My daughter deems any further correspondence with this kind of Bavarian court, in particular prosecutor Beckstein, as being beneath her style.

English  version  (for chronological  documentation  and  presentation at  the  USCIS.gov)

State Prosecutor München I
Linprunstraße 25
80097 München

Feb. 07, 2016

In reference to the

C R I M I N A L   C O M P L A I N T

against  Jürgen Sonneck, Jobcenter München, Mühldorfstr. 1, 81671 München

Offense:    Infringement of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
                     Infringement of Article 5 of the Basic Law of Germany
                     § 226 BGB (chicanery)

of Jan. 10, 2016 and with regard to, well, I do not know how to describe this concoction of words that apparently emanated from the high offices of this DOCTOR prosecutor Beckstein from the province of Bavaria on Feb. 01, 2016 ....?

This pixel-adorned piece of paper in which this enlightened prosecutor addressed my daughter as

"Dear Mister ..."

Notabene, for the second time after this esteemed gentleman of refinement did so in March 2015. Oh Lord, Bavaria ...

This primitive condescending casualness

"The rest of the allegations are baseless and outrageous."

My daughter would like to convey that she has no intention to descend to this low level and that she will not be provoked by such cheap attacks in this country Germany and this province of Bavaria. She deems any further correspondence with this kind of kangaroo court as being beneath her style.

C R I M I N A L C O M P L A I N T against Jürgen Sonneck, Jobcenter Munich

Jürgen Sonneck, alias C. Paucher, bevorzugt
den dunklen Siff der Anonymität.
Insbesondere auf dem Internet.
Hier ist er links zu sehen.

English  version  (for chronological  documentation  and  presentation at  the  USCIS.gov)

State Prosecutor München I
Linprunstraße 25
80097 München

Jan. 10, 2016

C R I M I N A L   C O M P L A I N T

Accused:  Jürgen Sonneck, Jobcenter München, Mühldorfstr. 1, 81671 München

Offense:    Infringement of Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
                     Infringement of Article 5 of the Basic Law of Germany
                     § 226 BGB (chicanery)

When and where: May 15, 2014 in Munich

The undersigned is informed and believes that

Count 1

On May 15, 2014 Jürgen Sonneck, second in charge of the Jobcenter Munich, submitted a complaint at the Munich police against my father because he had published and commented on statements against my person made by Jobcenter staff Jean-Marc Vincent. These statements included the demand to see the school mid-term results, although no legal basis exists for this request. In addition, the statement alleged that I might need private lessons. This is an affront against me because nobody at the Jobcenter Munich has ever seen me, has ever talked with me, knows anything about me, except that I exist. I have reasons to believe that my being a so-called migrant led to this assumption. I view such allegations as discriminating and potentially racist.

In addition, the suggestion to offer me private lessons looked like a decoy to furnish my mid-term results upon which the Jobcenter Munich would try to lure me out of school and into a low-wage job. This assumption is based on incidences reported in a SPIEGEL article titled 'By all means available' and another report in the same magazine.

Count 2

Further evidence for this assumption was the offer to help me in signing up for the German Labor Agency's job portal. The offer is firstly ludicrous as job offers can be seen without signing up and secondly, I am not looking for a job when my school term is for another one and a half years.

Count 3

It may be assumed that by offering help in signing up to the jobs portal the Jobcenter intended to get hold of my email address and cell phone number. It is a well-known fact and it has been widely reported in the press that the German Labor Agency scours the social networks and spies on people.

Count 4

My father wrote about this incident in four blog posts. In one of them he used the image of Heinrich Himmler in Nazi uniform together with a pertinent quote made by Himmler. This quote stated that school education is granted with the express permission of the police only. The quote resembles in an uncanny way the ways and means in which the Jobcenter operates. The blog post is linked to the website of the German state media company RBB in Berlin. On this website are several Nazi images displayed. An assumption of any form of Nazi glorification is out of the question.
The Jobcenter subsequently took exception to this and by filing a complaint with the Munich police, the Jobcenter München intended to have this post purged and my father fined.

The blog posts of my father covered real life incidents perpetrated by a German government agency. By filing a complaint Mr. Sonneck intended to infringe the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression and the freedom of press because the Jobcenter does not want any critical reports about its conduct.

