German Ministry of Labor, please investigate Institutional racism at Munich social courts

Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS)
Wilhelmstrasse 49
10117 Berlin

Oct 31, 2019

Institutional racism at Munich social courts

Dear Labor Minister Heil,

After my complaint to the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency about “Judge” Ehegartner of the Social Court Munich and the “judges” Ocker, Karl and Braun of the Bavarian State Social Court, I received an answer in October 2019 which contained the following salient passage:

"Of course, in Germany there is structural racism in state agencies as well, and legal proceedings can also lead to discrimination by state authorities. ... "

The occasion was the theft of the income from a vacation job in summer 2015 of my Tibetan daughter by the civil servants of the racist government agency Jobcenter Munich CEOs Farrenkopf and Nowack, as well as Erhardt and Strama. This was done by suppressing two documents that we had sent to the JC in January 2016. These documents attest to the legitimacy of the holiday income. "Judge" Ehegartner from the Social Court in conjunction with the "judges" Ocker, Karl and Braun from the Bavarian State Social Court chose to disregard them as well, although these documents were in their case files.

Consequently, some reason had to be found to legally cover this theft. Nothing easier for some tricky "judges" in Bavaria: our appeals sent by email were not signed with a qualified signature. In addition, Section 144 (1) sentence 1 Social Court Act blesses theft below the amount of € 750!

The BSSC had invited my daughter to attend the appeals hearing in Oct. 2019. However, contrary to Article 101 (1) of the Basic Law which states among others that the names of the judges must be disclosed in advance, this information was not given. Obviously this was deemed dispensable by the court considering that the appellant was a mere migrant.

Accordingly, in representation for my daughter who does not want any further contact with Bavarian courts, I applied for a postponement of the trial by at least one week with reference to this article of the basic law. My application was rejected on the grounds that it was "frivolous". I can not resist the impression, and this is based on years of personal experience, that in racist Germany the basic law does not apply to migrants. The term migrant as such is per se discriminatory and racist, because one remains a migrant in Germany. Germany is internationally known for its institutional racism. This was further corroborated when a sublease contract of my daughter was dismissed as “not credible" by the racist Jobcenter and further their attempt to lure my daughter out of higher education into a job.

I would therefore ask you to make inquiries as to whether there are any more such tendentious and biased court decisions of these “judges" and/or statements that point in the direction of institutional racism. Are relevant verbal statements known?

In the aforementioned complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Agency the agency pointed out that the AGG covers only discrimination in employment and in private legal transactions. In cases of discrimination by government agencies such as courts (or even authorities such as the Jobcenter) the AGG - strangely, I might add - does not apply. It refers instead to the Art. 3 basic law:

"For these offices, the general prohibition of discrimination in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2 of the Basic Law (GG) applies, so that you are not defenceless against sovereigns.”

This must be questioned when a substantiated reference to the basic law is swept aside by “judges" as being “frivolous”. Deceiving adolescents and migrants is a disreputable behavior, all the more when it is committed by “judges”. It flies in the face of this conspicuous and strange campaign of the Federal Ministry of Justice "We are the rule of law”. What was it before?

I would be pleased to receive a substantiated response from you, while at the same time expressing my deepest regret for my unqualified signature. I should mention, the BMJV informed me in a letter of Nov. 4, 2014 (file # R A 3 - 6303 II -R1 351/2014):

"Within the Federal Government, the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs is responsible for social and social court matters. Since, according to the provisions of the Basic Law, each Federal Ministry manages its business area on its own responsibility, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection is not authorized to act in the business area of the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.

Therefore, with you permission, I have forwarded your letter.”

This was met with a lively silence by the Labor Ministry’s well-fed minister with catastrophic teeth Mrs Nahles.

Sincerely,

German Ministry of Justice steals show with campaign "We are a State of Law", and totally legal way to steal money from a migrant and go scot-free

The necessary ingredients are a gang of like-minded spirits:

1. Criminal civil servants at a Jobcenter
2. Suppression of documents
3. Devious and guileful judges
4. Decent portion of racism
5. Stolen amount must not exceed € 749.99!

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) October 25, 2019

Here's how you go about when one of these ugly migrants has jobbed during the summer vacation and earned some money, say € 650.00 and it just fucking irks you.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) October 25, 2019

- creepy migrant appeals and points to submission of explaining document.
- you civil servant don't give a rat's ass and initiate asset forfeiture.

Get this: an appeal by email is not an appeal, it requires a QUALIFIED SIGNATURE!

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) October 25, 2019

Here is the legal part:

Section 144 (1) sentence 1 Social Court Act.https://t.co/BEmVJvYreI

You need names?

Civil servant Anette Farrenkopf
Jobcenter München pic.twitter.com/dy1nDyfpi0

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) October 25, 2019

Who else is indispensable. Of course, a bunch of cunning judges because you want it wrapped up nice and legal. Here they are. Mi dispiace, but no pictures available. They obviously prefer it that way.

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) October 25, 2019

At this point you may ask why not file a criminal complaint with Munich prosecutors office? Glad you ask.

Prosecutor Ken Heidenreich sees absolutely no evidence and dishes up his standard Section 152 (2) StPO (File # 120 Js 194031/19 and 194031/19). Here's Kenny

Life is rich. pic.twitter.com/d3mgTysMC7

— Clarky Cat Boz Boz (@ErebusSagace) October 25, 2019

German Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency states: "Of course, there is structural racism in state agencies in Germany and even legal proceedings can lead to discrimination by the state organs of justice."

Below is the response of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency after I complained about the rejection of my application to the court.

My application on behalf of my Tibetan daughter for adjournment of the proceedings based on Art. 101 sec. 1 sentence 2 German Basic Law was rejected on the grounds that it was "frivolous"!

