Euro Clowns', aka European Court of Human Rights, German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek reliable protector of criminal German civil servant Jürgen Sonneck. Puts paid to Nemo judex

German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek
& Euro Clown judge Potocki
keeping Germany's image squeaky clean.

F A X

European Court of Human Rights
German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek


cc Chancellory Berlin, Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, BMAS

Case 51482/18 (Single-Judge decision) - German criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck who operated under the false name “C. Paucher” protected by German ECHR Section V.

July 7, 2019

Dear German Registrar Westerdiek,

In ‘Of Publicity’ Jeremy Bentham insisted "Without publicity, no good is permanent; under the auspices of publicity, no evil can continue.” In the same vein John Stuart Mill wrote in ‘Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform’: ’The moral sentiment of mankind, in all periods of tolerably enlightened morality, has condemned concealment’.

You at the ECHR German Section V, aka The German Connection (1), seem to subscribe to Cardinal Richelieu instead: “Secrecy is the first essential in affairs of state” when the image of Germany is at stake and a full blown idiot. The principle of Nemo judex in causa sua leaves you Germans blasé. In addition, the ECHR has the means: Single-Judge decisions, a means of ominous concealment.

In her book ‘Epistemic injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing’ Fricker defines two kinds of epistemic injustice: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. Your Court’s Single-Judge decision belongs to the realm of testimonial injustice which occurs when someone's knowledge is ignored or not believed because that person is the member of a particular social group.

As Economist Bernard Connolly observed: “The European Union is explicitly anti-democratic. It aims at eliminating the rule of law ... It increasingly is Angela Merkel”. One can only shudder reading about ‘Rule 18A2 – Non-judicial rapporteurs’ in Dinah Shelton’s (US professor of International Law Emeritus) "Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights”:

“… the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states …”

Coincidentally, you are German! “Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen” is a German saying. It gets even more scary in "Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system" by Gerards and Glas from the University Utrecht:

“… non-judicial rapporteurs (Registry officers) sift through, assess and categorise the many incoming applications. … these are presented with lists containing single-sentence descriptions of each case. … Relying on the quality of these preparatory documents, the judges usually simply rubber-stamp them, without looking into the file”.

With the Single-Judge decision 51482/18 YOU protected and covered the primitive German criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck (from Munich) who had the ass-hatted idea to email a criminal complaint to police using the false name “C. Paucher”, accusing me falsely of hate speech! That amounts to malicious intent.

The blazing stupidity of this criminal creep cum Nazi-style civil servant Jürgen Sonneck was just so embarrassing for Germany, it had to be hidden in the Fritzl Keller of ECHR Single-Judge decisions and, this being "The rotten Heart of Europe" (Bernhard Connolly again),  the ECHR which claims to honor and guarantee human rights in the hodgepodge that is Europe, covers its tracks and resorts to the destruction of the case files:

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

The ECHR should have the decency to call Single-Judge decisions what they are: a Registry rapporteur decision signed by a single judge who has not even looked at the case file in toto, “seconded by personnel paid for by individual states” who try their best to keep their country’s image clean. In particular, when the EU paymaster’s and high-reputation country Germany’s image needs to be preserved!

In ‘The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights’  Erik Voeten, Georgetown University, informs:

"Admissibility decisions are based on the recommendation of a rapporteur, which is usually the national judge of the respondent government, granting that judge considerable leverage over national cases.”

Shai Dothan addresses in ‘The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group’ the country-specific partialities and bias of the ECHR:

Importantly for the purposes of this paper, international courts are also advised to treat different states differently. States that enjoy a high-reputation for compliance with international law pose a greater threat to the court. Their non-compliance or even their criticism can significantly harm the court's reputation. To counter this threat, international courts treat high-reputation states more leniently than they do low-reputation states. They will reserve their most demanding judgments—especially those that are based on doctrinal novelties—to states that have a low-reputation.