With repeated criminal complaints against my father the Jobcenter's intention is not based on seeing justice administered. It is based on crushing any dissent, on getting any negative reports about the Jobcenter deleted and, most importantly, on seeing us financially ruined, unable to pay the fines and subsequently getting my father imprisoned and me out of school.

§ 226 BGB declares the exercise of a right to be inadmissible if it can only have the purpose to inflict another's loss.

Lastly, Mr Sonneck's assertion that the term "sliming staff Jean-Marc Vincent" would qualify as libel is utterly ridiculous and raises doubts that he has the full grasp of the German language.

= = = = = =

As expected, the prosecution refused to follow up on the case. The "reasons" cited by eminent prosecutor DOCTOR Beckstein:

1. Whether demanding to see the term sheet is legal or not has to be decided by a court.

This is pure bullshit as courts have decided that it is not legal.

2. The accusations of my daughter are "baseless and outrageous".

3. Doc Beckstein again addressed my daughter "Dear Mister ..."

The clumsiness of Bavarians is mind-boggling.

Doc Becki suggested the option of a comlaint at the Munich kangaroo court ... and my daughter yawned and asked me to handle it.

Admittedly, the terms Karlsruhe, Germany, and the Federal Constitutional Court lack the sex factor, but make up with double standards on what constitutes free speech.

The German Spanish Inquisition, aka BVerfG

We confess in advance we have ripped this, but when such sartorial excesses are being displayed, you can't help but think of Robin Williams:

"Golf is a game where white men can dress up as black pimps and get away with it."

As you might expect when some folks in the high echelons of society dress like the Spanish Inquisition, judicial standards tend to take some surprising turns. Lest we forget, these noble purveyors of justice are all unelected!

Here are some bewildering decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Germans can turn pretty prickly for example when the peas roll too close to their mashed potatoes (1). It gets almost unbearable for Germans when they see a headscarf. The CC had to decide on two occasions, 2003 and 2014. The first decision was contra headscarf in schools, but in 2014 the Red Robes changed their minds to pro. These noble guys have two sets of rules in their arsenal. In November 2011 they delivered, by German standards, a real master piece. Contrary to § 130 STGB they saw the denial of the Holocaust by a known Neonazi protected by free speech! Their decision was published months later and was met with astonishment in the press (2). In 2014 they had to deal with the legality of the OMT program of the European Central Bank. Clearly displaying a lack of understanding what OMT does and a hesitation to block it, they passed the case on to the European Court.

Denying this is OK with the FCC.

The Constitutional Court explains why:

"The decisive criterion whether a public dissemination exists, is by accepted understanding always that a publication is made available to a larger, uncontrollable group of persons."

In other words, be a Nazi clandestinely.

Oh, by the way, our constitutional complaint was rejected as expected. Rejected after remaining intensively  UNread. How that happens is described below (3)  by Dr Ulrich Brosa who happened to have his complaint as well rejected, took it to the European Court and won his case. Our rejection letter reads like this and more or less exactly like Dr Brosa's.

"The constitutional complaint is not taken to decision because it is inadmissible. From a further justification is in accordance with § 93d para. 1 sentence 3 BVerfGG being desisted."

Kirchhof            Masing          Baer

Of course the decision is incontestable.

Starting from right: Baer, Masing, Kirchhof

Kirchhof and Masing were two of the judges who decided that denying the Holocaust is protected by free speech! Susanne Baer is a judge of very low professional credentials in the field of law but all the more engaged in gender politics.

What had happened? What was inadmissable? This:

Sonntag, 23. März 2014

Jean-Marc Vincent offers "precisely fitting" integration into the Low-Wage country

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.

Heinrich Himmler

"Einige Gedanken über die Behandlung der Fremdvölkischen im Osten" von Heinrich Himmler, 15. Mai 1940

Quelle: Kühnl, Reinhard 

"Der deutsche Faschismus in Quellen und Dokumenten."

