Computer of migrant daughter deliberately damaged by the rotten Munich Court. That is of no concern to the ECHR. Just stop blogging critical stuff about German Jobcenters and you are fine (Case 51482/18)

Oh the ECHR and its 'Margin of Appreciation'

Excerpt from complaint:

"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."

A recent post on an upcoming case on the blog "Verfassungsblog.de" concluded:

"The upcoming decision will show if the ECtHR still deserves its titles as ‘guarantor’ of the Convention and ‘island of hope in stormy times’ or whether this island is drowning under the pressure of some of its Member States."

Indeed and in this particular case, as one of the main funding states Germany has a right that guarantors of its mind-boggling export surplus such as the Jobcenters are not to be criticized. And if so, within our flexible legal bounds it will be stopped. Greetings from Strasbourg!

"Due to its vague nature, opposing the universal nature of human rights, the margin of appreciation doctrine has been subject to extensive criticism, including the denial of its legitimacy while other authors underline that it is a necessary and legitimate principle of interpretation of the Convention."

See: The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights’ Post-2011 Jurisprudence

The Margin of Appreciation; its limits and inconsistencies.

"Deference

The ECtHR gives deference to National courts because there is a possibility that national highest courts have indicated that they will not always comply with the decision of the ECtHR. [38] Deference is used to avoid conflict between national courts and states and is a symbol of unity. [39] By giving deference the ECtHR gives respect to national constitutional traditions and preventing situations of real conflict. Where the court solely relies on correspondence given to it by states’, accurate investigations and findings are prevented threatening its unity and compliance [40] and this is what the court is trying to protect."

He concludes:

"This shows individual state interests are put before those of the court."

In addition, confiscation of smartphone without court order no concern for "Euro clowns” at ECHR (Case 51482/18)

ECHR covers Munich criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck operating under false name "C. Paucher" (Case 51482/18)

Criminal, Useful Idiot cum civil servant Jürgen Sonneck

Here is the Useful Idiot cum civil servant Jürgen Sonneck pictured.

Part of the blame has to be levelled at the rotten Munich Court. With their unrelenting refusal to grant any access to court files over years, Jürgen Sonneck felt absolutely cock sure he would stay under the radar undetected. That's why he did not deem it necessary to move his fucking ass. Like driving to a café at the south shore of Lake Starnberg or take a train to Lengries or Tegernsee. No, Jürgen chose his home. In the evening. After work. Everything was planned six months before. What could possibly go wrong?

Once I managed to blow his cover (via IP address, damning conspicuous circumstantial evidence) I went on full attack mode against J.S. with a barrage of PDFs to the President of Munich police and various Federal Government Ministries in Berlin in June/July 2017 (here, here, here, here, here and here - all in German). Oh, in typical German fashion no one responded.

Mid July 2017 the Useful Idiot Jürgen Sonneck was hastily shifted under cover of the night from his former post as deputy CEO at the Jobcenter Munich to the Department for Education and Sport Munich.

. . . . . . . . .

Excerpt from complaint: "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."

. . . . . . . . .

None of this interests the ECHR which had already turned heads with its ridiculous blasphemy decision just months earlier. As one commenter on REASON wrote:

"But seriously, the ECtHR is not a national supreme/constitutional court, and so on some issues they play the "margin of appreciation" card rather than getting stuck in thorny political issues."

Computer of migrant daughter deliberately damaged by the rotten Munich Court. That is of no concern to the ECHR. Just stop blogging critical stuff about German Jobcenters and you are fine (Case 51482/18)

ECHR declares, Marissa Mayer meme contravenes German Criminal Code Section 86a "Use of Symbols of Nazi Organizations" (Case 51482/18)

The law perverted! The law—and, in its wake, 
all the collective forces of the nation—the law, 
I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, 
but made to pursue one entirely contrary!

Frédéric Bastiat 

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The European Court of Human Rights sees this Marissa Mayer meme NOT covered by Article 10 ECHR.

ECHR does not like the Marissa Mayer meme

And since we at the ECHR do not want to deal with such crap from low-life bloggers we will shred your shit in a year's time. Capisce! Because that's how Single-Judge-Decisions work.

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

Meanwhile German prosecutors have their very own views.

So coincidentally and related the Hamburg prosecutor declared this Hitler image in BENTO (an online youth magazine of DER SPIEGEL) as NOT contravening Criminal Code Section 86a (File #: 7101 Js 742/17).

This Hitler image is fine because it is from DER SPIEGEL
which is the journalistic gold standard.

Likewise in rotten Munich Court. Munich prosecutor Tilmann finds this Merkel-Nazi image in the Munich fake news gazette 'MERKUR' A-OK.

Merkel-Nazi image works well with Munich Court. Double standards anyone?

Bonus trivia: The European Court of Justice has for the umpteenth time to decide about that piece of cloth worn on a head, aka head scarf. It's been called on from, where else, Germany. Good-golly.