This is seconded by Dinah Shelton who again in ‘Significantly Disadvantaged?’ observes:

“As states do not like to be found in violation of their human rights obligations, it is not surprising that they would seek to limit admissibility, even (or especially) in respect to meritorious claims.” 

And further in a rather damning description of court proceedings:

“As Cameron has noted and judges on the Court have confirmed in discussions with the author, the lists transmitted electronically to the single judges contain only one or two sentence summaries of each matter recommended for dismissal, identifying the right being invoked; the judges do not see the applications and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry.”

German Registrar Westerdiek, you certainly delivered big time. For that you deserve a financial bonus and I will personally address this duty of the German government in an open letter to Chancellor Merkel. My motto is: credit where credit is due! The image of a country has to be safeguarded and nurtured, whatever it takes. You applied the final sanitization to this seedy feat conceived by the civil servant Jürgen Sonneck, hiding behind a false name, and subsequently covered up by Munich police, the Kangaroo Court in Munich and the ridiculous Red Divas in Karlsruhe. So reminiscent of Nazi times, Adorno would muse.

When the Court’s decision reads “the Court finds in the light of all the material in its possession and

in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto and that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met” and subsequently, “the Court declares the application inadmissible”, it triggers the question what makes this internet meme NOT covered by free speech? Where does the ECHR see a “means of propaganda” in this Marissa Mayer meme?

“(2) Means of propaganda within the meaning of subsection (1) shall only be those writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) the content of which is directed against the free, democratic constitutional order or the idea of international understanding.” - German Criminal Code 86

Being a patriotically committed German Registrar, vested in the solemn duty to safeguard Germany’s image, you chose to be unconcerned by this primitive and heinous act of

• the criminal civil servant J. Sonneck alias “C. Paucher” and 
• armed police dashing into the room of my Tibetan daughter and confiscation of our computers for the second time does not bother you. Neither do you care when
• the laptop of my then school-attending daughter is deliberately damaged by the Kangaroo Court Munich.
• Smartphone confiscation without court order by police just like in Nazi times leaves your Euro-Clowns Court (the British SUN and The Independent) cold.
• The same intended with my daughter’s smartphone is fine and my complaint according to Article 35 is “manifestly ill-founded”?

Your Court does not even follow its own set criteria. THE NEW ADMISSIBILITY CRITERION UNDER ARTICLE 35 § 3 (b) OF THE CONVENTION states under section II:

5. In 2010, the High Contracting Parties invited the Court to give full effect to the new admissibility criterion and to consider other possibilities of applying the principle de minimis non curat praetor.6 Further in 2011 the Court has been invited to “give full effect to the new admissibility criterion in accordance with the de minimis principle”.

The ECHR is lamenting an increase of repetitive cases. My case was about an internet meme showing the former Yahoo CEO in a photoshopped Nazi uniform and a text about ‘Work from Home’. I am not not aware of any case where the ECHR was confronted with an internet meme. So it was clearly not de minimis nor was it repetitive.

The notion Germany is a country with free speech is an interested ruse when one reads that “Only 18 Percent Of Germans Feel Free To Voice Views In Public” according to a survey conducted by the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach and published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. And over 31 percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. In his classic essay 'The Law' Frédéric Bastiat' wrote:

"The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces, for the purpose of acting in the sphere in which they have a right to act, of doing what they have a right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all."

Alas, the German Section V of the ECHR chose to ignore this tenet and trampled human rights with abandon to protect the image of Germany, the paymaster of the EU, an “explicitly anti-democratic, crony capitalist state” (Bernard Connolly).

Thank you,


(1) no connection or sequel of 'The French Connection' (1971) and "Popeye" Doyle.

. . . . . . . . .

The German Connection - ECHR Section V

ECHR German Section V

and here is Jürgen Sonneck, criminal civil servant covered from bottom to top.

Hi, I do not always use the false name "C. Paucher" but when I do
I can be sure to be protected by German law officials and the ECHR.

The whole sordid affair here.