Independence or fool's licence I


1. The department of law of Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (cooporation of public law, responsible persons are: Maria Behrenbeck & Klaus-Henning Sterzik) and

2. The department of admission and doctor’s office advice of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (cooporation of public law, responsible persons are: Bettina Fanselow, Daniel Jacoby & Andre Zwaka)

are demonstrably exchanged regularly and throughout the entire period about the content and exact information about a decision. Applications received must be forwarded to the Department without delay. Outwardly, they deliberately conceal this and report untruthfully. Extrajudical efforts are unsuccessful. Finally, a lawsuit will be filed in the administrative court. At the court, exactly two points are enumerated and the parties involved are requested:

A. To oblige the authority to submit the decision to the court.

B. If the authority actually denies the existence of the decision, it must be obliged to confirm this bei providing a declaration on oath in the court.

Those involved must now tell the truth, otherwise they must fear consequences. At the court, a Mr. Alberts (judge) has jurisdiction. He tried from the beginning to destroy the process. All of cover-up attempts were demonstrably immediately refuted with facts and documents.

What happens now?

Mr. Alberts prepares his own personal "factual findings" and tinkers together a "judgment" in favor of the authority. The judge actually only writes: "The plaintiff literally wants with his lawsuit filed on December 16, 2019 to oblige the accused to immediately submit the decision to the court.“ 

That's all. 

Where did the rest of the lawsuit disappeare?

That is the lawsuit (exactly two points are enumerated):

Proof (see below): SH1

And that is what Mr. Alberts (judge) writes:

Proof: SH2

The judge simply arbitrarily processed the lawsuit incompletely and misrepresents the content. The lawsuit includes the affirmation in lieu of an oath in court. But the judge arbitrarily omits this key concern and makes his “judgment”. This how "decision" are made in Germany.

Mr. Klaus-Henning Sterzik (defendant) appears before the court. He actually tells the court that the decision “does not exist”.

Proof: SH2

He avoids to confirm this by providing a declaration on oath in the court as requested. He does not need to fear any consequences, because Mr Alberts has already done "preparatory work".

Because the criminal Code (StGB) in Germany says: Anyone who submits such an oath incorrectly before an authority responsible or gives false testimony on the basis of such oath will be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or with a fine.

For more than 3 years, those involved have been trying to somehow cheat their way through with this deliberate false statement. The participants are convicted. They lied before the court. The "non-existent" decision appears now (over 3 years!).