ECHR covers Munich criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck operating under false name "C. Paucher" (Case 51482/18)

Hitler addresses ECHR. Debunks Germany’s “criminal sanctioning of use of Nazi symbols” as virtue signalling deflecting from him having been a true Keynesian

This is in reference to the Case 35285/16 and the ECHR's decision in April 2018. There is among others the salient paragraph 47. Fortunately, someone with first hand knowledge and expertise was only too eager to chip in and get a couple of misconceptions straight.

So here is the ECHR live:

  47. In the light of their historical role and experience, States which have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis (ibid., § 243, with further references). The Court considers that the legislature’s choice to criminally sanction the use of Nazi symbols, to ban the use of such symbols from German political life, to maintain political peace (also taking into account the perception of foreign observers), and to prevent the revival of Nazism (see paragraph 30 above) must be seen against this background. 

Hitler would chuckle but hey, here he is in person, more or less. Let's listen to Dear Leader back then:

'Gents, lady! With all due respect, we, the Nazis, did not gain power via pictures or symbols. There were economical reasons, the nation was being slighted and financially damaged by the Versailles Treaty. Capice. Or in today's terms: 'It's the economy, stupid!'

I did not become top honcho or Hero Number One as they say in India of a country by strutting around with a Gucci label on my handbag. Not only was I a gifted painter, I was a genius in applied economics. Did you gents never appreciate the fact that I was a Keynesian?? Yeah, take that.

"For today’s generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler’s economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context."

FYI gents & lady in Strasbourg, this was the situation in our neighbor country Austria.

"As we can see, the budget deficit was radically cut right down until 1936, and was virtually eliminated, since by October 1936 the budget deficit was about 0.5% of GDP (Berger 2003: 90).

Some of the austerity policies included:

(1) the elimination of the works council in 1934;

(2) a series of cuts to welfare, and

(3) slashing of unemployment benefits to the point where only 50% of the unemployed in 1936 received benefits (Obinger 2018: 86).

How did the economy perform under this austerity?

The Austrian economy was awful."

Now watch the difference courtesy me, the Big Kahuna.

"While in Austria, the clerical fascists pursued austerity and wage and price deflation from 1934 to 1937, in Germany the National Socialist government of Hitler implemented a series of economic interventions that involved large government deficits, direct public works programs, and rearmament. This program was undoubtedly Keynesian in its fiscal effects, despite some modern attempts to deny this like Tooze (2008) (on the simulative nature of Germany’s deficits and policies after 1933, see Cohn 1992; Fremdling and Stäglin 2015; Overy 1996). The fact that German military spending was higher by 1935 than some historians have thought does not change the reality that military Keynesianism is still Keynesianism. It is clear that German policy down to 1936 was a mix of military and civilian Keynesian spending.

So how did Austrian unemployment compare to unemployment in Germany?

While Austrian unemployment remained high, German unemployment fell rapidly.

Popular support for the Austro-fascist regime collapsed by 1938 given the economic disasters and high unemployment, and when Hitler annexed Austria in March 1938 there was no doubt a great deal of support for the Anschluss within Austria."

Genius that I am I went ballistic Keynes and boy, was I successful except for some minor hiccups along the road which finally convinced me to put an end to my great life.

"What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime’s rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every “capitalist” democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: “[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

You may want to visualize my genius. Well here it is, the Chart of Fiscal Stimulus Beauty courtesy that Brit Ralph Musgrave.

I was working magic

I hear that some ridiculously clad nutball from India had written two letters to me which the British bastards had intercepted. Proves that I had fans the world over. Very well possible he fell for our use of the swastika, I never cared about trademarks and copyright. Honestly, I could have used a violet lily or a pink thong as our party emblem and would still have "won the hearts and minds of my people". Just watch the present political climate the world over.

You may also want to notice that I embrace "a broadly Malthusian or Spencerian vision of populations of humans destined to fight each other: Each nation or race will breed too many people to share the planet".

As for my German countrymen's Criminal Code 86a, gents & lady, that 's virtue signalling. Pure, simple and pathetic virtue signalling.'

Not yet convinced? Here are some very good posts:

Macro-economic policy and votes in the thirties: Germany (and The Netherlands) during the Great Depression

Macroeconomics in Germany: The forgotten lesson of Hjalmar Schacht

Nazi Germany’s Economic Recovery-Schacht’s Triumph and Keynes’ Vindication

The best at last:

Hjalmar Schacht, Mefo Bills and the Restoration of the German Economy 1933-1939

ECHR decision (Case 35285/16) follow-up: Nazi pics as “eyecatching device” not covered by Art. 10. Let's fact-check

In the decision 'Nix v. Germany' (Case 35285/16) it says:

6. "The Court largely endorsed the domestic courts’ approach, including their view of why Mr Nix had used the picture of Himmler with the swastika, in particular that it had been used as an “eyecatching device”. However, banning the use of such images in that way had been one of the aims of the national legislation criminalising the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations."

and

47. In the light of their historical role and experience, States which have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis (ibid., § 243, with further references). The Court considers that the legislature‘s choice to criminally sanction the use of Nazi symbols, to ban the use of such symbols from German political life, to maintain political peace (also taking into account the perception of foreign observers), and to prevent the revival of Nazism (see paragraph 30 above) must be seen against this background.