Köln, 1978

Bildquelle: Daily Mail

The blog post covers how a 60 year old (!) Jobcenter (which is the German government agency charged with purveying workers remunerated at, according to a latest IMF study, 30% below the wage rate of continuously employed workers) dude hits on my 18-year old daughter without ever having seen her and without knowing anything about her questioning her passing the school successfully. Goes on in his discriminatory rant and proposes private tutoring and tops it off by proffering his "Help to sign up with the German Jobs Portal".

I called him a "slimy staff" and the dude did not like this and sued for defamation. Defamation law suits are rampant in Germany and they infringe on free speech. That's how ridiculously screwed up laws are in Germany. The historical parallels are obvious. 

. . . . . . . . . . .

The decision of the CC (bearing in mind our constitutional complaint had never been read by the trio) proves two things.

• One, and Germany is well-known for it, is institutionalized racism.
• Second, do not criticize a government agency which is instrumentally important in securing the supply of cheap labor in order to keep Germany's exports industry humming and refrain from uttering your opinion in public on a blog. That however is inconsistent with free speech.

The Federal Constitutional Court basically decreed:

• A government agency can suggest additional private lessons in school, although it does not know anything about the concerned person. What it knows though is, she is a migrant and these migrant are probably stupid.
• A government agency can try to coax you out of school and into a job.
• A government agency clerk has personal advantages if he/she succeeds in interrupting further education of a student by placing him/her in a low-paying job. That's OK.
• Do not criticize this by pointing to conspicuous parallels how the Nazi conducted admission to school education! Especially not when Bavarian courts are after you. Courts notorious for their Neonazi affinity.

___________________

(1) A tasty tool of change - LA Times

(2) Suddeutsche Zeitung

Denying the holocaust is protected by free speech as long as it is done in a small group! Since the denial of the Holocaust viewed as such is "considered proven untrue is not covered by the freedom of expression", "in the overall context of the respective essays, however, the respective Holocaust denying statements are inextricably linked to expressions of opinion." The decision of the Constitutional Court explains why: "The decisive criterion whether a public dissemination exists, is by accepted understanding always that a publication is made available to a larger, uncontrollable group of persons." I am sorry, but this is arbitrary.

(3) Here, the resolution of the code kindly elaborated by German Dr. Brosa who unsurprisingly got kicked in the ass by the German CC, but then took his case to the ECHR and ultimately won. (just a Google translate but you get the gist how the German Constitutional Court gets rid of most of the cases). After all, only about 2,8% of all submitted cases get accepted in a year. The rest goes straight into the trash bin and so it is a lottery with the odds stacked against you.

What's important to remember is, the CC judges are all unelected! They are suggested by political parties.

1) Each arrived in Karlsruhe constitutional complaint is of governmental (!) Officials, taken for example from Reg.Dir.Dr.Hiegert in reception. The government officials and employees are looking immediately for an excuse the constitutional complaint as inadmissible to throw in the trash. Commonly the claim, an appointment is missed or the legal process has not been exhausted.The latter is a bloomer (you can not exhaust one way), but is so in the Federal Constitutional Court Act § 90. In this type of rejection demands on the accuracy of the complainants will be provided, never meet the judicial members themselves. "Scientific assistant at the Federal Constitutional Court" - Then come the constitutional complaints in the catches anonymous legal secretaries.The rights officers decide on the type of rejection: "not allowed", "unfounded" or "not admitted for decision". Formally, the decisions of legal secretaries to be approved by one chamber (3 judges) of the Federal Constitutional Court. The vote of the chamber takes no more than minutes.

2) The constitutional complaint is rejected as unfounded. Substance is not the rule. Provides the Federal Constitutional Court but a justification of this is to see that it comes from a legal secretaries who had no desire to thoroughly read the complaint, but would like for it to make a career in the state apparatus.

3) The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision. The wording means that the rights officers have no excuse found rid of the complaint, but politically insignificant or ungenehm would to edit them seriously. The object of the right speakers is certainly the judges of the Constitutional Court, which are representatives of the ruling parties on a regular basis, to draw attention to the politically interesting cases. The question: "Is the Federal Constitutional Court the Best German court" we can answer with a radiant YES: "The Federal Constitutional Court is the best German propaganda-court"

4) Anyone who believes that sloppiness and political machinations in the Federal Constitutional Court would be corrected the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, gets there at Renate Jaeger, a former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court. Hunter sitting in the European Court, since this court has produced decisions by which the Federal Constitutional Court has been disgraced. The German R.Jäger has announced the European Court of Human Rights should kindly take care of other states because there is something give as Great as the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany.

