyer in Germany:
"I would advise against the intended criminal (?) - Proceedings against the JC - GF, especially when it will cost money. I do not think you can find a judge who will sentence any of the two "officials". "
We believe this assessment sets the stage.
Case 2
During that time in 2012 the EU put austerity measures against Greece into effect and there were severe protests in Greece. All major media companies in Germany published the then well-known caricature of Merkel dressed in Nazi uniform. So did I on my blog with a link to an article on RT.com about demonstrations in Athens.
The JC M filed a charge against me and my computer was confiscated in March 2013 for 25 months based § 86 a STGB (display of forbidden Nazi insignia).
Examples of German media from that time:
This is my post:
It is a little difficult to understand why the swastikas on my posted image contravene the law while on the other images they do not. It is even more surprising, why the JC M did not make a complaint about the same images in the German media which have a much higher viewer base than my blog could ever generate.
Before the first court hearing Judge Grain questioned my sanity in a letter and suggested to plead guilty and face a lenient sentence. I refused, got a court-appointed lawyer (Mrs Aglaia Muth, Munich) who attended all court hearings without any interest in defending me. She even refused to disclose the initial criminal complaint with police! All defense documents were prepared by me.
In the first court hearing in Feb. 2014 judge Grain conceded that no other incriminating pictures had been found on my computer. Attorney Muth had no interest getting my computer released. As a matter of fact, after the judge's statement I turned to her: 'So I get my computer back?' Her response was: 'No, because you are appealing'! This is nonsense.
The court kept my computer confiscated from March 2013 until April 2015 and thus clearly contravening decisions of various courts in Germany about the duration of computer confiscations. I incurred a huge five figure euro loss because we had designs on that computer for expensive home decor products for which we had a waiting customer.
I lost in all hearings and attorney Muth mailed me the final verdict without writing city and post code on the envelope and which eventually reached me 14 days later! I had missed the deadline to submit a constitutional complaint due to attorney malpractice.
I complained with the Attorneys Chamber Munich (RAK München) about attorney Muth and her fees for services not in accordance with professional duties. The RAK München was not interested and so I filed a complaint with the Mediator for Attorneys in Berlin ('Schlichtungsstelle für Rechtsanwälte) which just days ago informed us after months wasted, that the fees are dues to the state. In other words, an attorney gets paid despite obvious malpractice. In lay terms I would call her performance blatant fraud.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 |
| RAin Aglaia Muth |
Attorney Aglaia C. Muth
Address: Isabellastr. 33 (im Innenhof), 80796 München,
Telefon: +49 (0) 89 / 39 25 97,
Email: rain-aglaia.muth@t-online.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To this date the prosecution in Munich refuses to disclose the name of the accuser. There is, however, no doubt it was the JC M as Munich prosecutor Schütz had let it slip in his recent letter of Feb 12, 2016, when he refused another criminal complaint against the JC M in exactly this matter.
We are fairly certain that the criminal complainant of the JC M was its man. director Martina Musati some time after the incident in August 2012. Otherwise some person right below her. In any case, it had all the hallmarks of revenge.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 |
| Martina Musati |
Martina Musati
Managing director Jobcenter München (until mid 2015)
Address: Jobcenter München, Orleansplatz 11, 81667 München, Tel.: +49 (0) 89/69 33 74-40 0, Email: Jobcenter-Muenchen@Jobcenter-ge.de
Mrs Musati is now working for the BA in Stuttgart.
Address: Regionaldirektion Baden-Württemberg,
Hölderlinstraße 36, 70025 Stuttgart, Tel: +49 (0) 711 / 941 0, Email: Baden-Wuerttemberg@arbeitsagentur.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My daughter and I have each filed a criminal complaint against the JC M in this particular matter citing Infringement of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Infringement of Article 5 of the Basic Law of Germany and § 226 BGB (chicanery).
As was expected, both complaints have been rejected as baseless by the Munich prosecutor. Prosecutor Dr Beckstein even termed my daughter's complaint as "baseless and outrageous."
It is important to keep in mind that the German Jobcenters provide cheap labor and play the dominant and vital part in the export success of the German economy and are governed in part by a set of laws different from ordinary ones. It was and still is the aim of the JC M not only to financially ruin us, but to get us to the state where we can not pay the imposed fines and I will be imprisoned.
To this end, the JC M had ceased rent payments in three instances in order to provoke the cancellation of the rent contract and get us homeless: in Nov. 2015, May 2015 and in Nov. 2014, although in all instances the required documents had been furnished by us.
The JC M together with the Munich court have one further goal: they want to get my critical blog purged from the internet. In all court hearings the repeated question was if the respective blog posts were still online.
