Lost authorities & embarrassing judicary II

If fraud and violations of  law are exposed, this makes sense and it is useful  for a real democracy and a true constitutional state, but in Germany you make yourself the target of the "those in power", so to speak. This extends to all areas of life and to all levels.

From the point of view of the rule of law, this is an evidence of incapacity.

Everything, including that of the other sections in this blog, is demonstrably connected.

There are scandalous incidents in various departments, e.g. of financial accounting, of the Schleswig-Holstein Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. Transparency and laws are blocked by arbitrariness and deception

To give specific examples:

It can be proven that those responsible for the Schleswig-Holstein occupational pension scheme (an institution under public law) deliberately lied and covered up facts.

As a citizen, you therefore ask the authority to inspect the files and documents.

Note: These are files and documents that the pension institution has kept about you for years. You are entitled to do so by law. The right to access files has a constitutional basis and at the same time includes, among other things: the right to informational self-determination.

Access to the files is not without consequences for those involved, because they deliberately reported untruthfully and much more. 

A Mr. Sven Gurek, Ms Julia Francke and Mr. Harald Spiegel are responsible. First of all, the matter is delayed for months and everyone tries to save the own skin.

Then you will simply be blocked from accessing your own documents.

At the ministry, Mr. Dominik Völk is the responsible supervisor. Sometimes one wonders how some persons even find a job at a "ministry".

Apart from the fact that Mr. Dominik Völk doesn't have an overview overall, he moves from one flimsy excuse to another. Months go by and nothing happens. You ask to refer the matter to management. Then a woman Claudia Schwabe from the Ministry of Social Affairs writes to you:

Proof: Original text: For data protection reasons, the content of the file there cannot be sent to you electronically by e-mail.

You write to Ms. C. Schwabe immediately, if not by email, why aren't the documents sent by post? The address is available to those involved. It is silent and nothing has been heard from those involved . You finaly inform those responsible that you will come by personally to pick up and receive the documents. It is silent again. Nothing else happens. You simply cannot access your own documents. The Minister's office is asked to remedy the situation.

Then Mr. Dominik Völk will write to you:

Proof: Original text: the files-keeping office is the pension fund. The file you want will be kept there, in the pension fund.

Mr. Dominik Völk ignores the fact that the ministry was involved for precisely this reason and because access is arbitrarily prevented and denied by those involved in the said institution. He is again made aware of this fact. Mr. Dominik Völk has disappeared.

These documents are indispensable for you, you discuss the matter legally and contact the court.

A Ms. Barabara Napirata is responsible at the administrative court. Now it gets even more amusing.

We talk about an administrative court in Germany.

Part 2:

Those involved from the authority must therefore guarantee you access to your documents. However, the access to files to which you are entitled is not without consequences for those involved. Everyone is trying to prevent this.

You inform Ms. Barbara Napirata (Administrative Court of Schleswig) in detail that the authority refuses the extrajudicial release of the requested and demonstrably existing files.

- Ms. B. Napirata is playing fool, so to speak. She writes that she “doesn‘t know“ whose files you want to see, so to speak. Since your own attempts at initiation have failed with Ms. B. Napirata, you turn to the court management. Ms. B. Napirata is rebuked by management. Ms. B. Napirata is able to act again and her first attempt failed.

- You can prove that Ms. B. Napirata misrepresents the content. She also forces you to “withdraw” your right to inspect files, so to speak. She is rebuked again. Ms. B. Napirata is able to act again and her next attempt failed.

- Ms. B. Napirata completely confuses the pension institution, professional organization and other public body and writes past the facts. Ms. B. Napirata is rebuked once more. Ms. B. Napirata is able to act again and her next attempt failed too.

Now it's time you finally get access to your own documents!

Again, these are also files and documents that the authority has kept about you for years and which you would like to access. Other documents will also be withheld from you too. You are entitled to do so by law. The right to inspect files is enshrined in constitutional law.

What Ms. B. Napirata is now attempting to put together is not only delinquent and unconstitutional, it is highly embarrassing.

Ms. B. Napirata wants to reject your application for legal aid.


Because your request has no chance of success.


There would be "no ongoing administrative proceedings", so you would have no right to inspect your own files and documents at the authority.

Proof (see below): SH24

In the Ministry of Justice, a person called Melanie Jochimsen is responsible.

Part 3:

The authority (Sven Gurek, Julia Francke and Harald Spiegel) demonstrably lied to the court. You confront those involved with it several times, in vain. Finally, you reqeust those involved to affirm their statements to the court under oath.

Proof: SH25

Suddenly it's silent there. Ms. J. Francke has now disappeared & the others cannot be found too. Just embarrassing.

Ms. Barbara Napirata (administrative court of Schleswig) now does not only act as the mouthpiece of the authority, but also does what she wants. There is no stopping her. As if the court would be her private property.

Another example:

As a citizen, you should submit your statement to the court. However, Ms. B. Napirata has long made her “decision” in favor of the authority. However, Ms. B. Napirata does not wait for your statement and "decides" arbitrarily. You immediately contact her and draw her attention to it, in vain. You contact the supervisory, without success. You will be insulted and informed that your letters will not be answered.

But you are right.

Ultimately, you submit the documents to the responsible police authority. 

Ms. B. Napirata gets cold feet and only then you receive the following embarrassing letter from Ms. B. Napirata, now with different sounds.

Proof: SH26

Ms. B. Napirata asks you to "excuse her".

Who would excuse such crimes, swindles and frauds?

Stupid, cheeky and in many ways criminal for the accused: Ms. B. Napirata admits, so to speak, that she didn't care what you said anyway, because her "decision" had already been made AND, on top of that, she doesn't want to have waited for it at all.

For Ms. B. Napirata, however, it was really stupid that her ready-made "decision" had already been sent and the processes disclosed.

We talk here about an “administrative court” in Germany.

Part 4:

As a citizen, you have missed a deadline that is not your fault. You are therefore entitled to have the procedure reinstated in its previous status. This means that the steps must be repeated from the beginning and you must be given the opportunity to submit your submission.

You therefore submit the application for reinstatement in the previous status in good time. The court has to decide on your application by order, against which you can also still defend yourself. The corresponding decision will be circumvented and a legal action will be taken away from you.

Months later, Ms. Barbara Napirata from the administrative court wants to negotiate "orally". Ms Julia Francke from the professional pension institution (public law institution) is now sitting in front of the court.

Proof: SH27

Since the authority (Julia Francke and others) demonstrably lied to the court repeatedly, you ultimately, as a citizen, submitted the application reqeusting those involved to swear their statements to the court under oath (SH25).

To be contiued.