German Jobcenter staff Jürgen Sonneck cares shit about EU’s commitments to free expression: Libel and privacy

Jürgen Sonneck, alias C. Paucher, bevorzugt
den dunklen Siff der Anonymität.
Insbesondere auf dem Internet.
Hier ist er links zu sehen.

Meet Jürgen Sonneck (pictured left in FTW mode), second in charge of the Munich government agency Jobcenter, as he is celebrating another filling of a low-wage job Germany is so proud of.

Dude is busy when he is not running, and no, that red flag in the bg is not a Nazi flag, in making sure his professional home turf is not infringed upon. That entails among other things a clear opinion about his and his company's commitment to free expression (1) which is plain, precise and simple:

FUCK THAT SHIT !

Because, you see, duty is duty and company imperatives are company imperatives and they run for example like this:

If you are a staff at the low-wage jobs provider government agency Jobcenter (yes, that notorious Hartz thing) and you happen to see some juicy young sugar tits still lolling around in school at age 18+ with the dubious intention of getting a higher school education, well that gets your balls tingling and your adrenaline flow rushing.

After all, here you have some tantalizing young flesh you could entice in a slimy way and gingerly coax her out of school - sure, you can not say that openly but rather like a sweet uncle on the road dangling some candy - by pretending to care about her. In any way, you have to get that pussy out of school and into a job, capisce.

If you are successful in this, you gain some valuable points on your yearly assessment sheet, it might save your ass job (because most staff are on term contracts!) for another one or two years and if you are the top honcho of that particular Jobcenter you will earn a nice premium on top of your already quite lavish salary.

So with this in mind, when someone comes around and puts up a blog post about just that Jürgen Sonneck gets really fucking pissed and files a charge with the local police. Our young chap Jürgen Sonneck can rest assured, because he can bank on the most rotten court in Germany that this blog publication will be prosecuted and fined, because calling some Jobcenter ass

Slimy staff and putting that guy's intention in some historical context with Nazi-Germany's take on education

is VERBOTEN in good ol' Germany and Bavaria in particular. Germany needs a cheap labor force, no matter how. If this is achieved by infringing on free speech, so be it. Despite three emails, the fat German labor minister Andrea Nahles did see no reason to respond. It's Fritzl country, you keep quiet. That's the German way.

Mike Harris has an article covering the problems of some countries where "archaic national laws have been left unreformed and therefore contain provisions that have the potential to chill freedom of expression." Germany is one such country.

"The parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe called on states to repeal criminal sanctions for libel in 2007, as did both the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and UN special rapporteurs on freedom of expression.[3] Criminal defamation laws chill free speech by making it possible for journalists to face jail or a criminal record (which will have a direct impact on their future careers), in connection with their work."

Unlike Germany which just went through a ridiculous charge against the blog netzpolitik.org "other countries have clear public interest defences. The Swedish Personal Data Act (PDA), or personuppgiftslagen (PUL), was enacted in 1998 and provides strong protections for freedom of expression by stating that in cases where there is a conflict between personal data privacy and freedom of the press or freedom of expression, the latter will prevail. The Supreme Court of Sweden backed this principle in 2001 in a case where a website was sued for breach of privacy after it highlighted criticisms of Swedish bank officials."

In another article Indexcensorship.org reports:

Europe’s journalists face growing climate of fear

"While no country is immune from pressures on media professionals, the five countries with the most reports were EU candidate country Turkey (114), member state Hungary (93), candidate country Serbia (74), founding member state Italy (71) and founding member state Germany (48)."

The Jobcenter Munich and Jürgen Sonneck in cohorts with the rotten court of Munich consider the

EU Human Rights Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline

totally dispensable and non-binding.

