German Justice Min. Barley, your Criminal Code 86a (swastikas), the (missing) disclaimer and the Munich Kangaroo Court's double standard application with a blogger

Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz
Mohrenstraße 37
10117 Berlin

June 16, 2018

cc AG, LG, OLG, StA Munich, BMAS & fly-by-night lawyer Aglaia Muth

Subject: Criminal Code 86a (swastikas), the (missing) disclaimer and the Munich Kangaroo Court's double standard application with a blogger

Dear Minister of Justice Barley,

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a democratic state in possession of an educated and refined citizenry of poets and thinkers must be in want of an impartial and liberal judiciary. On the occasion of your Speech at the Conference of 44 Associations of the European Judicial Association "Independence of the Judiciary and Dangers to the Rule of Law in Europe" on 24 May 2018 in Berlin you admonished:

"That is why the rule of law in the European Union is not negotiable. The functioning of the EU as a whole is called into question if the rule of law in one Member State is not guaranteed."  (1)

Unfortunately, some courts in the province of Bavaria, and here in particular the Courts in Munich, took no heed in the past of this matter of course. They rather indulged in the opposite and keep doing so to the extent that basic rights such as the right of access to court files was denied over years. Or the constitutional right to a fair court hearing being blocked by Munich prosecutors cum judges with abandon (Art. 6 ECHR).

To make matters worse, the Court of Munich even shows resemblances of a veritable Kangaroo Court when it tramples Germany's Basic Law when a blogger is persecuted. Viz the confiscation of a smart phone without court order is de rigueur in Munich. When an explanation for this unbecoming act was requested, the incident was brushed aside by senior prosecutor Ms. Tilmann in a simple letter dated June 01, 2017 (File # GA 313E-23/2017) containing her reproachable lie I had already received an explanation. There has never materialized one! Conservatively as I was educated, I deem this to be ill behoved to a public servant.

With these deplorable instances in mind, I would like to turn to your country's Criminal Code 86a and some obvious double standards. Double standards, in particular entertained by the Kangaroo Court Munich, to the extent that I fail to grasp any clear and logical application of said CC 86a. Unless of course, your country's court rulings are caste-conscious, or, in Western terms, based on social status.

Basically, I have not the pleasure of understanding the Munich courts' incessant accusations of my person for failing to expressly distance myself from national socialist ideology when to this day I never ever came across such a disclaimer in any of your country's Fake Newspapers or insufferable TV. After all, since the leading yellow press magazine SPIEGEL rightly proclaimed: "Hitler sells" this seems even more disconcerting.

If anyone in your ministry could direct me to such a disclaimer in a news outlet I would appreciate that. All the more, as Munich courts caution explicitely against the use of swastikas "from the permissible forms of communication (taboo), in order to prevent a habituation effect". Evidence gained from German media attests the opposite, alas.

I have spared no effort in the following (and more on the blog) to point to some blatant incongruities of legal assessments in various courts in Germany about images with swastikas that leave me baffled. Perhaps it ultimately boils down to the fact that a Hartz 4 recipient such as I just lacks the proper intellectual means of grasping subtle judicial nuances in a law's application; perhaps it is just crude arbitrariness. At which point I would be remiss not to remember one salient part of your speech:

"Ladies and gentlemen, judicial independence is central to the functioning of a rule of law. Thus, in Germany too, one of the most important principles of our legal system is the independence of the individual judge. This constitutional requirement binds all government agencies and authorities."

Does not contravene CC 86a
(Prosecutor Tilmann, Munich)

Severely contravenes CC 86a

 (OLG Court Munich) and
necessitated computer confiscation.

Does not contravene CC 86a
(Prosec. Brümmer, HH)

Horrendously  contravenes CC 86a (OLG Munich)
and called for second computer
confiscation to save the nation.

     

Just fine, no contravention

German humor (no contravention acc. to
Mainz prosecutor)

Full load Hitler.
Fully in line with law. Sales good.

Am I missing something in the greater context of things? Perhaps a Straussian reading that has escaped me? Could a dive into mood affiliation assist me? Pray tell, dear Minister.

To further the communication on this particularly important subject of rule-of-law structures and their irritating implementation in enclaves of Germany I have elected to copy the respective Munich courts and the prosecution on this matter. May there be a fruitful exchange.

Please allow to presage my next letter on the interesting fact of the existence of a Censorship Trio of the Labor Agency Munich comprising three intellectual juggernaughts, the Messrs. Bechheim, Bockes and criminal blackmailer Jager (Criminal Code section 240), an individual of disagreeable countenance. Said gentlemen protected and covered by the Munich Court, the Munich police, and my fly-by-night lawyer Aglaia Muth from 2013 until July 2017! Here I could not help but remember a paragraph from your well-honed short speech:

"And we want to link the pact with a campaign for the rule of law: everyone has to understand that a rule of law can only work if its rules are respected. At the same time we have to make clear that legal action is open to anyone if he sees his rights violated by the public power."

I found the essence of that paragraph reassuring and inspiring, yet at the same time conflicting with my experience of whimsical obstruction by the Munich courts and in particular the prosecution to get a retrial. A retrial, as not even the most basic requirements of a fair court hearing had been provided and least of all by my crooked and scheming defense "lawyer" Aglaia Muth.

Dear Minister, never have I desired your good opinion more on this subject matter, a matter historically hinged so deeply with this country, as in these dire times of neonationalist motions afflicting the country. It is particularly incumbent on me who rarely changes his opinion, to be secure of judging properly at first. Pray tell your good opinion.

I would be remiss not to mention more subjects worthy to be explored in further communications where I would treasure your good opinion as well.

• Of particular interest to me would be to learn when some prosecutors in Munich elect to show a comportment of mature adults? Is there a stipulated age in Munich?
• Secondly, can it be expected from a judge to be privileged with a sufficiant command of the German language as to avoid filing a libel complaint based on a deficiency thereof?
• Can a senior prosecutor be considered snot-nosed when he forbids a critique of historic falsifcations in movies about the Nazis or is it legerdemain?
• Is judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann from the AG Munich running in competition with the Comedy Channel or should her performance be filed under 'female exuberance'?
• Is it a hallmark of exquisite professionalism when a judge on Feb. 15, 2017 tables a written decision during a court hearing that is a lie from A to Z, proven by a blog post from Burhof and SZ article a month later?
• Can a court be called completely corrupted when it covers up a fully depraved public employee who filed a complaint using a false name and his true identity is obvious and the name of the creep is Jürgen Sonneck, erstwhile deputy CEO Jobcenter Munich!
• Should I assume a malfunctioning of my hitherto excellently working bullshit detector when prosecutor Tilmann claimed in her letter dated April 12, 2018 Munich police has no transcripts of a secret phonecall made in Aug./Sept. 2012 by Censorship Trio member Bechheim?

Perhaps it can be subsumed thusly:

"There is, I believe, in every disposition a tendency to some particular evil— a natural defect, which not even the best education can overcome.”

Yours very truly and devoted,


(1) Google translate