Computer of migrant daughter deliberately damaged by the rotten Munich Court. That is of no concern to the ECHR. Just stop blogging critical stuff about German Jobcenters and you are fine (Case 51482/18)

Oh the ECHR and its 'Margin of Appreciation'

Excerpt from complaint:

"The computer of his daughter was returned in a deliberately (!) damaged condition (clear scratches in the lower left quarter of the screen and a broken trackpad) by the Munich Court. Since it was unusable, the complainant sent it to the Federal Ministry f. Work and Social Affairs BMAS in January 2017. The MacBook was confiscated even though the daughter needed it for school. The then attorney of the complainant in a trial before the Munich court on May 6, 2015 which resulted in the ECHR Case 35285/16 warned in the presence of the daughter of the complainant literally that if the blog should be continued, "they will destroy you" (in German "machen die Sie fertig"). He was referring to the Munich Court."

A recent post on an upcoming case on the blog "Verfassungsblog.de" concluded:

"The upcoming decision will show if the ECtHR still deserves its titles as ‘guarantor’ of the Convention and ‘island of hope in stormy times’ or whether this island is drowning under the pressure of some of its Member States."

Indeed and in this particular case, as one of the main funding states Germany has a right that guarantors of its mind-boggling export surplus such as the Jobcenters are not to be criticized. And if so, within our flexible legal bounds it will be stopped. Greetings from Strasbourg!

"Due to its vague nature, opposing the universal nature of human rights, the margin of appreciation doctrine has been subject to extensive criticism, including the denial of its legitimacy while other authors underline that it is a necessary and legitimate principle of interpretation of the Convention."

See: The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights’ Post-2011 Jurisprudence

The Margin of Appreciation; its limits and inconsistencies.

"Deference

The ECtHR gives deference to National courts because there is a possibility that national highest courts have indicated that they will not always comply with the decision of the ECtHR. [38] Deference is used to avoid conflict between national courts and states and is a symbol of unity. [39] By giving deference the ECtHR gives respect to national constitutional traditions and preventing situations of real conflict. Where the court solely relies on correspondence given to it by states’, accurate investigations and findings are prevented threatening its unity and compliance [40] and this is what the court is trying to protect."

He concludes:

"This shows individual state interests are put before those of the court."

In addition, confiscation of smartphone without court order no concern for "Euro clowns” at ECHR (Case 51482/18)

ECHR declares, Marissa Mayer meme contravenes German Criminal Code Section 86a "Use of Symbols of Nazi Organizations" (Case 51482/18)

The law perverted! The law—and, in its wake, 
all the collective forces of the nation—the law, 
I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, 
but made to pursue one entirely contrary!

Frédéric Bastiat 

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The European Court of Human Rights sees this Marissa Mayer meme NOT covered by Article 10 ECHR.

ECHR does not like the Marissa Mayer meme

And since we at the ECHR do not want to deal with such crap from low-life bloggers we will shred your shit in a year's time. Capisce! Because that's how Single-Judge-Decisions work.

"The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision."

Meanwhile German prosecutors have their very own views.

So coincidentally and related the Hamburg prosecutor declared this Hitler image in BENTO (an online youth magazine of DER SPIEGEL) as NOT contravening Criminal Code Section 86a (File #: 7101 Js 742/17).

This Hitler image is fine because it is from DER SPIEGEL
which is the journalistic gold standard.

Likewise in rotten Munich Court. Munich prosecutor Tilmann finds this Merkel-Nazi image in the Munich fake news gazette 'MERKUR' A-OK.

Merkel-Nazi image works well with Munich Court. Double standards anyone?

Bonus trivia: The European Court of Justice has for the umpteenth time to decide about that piece of cloth worn on a head, aka head scarf. It's been called on from, where else, Germany. Good-golly.

ECHR covers Munich criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck operating under false name "C. Paucher" (Case 51482/18)

ECtHR appeal - Criminal complaint about Internet meme, submitted by public employee & Useful Idiot Jurgen Sonneck using a false name. Covered up by Munich police and Munich Court

On Oct. 29, 2018 my complaint went to the ECtHR. The complaint is based on the ass-hatted idea of the Munich public employee (in German 'Beamter') Jurgen Sonneck back in May 2015 to send a criminal complaint to police via the police's email contact form. The ingenious added twist was he used the false name "C. Paucher" to hide his identity, or so he thought. Police quickly established there is no one in the whole of Bavaria breathing with that name.

Why did this Useful Idiot of a government labor agency choose the rather bland and uninspiring name "C. Paucher" when other options would be readily available? And with a much better ring. Like the sophisticated sounding Art Vandelay of the highly reputed export/import company or the esteemed Dr Martin van Nostrand from the Hoffermandhoffneir Clinic in Belgium. Jurgen probably felt unqualified to use these names for his, well, rapidly diminishing state of head hair.

Jurgen Sonneck alias "C. Paucher" on Facebook

Though Munich police had the IP address they did not bother to follow up on that. Why? A fucking shitface of a blogger, that is me, had to be investigated and hopefully shut down. The rotten Munich Court also did not feel any inclination to follow my presented damning circumstantial evidence about this rotten fucktard Jurgen Sonneck.

What was the criminal complaint about? Glad you ask. An internet meme. This one here:

Meme forbidden in Germany.
Contravenes allegedly Criminal Code 86a

This meme contravenes Criminal Code 86a according to the Munich Court. BTW, this for example does not.

Does NOT contravene Criminal Code 86a according to prosecutor Tilmann.

And neither does this.

Does NOT contravene Criminal Code 86a according to prosecutor 

You are a little confused now? You should not, this is Germany, there is no free speech and, for heaven's sake, do not blog. Unless it is about tulips or buttermilk, perhaps vegan food. Apart from that, stay quiet because when it comes to free speech Germany adheres to a tried and trusted history. It is gene-based.

Jurgen Sonneck, who at that time was second-in-charge at the Munich Jobcenter, was displeased about this blog post from November 2014. In May 2015, mind you! The complaint was obviously planned well ahead. Jurgen felt so sure nobody would discover him. Balding Jurgen saw hate speech in this post. Of course it was a red herring that the Munich police quickly grabbed.