The Guidelines read for example:


The EU will:

a) Work against arbitrary attacks, indiscriminate abuse of criminal and civil proceedings, defamation campaigns and excessive restrictions on journalists, media actors, NGOs and social media personalities launched with the aim of preventing these associations and individuals from freely exercising their right to freedom of expression. 
b) Condemn any restriction on freedom of expression and censorship, both online and offline, in violation of international human rights law. 
c) Urge repealing or amending of laws or practices that penalise individuals or organisations for exercising their right to express opinions or disseminate information, both bilaterally and in multilateral and regional human rights fora.

Here some eye candy:

Germany leader in defamation law suits

An overview of use of defamation, libel and insult in Europe is given and compared to the situation in Germany.
___________________
(1) The former man. director of the Jobcenter Munich had the audacity in 2012 to demand the take down of a blog post or pay a fine of € 10,000.

Munich chief prosecutor Hummer's aversion to questioning Nazi-TV coverage explained by his social environment?

Every such system attempts to establish and to cultivate the belief in its legitimacy. But according to the kind of legitimacy which is claimed, the type of obedience, the kind of administrative staff developed to guarantee it, and the mode of exercising authority, will all differ fundamentally.

Max Weber

Let's see how "the kind of administrative staff developed to guarantee it, and the mode of exercising authority, will all differ fundamentally" at Bavarian courts. IOW, let's dig into the social environment, or fabric if you will, of the Bavarian judiciary.

Meet Neonazi Maik B.* who rapped in a Bavarian court as judge in 2013

That was of course a foul-up, who would have thunk otherwise? Yet still, for a full year, Bavaria ... a well-known Neonazi ... not cross-checked ... as a judge? Phew, that's kinda tough to fathom, don't ya think?

With all due respect Mr. Hummer, but would I find myself in such a highly questionable milieu, I would leave. Presto! Pronto! Fucking right now! You do not seem to have entertained that thought.

Sure, you might venture to discount this rather unfortunate episode by pointing to the fact that Munich is the venue of the NSU trial. A trial supposed to shed a light on pretty recent events in Good ol' Germany in which all sorts of government agencies were (allegedly or not so?) complicit in doing what Germans, historically proven, seem to have quite a penchant at: killing foreigners and then blaming them.

You see, your Honor of Bavaria, you would then lay bare your ignorance of Baudrillard and thus miss the forest for the trees in that we have here for all the world to see a classical form of a Simulacrum. Highly unlikely, as you seem to be a gentleman of vertically integrated high intellectual caliber.
______________________
* The fact that the German cocksucker press refers to him as initial 'B' as his last name says it all about these cunts.

Esteemed purveyor of the finest Bavarian justice chief prosecutor Hummer, has it perhaps touched the tympanic membrane of your ear when ...

Der einzige Patriotismus, 

der uns dem Westen nicht entfremdet, 

ist ein Verfassungspatriotismus.

J. Habermas

judge Bassler refused my right to a court-appointed lawyer, that the province of Bavaria is as a state of Greater Teutonia part of the EU and that said conglomerate of disparate nation states features a European Court?


Thus enlightened and before I cut to the chase, I deem it of some importance to keep in mind these points with my attached impressions based on my experience with a Bavarian court on various occasions:

• Validity of Human rights in Bavaria? Never heard of those.
• Adhering to decisions of the German constitutional court? You have to be kidding.
• Allegiance to the ECHR and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU? Are you out of your mind, this is Bavaria.

And referring back to the European Court, it is proclaimed here the right to legal aid which is enshrined by:

• the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - Article 6 (3)(c) of the ECHR guarantees the right to legal assistance where the defendant has insufficient means to pay for legal assistance, and to get free legal aid when the interest of justice so requires.
• the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 of the Charter stipulates that legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.

How did the Munich court decide when asked for legal assistance? It was a politely phrased 'GTFO'.

Thank you for granting me the opportunity to shed a light on some valid legal peculiarities.

Does/could the social environment of Mr. Hummer provide perhaps a sliver of a hint?

Unfortunately, Munich chief prosecutor Mr Hummer's Owl of Minerva never really spread its wings.

GWF Hegel

That is a pity, considering that studying law requires the input of some precious years of your life in which you could, if you fancy so, get laid by a good deal of super-sexy gals, smoke weed and/or sniff a line, or listen to Wang Dang Sweet Poontang till your crotch gets numb. You could do all three as well. Mr. Hummer chose a different way.

