Sometimes there are judgments that are just fun to read!
A citizen of the Reich brought an action before the Cologne Administrative Court to be exempted from the broadcasting fee.
In a letter dated May 28, 2016, the plaintiff requested the Contribution Service to delete his personal data from its databases and to cease the “harassment”. He had paid the broadcasting fees “in good faith” because he had wrongly assumed that the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty was applicable law. At the same time, it filed claims for reimbursement of unlawfully collected contribution payments.
By notice dated January 2, 2017, the Contribution Service assessed broadcasting fees to the plaintiff for the period from January 2013 to October 2016 in the amount of EUR 826.14, including a late payment surcharge.
The objection raised against this was rejected by decision dated February 22, 2017. The Contribution Service also rejected an application by the plaintiff for exemption from the obligation to pay broadcasting fees “for reasons of conscience” in a decision dated April 3, 2017.
In the lawsuit filed against it, he claimed, among other things, that his person no longer existed or that only the state legislation prior to 01.01.1914 applied to this person. The broadcasting fee triggered a crisis of conscience in him. In addition, he presents a “jurisprudential expert opinion on the unconstitutional broadcasting fee”. The “perpetuation of forbidden National Socialist laws and regulations in the FRG” would be publicized on an international level.
In a written statement dated November 25, 2018, the plaintiff rejected the decisive “so-called judge” as biased and “generally the single judge” because he had the “suspicion” that the “judiciary at the VG Cologne” was “guilty of corruption,” “that is, playing everything to the contribution service.”
The judge, however, probably had enough humor for further legal arguments. In addition to exciting explanations of the inadmissibility of the refusal of the judge to present the plaintiff probably enough reading material, among other things, with the Sachsenspiegel and the Magna Carta
The plaintiff’s request for recusal is in abuse of rights and therefore irrelevant for the recused single judge. The prohibition of abuse of rights arises from the legal principle of good faith(bona fides; cf. para. 5 Pr. EuGRCh i.V.m. Art. 1 Magna Carta [1215]; Sachsenspiegel [between 1220 and 1235] Landrecht I. Buch Art. 7, III. Buch Art. 78; Siete Partidas [mid-13th century], Partida III, Titulo I, Leyes I y III, Titulo XXXII, Ley XXI; S. 3 d. schweiz. Bundesbriefs [1291]; Liber sextus [1298] 5, 13, 75; Book IV Title 16 Art. 4 § 1 Landrecht d. Hzgt. Prussia [1620]; § 270 I 5, § 539 I 11, § 2024 II 8 PrALR [1794]; § 858 SächsBGB [1865]; Art. 8 para. 2 p. 1 EuGRCh; §§ 157, 162, 242, 275 para. 2, § 307 para. 1, § 320 para. 2, § 815 BGB; § 1 StVO; Art. 5 para. 3, Art. 9, 44 para. 2 p. 1 swiss. BV; Art. 2 ZGB; § 914 ABGB; Art. 1104 Code civil;
this leads out
Anyone who appeals to a court that he does not recognize is behaving in a blatantly contradictory manner. Legal protection by the judiciary can only be obtained on the basis of the Basic Law and within the framework of the applicable laws of the Federal Republic of Germany and its Länder. Only the Basic Law guarantees any legal protection at all against measures taken by the executive. Anyone who casts doubt on the entire legal system of the Federal Republic and thus also on the existence or legitimacy of the judiciary to which he appeals is behaving inconsistently and is violating his duty to conduct proceedings in good faith. A legal system that takes itself seriously cannot ignore or even encourage disrespect for itself. It otherwise creates incentives to violate the law, discriminates against law-abiding behavior, and thereby undermines the conditions of its own effectiveness.
and concretizes this
The plaintiff has behaved contradictorily, because on the one hand he has asked the cognizing court for legal protection, on the other hand he has denied the legitimacy of the court by wanting to let only the state legislation before 01.01.1914 apply to his person in a written statement dated 23.11.2018. In addition, in a written statement dated November 12, 2018, he claimed that his person no longer legally existed; to the defendant, in a letter dated March 24, 2018, he claimed that this person was deceased. These statements also contradict the legal protection sought for his person.
I guess the good man doesn’t mess with the court anymore 😉