The text reads: "Would you like to agree with Marissa from Yahoo?

Look, dear Miss Martina Musati, we will clarify such images with Nazi symbols before the Supreme Court. The Jobcenter will never curtail my right to express my opinion!"

After this short intro here the essential parts of my complaint to the ECtHR (a complete complaint form comprises of altogether 13 pages and you have just three pages to describe your complaint which is not a lot considering what went on in court. I can tell you, it was mind-boggling). I hope for acceptance. I know about 50 to 60 ECtHR judgements by now and if I am not completely mistaken, this complaint would be a novelty.

For easier reading text below (slightly edited Google translate).

Page 5/13

E. Presentation of the facts

56.

Criminal conviction for using marks of an unconstitutional organization in a meme:

From 1990 to Oct. 18, 2005 the complainant lived in Nepal among the local community with a multitude of different ethnic groups. After his return to Germany, the complainant became self-employed in the home decor sector after unsuccessful job search. Since the Jobcenter deducts all income over € 30.00 (!) immediately as income, building up a business was impossible. As a top up the complainant therefore received Hartz 4.

After this recent criminal complaint submitted by the former deputy managing director of the Jobcenter Munich Jürgen Sonneck using a false name, the complainant had to fold his business. His disputes with the Jobcenter Munich began in 2012 immediately with the start of his self-employment. Since the end of 2012, the complainant and his daughter have been massively attacked by the Jobcenter Munich and the Labor Agency with three criminal charges that have interfered with his right to free speech because he started this blog to inform about his experiences with the Jobcenter.

At around 8:45 am on October 28, 2015, two plainclothes policemen and a policewoman appeared and demanded admission on presentation of a Judgmental Decree (Annex 3) dated Oct. 8, 2015, which was not signed by the judge. A male police officer immediately rushed to the door to the complainant's daughter's room and threw it open without knocking. The daughter of the complainant, however, was already in school. During the trial, the complainant was physically searched and it was obvious that the female police officer was supposed to body-search his daughter. The apartment was photographed and also the house from the outside. All IT equipment including router was confiscated, because a blogger had to be rendered incapable of any access to the Internet. This was the second computer confiscation after 2013 (then for 25 months without financial compensation!). This as well after a criminal complaint by the Munich labor office. Although the confiscation of the smartphone was not mentioned in the Judgmental Decree, this too was confiscated (Annex 5). The same was undoubtedly planned with his daughter's smartphone.

Inspection of court files in April 2016 revealed that an online criminal complaint had been sent to the police Munich Kriminalfachdezernat 4 on May 7, 2015 against the applicant stating a false name "C. Paucher" (Annex 4, p. 2). Conspicuous, chronological evidence incl. IP-address immediately narrowed the circle of potential perpetrators to someone from the Jobcenter Munich (supplemental Annex 2 'Jürgen Sonneck circumstantial evidence'). The email complaint sees hatespeech in a blog post (Annex 1) published in November 2014 (!) which also shows a meme of the former CEO of Yahoo Marissa Mayer (Annex 2). It is a photoshopped picture of M. Mayer, dressed in a Nazi uniform with swastika and an applied text "Work from Home? Nine!". The picture was shown here: http://www.classicforwards.com/memes/marissa-mayer-work-home-meme/ and can now be seen on Pinterest (Annex 2). It was downloaded in this form by the complainant in 2014.

The Munich courts obviously did not understand the nature of memes. According to Dictionary.com, a meme is "1. an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means. 2. an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, often with slight variations." According to Wikipedia, an" Internet meme, "is commonly known as just a meme, ... an activity, concept, catchphrase, or piece of media that spreads, often as mimicry or for humorous purposes, from person to person via the Internet." Dawkins defined it in his book 'The Selfish Gene' as" the basic unit of cultural transmission, or imitation. 'Vice' states: "You can not make a meme. The meme part is the phenomenon in which it is placed". One of the most famous memes currently is "Is this a pigeon?", although a butterfly is shown. 'Vox' explains it, inter alia: "But "Is it a pigeon? "and its cousins may serve as a counter to the American Chopper meme because they allow the meme creator to frame an issue completely through the static image they're

Page 6/13

57.

presenting. And, crucially, the "misunderstanding" at the center of this meme can be deliberate, accidental, disingenuous, or ironic. That allows us to comment on all manner of social trends and flaws in ourselves and others."

The M. Mayer meme refers to a decision by the Yahoo CEO to end the hitherto existing possibility of working from home. "Nine" stands for a 'No' (German 'Nein') or the nine to five job. The word 'Nine' was also used in reference to the typical German stubborn and strict style. The Nazi uniform is an obvious vehicle for visual exaggeration and has nothing to do with propaganda. Yahoo is an American media company and not known as a proponent of National Socialism. The text of the blog post is about freedom of expression and courts in a democratic state. National Socialism never had anything to do with freedom of expression and women never wore such a Nazi uniform. It is an obvious juxtaposition. To denounce the blog post as hatespeech or as the police report says as part of a "vendetta" (page 3), is abstruse and malicious.

The police did not investigate the IP address, but sniffed extensively on the blog (see police report Annex 4). Policeman Mr Carstens explained during the trial before the LG Munich on Feb. 15, 2017, IP address investigation is too cumbersome. This onesided investigation violates § 160 para. 2 StPO and in particular § 163b StPO measures to establish identity. A letter to Judge Pabst dated April 26, 2016 (Annex 7) to issue a court order to release the name and address of the holder of the IP address 217.253.91.237, citing § 100g Code of Criminal Procedure, remained unanswered. As a result, the complainant was prevented from the opportunity to question the sender of that email pursuant to Art. 6 para. 3 d ECHR. The police report is clearly written in a partisan manner.

