"EU Fines Are Just Stealth Taxation Against U.S. Tech Companies"

He nails it.

Comment by Ganja Man on article "Germany Cashes Out, Hits Facebook With Fines For Failing To Comply With Its Ultra-Vague 'Hate Speech' Law" :

This is no secret. U.S. companies understand that EU Commission fines, regardless of whether they're based on privacy or competition, are just a revenue generation exercises. You can find the most egregious privacy violators or antitrust cartels in Europe, and they're given slaps on the wrists by EU regulators. But Silicon Valley tech companies are fined billions for made up violations.

 It all started in the 2000s with the EU fines against Microsoft. The Commission got addicted to the fines, and since then, they've gone after Intel, Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc., repeatedly, to extract fines for supposed violations. It's basically just stealth taxation and tariffs. If the U.S. pulled this stunt on European companies doing business in the U.S., the practice would stop overnight.

German Twitter Nazis

Just like in Grammar Nazis. You can not even joke about women's soccer, or some German is pissed.

Twitter complaint on June 10, 2019

Hello,

We have received a complaint regarding your account, @ErebusSagace, for the following content. 

Tweet ID: 1137325862989258753

Tweet Text: @RegSprecher @DFB_Frauen OK, und wer kocht jetzt daheim???

We have investigated the reported content and could not identify any violations of the Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311) or applicable law. Accordingly, we have not taken any action at this time. 

Sincerely,

Twitter

in English:

Tweet Text: @RegSprecher @DFB_Frauen OK, and who will be cooking at home???

Bertrand Russell in 1933 on why people (today) are xenophobic

Over at NAUTILUS it reads:

On this past International Holocaust Remembrance Day, I reread a bit of Bertrand Russell. In 1933, dismayed at the Nazification of Germany, the philosopher wrote “The Triumph of Stupidity,” attributing the rise of Adolf Hitler to the organized fervor of stupid and brutal people—two qualities, he noted, that “usually go together.” He went on to make one of his most famous observations, that the “fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

Here I want to point to another subject he touched. In 1933 Bertrand Russell wrote the following piece and it explains the reason why people (today) are xenophobic. Why they objectify their hatred with such mundane things like the head scarf, way of dressing, a burka they may encounter perhaps one or two times in year, or the arranged marriage. As if Westerners do not arrange their partnerships based on economic, educational considerations, and/or (political) beliefs. Please take notice of the Oxford comma, thank you. Or all dress in fucking boring jeans. Neoliberalism with the intrinsic competition and economic insecurity asks for a scape goat. Here is Betrand Russell in 1933:

Mortals and Others: Bertrand Russell's American Essays, 1931-1935, Volume 2

On Race Hatred 

Recent events in Germany have brought to the fore the hatred of Christians for jews which existed everywhere in the Middle Ages but which in England and America has lost most of its virulence. Both the English and the Americans have been surprised and shocked to find that in a nation which considers itself in the forefront of civilisation so brutal and pointless an emotion can have such strength. 

But, in fact, wherever diverse races mix, the feeling of race hatred is apt to grow up. Negroes and Mongolians suffer from it in America. The English have no occasion for it at home since the population is racially homogeneous, but they develop it at once when they go to South Africa. All primitive races feel it and are apt to kill strangers merely because they are strangers. 

How far is this feeling instinctive, and how far does it have other sources? There is a story by Joseph Conrad called 'An Outcast of the Islands', where a white man falls desperately in love with a native girl, but after he has lived with her for a while he comes to hate her on account of her strangeness. 

This sort of situation suggests the existence of an instinctive element, but there is no doubt that many other factors contribute to the politically important forms of race antagonism. Wherever it becomes powerful, economic motives invariably play an important part. In the case of the hatred of Jews, this is obvious and admitted. The Chinese and Japanese were hated in California because they were willing to accept a lower standard of life. In the case of the Negroes, it can hardly be said that there is race hatred in the proper sense of the word: so long as they are content to accept a properly subordinate position, they are well liked, and it is only when they make an attempt to assert equal rights that white men become hostile to them. The desire for domination is a different thing from race hatred, though it easily passes over into it as soon as domination becomes precarious. 


Mortals and Others 

I think myself that what is instinctive in race hatred is fear: fear of anything strange, fear of anything threatening our established way of living. When there is no occasion for fear, race hatred does not arise. If the world were stable and everyone's economic position were secure. I do not for a moment believe that the different races of the world would hate each other. 

During the last two hundred years it has been customary to speak of the benefits derived from competition and economic insecurity as sources of industry and effort. But competition and economic insecurity have other effects which have been less noticed although they are becoming more important. These effects are connected with fear and the consequent hatred. This is particularly grave in the matter of race hatred since the world is becoming more and more of an economic unity and therefore the occasions for race hatred are increasing. 

Race hatred is one of the most cruel and least civilised emotions to which men in the mass are liable, and it is of the utmost importance for human progress that every possible method of diminishing it should be adopted. The most potent of such methods undoubtedly would be economic security. It should be realised, even at this moment when we are all suffering from economic insecurity, that there is no technical difficulty in establishing security for all. The difficulties that stand in the way are, on the one hand, a belief in competition as a good thing and, on the other, the determination of the more fortunate races and classes not to allow equality to others even though there should be no loss to themselves. 

I fear that in this particular matter of the conflict between races, a number of bitter lessons will be needed before men learn that kindliness and tolerance are not only virtues but indispensable means to our own happiness. 

24 May I933

Best of 2018 - The Jester Equipe from Karlsruhe, aka Germany's Federal Constitutional Court

As well known under the nom de plume 'The Divas in Red' or 'Joker Boyz'.

Paulus, Kirchhof and Masing (from left) - photo: Uli Deck/dpa

Seems like there is tradition in fashion, if you know what I mean. Anyhoo, these ridiculous blokes showed no interest in someone who

1. was a civil servant (Beamter) at the Jobcenter Munich until I exposed him as the one who had sent an email with a criminal complaint to police using a false name! Everything covered up by police and Munich Court.
2. After that he was quickly shifted to the 'Department for Education and Sports Munich'.
3. Had all our IT equipment confiscated incl. router. No free speech for shitface bloggers in Germany!
4. The laptop of my Tibetan daughter (who needed it for school) was deliberately damaged by some blokes of the Munich Kangaroo Court.
5. Confiscation of smartphone without court order (no problem for Karlsruhe)

Here is the criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck operating like a rat in the sewers of anonymity under cover of the night just like in Nazi times.

On the cheapest paper you can get these aloof blokes informed me of their decision taken on March 4, 2018 that my constitutional complaint had not been accepted (File # 1 BvR 246/18). Of course they have never read it in the first place. By law, they are required to give a reason for their decision. Fuck it, you get none.

This internet meme is forbidden in Germany according to the Kangaroo Court Munich. And the text is hate speech should you ask!

Contravenes Criminal Code 86a

Oh, in case you wonder about the standards of these guys in ridiculous red bathrobes, you actually can deny the Holocaust in Germany! Yes, yes, the judges Eichberger, Kirchhof and Masing have got you covered.

Here the honorable judges in front of their posh digs. (Image courtesy FT Alphaville. With much appreciation to Her Majesty's Kingdom)

That was by the way my fourth constitutional complaint.

