Surely the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs BMFSFJ can substantiate the allegedly committed instances of libel

VG 2 K 215.19

Dear Ms Undersecretary Virnich, Mr/Mrs Dr. Tasma,

Further to my email of yesterday I wish to address some regrettable insinuations of yours and here I desire your good opinion. Just to be sure what this whole burlesque - unfortunately, I fail to think of any other more appropriate description - starting in August 2018 with a simple email to the Ministry of Culture and Media is about. Here is, yet again, my enquiry of back then:

"What tweets have made the blocking of the Twitter account @ErebusSagace by BMAS and BMFSFJ necessary and what are the general criteria of the Federal Government for blocking on Twitter?"

On page three of your reply to the court (1) you declare:

"According to the principles of general administrative law, an application made in violation of the law can be rejected as inadmissible".

Upon which you establish that "querulous requests and applications with insulting content constitute cases of abuse of rights."

It is here that I would like to suggest a moment of introspection as 'vanity is a weakness indeed. But pride, where there is a real superiority of mind, pride will be always under good regulation'. In that sense, I am sure you can substantiate your claim that I committed libel and I would be pleased if you could point out that/those instance/s of libel because I am unable to find any. All the more so, since you ask the court based this accusation to drop the case.

Allow me to furnish some advice with Ms Elizabeth Bennet: 'It is particularly incumbent on those who never change their opinion, to be secure of judging properly at first'.

I believe a time frame of seven days should be appropriate. If you feel a preference for ten days I shall be more than happy to oblige. After all, we both remember the BMJV's rapturous slogan "We are a State of Law". So be it!

Lastly, I am not quite sure what to make of your concluding sentence to the court on page four:

"If the court requests further comments, in particular on the defendants' reasons for blocking the plaintiff's Twitter account, a court order is politely requested."

Is that not what I had enquired to learn in the first place? It strikes me as ironic yet proves again ‘there is, I believe, in every disposition a tendency to some particular smugness — a natural defect, which seemingly not even the best education can overcome' (2).


Sincerely,


(1) I had contacted the Munich Social Court in this in Sept. 2019 and not the court in Berlin. As was to be expected, there was no answer.
(2) slightly edited.