The computer of his daughter was returned in a deliberately (!) damaged condition (clear scratches in the lower left quarter of the screen and a broken trackpad) by the Munich Court. Since it was unusable, the complainant sent it to the Federal Ministry f. Work and Social Affairs BMAS in January 2017. The MacBook was confiscated even though the daughter needed it for school. The then attorney of the complainant in a trial before the Munich court on May 6, 2015 which resulted in the ECHR Case 35285/16 warned in the presence of the daughter of the complainant literally that if the blog should be continued, "they will destroy you" (in German "machen die Sie fertig"). He was referring to the Munich Court.

In January 2017, the complainant sent a complaint to the Police President of Munich (Annex 15) about the confiscation of the smartphone WITHOUT a judicial decision. Senior prosecutor Tilmann from the Munich Higher Regional Court referred in her reply of 6/1 2017 (Annex 16) to an opinion with file # 120 Js 119571/17. The complainant has no correspondence with this file number.

On April 21, 2016, the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich filed an indictment of the complainant for use of marks of National Socialist organizations in two cases and insulting Judge Pabst (Annex 6). On June 22, 2016, AG München sentenced the complainant to a total fine of 290 daily rates of € 10, - equal to € 2,900.00 (Annex 10). The complainant had earlier filed an objection against the judge (Annex 8), which was rejected (Annex 9). Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann showed again the same aggressive behavior as in a hearing a year earlier and expressed in the final pleading her displeasure about the request for her dismissal from the case for bias. Furthermore, Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann steadfastly refused to allow the daughter of the complainant to attend the trial as a witness. It was not until he became very loud - his daughter later confirmed that she had clearly heard this outside - that she was admitted. The highlight was the Judge's statement, ECtHR decisions do not apply to Germany, only German law.

The LG Munich Court, represented for the third time by Judge Bassler, overturned the ruling on February 15, 2017 (Annex 13) and decided on a fine of 50 daily rates of € 10.00 for the publication of the Marissa Mayer meme. However, the complainant had expressed his justified concerns for bias of Judge Bassler at the outset of the court hearing. He saw her impartiality as questionable based on past experience as well as relying on the decision of the ECtHR in the case 'FERRANTELLI AND SANTANGELO v. ITALY (Application No 19874/92) and Sentences 58 to 60 of the decision pertaining a "double circumstance". In this particular case a triple circumstance. The meeting was suspended for approximately 40 minutes and continued after the decision of Judge Hansen (Annex 12) was issued. The content of the decision is a lie, because according to a decision of the BGH of February 8, 2017 (1 StR 493/16) there existed, at least temporarily, no allocation of duties plan at the LG Munich I for the jury for the years 2012, 2014 and 2015! It seems strange when a defendant who was reported to police in all three cases by labor agencies

Page 7/13

58.

has the "luck" of getting the same judge assigned in every case stretching over a time period of four years.

None of the witnesses requested by the complainant were summoned (Annex 11)! The complainant had expressly called as witness for interrogation Jürgen Sonneck being a strong suspect. This once again curtailed the applicant's right to equality of arms, an integral part of the Convention. His allegation of unilateral investigations (see § 160 (2) and § 163 STPO), as well as references to cases of the ECtHR such as Rachdad v. France (complaint no. 71846/01) where the duty to seek witnesses was determined was not mentioned in the judgment.

The assertion of the court in the judgment under 'V. Legal appraisal '(Annex 13), "it is also not recognizable in the picture that the defendant distances himself clearly from National Socialism," lacks any rationality and shows that the court has not understood the function and essence of a meme and neither wanted to understand. Furthermore, in the 'Legal Appraisal' the court cites the 'taboo' of NS symbols and refers to Fischer, Commentary on the Criminal Code, on § 86 a. Paragraph 2 a. Judge Bassler deliberately left out important remarks by Thomas Fischer. 2a (Fischer's 63rd edition) states: "On the other hand, if the offense serves to exclude unconstitutional efforts in the run-up to organized propaganda (prohibition of propaganda), then any use, even indifferent or neutral content, should be excluded from the facts. Conversely, the enforcement of a meaningless taboo would not allow content-based exceptions. ("Legitimate purposes" in particular the "dispute", see paragraph III). See also Chapter 2 b Fischer: "Even according to its wording, § 86a follows the taboo concept if one does not interpret the terms" use "and" spread "in an intentional sense. A taboo of signs or words abstracting from the context of utterance and action can hardly be considered legitimate under the conditions of a society, and legitimacy gains from the formal openness of communication."

If the court is really that much concerned about the taboo and the confrontation of a habituation effect, the plethora of Nazi images in established (partly coercively financed) German media remains a mystery to the complainant. On the occasion of the Austrian swastika-shaped cutlet case, the public prosecutor's office in Mainz in May 2016 correctly ruled as follows: "According to the facts presented, there is no initial suspicion of punishable conduct (section 152 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) The content of this article and its distribution do not comply with any penalty. ... ".

On April 6, 2017, the complainant appealed at the Audit Office (Annex 14). He complained in particular that the AG and LG Munich did not meet the requirements of a court according to Art. 6 ECHR and criticized the unilateral investigation against him, although the police and prosecutors knew the IP address of the email sender. On Sept. 13, 2017, the Munich Attorney General's Office wrote an application to reject the revision (Annex 17). In point II 1 a, it cited a lack of procedural complaints that complied with the requirements of section 344 (2) sentence 2. These, however, had been made in his appeal in 1.1.1. and 1.1.2., also 1.1.5. to 1.1.8. and 2.1.1. to 2.1.10.

On Sept. 23, 2017, the complainant took a stand (Annex 18) and rebuked OSTA Weiß, because the lies that so far had been put forward by judges over the years became a little too much to bear for him. The Munich judiciary obviously deems Hartz 4 recipients as intellectually retarded and to who anything can be served. The  complainant is stunned how a studied lawyer such as OStA Weiss is able to write the following circular sentence with regard to the meme: "The stated use and design of the procedural images using symbols of Nazi tyranny rather allows a variety of interpretations, even an interpretation that is just not to be regarded as a distancing" and to expect this to be viewed as a proper argument. As a result, the Higher Regional Court of Munich decided on January 10, 2018 (Annex 19) to reject the appeal against the judgment of the Landgericht München I as unfounded.