It is further the clear intention of the JC M to put road blocks on the way of my daughter's school education and get her out of school and into a low-paying job and this brings us to
Case 3
Hardly had the first half year at the FOS München (a high school) concluded in February 2014, that my Asian-born daughter, then 18 years of age, received a letter from the JC M demanding to see the half term results for which, however, there is no legal basis. The JC M did even go so far as to suggest private tutoring which was a preposterous offer, as nobody had ever seen her, talked to her, let alone known anything about her. In addition, they offered "help" (sic!) to sign up to the German Labor Agency's jobs portal.
It was an obvious attempt to coax her out of school. The German magazine Spiegel had covered these and other nefarious dealings of the Jobcenters in an excellently researched article "By all means available" (Mit allen Mitteln).
I covered this in several blog posts and discovered a very pertinent quote from the Nazi Heinrich Himmler, which I posted together with a
Himmler image next to one post.
Himmler's quote: "Parents who want to provide their children a better education from the outset both in elementary school and later at a high school, have to submit an application with the Higher SS and Police Leaders."
The above Himmler photo links to the website of the state media company RBB Berlin where this Himmler photo is featured.
 |
| RBB Berlin |
A certain Mr Jürgen Sonneck, junior deputy man. dir. of the JC M, filed a complaint with the police in May 2014. The Munich prosecutor, again Mr Preuss as in Case 2, eagerly jumped on it.
In the first trial the judge sentenced me to five months prison on probation of three years, € 600 fine, 120 hours of social labor and any change of home to be reported!
I lost again in all instances, but for the appeals hearing I brought my daughter along, so she could witness the mendacious Judge Bassler of the Landgericht Munich.
She saw how Judge Bassler interrupted me when I set out to give clear evidence how widespread and continued pictures of Nazi leaders with swastikas are presented in the German media and German television. The jurymen were not supposed to hear this. Months before I had responded to prosecutor Steinkraus-Koch in a lengthy open letter featured on my blog and titled "
Weiss Oberstaatsanwalt Steinkraus-Koch um die unendlichen Nazi Bilder in deutschen Medien? - Is prosecutor S-K aware of the countless Nazi images in the German media?"
The judge falsely claimed an article in Der Spiegel about Greece (
Das Vierte Reich - The Fourth Reich) would analyse the Nazi involvement in a critical fashion. The article does nothing in that respect and is to the contrary a whitewash of German EU policy against Greece.
My daughter witnessed how Judge Bassler called the police officer, who had confiscated our computer in 2013, as witness and asked him if the blog post with pictures and the quote of Himmler was still online. Judge Bassler did this in order to influence the jury and to present me as dangerous. Secondly, as the Himmler quote concisely describes the workings of the German Jobcenters, the foremost aim of the court was and is to get this deleted from the internet and out of public view.
Furthermore, she asked hypocritically what I had responded to the invitation of the police for a questioning in that case and failed to mention, that I had asked police in my email reply why they failed to mention § 163a STPO (which states that there is no obligation to come to a questioning) and that I pointed to the Miranda Rights in the USA, where this is obligatory!
What my daughter and I witnessed in Munich courts was rigged from the beginning. It was a kangaroo court and had nothing to do with justice. A blogger had to be silenced.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jürgen Sonneck
Junior deputy Managing director Jobcenter München
Address: Jobcenter München, Orleansplatz 11, 81667 München, Tel.: +49 (0) 89/69 33 74-40 0, Email: Juergen.Sonneck@jobcenter-ge.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In my final written appeals to the court in Munich I pointed, among other things, to the film "The Rise of Evil" (a film with lots of swastikas) which had been aired prime time on RTL in April 2015. This film is known for historical falsifications and has not been shown, for example, in the US state of Texas for this very reason. The German magazine Spiegel ridiculed the movie, the Canadian film critic Scott Feschuk called it " Hitler for Dummies". I referred to these facts in my written appeals as further evidence that in Germany latent glorification of the Nazi period is being broadcasted on several German TV stations on several days per week since years.