Art 101 states that the rules governing the appointment of the statutory judge must specify in advance as clearly as possible which court, which body of appeal and which judges are called to adjudicate the case.

This was not disclosed in the announcement of the court date in the letter of Sept. 3, 2019 sent to my daughter. Small wonder, cunning judges consider migrants stupid, in rotten Bavaria anyway.

Furthermore, the social courts in collusion with the Munich Jobcenter engaged in suppression of documents, thereby enabling fraud. These documents, sent to the Jobcenter, clearly proved the fact that my daughter had jobbed during her school summer vacation and these earnings were within the limit.

Learn the lesson in Germany: If you are a migrant (and you stay that your whole life!) do not rely or cite the Basic Law!

Here the email of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (bold by me):

Thank you for your inquiry to the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency. In your message you complain about a decision of the Bavarian State Social Court, which forbids you to proceed against a decision of the Jobcenter Munich against your daughter. In another message, you report the rejection of your request for adjournment by the court.

Unfortunately we can not act in your case. As a Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, we advise people who experience discrimination in certain situations. The basis of our work is the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG). However, this does not apply in the present case.

The AGG prohibits discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual identity. However, this prohibition of discrimination applies only to certain areas of life. It covers disadvantages in employment and in private legal transactions - that is, always when it comes to contractual relationships, eg. As for purchases, the visit of recreational events or the rental of apartments.

For disadvantages by government agencies such as courts (or even authorities such as the Jobcenter) the AGG does not apply. The paragraph 2 (1) (5) of the AGG which you cited and which mentions "social protection", is only relevant by reference to § 19 (2) AGG. This paragraph, in turn, is limited to "civil law obligations" (see the explanatory memorandum to the bill, Bundestag printed paper 16/1780, pages 31-32). Thus, only privately organized social protection is covered, not governmental bodies such as the Jobcenter or the social court system.

Of course (sic !), there is structural racism in state agencies in Germany as well, and even legal proceedings can lead to discrimination by the state organs of justice. For these civilian authorities, the general prohibition of discrimination in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2 of the German Basic Law (GG) applies, so that you are not unprotected even with your state authorities.

However, as the AGG does not apply in these cases, we can not personally or technically assess whether the Bavarian State Social Court has acted unlawfully in your case.


Referat Consulting

Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency

Glinkastraße 24, 10117 Berlin

Tel.: 03018/555-1855

Fax: 03018/555-41865

E-Mail: beratung@ads.bund.de

Bonzai Heiko Maas better shove "the image of Germany" into his fucking ass - #MeTwo

Federal Midget, Foreign Minister & 50-year old hag shagging Heiko Maas contaminated the already contaminated fake news gazette FAZ when he feigned concern about ze IMIJE of ze Fetterel Ripuplik:

Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) has expressed concern that the reputation of the Federal Republic could be damaged by the resignation of football player Mesut Özil. "It hurts the image of Germany, if the impression arises that racism is acceptable to us again," Maas said the "Bild" newspaper. "Unfortunately, the debate shows the bitter hostility migrants are still exposed to in our country." The number of xenophobic and anti-Semitic attacks is depressing. "That's just shameful for our country."

Heiko was assisted by another minister:

Federal Education Minister Anja Karliczek (CDU) meanwhile considers a "quiet and thorough discussion" on the integration of foreigners in Germany to be necessary. The newspaper "Tagesspiegel" she said, through the reactions to the farewell of Özil show that "now something breaks, which has been bubbling under the blanket for much longer, on both sides." There must be a social debate about "how we want to live together and what stands in the way of a tolerant approach". It is important to talk about values, rules and structures of integration.

 I felt addressed and the urge to respond. Perhaps it is the bond between Heiko and me, we both love road cycling and I would love to kill him on Stelvio, the Mortirolo, or Oetztaler.  Just saying. Anywho, here goes. Oh, there's more to come.

When I submitted the sub-let contract of my Tibetan daughter to the fucking Jobcenter the response was "not credible".

We are talking wellknown German institutionalized racism!

I felt it appropriate to copy Justice Min. @katarinabarley @BMJV_Bund

Gender equilibrium, ya know.

— Transnat. Socks Machine (@ErebusSagace) July 30, 2018

Institutional racism in the German police got NSU things done

Sometimes the raw efficiency of the German police is frightening. Frightening in the sense of is it just plain stupidity, intent, or the combination of both?

During the "investigations" of the National Socialist Underground murders between 2000 and 2007 throughout Germany a profiler of the LKA Baden-Wurttemberg made a blatant analyses when he stated:

"Against the background that the killing of people in our cultural area is covered with a high taboo, it can be deduced that the perpetrator is located with regard to his behavior system far outside the local normative and value system. [...] Also, the rigid code of conduct that characterizes the group is more in favor of grouping in Eastern and Southern Europe (not European Western background)."

"Vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Tötung von Menschen in unserem Kulturraum mit einem hohen Tabu belegt ist, ist abzuleiten, dass der Täter hinsichtlich seines Verhaltenssystems weit außerhalb des hiesigen Normen- und Wertesystems verortet ist. […] Auch spricht der die Gruppe prägende rigide Ehrenkodex eher für eine Gruppierung im ost- bzw. südeuropäischen Raum (nicht europäisch westlicher Hintergrund)".

From the German language 'die Schneeflocke' lawyer blog.

The blog title runs "Missed oppertunity", implying that German authorities missed and failed to properly investigate the Neonazi killings. Unfortunately, the author(s) of the blog missed the opportunity to debunk the whole myth of any serious intent to get to the bottom of those heinous crimes and the fact that obfuscation was the official order from day one. And that order came from the very top.

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.