On February 1, 2018, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint within the deadline (Annex 20). It was not accepted for decision on June 8, 2018 (Annex 21). Prior on Jan. 26, 2016, the daughter of the complainant had in vain requested an interim order for the release of the confiscated IT equipment to the Federal Constitutional Court (Extra Appendix 1) (File # 2 BvQ 7/17). Her laptop was essential for the school. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the application on March 4, 2016.


F. Statement of alleged infringement (s) of the Convention and / or Protocols and justification of the complaint

Page 8/13

59.

Asserted article

Art. 10 (1) ECHR (freedom of expression and freedom of the press)

Explanation

The complainant was convicted under § 86a para. 1 no. 1 of the Criminal Code (StGB). The norm of § 86a StGB is directed against the use and distribution of National Socialist marks as well as marks of other political parties and associations, as far as they have been declared unconstitutional or have been banned.

The norm protects the prevailing opinion in Germany as an abstract danger offense both the democratic constitutional state before a revival of unconstitutional organizations and before their "trivialisation" by getting used to certain characteristics as well as the political peace and thus also the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany Abroad. The enforceability of the intended protection takes place in German jurisdiction by a tabooing of the signs in the form of a comprehensive banishment from the public, so that the subjective relationship of the signs user is basically irrelevant and also a negative or neutral use of the facts of § 86a StGB met. Such a far-reaching interpretation of the standard at the expense of the rights under Article 10 (1) of the ECHR is not "necessary in a democratic society" and contrary to Convention law, as the intended protection of legal interests can also be achieved by criminalizing only a content-related identification with the content of the sign. According to the Convention, a condemnation may only be made if the use according to the specific circumstances can be seen as a confession of the perpetrator to the content-related goals of the organization. The legal interest of political peace is only in danger if the use of the forbidden symbols takes place confessionally. Only in this way can the fact that the scope of protection protects not only the content of the statement but also its form be taken into account. Likewise, only in this way can the interest of the democratic process, for which the fundamental rights of communication have constitutive significance, be sufficiently taken into account (prohibition of propaganda instead of taboo).

The Marissa Mayer Meme referred to the critical economic and business situation of Yahoo. The comedy of the meme lies among others in that IT companies are the real proponents of work from home. The Nazi uniform visually underscores the CEO's ultimate demand for unconditional focus on the company's economic well-being. Any insinuation of another context or even propaganda would be abstruse.

The district court has justified its decision merely by the fact that " ... in the picture it is also not recognizable that the defendant expresses himself clearly against national socialism" and "it also does not result from the context of the use why the image of the CEO of Yahoo in a Nazi uniform is shown". The courts have not understood the nature of memes, as they are not topic-specific, as in this case on the occasion of the decision to end home work at Yahoo, but partly used in wide cross-thematic contexts on the Internet (see meme 'Is this a pigeon'). The Nazi uniform functions in the picture as a double visual exclamation mark for the "Nine!". The court's question about the function of the Nazi uniform in Marissa Mayer equals a request to explain a joke. As Wikipedia explains, a meme acts "as mime or for humorous purposes". In addition, women in the Nazi era did not wear such uniforms.

The court's reference to "exclusion of certain symbols from the permitted forms of communication (taboo) ... to prevent a habituation effect" deliberately omits important passages in Thomas Fischer: "Due to the special requirements of the fundamental right of freedom of expression, however, exceptions are required if the behavior, despite the external use of the signs, does not undermine the purpose of the protection". (see BGH 25, 30, 32 f., 25, 133, 136 f., 51, 244 [= NJW 07, 1602; note Schroeder JZ 07, 851; Hörnle NStZ 07, See below 18.) This statement is compatible with the constitution (BVerfG NJW O6, 3052). "Similarly, the statements of Fischer under 2 b See also decision of the public prosecutor Mainz in the swastika-cutlet case in the ZdF.

Page 9/13

60.

Asserted article

Art. 6 para. 3 d ECHR (violation of the right of confrontation)
and
Art. 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)

Explanation

On April 26, 2016, the applicant sent an application to Judge Pabst at the Munich District Court (Annex 14) to issue a court order to release the name and address of the holder of the IP address 217.253.91.237 citing § 100g of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He listed eight conspicuous clues that clearly pointed to a staff member of the Jobcenter. The refusal to answer the application at all, proves the partiality of the Munich District Court. The unanswered letter was followed by two others unsuccessfully on May 3, 2016 and May 13, 2016.

Although a letter from January 2017 to the LG Munich (Annex 11) mentioned among other witnesses for interrogation explicitly "J. Sonneck (as a strong suspect of sending the email under a false name based on conspicuous circumstantial evidence), Jobcenter Munich, Orleansstraße 50, 81667 Munich" to be summoned, nobody was summoned. A sharp questioning of both J. Sonneck and the then Managing Director Martina Musati could have provided information about this perfidious undertaking. Policeman Carstens replied to the question of why he had not pursued the identity behind the IP address as being too cumbersome. In Germany bloggers are guilty ex ante. The courts did not make the slightest attempt to investigate the striking and chronologically convincing evidence listed by the complainant. The hastily completed transfer of Jurgen Sonneck in July 2017 from the Munich Jobcenter to the Munich Office for Education and Sports after sharp, clear and published communications by the complainant with federal ministries in Berlin and the police chief of Munich is revealing.

Subject Art 8 ECHR

A confiscation of the smartphone was not mentioned in the Judicial Decision of October 8, 2015. Nevertheless, it was confiscated by the police and it can also be assumed, the same was planned with the smartphone of his daughter, as a policewoman was present. Despite this unlawfulness, Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann showed a keen interest in the results of the evaluation of phone data. For Hartz 4 recipients no rights seem to apply.

