Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (BMAS)
Wilhelmstrasse 49
10117 Berlin
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:
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:
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):
Sincerely,
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,
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.