Here is more about them guys. And even more in German.

ECtHR appeal - Criminal complaint about Internet meme, submitted by public employee & Useful Idiot Jurgen Sonneck using a false name. Covered up by Munich police and Munich Court

On Oct. 29, 2018 my complaint went to the ECtHR. The complaint is based on the ass-hatted idea of the Munich public employee (in German 'Beamter') Jurgen Sonneck back in May 2015 to send a criminal complaint to police via the police's email contact form. The ingenious added twist was he used the false name "C. Paucher" to hide his identity, or so he thought. Police quickly established there is no one in the whole of Bavaria breathing with that name.

Why did this Useful Idiot of a government labor agency choose the rather bland and uninspiring name "C. Paucher" when other options would be readily available? And with a much better ring. Like the sophisticated sounding Art Vandelay of the highly reputed export/import company or the esteemed Dr Martin van Nostrand from the Hoffermandhoffneir Clinic in Belgium. Jurgen probably felt unqualified to use these names for his, well, rapidly diminishing state of head hair.

Jurgen Sonneck alias "C. Paucher" on Facebook

Though Munich police had the IP address they did not bother to follow up on that. Why? A fucking shitface of a blogger, that is me, had to be investigated and hopefully shut down. The rotten Munich Court also did not feel any inclination to follow my presented damning circumstantial evidence about this rotten fucktard Jurgen Sonneck.

What was the criminal complaint about? Glad you ask. An internet meme. This one here:

Meme forbidden in Germany.
Contravenes allegedly Criminal Code 86a

This meme contravenes Criminal Code 86a according to the Munich Court. BTW, this for example does not.

Does NOT contravene Criminal Code 86a according to prosecutor Tilmann.

And neither does this.

Does NOT contravene Criminal Code 86a according to prosecutor 

You are a little confused now? You should not, this is Germany, there is no free speech and, for heaven's sake, do not blog. Unless it is about tulips or buttermilk, perhaps vegan food. Apart from that, stay quiet because when it comes to free speech Germany adheres to a tried and trusted history. It is gene-based.

Jurgen Sonneck, who at that time was second-in-charge at the Munich Jobcenter, was displeased about this blog post from November 2014. In May 2015, mind you! The complaint was obviously planned well ahead. Jurgen felt so sure nobody would discover him. Balding Jurgen saw hate speech in this post. Of course it was a red herring that the Munich police quickly grabbed.

The text reads: "Would you like to agree with Marissa from Yahoo?

Look, dear Miss Martina Musati, we will clarify such images with Nazi symbols before the Supreme Court. The Jobcenter will never curtail my right to express my opinion!"

After this short intro here the essential parts of my complaint to the ECtHR (a complete complaint form comprises of altogether 13 pages and you have just three pages to describe your complaint which is not a lot considering what went on in court. I can tell you, it was mind-boggling). I hope for acceptance. I know about 50 to 60 ECtHR judgements by now and if I am not completely mistaken, this complaint would be a novelty.

For easier reading text below (slightly edited Google translate).

Page 5/13

E. Presentation of the facts

56.

Criminal conviction for using marks of an unconstitutional organization in a meme:

From 1990 to Oct. 18, 2005 the complainant lived in Nepal among the local community with a multitude of different ethnic groups. After his return to Germany, the complainant became self-employed in the home decor sector after unsuccessful job search. Since the Jobcenter deducts all income over € 30.00 (!) immediately as income, building up a business was impossible. As a top up the complainant therefore received Hartz 4.

After this recent criminal complaint submitted by the former deputy managing director of the Jobcenter Munich Jürgen Sonneck using a false name, the complainant had to fold his business. His disputes with the Jobcenter Munich began in 2012 immediately with the start of his self-employment. Since the end of 2012, the complainant and his daughter have been massively attacked by the Jobcenter Munich and the Labor Agency with three criminal charges that have interfered with his right to free speech because he started this blog to inform about his experiences with the Jobcenter.

At around 8:45 am on October 28, 2015, two plainclothes policemen and a policewoman appeared and demanded admission on presentation of a Judgmental Decree (Annex 3) dated Oct. 8, 2015, which was not signed by the judge. A male police officer immediately rushed to the door to the complainant's daughter's room and threw it open without knocking. The daughter of the complainant, however, was already in school. During the trial, the complainant was physically searched and it was obvious that the female police officer was supposed to body-search his daughter. The apartment was photographed and also the house from the outside. All IT equipment including router was confiscated, because a blogger had to be rendered incapable of any access to the Internet. This was the second computer confiscation after 2013 (then for 25 months without financial compensation!). This as well after a criminal complaint by the Munich labor office. Although the confiscation of the smartphone was not mentioned in the Judgmental Decree, this too was confiscated (Annex 5). The same was undoubtedly planned with his daughter's smartphone.

Inspection of court files in April 2016 revealed that an online criminal complaint had been sent to the police Munich Kriminalfachdezernat 4 on May 7, 2015 against the applicant stating a false name "C. Paucher" (Annex 4, p. 2). Conspicuous, chronological evidence incl. IP-address immediately narrowed the circle of potential perpetrators to someone from the Jobcenter Munich (supplemental Annex 2 'Jürgen Sonneck circumstantial evidence'). The email complaint sees hatespeech in a blog post (Annex 1) published in November 2014 (!) which also shows a meme of the former CEO of Yahoo Marissa Mayer (Annex 2). It is a photoshopped picture of M. Mayer, dressed in a Nazi uniform with swastika and an applied text "Work from Home? Nine!". The picture was shown here: http://www.classicforwards.com/memes/marissa-mayer-work-home-meme/ and can now be seen on Pinterest (Annex 2). It was downloaded in this form by the complainant in 2014.

The Munich courts obviously did not understand the nature of memes. According to Dictionary.com, a meme is "1. an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means. 2. an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, often with slight variations." According to Wikipedia, an" Internet meme, "is commonly known as just a meme, ... an activity, concept, catchphrase, or piece of media that spreads, often as mimicry or for humorous purposes, from person to person via the Internet." Dawkins defined it in his book 'The Selfish Gene' as" the basic unit of cultural transmission, or imitation. 'Vice' states: "You can not make a meme. The meme part is the phenomenon in which it is placed". One of the most famous memes currently is "Is this a pigeon?", although a butterfly is shown. 'Vox' explains it, inter alia: "But "Is it a pigeon? "and its cousins may serve as a counter to the American Chopper meme because they allow the meme creator to frame an issue completely through the static image they're

Page 6/13

57.

presenting. And, crucially, the "misunderstanding" at the center of this meme can be deliberate, accidental, disingenuous, or ironic. That allows us to comment on all manner of social trends and flaws in ourselves and others."

The M. Mayer meme refers to a decision by the Yahoo CEO to end the hitherto existing possibility of working from home. "Nine" stands for a 'No' (German 'Nein') or the nine to five job. The word 'Nine' was also used in reference to the typical German stubborn and strict style. The Nazi uniform is an obvious vehicle for visual exaggeration and has nothing to do with propaganda. Yahoo is an American media company and not known as a proponent of National Socialism. The text of the blog post is about freedom of expression and courts in a democratic state. National Socialism never had anything to do with freedom of expression and women never wore such a Nazi uniform. It is an obvious juxtaposition. To denounce the blog post as hatespeech or as the police report says as part of a "vendetta" (page 3), is abstruse and malicious.