Anyhow, let's see how this blessed lawyer in the service of the corruptest province in Germany deals with such nefarious things like for example Free Speech in conjunction with the attempt of the notorious German Jobcenter to get my daughter out of school and into a low-paying fucker job and in particular how his Nobleness deals with fucking and obnoxious bloggers who, can you believe the pretense, happen to indulge in the luxury of having an own opinion.

Posting this following is ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED in Bavaria, corrupt province of Germany.

Sonntag, 23. März 2014

Jean-Marc Vincent offers "precisely fitting" integration into the Low-Wage country

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.

Heinrich Himmler

"Einige Gedanken über die Behandlung der Fremdvölkischen im Osten" von Heinrich Himmler, 15. Mai 1940

Quelle: Kühnl, Reinhard 

"Der deutsche Faschismus in Quellen und Dokumenten."

Köln, 1978

Bildquelle: Daily Mail

The blog post covers how a 60 year old (!) Jobcenter (which is the German government agency charged with purveying workers remunerated at, according to a latest IMF study, 30% below the wage rate of continuously employed workers) dude hits on my 18-year old daughter without ever having seen her and without knowing anything about her questioning her passing the school successfully. Goes on in his discriminatory rant and proposes private tutoring and tops it off by proffering his "Help to sign up with the German Jobs Portal".

I called him a "slimy staff" and the dude did not like this and sued for defamation. Defamation law suits are rampant in Germany and they infringe on free speech. That's how ridiculously screwed up laws are in Germany. The historical parallels are obvious.

Not so for His Legal Emperor from Munich Mr. Hummer who took offence about the Himmler picture, is absolutely pissed about the swastika and sent me this letter:

Im Übrigen verbieten sich Vergleiche zwischen der Tat des Angeklagten einerseits und Presse-bzw Fernsehinhalten andererseits, da letztere regelmässig der staatsbürgerlichen Aufklärung, der Berichterstattung über Vörgänge 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).

Translated it says:

Apart from that, comparisons between the acts 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).

You might as well translate "verbieten sich Vergleiche" with Comparisons are forbidden by itself or Comparisons are inherently forbidden or in colloquial parlance: Don't even think about comparing this, because free speech, well, fuck it!

• Chief prosecutor Hummer of the Munich court, do I interpret you correctly that falsifying historical events of the Nazi era is covered and protected by § 86 a section 3 STGB? Excuse me, come again.
• IOW, you Noble Protector of the Law Mr Hummer from the court of Munich in Bavaria deem it as contravening the law to point out historical falsifications on TV, aired on German TV on prime time on April 3, 2015 which can be read here and at SPIEGEL magazine? A Hitler-Hollywood-Melange the SPIEGEL calls "Hitler for stupid people".
• and you have the audacity to brush exactly these valid facts aside in my appeals?
• You show the temerity to FORBID an individual person to even question any publication/airing of Nazi-time documentaries by state media, which in Germany is being financed by a mandatory (!) fee, as to their latent glorification of that particular time in history?
• Your Exalted Enlightenment of Judicial Omniscience Mr. Hummer, have you perhaps heard of Article 5 German Basic Law? The last time I checked, it said something about Free Speech. Have you heard of it?
• Do you see anything vaguely critical, let alone explaining their opposition to the Nazi doctrine in all those articles in the German media and plastered with images from that time? Oh come on, Hitler sells.
• These never ending documentaries on German TV about the Nazi time, sometimes three days in a week? Get to grips with it, Mañjuśrī of German Law, the Germans love to see this shit and besides, these repetitions ad nauseam show the utter void of any ideas among the German TV makers and in addition it is cheap.

If memory serves me right, You Eminent Wielder of the Excalibur of Perfect Jurisprudence, if you guys at the Bavarian court do not like a blogger, you simply confiscate his computer for 25 months, right?

There is one thing though, Supreme Purveyor of Kanoon, I have lived 15 years in one of the corruptest countries in S. Asia, but what you guys offer here in Germany is beyond description.