In a decision of February 4, 2005 - 2 BvR 308/04, the Federal Constitutional Court stated in paragraph 23 to 25 clear limits for a confiscation. On Nov. 22, 2016, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against police officer Carstens at the Munich Public Prosecutor's Office. Furthermore, he sent two Pdf to the police chief of Munich, which was allegedly handed to the prosecutor by the police according to their letter of April 26, 2017. The complainant has no correspondence with the file # 120 Js 119571/17, as was claimed by senior prosecutor Tilmann in the letter of June 1,2017 and again confirmed on Oct. 19, 2017. Everything was swept under the carpet.

----------

The resulting damage / loss of use for the IT equipment is € 1,595.00 plus replacement of the daughter's MacBook Pro.


Page 10/13

Indication of the appeals lodged and the date of the last decision

1. Judgment of the local court AG Munich of June 22, 2016, file number 821 Ds 112 Js 168454/15

2. Appeal of the complainant of June 26, 2016

3. Judgment of the Landgericht München I dated February 23, 2017, file number 18 Ns 112 Js 168454/15

4. The appellant's appeal dated April 6, 2017

5. Order of the Higher Regional Court Munich of January 10, 2018, file number 5 OLG 13 Ss 364/17 (2)

6. Constitutional complaint of the complainant dated February 1, 2018, file number 1 BvR 246/18

7. Order of the Federal Constitutional Court of June 8, 2018, file number 1 BvR 246/18


Page 12/13

I. List of enclosed documents


1. Annex 1 Blog Post of November 25, 2014 p. 1

2. Annex 2 Original Memes from the Internet p. 2

3. Annex 3 Confiscation Decision of Munich AG, Ref. ER II GS - 6711/15 of October 8, 2015 p. 3

4. Annex 4 Police Report of June 24, 2015 p. 6

5. Annex 5, search warrant, Az. BY 8644-00804 15/7 of October 28, 2015 p. 11

6. Annex 6 Indictment Munich Public Prosecutor's Office I, Az. 112 Js 168454/15, April 21, 2016 p. 14

7. Annex 7 Letter to AG München dated April 26, 2016 requesting a court order reg. name/address of holder of IP address p. 18

8. Annex 8 Motion for bias of May 21, 2016 against Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann of AG München p. 20

9. Annex 9 Decision of June. 22, 2016 on motion for bias against Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann p. 23

10. Annex 10 Resolution of AG München, Ref. 821 Ds 112 Js 168454/15 dated June 22, 2016 p. 25

11. Annex 11 Letter to LG Munich dated January 7, 2017 witnesses to be summoned p. 33

12. Annex 12 February 15, 2017 decision on motion of bias against Judge Bassler of LG Munich p. 35

13. Annex 13 Decision of the LG Munich, Ref. 18 Ns 112 Js 168454/15 of February 15, 2017 p. 38

14. Annex 14 Appeals of April 6, 2017 p. 48

15. Annex 15 Acknowledgment of receipt dated April 26, 2017 by Police HQ Munich reg. confiscation of smartphone and unilateral investigations p. 71

16. Annex 16 Letter from prosecutor Tilmann, Az. GA 313E-23/2017 on criminal charges against police for confiscation of smartphone and unilateral investigations of June 1, 2017 p. 72

17. Annex 17 Letter from Attorney General OLG Munich dated September 13, 2017 to reject the appeal p. 73

18. Annex 18 Respondent's reply to Public Prosecutor's Office of OLG Munich, September 23, 2017 p. 77

19. Annex 19 Decision of OLG Munich, Ref. 5 OLG 13 Ss 364/17 (2) of January 10, 2018 p. 81

20. Annex 20 Constitutional complaint p. 83

21. Annex 21 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, Ref. 1 BvR 246/18 of June 8, 2018 P. 110

22. Extra Annex 1 Urgent application with Federal Constitutional Court of Jan. 26, 2016 reg. confiscation of computer of daughter who was in preparation for final school examinations p. 112

23. Extra Annex 2 Jürgen Sonneck circumstantial evidence p. 115

European Court Upholds Prosecution Of Woman For Comparing Muhammad’s Marriage To A Six-Year-Old Girl To Pedophilia

This is a repost of JONATHAN TURLEY's post about the mind-boggling decision of the ECHR last week. In case you wonder who Mr Turley is here are some details. Note that he used "bizarre" as a keyword among others. The ECHR decision is just that.

A new decision from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirms the all-out assault on free speech that has taken hold of Europe.  In a chilling decision, the ECHR upheld a fine levied against an Austrian woman who called Muhammad a pedophile for his arranged marriage with a young girl while in his 50s.   The court ruled that such views are not protected by free speech because they violate “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.” The decision confirms the near complete subjugation of free speech to religious and other views in society.  

In 2009, the defendant held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she compared Muhammad’s marriage to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, to pedophilia.

Most accounts put Aisha’s birth around  late 613 or early 614.  She was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad in Mecca and he consummated the marriage when she was reportedly ten. Muhammad was around 50 at the time.

For most of us in the free speech community, the differing views of this marriage is immaterial to the right of both sides to be free to state their views.  However, complainants have sought to silence critics like this woman by seeking criminal fines.

Moreover, I am not particularly interested in how the woman expressed her views since they raise core religious and political values.  The court said that she stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”  That was found to be “disparaging religion” and lower courts upheld the conviction.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that the woman’s “right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

The ECHR engaged in what is now an all-too-familiar effort to deny its obvious denial of free speech by saying that freedom of religion did not protect religions from criticism but they upheld the punishment of someone for doing precisely that.  It simply declared that the woman’s comments “could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.”

The opinion is perfectly Orwellian in saying that you cannot get away with using free speech by simply claiming the right of free speech.  The court rejected that people are entitled to free speech by simply “pack[ing] incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.”

That type of circular logic would be laughable if it were not so chilling.

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws.  These prosecutions are part of a new and dangerous attack on free speech. We previously discussed the rise of anti-blasphemy laws around the world, including the increase in prosecutions in the West and the support of the Obama Administration for the prosecution of some anti-religious speech under the controversial Brandenburg standard.  The effort by Muslim countries to establish an international blasphemy standard ran into opposition in the West so a new effort to launched to use hate crimes and discrimination law to achieve the purpose.