The police did not investigate the IP address, but sniffed extensively on the blog (see police report Annex 4). Policeman Mr Carstens explained during the trial before the LG Munich on Feb. 15, 2017, IP address investigation is too cumbersome. This onesided investigation violates § 160 para. 2 StPO and in particular § 163b StPO measures to establish identity. A letter to Judge Pabst dated April 26, 2016 (Annex 7) to issue a court order to release the name and address of the holder of the IP address 217.253.91.237, citing § 100g Code of Criminal Procedure, remained unanswered. As a result, the complainant was prevented from the opportunity to question the sender of that email pursuant to Art. 6 para. 3 d ECHR. The police report is clearly written in a partisan manner.

The computer of his daughter was returned in a deliberately (!) damaged condition (clear scratches in the lower left quarter of the screen and a broken trackpad) by the Munich Court. Since it was unusable, the complainant sent it to the Federal Ministry f. Work and Social Affairs BMAS in January 2017. The MacBook was confiscated even though the daughter needed it for school. The then attorney of the complainant in a trial before the Munich court on May 6, 2015 which resulted in the ECHR Case 35285/16 warned in the presence of the daughter of the complainant literally that if the blog should be continued, "they will destroy you" (in German "machen die Sie fertig"). He was referring to the Munich Court.

In January 2017, the complainant sent a complaint to the Police President of Munich (Annex 15) about the confiscation of the smartphone WITHOUT a judicial decision. Senior prosecutor Tilmann from the Munich Higher Regional Court referred in her reply of 6/1 2017 (Annex 16) to an opinion with file # 120 Js 119571/17. The complainant has no correspondence with this file number.

On April 21, 2016, the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich filed an indictment of the complainant for use of marks of National Socialist organizations in two cases and insulting Judge Pabst (Annex 6). On June 22, 2016, AG München sentenced the complainant to a total fine of 290 daily rates of € 10, - equal to € 2,900.00 (Annex 10). The complainant had earlier filed an objection against the judge (Annex 8), which was rejected (Annex 9). Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann showed again the same aggressive behavior as in a hearing a year earlier and expressed in the final pleading her displeasure about the request for her dismissal from the case for bias. Furthermore, Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann steadfastly refused to allow the daughter of the complainant to attend the trial as a witness. It was not until he became very loud - his daughter later confirmed that she had clearly heard this outside - that she was admitted. The highlight was the Judge's statement, ECtHR decisions do not apply to Germany, only German law.

The LG Munich Court, represented for the third time by Judge Bassler, overturned the ruling on February 15, 2017 (Annex 13) and decided on a fine of 50 daily rates of € 10.00 for the publication of the Marissa Mayer meme. However, the complainant had expressed his justified concerns for bias of Judge Bassler at the outset of the court hearing. He saw her impartiality as questionable based on past experience as well as relying on the decision of the ECtHR in the case 'FERRANTELLI AND SANTANGELO v. ITALY (Application No 19874/92) and Sentences 58 to 60 of the decision pertaining a "double circumstance". In this particular case a triple circumstance. The meeting was suspended for approximately 40 minutes and continued after the decision of Judge Hansen (Annex 12) was issued. The content of the decision is a lie, because according to a decision of the BGH of February 8, 2017 (1 StR 493/16) there existed, at least temporarily, no allocation of duties plan at the LG Munich I for the jury for the years 2012, 2014 and 2015! It seems strange when a defendant who was reported to police in all three cases by labor agencies

Page 7/13

58.

has the "luck" of getting the same judge assigned in every case stretching over a time period of four years.

None of the witnesses requested by the complainant were summoned (Annex 11)! The complainant had expressly called as witness for interrogation Jürgen Sonneck being a strong suspect. This once again curtailed the applicant's right to equality of arms, an integral part of the Convention. His allegation of unilateral investigations (see § 160 (2) and § 163 STPO), as well as references to cases of the ECtHR such as Rachdad v. France (complaint no. 71846/01) where the duty to seek witnesses was determined was not mentioned in the judgment.

The assertion of the court in the judgment under 'V. Legal appraisal '(Annex 13), "it is also not recognizable in the picture that the defendant distances himself clearly from National Socialism," lacks any rationality and shows that the court has not understood the function and essence of a meme and neither wanted to understand. Furthermore, in the 'Legal Appraisal' the court cites the 'taboo' of NS symbols and refers to Fischer, Commentary on the Criminal Code, on § 86 a. Paragraph 2 a. Judge Bassler deliberately left out important remarks by Thomas Fischer. 2a (Fischer's 63rd edition) states: "On the other hand, if the offense serves to exclude unconstitutional efforts in the run-up to organized propaganda (prohibition of propaganda), then any use, even indifferent or neutral content, should be excluded from the facts. Conversely, the enforcement of a meaningless taboo would not allow content-based exceptions. ("Legitimate purposes" in particular the "dispute", see paragraph III). See also Chapter 2 b Fischer: "Even according to its wording, § 86a follows the taboo concept if one does not interpret the terms" use "and" spread "in an intentional sense. A taboo of signs or words abstracting from the context of utterance and action can hardly be considered legitimate under the conditions of a society, and legitimacy gains from the formal openness of communication."

If the court is really that much concerned about the taboo and the confrontation of a habituation effect, the plethora of Nazi images in established (partly coercively financed) German media remains a mystery to the complainant. On the occasion of the Austrian swastika-shaped cutlet case, the public prosecutor's office in Mainz in May 2016 correctly ruled as follows: "According to the facts presented, there is no initial suspicion of punishable conduct (section 152 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) The content of this article and its distribution do not comply with any penalty. ... ".

On April 6, 2017, the complainant appealed at the Audit Office (Annex 14). He complained in particular that the AG and LG Munich did not meet the requirements of a court according to Art. 6 ECHR and criticized the unilateral investigation against him, although the police and prosecutors knew the IP address of the email sender. On Sept. 13, 2017, the Munich Attorney General's Office wrote an application to reject the revision (Annex 17). In point II 1 a, it cited a lack of procedural complaints that complied with the requirements of section 344 (2) sentence 2. These, however, had been made in his appeal in 1.1.1. and 1.1.2., also 1.1.5. to 1.1.8. and 2.1.1. to 2.1.10.

On Sept. 23, 2017, the complainant took a stand (Annex 18) and rebuked OSTA Weiß, because the lies that so far had been put forward by judges over the years became a little too much to bear for him. The Munich judiciary obviously deems Hartz 4 recipients as intellectually retarded and to who anything can be served. The  complainant is stunned how a studied lawyer such as OStA Weiss is able to write the following circular sentence with regard to the meme: "The stated use and design of the procedural images using symbols of Nazi tyranny rather allows a variety of interpretations, even an interpretation that is just not to be regarded as a distancing" and to expect this to be viewed as a proper argument. As a result, the Higher Regional Court of Munich decided on January 10, 2018 (Annex 19) to reject the appeal against the judgment of the Landgericht München I as unfounded.