I received the following unbelievable warning from Munich prosecutor Hummer. It reads as follows:
"Apart from that, all comparisons between the act of the accused on the one hand and the press and TV coverage on the other hand are out of the question, since the latter regularly serve civic education, reporting on events of current affairs or history and therefore acc. 86 para. § 86a are exempted by para. 3 STGB from the offense. That the actions of the accused do not fall under this exception has, however, the court of appeal set out in detail and without any error of law (Decision p 7). "
In original German language:
"Im Übrigen verbieten sich Vergleiche zwischen der Tat des Angeklagten einerseits und Presse-bzw. Fernsehinhalten andererseits, da letztere regelmässig der staats- bürgerlichen Aufklärung, der Berichterstattung über Vorgänge des Zeitgeschehens oder der Geschichte dienen und daher gem. § 86 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 86 a Abs. 3 STGB vom Straftatbestand ausgenommen sind. Dass das Handeln des Angeklagten hingegen nicht unter diese Ausnahmebestimmung fällt, hat das Berufungsgericht ausführlich und ohne Rechtsfehler dargelegt (UA S. 7)."
We have asked the German justice minister Maas to
remove Mr Hummer from his position. So far no reply. We can not believe that such a person is employed by a court in a democratic country. If in his opinion a clear criticism of historical falsifications of the events of the Nazi era, widespread on German television and funded by a compulsory levy, is prohibited, then there can be no place for such a person in public office.
In Sept. 2015 we filed a constitutional complaint regarding Case 3 which was rejected in Jan. 2016. We intend to call on the ECHR in Strasbourg and this all costs money.
I would like to add that I was represented in the appeals hearing by attorney Petersen from Munich. He had agreed in Jan. 2015 to represent me at the court hearing in May 2015. During those four months he showed no interest to talk. It turned out he did not even know my blog posts and he knew nothing about related court decisions of the German Constitutional Court, nor any vitally important decisions of the ECHR related to my case. He then even proffered his services for the final appeals for a fee of € 416. I let the offer pass.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 |
| RA Aiko Petersen |
Attorney Dr Aiko Petersen
Address: Leopoldstraße 19, 80802 München, Tel: +49 (0) 89 5203190-0, Email: mail@kspp.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The reasoning of the court in Munich in both cases was that the pictures were not accompanied by an explicit distancing from National socialism and secondly, and here I quote from the court's decision:
"However, precisely this is to be avoided by § 86a STGB. It is the formal exclusion of certain symbols from permissible forms of communication (taboo) to prevent a habituation effect"
Regarding the former, it is difficult to follow the court because images of Hitler, Goering etc are rampant in the German media. Nowhere does one see an explicit distancing. The Spiegel magazine even asked in one issue 'How hitler is the Spiegel?'
Since we came from Asia in 2005, so-called documentaries about the NS era continue to be shown on TV on a weekly basis, often three times a week. These documentaries latently glorify those times. My mother, who fled from East Prussia across the ice and on a ship in winter of 1945, is so sick of the films that she jokes 'I either watch one of those nature films today or Hitler'.
The court's stance, the § 86a STGB is about tabooing NS pictures in order to prevent habituation is a blatant misrepresentation of reality and laughable, given the plethora of such images in the German media. Hitler just sells.
The general tenor of my blog does nowhere give any impression of condoning National Socialism in any way. The blog list shows a clear interest in matters relating to the economy. It features posts about government debt in Italy, What is the reason for Hartz IV?, Micro credits, Great moments of professional monetary policy in Greece, Why do Germans prefer cash?, That Neonazi dispute? Plot twist it, we are a Munich school.
Case 4
In late October 2015 three police ARMED with FIREGUNS (two men, one woman) came to our apartment around 7:40 AM and confiscated ALL our IT equipment including router and cables and including my smart phone. One police man dashed into the room of my daughter without knocking. My daughter had already left for school. They took photos of our apartment.
I was bodysearched and it was obvious that the female officer had been tasked to bodysearch my daughter and that they would have confiscated her smart phone as well.
The charge sheet reads "publication of images of Merkel in Nazi uniform, Himmler and others between May 8, 2015 or some time before".
My daughter has sent an
Urgent Motion to the Constitutional Court to get our equipment released.
There is absolutely no doubt that the JC M did again file this latest charge against us. This time with the intent to completely deprive us from any form of communication. To render us incapable to defend us in court, to cut us from any social contact and especially, had police succeeded in confiscating my daughter's phone, to completely isolate her socially. By getting her computer confiscated the JC M in its racist and criminal intentions inflicted intentionally great harm on the educational progress of my daughter.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 |
| Anette Farrenkopf |
Anette Farrenkopf
Managing director Jobcenter München
Address: Jobcenter München, Orleansplatz 11, 81667 München, Tel.: +49 (0) 89/69 33 74-40 0, Email: Jobcenter-Muenchen@jobcenter-ge.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Related
I filed a
criminal complaint in mid 2015 against RTL for showing Nazi symbols in that movie "Rise of Evil" using the exact reasonings the court had used in their sentences against me. The Cologne prosecution refused to press charges.