This new ruling shows the rapid abandonment of the European courts of fundamental values of free speech.  The ECHR has now established itself as legitimizing the criminalization of speech in Europe.

With thanks to Mr Turley. Nothing needs to be added.

Jesus and Mo revived a special cartoon today to honor the auspicious occasion of the ECHR blasphemy decision Case 38450/12

Update on this ridiculous decision. Interesting that no German newspaper so far reported that decision. The Austrians did.

Here is Jesus and Mo.

They also have a shop.

European Court of Human Rights upholds blasphemy law: Defaming the Prophet Muhammad or his marriage to a six year old girl hurts people’s “religious feelings”

'Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition.' - Alan Turing

Make of it what you will but the decision of the ECHR is butthurt. Oh, Europe.

European Court of Human Rights upholds blasphemy law: Defaming the Prophet Muhammad or his marriage to a six year old girl hurts people’s “religious feelings”

This isn’t even Islamophobia: it’s criticism of religion, and most likely criticism of an Islamic practice of marrying and raping young girls. Shame on Austria, and on the European Court of Human Rights. There is no reason for the modern Western democracies to have blasphemy laws. Let’s face it, in Austraia there is no real “freedom of expression”—not if you can’t criticize religion.

Grüß Gott im Himmel!

Spot on!

. . . . . . .

CASE OF E.S. v. AUSTRIA

(Application no. 38450/12)

JUDGMENT of 25 October 2018

English translation:

“I./ 1. One of the biggest problems we are facing today is that Muhammad is seen as the ideal man, the perfect human, the perfect Muslim. That means that the highest commandment for a male Muslim is to imitate Muhammad, to live his life. This does not happen according to our social standards and laws. Because he was a warlord, he had many women, to put it like this, and liked to do it with children. And according to our standards he was not a perfect human. We have huge problems with that today, that Muslims get into conflict with democracy and our value system ...

2. The most important of all Hadith collections recognised by all legal schools: The most important is the Sahih Al-Bukhari. If a Hadith was quoted after Bukhari, one can be sure that all Muslims will recognise it. And, unfortunately, in Al-Bukhari the thing with Aisha and child sex is written...

II./ I remember my sister, I have said this several times already, when [S.W.] made her famous statement in Graz, my sister called me and asked: “For God’s sake. Did you tell [S.W.] that?” To which I answered: “No, it wasn’t me, but you can look it up, it’s not really a secret.” And her: “You can’t say it like that!” And me: “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do you call that? Give me an example? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?” Her: “Well, one has to paraphrase it, say it in a more diplomatic way.” My sister is symptomatic. We have heard that so many times. “Those were different times” – it wasn’t okay back then, and it’s not okay today. Full stop. And it is still happening today. One can never approve something like that. They all create their own reality, because the truth is so cruel ...”

German original:

“I./1. Eines der großen Probleme, die wir heute haben, ist dass Mohammed als der ideale Mann, der perfekte Mensch, der perfekte Muslim gesehen wird. Das heißt, das oberste Gebot für einen männlichen Moslem ist es, Mohammed nachzumachen, sein Leben zu leben. Das läuft nicht nach unseren sozialen Standards und Gesetzen ab. Weil er war ein Kriegsherr, hatte einen relativ großen Frauenverschleiß, um das jetzt einmal so auszudrücken, hatte nun mal gerne mit Kindern ein bisschen was. Und er war nach unseren Begriffen kein perfekter Mensch. Damit haben wir heute riesige Probleme, weil Muslime mit der Demokratie und unserem Wertesystem in Konflikt geraten...

2. Die wichtigsten von allen Rechtsschulen anerkannten Hadith-Sammlungen: Die allerwichtigste ist die Sahih Al-Bukhari. Wenn eine Hadith nach Bukhari zitiert wurde, dann können Sie sicher sein, dass es alle Muslime anerkennen. Und in der Al-Bukhari ist auch blöderweise das geschrieben mit der Aisha und dem Kindersex...

II./ Ich erinnere mich an meine Schwester, das hab ich schon ein paar Mal erzählt, als [S.W.] in Graz ihren berühmten Sager gemacht hat, ruft mich meine Schwester an und sagt: "Um Gottes willen. Hast du ihr das gesagt?" Worauf ich gesagt habe: "Nein, ich war’s nicht, aber es ist nachzulesen, es ist nicht wirklich ein Geheimnis. " Und sie: "Das kann man doch so nicht sagen." Und ich : "Ein 56-Jähriger und eine 6-Jährige ? Wie nennst du das? Gib mir ein Beispiel? Wie nennen wir das, wenn’s nicht Pädophilie ist?" Sie: "Na ja, das muss man ein bisschen umschreiben, diplomatischer sagen." Meine Schwester ist symptomatisch. Das haben wir schon so oft gehört. "Das waren doch andere Zeiten" – das war damals nicht o.k., und es ist heute nicht o.k. Punkt. Und es passiert heute auch noch. So was ist nie gutzuheißen. Sie legen sich alle eine Wirklichkeit zurecht, weil die Wahrheit so grausam ist...“

14. The Regional Court found that the above statements essentially conveyed the message that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies. It stated that the applicant was referring to a marriage which Muhammad had concluded with Aisha, a six-year old, and consummated when she had been nine. The court found that by making the statements the applicant had suggested that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship. However, it also found that it could not be established that the applicant had intended to decry all Muslims. She was not suggesting that all Muslims were paedophiles, but was criticising the unreflecting imitation of a role model. According to the court, the common definition of paedophilia was a primary sexual interest in children who had not yet reached puberty. Because paedophilia was behaviour which was ostracised by society and outlawed, it was evident that the applicant’s statements were capable of causing indignation. The court concluded that the applicant had intended to wrongfully accuse Muhammad of having paedophilic tendencies. Even though criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a primary sexual interest in children’s bodies, which she had deduced from his marriage with a child, disregarding the notion that the marriage had continued until the Prophet’s death, when Aisha had already turned eighteen and had therefore passed the age of puberty. In addition, the court found that because of the public nature of the seminars, which had not been limited to members of the Freedom Party, it was conceivable that at least some of the participants might have been disturbed by the statements.