On February 1, 2018, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint within the deadline (Annex 20). It was not accepted for decision on June 8, 2018 (Annex 21). Prior on Jan. 26, 2016, the daughter of the complainant had in vain requested an interim order for the release of the confiscated IT equipment to the Federal Constitutional Court (Extra Appendix 1) (File # 2 BvQ 7/17). Her laptop was essential for the school. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the application on March 4, 2016.


F. Statement of alleged infringement (s) of the Convention and / or Protocols and justification of the complaint

Page 8/13

59.

Asserted article

Art. 10 (1) ECHR (freedom of expression and freedom of the press)

Explanation

The complainant was convicted under § 86a para. 1 no. 1 of the Criminal Code (StGB). The norm of § 86a StGB is directed against the use and distribution of National Socialist marks as well as marks of other political parties and associations, as far as they have been declared unconstitutional or have been banned.

The norm protects the prevailing opinion in Germany as an abstract danger offense both the democratic constitutional state before a revival of unconstitutional organizations and before their "trivialisation" by getting used to certain characteristics as well as the political peace and thus also the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany Abroad. The enforceability of the intended protection takes place in German jurisdiction by a tabooing of the signs in the form of a comprehensive banishment from the public, so that the subjective relationship of the signs user is basically irrelevant and also a negative or neutral use of the facts of § 86a StGB met. Such a far-reaching interpretation of the standard at the expense of the rights under Article 10 (1) of the ECHR is not "necessary in a democratic society" and contrary to Convention law, as the intended protection of legal interests can also be achieved by criminalizing only a content-related identification with the content of the sign. According to the Convention, a condemnation may only be made if the use according to the specific circumstances can be seen as a confession of the perpetrator to the content-related goals of the organization. The legal interest of political peace is only in danger if the use of the forbidden symbols takes place confessionally. Only in this way can the fact that the scope of protection protects not only the content of the statement but also its form be taken into account. Likewise, only in this way can the interest of the democratic process, for which the fundamental rights of communication have constitutive significance, be sufficiently taken into account (prohibition of propaganda instead of taboo).

The Marissa Mayer Meme referred to the critical economic and business situation of Yahoo. The comedy of the meme lies among others in that IT companies are the real proponents of work from home. The Nazi uniform visually underscores the CEO's ultimate demand for unconditional focus on the company's economic well-being. Any insinuation of another context or even propaganda would be abstruse.

The district court has justified its decision merely by the fact that " ... in the picture it is also not recognizable that the defendant expresses himself clearly against national socialism" and "it also does not result from the context of the use why the image of the CEO of Yahoo in a Nazi uniform is shown". The courts have not understood the nature of memes, as they are not topic-specific, as in this case on the occasion of the decision to end home work at Yahoo, but partly used in wide cross-thematic contexts on the Internet (see meme 'Is this a pigeon'). The Nazi uniform functions in the picture as a double visual exclamation mark for the "Nine!". The court's question about the function of the Nazi uniform in Marissa Mayer equals a request to explain a joke. As Wikipedia explains, a meme acts "as mime or for humorous purposes". In addition, women in the Nazi era did not wear such uniforms.

The court's reference to "exclusion of certain symbols from the permitted forms of communication (taboo) ... to prevent a habituation effect" deliberately omits important passages in Thomas Fischer: "Due to the special requirements of the fundamental right of freedom of expression, however, exceptions are required if the behavior, despite the external use of the signs, does not undermine the purpose of the protection". (see BGH 25, 30, 32 f., 25, 133, 136 f., 51, 244 [= NJW 07, 1602; note Schroeder JZ 07, 851; Hörnle NStZ 07, See below 18.) This statement is compatible with the constitution (BVerfG NJW O6, 3052). "Similarly, the statements of Fischer under 2 b See also decision of the public prosecutor Mainz in the swastika-cutlet case in the ZdF.

Page 9/13

60.

Asserted article

Art. 6 para. 3 d ECHR (violation of the right of confrontation)
and
Art. 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)

Explanation

On April 26, 2016, the applicant sent an application to Judge Pabst at the Munich District Court (Annex 14) to issue a court order to release the name and address of the holder of the IP address 217.253.91.237 citing § 100g of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He listed eight conspicuous clues that clearly pointed to a staff member of the Jobcenter. The refusal to answer the application at all, proves the partiality of the Munich District Court. The unanswered letter was followed by two others unsuccessfully on May 3, 2016 and May 13, 2016.

Although a letter from January 2017 to the LG Munich (Annex 11) mentioned among other witnesses for interrogation explicitly "J. Sonneck (as a strong suspect of sending the email under a false name based on conspicuous circumstantial evidence), Jobcenter Munich, Orleansstraße 50, 81667 Munich" to be summoned, nobody was summoned. A sharp questioning of both J. Sonneck and the then Managing Director Martina Musati could have provided information about this perfidious undertaking. Policeman Carstens replied to the question of why he had not pursued the identity behind the IP address as being too cumbersome. In Germany bloggers are guilty ex ante. The courts did not make the slightest attempt to investigate the striking and chronologically convincing evidence listed by the complainant. The hastily completed transfer of Jurgen Sonneck in July 2017 from the Munich Jobcenter to the Munich Office for Education and Sports after sharp, clear and published communications by the complainant with federal ministries in Berlin and the police chief of Munich is revealing.

Subject Art 8 ECHR

A confiscation of the smartphone was not mentioned in the Judicial Decision of October 8, 2015. Nevertheless, it was confiscated by the police and it can also be assumed, the same was planned with the smartphone of his daughter, as a policewoman was present. Despite this unlawfulness, Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann showed a keen interest in the results of the evaluation of phone data. For Hartz 4 recipients no rights seem to apply.

In a decision of February 4, 2005 - 2 BvR 308/04, the Federal Constitutional Court stated in paragraph 23 to 25 clear limits for a confiscation. On Nov. 22, 2016, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against police officer Carstens at the Munich Public Prosecutor's Office. Furthermore, he sent two Pdf to the police chief of Munich, which was allegedly handed to the prosecutor by the police according to their letter of April 26, 2017. The complainant has no correspondence with the file # 120 Js 119571/17, as was claimed by senior prosecutor Tilmann in the letter of June 1,2017 and again confirmed on Oct. 19, 2017. Everything was swept under the carpet.

----------

The resulting damage / loss of use for the IT equipment is € 1,595.00 plus replacement of the daughter's MacBook Pro.


