Inconvenient questions are unwelcome V

1. In the proceedings before the social court, a Ms. S. Hamdorf is responsible. You tell her that you have been deliberately blocked from accessing the documents, which you urgently need for your defense anyway, without success.

You fall on deaf ears with her.

2. To avoid accountability, ping pong is played by those involved from the ASHIP. A says B is responsible, B says C is responsible, C says A is responsible, B says I don't know, A is responsible ... . There are chaotic conditions.

You will regularly receive Letters from the respective departmentsthe ASHIP.

Proof (see below): SH21

You reply to them accordingly to the ASHIP.

Because your pleadings and the statement of claim are either not forwarded to the responsible department or are deliberately confiscated by the incompetent department and person, you contact the supervisory authority:

Ms. Bettina Neke from the Ministry for Social Affiars is responsible. She blames the employees at the central service point oft the ASHIP. They're supposed to be to blame.

Ms. Neke writes to you:

Proof: (original text): In my capacity as legal supervisor, I cannot and will not judge how the central service point of the ASHIP acted in individual cases.

It has been proven that those responsible at higher levels systematically lie and cheat, but the base and simple employees at the service point are to blame.

3. In the case of the lawsuit filed, this way is deliberately avoided. Anything else you send to the ASHIP will be presented to the appropriate person and department. Only the lawsuit is not forwarded. This not only prevents processing, but also avoids accountability. You keep pointing this out to those responsible in court, to no avail.

A Mr Blöcher is responsible at the higher social court. Ms. S. Hamdorf from the Social Court is now within Mr. Blöcher sphere of action at the higher social court.