Mr. Hummer, it's been a privilege communicating with you.

Mr. Hummer, have you heard by any chance of the European Court?

Unfortunately, Munich chief prosecutor Mr Hummer's Owl of Minerva never really spread its wings. http://t.co/FaOSZnSMG4 @JuraBlogs

— ErebusSagace (@ErebusSagace) August 6, 2015

Why is nobody listening when Jürgen Sonneck, Jobcenter Munich, tries to explain fucking stupidity?

Jürgen Sonneck, alias C. Paucher, bevorzugt
den dunklen Siff der Anonymität.
Insbesondere auf dem Internet.
Hier ist er links zu sehen.

Meet Jürgen 'Da ya think I'm Sexy' Sonneck, éminence blonde and part-time intellectual AND fifth deputy managing director of the Jobcenter Munich, i.e. that venerable German government institution for the provision of cheap labor.

When he is not running 6.2 km Jürgen is a deep-thinker, but sometimes he just gets into it way over his head. That is when it comes to the proper application AND understanding of the German language.

Jürgen would like to fill you in about the intricacies of the German defamation law, that section 185 STGB thingy and since Germans are strict law-and-order dudes, besides being punctual and slightly obnoxious, he is hell-bent on giving you some hints on how to avoid embarrassing lingual potholes or of running smack into a verbal road block.

Jürgen Sonneck would like to inform you that according that Banana-Republic-typical-German-Defamation-Law you can DEFAME A WORD! Seriously, you can DEFAME A SUBSTANTIVE!

Let Jürgen Sonneck explain:

"SLIGHTLY STUPID QUESTION"

is a defamation, it is slander!

So be warned when you are in Germany and do not run afoul and defame an 'Illocutionary Act'.

Offener Brief an Andreas Voßkuhle vom Bundesverfassungsgericht re. Eingriff in die Freie Meinungsäusserung durch Jobcenter München

Bundesverfassungsgericht

- Prof. Dr. Andreas Vosskuhle -
 
Schloßbezirk 3

76131 Karlsruhe


Dear Mr Vosskuhle,

My daughter and I, her father, would like to call on you. We are writing in English, so that a wider audience can be reached. Please allow us to first introduce ourselves briefly. I've lived a long time in South Asia, my home, and my now 19-year-old daughter has been born there by her Asian mother. So according to the rather crude German nomenclature, surprisingly coined by the Federal Statistical Office, she counts as a 'migrant'. Segregating people has always been a historically proven domain of the Germans.

In all those years in Asia we have been living peacefully among Hindu, Muslim, Buddhists and people of other beliefs. Nobody took exception to our clothing or looks. Strangely though, on coming to Germany we did not experience that 'Arcadia' feeling a famous German poet had back then. We are absolutely lost for words, in the literal sense, how a subject like a headscarf can get a people so agitated and become a matter of the highest court.

Allow us to come to the point. We are being terrorized by the government agency Jobcenter Munich. Terrorized by infringing on our right to free speech, freedom of press culminating in frivolous law suits including computer confiscation and blackmail by demanding the takedown of a blogpost or face a penalty payment of € 10,000.00 (ten thousand).

All this with the implicit intent of our total financial ruin because I write a critical blog about Hartz IV, a neo-liberal economic regime that is indirectly responsible for all that ails the eurozone: high unemployment in general, extremely high unemployment among the youth and thus wrecking the future of these people, crippling economies in the southern states, high suicide rates in Greece, a country that Germany is hell-bent on destroying. Yet again Germany is true to its history, bringing poverty and destruction upon the European countries via a low-wage war.

My daughter is being hindered by this nefarious, criminal and racist government agency in every conceivable way to finish her high-school diploma. In all this, the Munich court shows again its blatant disregard for basic human rights established in the basic law of Germany.

The Jobcenter Munich filed a criminal charge against me for posting the famous Merkel-Nazi image showing her with a swastika on my blog on the occasion of the Athens demonstrations in 2012. A picture that has been published by all major media companies in Germany without any legal charge being incurred.

The Munich court happily went along and decreed ALL our IT equipment to be confiscated. Me and my daughter were to be deprived of all access to the internet.