Page 10/13

Indication of the appeals lodged and the date of the last decision

1. Judgment of the local court AG Munich of June 22, 2016, file number 821 Ds 112 Js 168454/15

2. Appeal of the complainant of June 26, 2016

3. Judgment of the Landgericht München I dated February 23, 2017, file number 18 Ns 112 Js 168454/15

4. The appellant's appeal dated April 6, 2017

5. Order of the Higher Regional Court Munich of January 10, 2018, file number 5 OLG 13 Ss 364/17 (2)

6. Constitutional complaint of the complainant dated February 1, 2018, file number 1 BvR 246/18

7. Order of the Federal Constitutional Court of June 8, 2018, file number 1 BvR 246/18


Page 12/13

I. List of enclosed documents


1. Annex 1 Blog Post of November 25, 2014 p. 1

2. Annex 2 Original Memes from the Internet p. 2

3. Annex 3 Confiscation Decision of Munich AG, Ref. ER II GS - 6711/15 of October 8, 2015 p. 3

4. Annex 4 Police Report of June 24, 2015 p. 6

5. Annex 5, search warrant, Az. BY 8644-00804 15/7 of October 28, 2015 p. 11

6. Annex 6 Indictment Munich Public Prosecutor's Office I, Az. 112 Js 168454/15, April 21, 2016 p. 14

7. Annex 7 Letter to AG München dated April 26, 2016 requesting a court order reg. name/address of holder of IP address p. 18

8. Annex 8 Motion for bias of May 21, 2016 against Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann of AG München p. 20

9. Annex 9 Decision of June. 22, 2016 on motion for bias against Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann p. 23

10. Annex 10 Resolution of AG München, Ref. 821 Ds 112 Js 168454/15 dated June 22, 2016 p. 25

11. Annex 11 Letter to LG Munich dated January 7, 2017 witnesses to be summoned p. 33

12. Annex 12 February 15, 2017 decision on motion of bias against Judge Bassler of LG Munich p. 35

13. Annex 13 Decision of the LG Munich, Ref. 18 Ns 112 Js 168454/15 of February 15, 2017 p. 38

14. Annex 14 Appeals of April 6, 2017 p. 48

15. Annex 15 Acknowledgment of receipt dated April 26, 2017 by Police HQ Munich reg. confiscation of smartphone and unilateral investigations p. 71

16. Annex 16 Letter from prosecutor Tilmann, Az. GA 313E-23/2017 on criminal charges against police for confiscation of smartphone and unilateral investigations of June 1, 2017 p. 72

17. Annex 17 Letter from Attorney General OLG Munich dated September 13, 2017 to reject the appeal p. 73

18. Annex 18 Respondent's reply to Public Prosecutor's Office of OLG Munich, September 23, 2017 p. 77

19. Annex 19 Decision of OLG Munich, Ref. 5 OLG 13 Ss 364/17 (2) of January 10, 2018 p. 81

20. Annex 20 Constitutional complaint p. 83

21. Annex 21 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, Ref. 1 BvR 246/18 of June 8, 2018 P. 110

22. Extra Annex 1 Urgent application with Federal Constitutional Court of Jan. 26, 2016 reg. confiscation of computer of daughter who was in preparation for final school examinations p. 112

23. Extra Annex 2 Jürgen Sonneck circumstantial evidence p. 115

Reading Lounge

1. from The Volokh Conspiracy

Germany's misbegotten effort to tame hate on Facebook is going to end up censoring what Americans can read. When will Congress act to preserve the first amendment from other governments?

2. German Police Are Cracking Down on Family Vacations from School — Is American Policy Very Different?

3. China's communists fund Jacinda Ardern's Labour Party?

4. The Tōkaidō Shinkansen’s World-Class Safety, Reliability, and Frequency

5. A dearth of jobs? Nah - Jobs of the future according to MIT

6. Why did the human brain evolve to its large size?

The Europeans and their hate speech idiocy

Repost from a US lawyer

Marc Randazza on the Nazi-salute dog video and hate speech in Europe and the US

In his recent CNN article, Marc Randazza shared his opinion regarding a Scottish comedian, who made a horrible joke that could now have criminal consequences.

A Scottish comedian named Mark Meechan, of Coatbridge, Lanarkshire taught a pug named Buddha to raise his paw any time he said “Sieg Heil.” Meechan posted a video of the pug on YouTube. Meechan said that he made the video and taught the dog to give Nazi salutes as a joke on his girlfriend.

In the video Meechan said that his girlfriend annoyed him by always saying how cute her pug is and he decided to get her back by teaching the dog something that’s not cute.

But authorities arrested Mark Meechan and he is now facing up to 6 months in prison for a hate crime.

The court found him guilty under the Section 127 of the UK Communications Act which prohibits “grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing” electronic communications. Mark shared his video on social media and YouTube which was offensive because of it being “anti-Semitic and racist in nature”.

Marc Randazza imagines how this case would proceed if it had happened on the other side of Atlantic, and notes that even though the United States has the First Amendment, Canada has adopted hate crime laws. For example, when Ezra Levant republished “Mohammed cartoons” in Canada, he faced a complaint before the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

In the US, Marc Randazza believes that the First Amendment protects such freedom of expression, but he fears that more hate speech prosecutions, like the ones in Europe, could be in our nation’s future. “With our growing tolerance for intolerance, I fear, UK-style prosecutions may be on the horizon for us. Even without them, the forces of censorship may simply make them unnecessary by suppressing all speech that someone might whine about.”

Marc Randazza says that if Mark Meechan were a US college student, he probably would be disciplined for such a speech. Marc Randazza recalls an instance when he was accused of hate speech at the University of Massachusetts for putting up a poster of the punk band the Dead Kennedys. The poster featured a swastika covered by a red circle and a line through it, but even though the swastika was crossed out some people were offended.

Today social networks are beginning to take down  “offensive speech” if someone thinks that it is inappropriate. However, different people may determine that the speech is humorous but not offensive.

Even though Marc Randazza agrees that the Nazi salute dog is offensive, Marc Randazza thinks that free speech should be protected, including speech that may be deemed “offensive”.

So könnte Justizminister Heiko Maas dieses amerikanische Internetz doch zusätzlich noch säubern. Dass er da noch nicht drauf gekommen ist.

Heiko Maas präsentiert seine
Pantone Kollektion

Nun ja, es liegt wahrscheinlich daran, dass Fatzke Heiko Maas nie als Anwalt auch nur einen Tag gewerkelt hat. Da fehlts dann an den nötigen subtilen Tricks. Vielleicht ist er auch erigiert elektrisiert und durchläuft sein Kalachakra im Musentempel Natalia.

Wie dem auch sei. Dauernd angewiesen zu sein auf ne rothaarige Medusa aus der DDR und starring in The Stasi Connection mit externem Funding durch Küsten-Barbies Ressort der Reichsdeutschen Mutterschaft wirkt irgendwann etwas unbefriedigend, wenn man wie Heiko gewohnt ist, mit 54/11 Übersetzung sein Cervélo zu brettern.

Hier also ein paar Denkanstösse an den adretten 172 cm GQ Honcho aus Saarlouis wie man sich unliebsamer Posts und Blogs entledigt. Es geht ein bischen dreckig zu, aber als Anwalt ist man da ja im Métier.

Dozens of suspicious court cases, with missing defendants, aim at getting web pages taken down or deindexed

By Eugene Volokh and Paul Alan Levy October 10 

There are about 25 court cases throughout the country that have a suspicious profile:

• All involve allegedly self-represented plaintiffs, yet they have similar snippets of legalese that suggest a common organization behind them. (A few others, having a slightly different profile, involve actual lawyers.)
• All the ostensible defendants ostensibly agreed to injunctions being issued against them, which often leads to a very quick court order (in some cases, less than a week).
• Of these 25-odd cases, 15 give the addresses of the defendants — but a private investigator (Giles Miller of Lynx Insights & Investigations) couldn’t find a single one of the ostensible defendants at the ostensible address.

Now, you might ask, what’s the point of suing a fake defendant (to the extent that some of these defendants are indeed fake)? How can anyone get any real money from a fake defendant? How can anyone order a fake defendant to obey a real injunction?