15. The Regional Court further stated that anyone who wished to exercise their rights under Article 10 of the Convention was subject to duties and responsibilities, such as refraining from making statements which hurt others without reason and therefore did not contribute to a debate of public interest. A balancing exercise between the rights under Article 9 on the one hand and those under Article 10 on the other needed to be carried out. The court considered that the applicant’s statements were not statements of fact, but derogatory value judgments which exceeded the permissible limits. It held that the applicant had not intended to approach the topic in an objective manner, but had directly aimed to degrade Muhammad. The court stated that child marriages were not the same as paedophilia, and were not only a phenomenon of Islam, but also used to be widespread among the European ruling dynasties. Furthermore, the court argued that freedom of religion as protected by Article 9 of the Convention was one of the foundations of a democratic society. Those who invoked their freedom of religion could not expect to be exempt from criticism, and even had to accept the negation of their beliefs. However, the manner in which religious views were attacked could invoke the State’s responsibility in order to guarantee the peaceful exercise of the rights under Article 9. Presenting objects of religious worship in a provocative way capable of hurting the feelings of the followers of that religion could be conceived as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which was one of the bases of a democratic society. The court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression in the form of a criminal conviction had been justified as it had been based in law and had been necessary in a democratic society, namely in order to protect religious peace in Austria.

55. As to the applicant’s argument that a few individual statements had to be tolerated during a lively discussion, the Court considers that it is not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and deduce that this would render the statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression passable. Moreover, the applicant was wrong to assume that improper attacks on religious groups had to be tolerated even if they were based on untrue facts (see paragraph 35 above). On the contrary, the Court has held that statements which are based on (manifestly) untrue facts do not enjoy the protection of Article 10 (see, mutatis mutandis, Giniewski, § 52, cited above, and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no 17224/11, § 117, ECHR 2017).

56. Lastly, the Court reiterates that the applicant was ordered to pay a moderate fine of only EUR 480 in total for the three statements made, although the Criminal Code alternatively would have provided for up to six months’ imprisonment. Furthermore, the fine imposed was on the lower end of the statutory range of punishment of up to 360 day-fines, namely only 120 day-fines, and the domestic courts applied only the minimum day‑fine of EUR 4. Though the applicant had no previous criminal record and this was taken into account as a mitigating factor, her repeated infringement had to be considered as an aggravating factor. Under the circumstances, the Court does not consider the criminal sanction as disproportionate.

57. The Court, in conclusion, finds that in the instant case the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages (contrast Aydın Tatlav and Giniewski, both cited above), but amounted to a generalisation without factual basis. Thus, by considering them as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace, the domestic courts came to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious intolerance. The Court accepts that they thereby put forward relevant and sufficient reasons and finds that the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 10 indeed corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

58. Therefore, the Court considers that the domestic courts did not overstep their – wide – margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting the applicant of disparaging religious doctrines. 

Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

. . . . . . .

Back in 2016 in Good ol Germany the

Quirky church, Flying Spaghetti Monster, hits court wall

Brother Spaghettus had a bad day on Wednesday. A court in the eastern city of Frankfurt an der Oder announced that his religion, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, had no right to hang official signs at the entrances to the town of Templin, Brandenburg, giving information about their weekly services, next to those of the local Catholic and Protestant churches.

"The suit has been denied," Judge Sabine Selbig said in court. "It does not depend on whether the organization is a world-view community or not."

Let's keep the discussion alive:

1. Was Muhammad a Pedophile?

2. The truth about Muhammad and Aisha

3. The Prophet Mohammed was a paedophile, says Kilroy-Silk aide

4. Why I Doubt The Prophet Muhammad was a Paedophile - A Catholic Defends Islam

5. Woman’s conviction in Austria for calling the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile did not breach her right to free speech, European Court of Human Rights rules - read the comments

6. Ukip leader Gerard Batten calls Muhammad a paedophile at Tommy Robinson rally

7. European Court: Woman's Defamation of Muhammad Doesn't Count as Free Expression
Her statements may have been offensive. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't have a right to make them. - RRRIGHT!

8. Carl Sagan Quotes That Reveal His Thoughts on Religion
What the famous skeptic had to say about God

There is one thing certain. When the fucking EU finally crumbles I will get deliberately drunk beyond recognition and just loving it.

Here is a different Aisha

Hitler addresses ECHR. Debunks Germany’s “criminal sanctioning of use of Nazi symbols” as virtue signalling deflecting from him having been a true Keynesian

This is in reference to the Case 35285/16 and the ECHR's decision in April 2018. There is among others the salient paragraph 47. Fortunately, someone with first hand knowledge and expertise was only too eager to chip in and get a couple of misconceptions straight.

So here is the ECHR live:

  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. 

Hitler would chuckle but hey, here he is in person, more or less. Let's listen to Dear Leader back then:

'Gents, lady! With all due respect, we, the Nazis, did not gain power via pictures or symbols. There were economical reasons, the nation was being slighted and financially damaged by the Versailles Treaty. Capice. Or in today's terms: 'It's the economy, stupid!'

I did not become top honcho or Hero Number One as they say in India of a country by strutting around with a Gucci label on my handbag. Not only was I a gifted painter, I was a genius in applied economics. Did you gents never appreciate the fact that I was a Keynesian?? Yeah, take that.

"For today’s generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler’s economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context."

FYI gents & lady in Strasbourg, this was the situation in our neighbor country Austria.

"As we can see, the budget deficit was radically cut right down until 1936, and was virtually eliminated, since by October 1936 the budget deficit was about 0.5% of GDP (Berger 2003: 90).

Some of the austerity policies included:

(1) the elimination of the works council in 1934;

(2) a series of cuts to welfare, and

(3) slashing of unemployment benefits to the point where only 50% of the unemployed in 1936 received benefits (Obinger 2018: 86).

How did the economy perform under this austerity?

The Austrian economy was awful."

Now watch the difference courtesy me, the Big Kahuna.