Noble words and they need to be fact-checked. So a picture of Nazi personality with the swastika is an "eye-catching device" which is not covered by Article 10. Let us verify this bold statement.

I already covered the SPIEGEL cover 'Merkel at the Acropolis with Nazi officers' and the poor article.

BENTO, the insufferable youth website of DER SPIEGEL, featured a cheap shot at the AfD party with a picture of former German Dear Leader in full regalia. Not "eye-catching", or covered by 'Fake News' media privilege, ECHR? I am all ears.

ECHR, might this qualify as "eye-catching"?

Swastikas galore and doping of NS soldiers

A sea of swastikas to publish a simple article about doping of German soldiers is not eye-catching? In the end it did not help much.

SPIEGEL covers of recent years.

Der SPIEGEL is honest about it: "Hitler always  sells"

These articles are by no means critical in any form, often they come across as pretty entertaining. The weekly so-called Nazi documentaries on TV (often 3-5 times a week) are subtle propaganda. At least Der SPIEGEL is honest about it: "Hitler always  sells" (see Spiegel article 'How hitler is the Spiegel?) and airing them is cheap.

How about my open letter to Munich prosecutor Steinkraus-Koch which the ECHR mentions in passing? "Does senior prosecutor Steinkraus-Koch know about the infinite Nazi pictures in German media?".

All those pictures in there do not contravene criminal code 86 and mine did? That requires stretching perceptions to the limit, ECHR.

I have yet to see any, and I mean any, German newspaper that has bothered to write a disclaimer. Why should they, Hitler sells. He means business. Bloggers do not sell.
____________
It would be a grave mistake not to explicitly point to my disclaimer. The risk these Bavarian hypocrites, steeped in neonazi affinity, confiscate my IT equipment a third time is too great.

The Streetwise Professor puts it best about ze Germans:

The moral obtuseness of Germany, of all nations, panting after the business of a nation that has vowed to destroy Israel is mind boggling.

It is especially mind boggling given the German predilection for moral preening, and their tendency to lecture all about their moral superiority.

If you think this is too harsh, consider the fact that Germany’s Incitement to Hatred law (i.e., its Holocaust Denial law) makes it a felony punishable by five years imprisonment for those who:

1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

So, if the mullahs did in Germany what they do in Iran on a daily basis, they’d be in the slammer for a nickel.  But they’re OK to do business with, even though they have far more power to act on their threats than some skinhead in Leipzig. AfD is beyond the pale, but the mullahs–now there’s somebody to do business with!

Die bayerische Justiz zeugt von Ungebildetheit und anmassender Bigotterie.

Exzerpt Verfassungsbeschwerde:

Der Beschwerdeführer verwahrt sich als Weltbürger und insbesondere Asiaphiler gegen das Unterfangen der bayerischen Justiz, die Swastika in ein negatives Licht zu rücken. Er empfindet eine solche Interpretation eines Symbols, das auf eine mindestens 5.000 Jahre währende Geschichte zurückgeht, als eine unilaterale Symbolauslegung und Zeichen eines westlichen Kultur-Imperialismus. Sie zeugt von Ungebildetheit und anmassender Bigotterie.

Die Swastika hat geschichtlich belegt eindeutig eine doppelte Symbolik (vgl. Case of Vajnai v. Hungary, Application No. 33629/06 in Sachen Roter Stern). Die ursprüngliche und grundlegende Symbolik ist die eines Zeichens des Glücks und des Wohlergehens und dies seid mindestens 5.000 Jahren. Sie ist integraler Bestandteil des Buddhismus, Hinduismus und Jainismus.

Für den Beschwerdeführer, der lange Zeit in Asien gelebt hat und diesen Erdteil als seine Heimat ansieht, ist die Swastika ein eindeutig religiöses Symbol, angenehm anzusehen auf Tempeln und Statuen. Die Swastika ist in Südasien ein Symbol des täglichen Lebens, es wird sogar auf Firmenemblemen, Signboards von Läden verwendet, ist Designbestandteil in tibetischen Teppichen und anderen Wohnapplikationen.

Die Usurpierung diese Symbols durch die Nazis ist eine Travestie und dauerte lediglich ein paar Jahrzehnte. Der rasante Niedergang des Nationalsozialismus in Deutschland ist ein Beleg für die Kraft und ultimativ benevolente Energie dieses Symbols. So haben sich das Hindu Forum of Britain und weitere Staaten in 2005 gegen eine EU Initiative zur Verbannung der Swastika ausgesprochen. Einer EU, die nicht einmal auf ein Hundertstel der Geschichtsdauer zurückblicken wird, wenn sie final auseinander bricht.