The answer is that Google and various other Internet platforms have a policy: They won’t take down material (or, in Google’s case, remove it from Google indexes) just because someone says it’s defamatory. Understandable — why would these companies want to adjudicate such factual disputes? But if they see a court order that declares that some material is defamatory, they tend to take down or deindex the material, relying on the court’s decision.

Yet the trouble is that these Internet platforms can’t really know if the injunction was issued against the actual author of the supposed defamation — or against a real person at all. That’s why we have incidents like this:

1. Matthew Chan, a Georgia resident, posts a negative review of Mitul Patel, a Georgia dentist, on Yelp and a few other sites. (Readers may remember this story, which we blogged about in August; that’s the incident that got us investigating this issue.) Several months after Chan puts up his post, Yelp emails him, saying that it’s about to take his comment down because it received a court order that was issued against him, and the court concluded that his comment was defamatory.

But wait!, says Chan — he’s never been sued. And sure enough, the order is against a supposed Mathew Chan of Baltimore. As best we can tell, no such Mathew Chan exists in Baltimore, but in any event no Baltimorean is the author of the post. Yet the order is supposedly based on that Mathew Chan agreeing with Mitul Patel that the review was defamatory, and should be removed. (As we’ll see below, Mitul Patel and some of the other plaintiffs state that they did not authorize the lawsuit or sign the pleadings, though they did hire a “reputation management company” to do something.)

Hier ist noch wesentlich mehr zu fnden.

Update: Mr. Chan geht auf Attacke. Well done, buddy.

German Minister of Justice Heiko Maas explains hate speech and 'Suck my dick'.

Heiko Mass losing his sartorial bearings

This is Heiko Maas with his new retreaded muse Natalia Wörner. She excelled early on by switching schools frequently and dispensing of any vocational education.

Instead, she threw her voluptuous body head over heels into the genre of, err, Art. This qualified her to 'Suck my dick' and to continue dazzling demented German cinema aficionados with her third rate performance as an actress.

The picture of the two lovebirds is a typical example of how a woman can sartorially torment a decent male being with the towering presence of 172 cm from head to toe and turn him into a ridiculous looking dick. Is is a shame and shows yet again how we male human beings suffer under the bad influence of women.

As is well known, the able Minister of Justice who never practiced law in his entire life (so much about the vaunted "Fachkräfte" in Germany) goes full metal jacket and bonkers when it comes to sexism in adverts. The mere thought of such acts of degrading precious human beings of the weak sex will trigger his guanine crystals and make him scream for a law against such perversity. Yet being a politician, double standards are a routine assuetude and vacuity a given, even more so when the intellect is at times dick-driven.

It then comes as no surprise that this display in the German Playboy magazine is not

Natalia Wörner, releasing pressure from
Heiko's Cervélo tube.

in any way to be construed as sexist but a visual ode to the Rebirth of Christ as a Woman. Amen.

Enough of the Minister's dilly dallying populist "Schrullen", let's turn to the real subject that irks him: HATE SPEECH.

Hate speech on this American Facebook and this American Twitter, this American Google, and it is here that The Heiko is running a vendetta.

To napalm Free Speech Hate Speech into German oblivion, The Heiko has surrounded himself with the Knights Templar, aka the Order of Teutonia's Temple. To add some punch a Stasi Connection completes the picture. Let the able Minister explain what constitutes Hate Speech in good ol' Germany.

Here is an example of vicious Hate Speech in Germany. An example of the inherent dangers of Hate Speech to the state, so dangerous that armed police had to be deployed, a blogger to be frisked, photos of the premises to be taken and all IT equipment plus smartphone confiscated.

Considered to be Hate speech in Germany

The lesson to be learnt?

Just don't fuck around with the German Minister of Justice Fatzke Heiko Maas, the Terminator of Free Speech Hate Speech. He will crush you with a vengeance.

Heiko Maas, the German Hugues de Payons

The German liberal elite ambling in their walled garden of free speech

Soren Kierkegaard

Once you label me you negate me.

Soren Kierkegaard

"Facebook needs to do more than before, so that its platform is not a playground for right-wing extremists", German Minister of Justice Heiko Maas said to the Bild newspaper.

Freedom of expression is a "valuable asset", the Minister said. He added: "However, the Internet is not a lawless area where racist agitation and criminal utterances may be spread uncontrolled."

Interesting how the able minister, who has not spent a single day in his life as a lawyer, equates right-wingers and people with other opinions with extremists, racist agitation and criminal utterances. As if his own coalition party and ordinary bourgeois people would not hold and publicly express such views. Why else are the comments functions disabled on websites of German news websites?

Here is the Minister for Family Affairs, blonde Manuela Schwesig, aka 'Küsten-

Heiko & Manuela, ready to pounce on free hate speech

Barbie':

"Hatred is not an opinion. Neither on the Internet. With the 'No hate speech' campaign we in Germany want to set another example against hatred and violence. We want to support the people to engage themselves for democracy and to fight against hatred and discrimination - online and offline," said Manuela Schwesig.

If hatred is not an opinion, why bother? Of course, the sentence is plain nonsense. When somebody is called an asshole, that is without doubt an opinion. Whether it is true or false, is a different matter.

Let's listen in to an interview between Yasmin Nair and Walter Benn Michaels:

YN: Hate crimes...

WBM: Complete  bullshit.

Both ministers are united in one desire, to have such opinions deleted from Twitter and Facebook in order to create a clean environment. An environment with attuned people that "engage ... for democracy and to fight against hatred and discrimination". An environment in which the IDENTITY of a refugee is created, attended to and celebrated. Untainted, pristine and resting in itself. This self is the self of inequality and nobody is nor wants to be bothered by this. The proponents of free speech are indifferent to it. They strive for an antiseptic communication.

While they correctly see the impetus of the German government's 'No hate speech' campaign as an assault on free speech and celebrate their intellectual prowess as proof of their noble intentions, they are nonchalant about the plight of the refugees. It is free speech they pay obeisance to. This is their holy right, their altar, while at the same time humanitarian thoughts and compassion fall by the wayside. The neoliberalism of the ego.

Here again Walter Benn Michaels.

YN: You  write  in  your  book,  “The  preferred  crimes  of  neoliberalism are  always  hate  crimes;  when  our  favorite  victims  are  the  victims  of prejudice,  we  are  all  neoliberals.”  What  do  you  mean?

WBM: You  and  others  have  analyzed  the  various  practical  ways  in which   hate   crimes   laws  perpetrate   or  extend   inequalities   that already  exist.  I  think  that  analysis  is  totally  convincing.  But  my  own opposition   is   somewhat   more   primitive:   that   hate   crimes   are precisely  defined  as  crimes  of  identity. The  biggest  of  all  hate  crimes  in  our  culture  is  the  Holocaust.  The point  of  course  is  not  to  defend  the  Holocaust  but  to  suggest  that the  murder  of  six  million  people  is  sufficient  unto  itself  as  a  crime. The first point is that it’s not as if we want to legitimate these crimes. 

The second point is that insofar as we make hate crimes foundational for us, we end up imagining the just society as a society without hatred, without prejudice. My argument is not for prejudice; only that the elimination of prejudice has nothing to do with the elimination of exploitation. And that insofar as we focus on the idea of social justice as the elimination of prejudice, with hate crimes being a kind of ne plus ultra of that form, what we are doing is focusing on something which, even if we should succeed, would make no difference whatsoever in the principal inequalities that currently confront us.