"While in Austria, the clerical fascists pursued austerity and wage and price deflation from 1934 to 1937, in Germany the National Socialist government of Hitler implemented a series of economic interventions that involved large government deficits, direct public works programs, and rearmament. This program was undoubtedly Keynesian in its fiscal effects, despite some modern attempts to deny this like Tooze (2008) (on the simulative nature of Germany’s deficits and policies after 1933, see Cohn 1992; Fremdling and Stäglin 2015; Overy 1996). The fact that German military spending was higher by 1935 than some historians have thought does not change the reality that military Keynesianism is still Keynesianism. It is clear that German policy down to 1936 was a mix of military and civilian Keynesian spending.

So how did Austrian unemployment compare to unemployment in Germany?

While Austrian unemployment remained high, German unemployment fell rapidly.

Popular support for the Austro-fascist regime collapsed by 1938 given the economic disasters and high unemployment, and when Hitler annexed Austria in March 1938 there was no doubt a great deal of support for the Anschluss within Austria."

Genius that I am I went ballistic Keynes and boy, was I successful except for some minor hiccups along the road which finally convinced me to put an end to my great life.

"What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime’s rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every “capitalist” democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: “[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

You may want to visualize my genius. Well here it is, the Chart of Fiscal Stimulus Beauty courtesy that Brit Ralph Musgrave.

I was working magic

I hear that some ridiculously clad nutball from India had written two letters to me which the British bastards had intercepted. Proves that I had fans the world over. Very well possible he fell for our use of the swastika, I never cared about trademarks and copyright. Honestly, I could have used a violet lily or a pink thong as our party emblem and would still have "won the hearts and minds of my people". Just watch the present political climate the world over.

You may also want to notice that I embrace "a broadly Malthusian or Spencerian vision of populations of humans destined to fight each other: Each nation or race will breed too many people to share the planet".

As for my German countrymen's Criminal Code 86a, gents & lady, that 's virtue signalling. Pure, simple and pathetic virtue signalling.'

Not yet convinced? Here are some very good posts:

Macro-economic policy and votes in the thirties: Germany (and The Netherlands) during the Great Depression

Macroeconomics in Germany: The forgotten lesson of Hjalmar Schacht

Nazi Germany’s Economic Recovery-Schacht’s Triumph and Keynes’ Vindication

The best at last:

Hjalmar Schacht, Mefo Bills and the Restoration of the German Economy 1933-1939

ECHR decision (Case 35285/16) follow-up: Nazi pics as “eyecatching device” not covered by Art. 10. Let's fact-check

In the decision 'Nix v. Germany' (Case 35285/16) it says:

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."

and

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 they need to be fact-checked. So a picture of Nazi personality with the swastika is an "eye-catching device" which is not covered by Article 10. Let us verify this bold statement.

I already covered the SPIEGEL cover 'Merkel at the Acropolis with Nazi officers' and the poor article.

BENTO, the insufferable youth website of DER SPIEGEL, featured a cheap shot at the AfD party with a picture of former German Dear Leader in full regalia. Not "eye-catching", or covered by 'Fake News' media privilege, ECHR? I am all ears.

ECHR, might this qualify as "eye-catching"?

Swastikas galore and doping of NS soldiers

A sea of swastikas to publish a simple article about doping of German soldiers is not eye-catching? In the end it did not help much.

SPIEGEL covers of recent years.

Der SPIEGEL is honest about it: "Hitler always  sells"

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.

I have yet to see any, and I mean any, German newspaper that has bothered to write a disclaimer. Why should they, Hitler sells. He means business. Bloggers do not sell.
____________
It would be a grave mistake not to explicitly point to my disclaimer. The risk these Bavarian hypocrites, steeped in neonazi affinity, confiscate my IT equipment a third time is too great.

The Streetwise Professor puts it best about ze Germans:

The moral obtuseness of Germany, of all nations, panting after the business of a nation that has vowed to destroy Israel is mind boggling.

It is especially mind boggling given the German predilection for moral preening, and their tendency to lecture all about their moral superiority.

If you think this is too harsh, consider the fact that Germany’s Incitement to Hatred law (i.e., its Holocaust Denial law) makes it a felony punishable by five years imprisonment for those who:

1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

So, if the mullahs did in Germany what they do in Iran on a daily basis, they’d be in the slammer for a nickel.  But they’re OK to do business with, even though they have far more power to act on their threats than some skinhead in Leipzig. AfD is beyond the pale, but the mullahs–now there’s somebody to do business with!

ECHR finally confirms: No free speech in Germany. Discrimination against migrants permissable for low-wage jobs. Court high on mood affiliation, plus glaring omission of a document (Case 35285/16)

First things first. It is my pleasure to point to my disclaimer in two languages. I am absolutely certain this to be the best disclaimer ever. Excelling and surpassing every expectation, today and beyond. Whether it meets the extravagant taste of the Munich police, who monitor my blog together with the Munich prosecution and who would love to get this blog purged once and for all, remains to be seen. After all, cosmopolitan diversity produces hypervigilant anxiety (I have ©ed that sentence, so don't!). One thing is certain in Germany: There is no free speech!

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.

Before I start, reader, keep this fucking freak in mind. Jürgen Sonneck, until mid 2017 deputy CEO of the Jobcenter Munich and the very one frigtard who filed the criminal complaint this case is based upon.

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

How can such a misinformation be explained? The only explanation I could come up with, is the judges asked the German judge Angelika Nußberger about how Hartz 4 works. Working in the higher echelons of judicial society of Strasbourg over years in sometimes highly complex international court matters, a knowledge in legal paragraphs of the SGB (Social Legal Framebook) is not exactly a field of expertise required.
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.

On May 7, 2015 he sent another criminal complaint to the Munich police in typical Nazi-style secret informer manner by email. The Ugly Germans just have it in their DNA. You got to give them credit for that.

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.

Chancellor Merkel, allow me to introduce to you Nazi-style informer and former Jobcenter co-CEO Jurgen Sonneck alias C. Paucher

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.