A week ago, my daughter and I did the same
against the Süddeutsche Zeitung. We are curious about the result.
Government Ministries
We have contacted all German ministries in these matters. The reaction ranged from complete neglect to a little pity in one case. The Ministry for Education took absolutely no interest as did Mrs Nahles, the Labor Minister.
Four emails to the personal email address of German Labor Minister Nahles went unanswered. In one instance, however, we were asked for our postal address!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 |
| Andrea Nahles |
Andrea Nahles
Labor Minister
Address: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS), Wilhelmstraße 49, 10117 Berlin, Telefon: +49 (0) 30 18 527-0, Email: lreg@bmas.bund.de (the email address given to us)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We have sent three emails to the Ministry of Justice and received one evasive email in which we were told it would be a matter for the Labor Ministry and that our concern would be forwarded. We have received no response.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 |
| Heiko Maas |
Heiko Maas
Justice Minister
Address: Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, Mohrenstraße 37, 10117 Berlin,
Telefon: +49 (0)30 18 580 0, Email: poststelle@bmjv.bund.de
and
Diana Wachsmann
Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz, Referat IVB3 (Arbeits- und Sozialrecht), Mohrenstraße 37, 10117 Berlin, Tel: +49 (0) 30 18 580 94 53, Email: wachsmann-di@bmjv.bund.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
German Federal Constitutional Court
In May 2015 my daughter and I sent an
open letter to the president of the CC Mr Vosskuhle. There was no response.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Schlossbezirk 3, 76131 Karlsruhe, Tel: +49 721 9101-0, Email: bverfg@bundesverfassungsgericht.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AMIGRA - Antidiscrimination Agency of Munich
The city of Munich claims to have an Antidiscrimination Agency. Our experience did not attest to that. I contacted their office four times in 2014 by email to report a discrimination against my daughter perpetrated by the JC M. All four emails were never answered.
I contacted subsequently the City of Munich in two emails in the same matter. No response.
In Feb. 2015 I finally made a phone call which was answered by a Mrs Kiermeier. She confirmed I could lodge a complaint with AMIGRA by email. Did this and received an unsigned email response that the office of the AMIGRA had been closed in May 2014! We have proof of the emails.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AMIGRA
Address: Burgstr. 4, 80331 München, Tel. +49 (0) 89-23 32 52 55, Email: amigra.dir@muenchen.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Two emails sent the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) with a request for a small grant for legal defense went unanswered. A Twitter post as well.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
Email: europeaid-eidhr@ec.europa.eu
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion
My business has been severely affected by the JC M. With the latest confiscations, we have accumulated a total loss of more than € 6,000 exclusive of the fines by the court in Munich and business losses.
We are also surprised what kind of attorneys Germany has. Those we met showed a lack of interest, but took money. Accepted a case, even when they lacked knowledge about the subject. Sat in the courtroom, silently colluding with the judge and collected fees. Took on a case, but were not interested in any discussion about the case and had the guts to proffer their services for the final appeals. Send the final verdict without specifying the city and zip code, so that it arrives two weeks late! Refuse to show the indictment.
It all looks as if the Jobcenters and Hartz IV are outside the legal framework that one assumes and takes for granted in a democracy. It is the playground of characters plying their dubious legal trade on unsuspecting people in the knowledge, they do not have the financial means to go the full legal path.
The relentless ongoing lawsuits against us have nothing to do with legal findings, but are simply harassment and revenge. Every effort is made to destroy us and to silence us. The provision of cheap labor obviously justifies breaking the law and stymieing free speech. You live in the lower strata of society and you are deprived of basic freedoms and courts with Neonazi affinity (yes, Bavaria employed a known Neonazi as judge) play happily along.
Germany is a strange country. There is no free speech!
We come from Asia and can honestly say that people there are friendly and courteous. We have met attorneys there and were positively impressed by their professionalism and devotedness to a client. There is no backstabbing or meanness among the people. Vicious revenge only in very rare and extreme cases. That typical German trait of Schadenfreude is unknown. We wish we could say the same about Germans and their mendacious attorneys and judges. The level of corruption in Germany is truly daunting.
I may also add that I have turned to lawyers in the USA for asylum for my daughter. I can not guarantee her safety in Germany anymore. This is a lengthy process in which we have to show that the government of Germany is persecuting her because of her race, nationality, religion, membership in a special group or political opinion. We would also need to have plenty of supporting evidence and show that the courts are ignoring our pleas for assistance.
My daughter and I sincerely appreciate your attention in this matter and would be pleased if you could support us in any way. We would also like to state that we waive confidentiality.
Sincerely,