That should give the nobly-intentioned liberals enough food for thought. Fighting the ban of hate speech is all about having a good conscience while disregarding inequalities in society. Guaranteeing those disadvantaged their identity means safeguarding them from so-called ill speech/hate speech and keeping them on their predetermined rung on the ladder of society and the economy. A cynical indifference in a walled garden of good conduct.

What both ministers unite is their complete disregard of the inequality of these people the hatred is directed at, while being naive about the origin of the perpetrators of hate crimes.

YN: It’s  also  true  that  poor  white  people  are  often  held  as  the  most phobic  and  hate-prone.

WBM: Let’s  say  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  poor  white  people  are more  characteristically  racist  and  homophobic  than  middle-class white  people.  Let’s  say  for  the  sake  of  argument  it’s  true.  The argument  here  is  not  to  defend  their  homophobia,  or  their  racism; it’s  not  defensible.  But  my  deeper  argument  is  that  they  are  not  the enemy.  That  is  to  say,  if  you  turned  the  world  into  a  world  where  the elimination  of  prejudice  is  the  sole  desideratum  then  you’ve  got  a face-off.  Between  the  upper-middle  class,  committed  to  its  own sense  of  virtue,  which  is  completely  tolerant  of  the  inequalities  which make  poor  white  people  poor  and  completely  intolerant  of  the racism  and  sexism  that  poor  whites  exemplify. 

Denouncing and banning free speech, err, hate speech to bask in a virtuous circle of life, while shoving the fact of inequality under the carpet. Indifference to economic inequality and to guarantee the disadvantaged their identity lays the groundwork for their future status in society as a dependable and frugal source of cheap labor, with state-guaranteed dignity. Unless they get deported.

The  liberal  elite  that conservatives  criticize  really  does  exist.  It’s  an  elite  whose  liberalism consists   in  its  opposition  to  discrimination,  in  its  cultivation  of identity,  and  in  complete  indifference  to  economic  inequality.  So,  for the   liberal   elites,   the   poor  whites  are  the  people  they  love  to hate.  And  the  liberal  elites  are  the  people  the  poor  whites  love  to hate.  If  the  liberal  elite  began  to  think  of  its  liberalism  as  a  challenge to  its  elitism,  we  would  have  a  different  world.  A  world  where  the goal  was  not  to  diversify  the  elite  but  to  eliminate  elites.  Whereas now  we’re  just  diversifying  the  elite. 

It is exactly for this purpose that the German government has turned to the Bertelsmann company Arvato and the notorious Amadeu Antonio Foundation, whose chairwomen is an ex Stasi member like her late father, to go against, what they consider to be, hate speech.

How identity is celebrated and cynically utilized and conveniently discarded is shown by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, which seems to be a financially pretty successful investment fund. Here is an excerpt from the German Wikipedia page (there is no English version!). Please note that his last name is Kiowa. That probably had too much of an African ring to qualify for inclusion in the name of the foundation.

Kiowa left behind his pregnant girlfriend Gabriele Schimanski. Their son was born on January 9, 1991, the same day, Kiowa's corpse was transferred to Angola. There Antonio was buried in the cemetery of Sant'Ana in Luanda. Since September 3, 2011 decorated with a wooden cross be previously covered only by earth grave. Antonios wife and son hostilities were suspended in Eberswalde other, so among other things, the pram was daubed with swastikas and later destroyed. Gabriele Schimanski died in 2015. The cause of death is unclear.

The mother of Kiowa, who belongs to the people of the Bakongo, lives with her family in the slums Rocha Pinto in the Angolan capital Luanda. For the funeral, and repair of the tomb of her son there was in 2011 an appeal, in which the mother could be handed over 1,500 euros. Whether a promised financial support for the family that had decided in 1990 the Eberswalde council, has been received by the members, is currently being investigated. To demonstrate the relationship between Antonio and his family undoubtedly, his mother was a hair sample for genetic matching from. In addition, the Eberswalde council decided on 30 September 2011, the Antonios family occasion of the 20th anniversary of the death to send 5,000 euros support performance.

(Google translate)

Read also: Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Is Neoliberalism

The German Free Speech Intifada under the wise guidance of German Minister of Justice Heiko Maas would like to brief you on what constitutes hate speech.

The capable minister sniffing out hate speech

Germany has a problem with the internet since its start. For several reasons. Firstly, it is an absolute zero in this field. Secondly, it undermines the Germans love of an authority. Thirdly, a good German obeys. Fourthly, Americans can not be trusted. Fifthly, people can (mis)use it to vent their opinions.

In this scenario it is good to know that the German Ministry of Justice has gathered a venerable group of monochromatic defenders of good conduct on the footloose Interwebs in order to give some desperately needed guidance ... and wield the stick. You have been warned!

So here are excerpts from two PDFs (in German language) on what constitutes hate speech in good ol' Germany. Please refrain from laughing.

HATE  SPEECH
HASS  IM  NETZ

Hate speech according to the Germans

All refugees have expensive cell phones.
Refugees do not have to pay in supermarkets.
I also want to have a smartphone.
So I am going to be reborn as an asylum seeker.
Wog, dago
Faggot
Slut
Gays lobby
Asylum seekers flood
The boat is full
Out with foreigners
Threatening islamization
They are threatening 'our' women.
Jews = Israel
They should all be shot/burned/gassed.

To the last one you can honestly respond, relax, the EU let's them drown.

Amadeu Antonio Foundation

Umgang mit Hate Speech

All Greeks are lazy.
He is a Greek, but absolutely hardworking.
Jews are the greatest evil in the world.
When Jews do it it is worse.
Judaism and Israel must be abolished.
The right to asylum needs to be abolished.

. . . . . . . . . .

Here is Popehat's Ken White from across the pond with

How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media's Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies

Thanks, Ken, I feel sane again.

Hate speech? Don't screw around with German Minister of Justice Fatzke Heiko Maas, dedicated follower of fashion.

Fatzke Heiko Maas,
dedicated follower
of fashion.
©Bild.de

He flits from shop to shop just like a butterfly.

In matters of the cloth he is as fickle as can be,

'Cause he's a dedicated follower of fashion.

He's a dedicated follower of fashion.

Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is).

He thinks he is a flower to be looked at,

And when he pulls his frilly nylon panties right up tight,

Makes up for never been a lawyer for a single day,

He feels a dedicated follower of fashion.

The Kinks

First some credentials of Germany's Minister of Justice, Heiko Maas. He has never worked a single day in his profession as a lawyer, yet he heads the Ministry of Justice. That's like running a car repair shop and you never ever had a look under a hood.

This is strange, since Germany is proud of its 'Fachkräfte'. Some male folks are proud

Looks like a sexist ad, yuck.

of their IQ, The Heiko is spread in GQ as best dressed bloke of Muttiland. Heiko Maas follows strange, though perfectly PC political whims like, err, how about a ban of sexist ads? Nobody really knows where a sexist ad starts, but that would be missing the point. Perhaps eating a yoghurt on TV while just wearing a pair of shorts? Anyway, The Heiko would be having serious second thoughts.