After I finally lost my case due to a court-appointed lawyer who displayed an utter and complete neglect and in addition her late mailing of the verdict on purpose, I filed a constitutional complaint nevertheless.

The response from your office left me and my daughter in absolute surprise. It is completely incomprehensible to us how an image that has been displayed by all major media companies in Germany is deemed a crime when a blogger displays it.

Me and my daughter are lost for words when your office suggested in the response to my constitutional complaint with file # AR 2305/15 and dated April 21, 2015:

"You are asked to verify your legal opinion."

We consider this advise to be alarming and highly questionable. With due respect, as a liberalist I intend to stay with my legal opinion!

Since the Jobcenter Munich engaged in yet another assault on our right to free speech and press censorship in May 2014 when it filed another criminal charge against me for posting a Himmler image with swastika in a blogpost, dealing with the heinous attempt of a Jobcenter staff to illegally demand to see my daughter's mid-term marks sheet, expressing in the same communication his doubt of her passing the school year and in a typical display of this racist government agency's conduct in having the indecency of suggesting she might need additional private lessons without ever having seen her, let alone know her.

Not content with this, this person suggested his help to sign up with the jobs portal of the Federal Employment Agency when my daughter had still a minimum of one and a half years to go in school. The Himmler image was shown together with a very pertinent quote of this Nazi about schooling for kids. Yet again, the Munich court of Bavaria, a court that in full knowledge counted a Neo-Nazi among its judges for a year in 2013/14 until this was disclosed by the local newspaper, went happily along.

This despite the fact that NS pictures with swastikas are displayed in German media galore and German TV just loves to show NS documentaries every week and in a latently glorifying way. The first verdict was for 5 months prison on probation of three years. This was reduced this May to a fine of € 1,400.00. It is apparent, critical bloggers need to be wiped out in Germany.

Let us conclude by saying that I feel unsafe about the well-being of my daughter in Germany. We are now actively pursuing to apply for asylum for my daughter overseas.

When government agencies engage in undemocratic conduct, use coercion based on the severest financial pressure, break laws on a continuous basis and are being protected in this by one of Germany's most questionable courts, when German ministries show an utter disregard in all this, then the citizenship of this country is not desirable anymore. My daughter will never call Germany her home.

sincerely,

(signed)

Me & my daughter

-------------------------------

Das BVG und die Meinungsfreiheit

Germany Constitutional Court and Free Speech

By which I would like to inform a Munich school of the continued discrimination of my daughter by the German government agency Jobcenter

> RW Fasbinder School
> Referat Bildung und Sport Munich


Good morning school principal Rass,

In light of the upcoming tests for the high-school diploma of my daughter I would like to inform you that the Jobcenter Munich has without any explanation and after receipt of all necessary docs stopped the payment for May 2015.

This conduct of the law-breaking Jobcenter Munich puts us under severe financial strain and is likely to negatively affect the performance of my daughter in the coming week. It is yet another sign and proof that Germany puts its focus on getting young people into low-paying jobs and curtailing chances of higher education for migrants.

This has been established by the ECRI, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance', the UN report of the Muigai mission in 2009 and the German 'Heinrich-Boell-Charity' among others.

I would also like to draw your attention to the unfortunate fact that the City of Munich employs deceiving means when it comes to reporting incidents of discrimination.

Altogether four emails with a complaint about the continued discrimination of my daughter by the Jobcenter Munich went unanswered by the Munich anti-discrimination agency AMIGRA. A further two emails to the City of Munich elicited no response.

It gets even more primitive in Munich. The City of Munich employs a certain Ms Kiermeier at the anti-discrimination office AMIGRA. Upon calling her in Feb. 2015 I was told by her that I could file a complaint via the email address given on the portal of www.muenchen.de.

My email sent the next day to the AMIGRA was answered unsigned (!) and informing me that the AMIGRA office has been shut down in mid 2014! Coincidentally that coincided with the election of the new mayor Dieter Reiter. Splendid job, Dieter!

If any more proof is needed on what a discriminating country Germany is, it would be the fact that according to the AGG law a complaint has to be filed within just two months. Wow, Munich, you managed that just splendidly.

Sincerely,