You can follow him on your road bike, because The Heiko is also a triathlete thrashing away on a Cervélo and lately supported by an all-new retreaded female domestique when she is not busy acting on German, yawn, TV. That probably gave him some second thoughts

When standing on the GG he is taller.

about polygamy very recently. Not exactly a pressing problem in German society, but hey, populist pandering always works and as a politician it's in his DNA.

It's also coincidentally geared against those f%*cking migrants and that goes down well in German Schrebergarten. The Heiko has his ears down to the ground and so that is going to be enshrined as law as well.

 It might not take long and and he will forbid these gentlemen sausage holders. They won't make it to the German market. You can bet a Heiko on it.

Soon on Heiko Maas index

There are days when he feels bored in his office and that is just the perfect opportunity to drag his athletic frame of 175 cm or so over to one of these talk shows - Claqueur in tow -, where people meet who would otherwise be eating their third dessert in the cafeteria, or watch the grass grow. Unfortunately, a couple of months ago the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria Sebastian Kurz had exactly the same idea. It did not work out well for the German in a talk show about the disastrous refugees policy of Germany. "The Minister of Justice appeared like a schoolboy" according to the German press and the young Austrian, who could almost be his son, hung him out to dry.

On German Labor Day Fatzke Heiko traveled to East Germany to air his suit (not Brioni) in front of a crowd. He was welcomed by a delighted throng of people giving him a resounding 'Fuck Off' approval, convincing him to better flee the scene.



 His approval rating hit a new high when he found a bullet in his post box. It's "underground and full of hate", he lamented, but claims it does not affect him anymore.

Remember New Year's Eve in Cologne and elsewhere? Initially it was supposed to be covered up and when that coverup could no longer be held (which coined the new 'Gutwort of the Year 2015' in Germany: to Cologne s.th.) something had to be done, and it did. Apparently 1,200 criminal complaints were registered after the media ran an auction-like campaign over some weeks: 'we are at 750 complaints, do we hear 850? Ok great, we've crossed the 1,000 threshold'. Trouble is, only four cases so far have been convicted.

The New Year's Eve incidents brought out The Terminator instincts in Heiko Maas ...

There's one thing that gets The Heiko royally pissed, hate speech. Or what he considers it to be. Googleing for examples of hate speech (examples to be shown in the next post) is giving you a hard time. Most would clearly be covered by the US's First Amendment, but that would be missing the point. It is all about infringing free speech under a different name and at the same time hypocritically giving the impression of safeguarding human rights of refugees and migrants while in reality the intent is on division and subtle pinpricks against both sides.

... and boy, Fatzke Heiko has gathered a whole armada of Teutonic Knights

to fight free speech hate speech. Apart from the usual suspects Facebook, Google and perhaps also Twitter there is this illustrious 24-hours SWAT Gang, because when Fatzke Heiko sees his eyes soiled by internet shit, he wants it Hiroshimaed within 24 hours!

The free speech Intifada gang

To this end, he has roped in the services of the Bertelsmann sister company Ervato and also the questionable, make that extremely questionable, Amadeu Antonio Stiftung with turncoat and red-haired bitch Anetta Kahane (third from left in image above). Chick Anetta has some interesting history going for her. Like how about former Stasi member? In Germany that qualifies for important tasks. Just ask, well you know. ..That's the kind of social environment a German politician like Heiko Maas feels at home, right? Anetta Kahane has no reservations about using the fate of Mr Amadeu Antonio for her dirty political game. There is even more dirt about the Amadeu Antonio Stiftung, but we will get to that later.

As can be expected in a Banana Republic with a mandatory media fee, the state propaganda TV channel is aiding The Heiko as much as it can. Like deleting posts on Facebook when you dare to write the word refugees in quotation marks.

German TV censorship

There's more rot where that came from.

Let's dig up some real shit about ex-Stasi chic Anetta Kahane's Amadeu Antonio Stiftung (Amadeu Antonio Foundation), or shall we call it The Amadeu-Antonio-Bank?

"According to their website, the Foundation received from 2008 to 2014 (the years prior to 2008 have not been published, 2015, not yet) almost 6.2 million euros in grants, particularly from the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs. On average, nearly 900,000 euros annually. That's about two-thirds of revenue. The rest are donations and other income which are unspecified. In the period from 2008 to 2014, the Foundation achieved a total surplus of approximately 455,000 euros, the annual average of the excess amounts to about 65,000 euros. Based on the foundation's capital, which increased in the period of 343 700 euros to 379 700 euros, makes an annual return on equity of about 17 to 19 %. And that is tax-exempted. Of these the most "evil capitalists" can only dream of. (The reserves are externally admitted in the returns as charities in principle may not be geared towards asset accumulation).

At such high profits you can not help wondering why the state provides grants to the Foundation, which are in any case not required in the full amount. Who is ideologically not completely wrongheaded, naturally wonders going on, why ever grants to this foundation are paid, and the answer can give yourself. But that should not be the issue here. Because even who should be weighed the Foundation (whether as donors or as an official who has to decide on subsidy grants) should think about why high profits must be implemented in a non-profit organization.

From these profits, the foundation has been built up reserves, to almost 1.3 million euros to reserves amount along with profit brought forward by 31.12.2014, plus the endowment of almost 400,000 euros. What does a foundation with so much unused grants and donations? She puts it in securities of (approximately 600,000 euros), leaving it in the account (about 700,000 euros). And then you can still lend money even as a bank. 432,000 euros are recorded as other loans in the balance sheet. As other loans long-term capital transferred to third parties are referred to, in front of all loans are included. The Foundation shares - on request - not with what they are doing and if these have potential loan to Ms. Kahane placing themselves or others board members or to a friendly party / organization or whomever. Anyone who wants to support the "banking" the Foundation continued, like quietly donate. The Amadeu Antonio bank will thank him." (Google translate)

Breitbart has this to say about Germany's preoccupation with hate speech:

To this, Murray adds the disturbing September incident in which German chancellor Angela Merkel was caught on an open mike, asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg if he would help suppress “anti-immigration” postings… and he replied that he was already working on it.

It’s clear enough that Merkel and the rest of her government believe the best way to handle the insane migrant disaster they’ve unleashed upon Europe is to forbid their citizens from complaining about it.

“The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is ‘racist,'” Murray writes.  “And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of ‘racist’ speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.”

A fair warning… and yet, the experience of the past decade suggests that totalitarians are getting better at controlling unruly populations.  At the dawn of the Obama presidency, during Iran’s Green Revolution, there was euphoric speculation that the Internet would represent an evolutionary leap for freedom, the next step beyond the fax machines of China’s Tienanmen Square uprising, making totalitarianism all but impossible.

The opposite seems to have happened, as both Tienanmen Square and the Green Revolution were put down, and governments across the ideological spectrum have found the Internet a deep sea in which dissent can be drowned – more useful for organizing Social Justice Warrior mobs of vigilante speech police than for challenging the established order.

We are all totalitarians now.  Anyone bothered by that reality had better speak up, loudly enough to be heard by billionaire CEOs, while they still can.

The German Free Speech Intifada under the wise guidance of German Minister of Justice Heiko Maas would like to brief you on what constitutes hate speech.