|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact Deutsch | ||
|
Rip-off by the Legal and Regulatory Office of Burgenlandkreis? – How Protesting Against the Government Is Supposed to Be Punished€528.50 was what the Legal and Regulatory Office of Burgenlandkreis tried to collect from Steffen Hirschfeld for taking part in the nationwide farmers’ protests. 
Entrepreneur Steffen Hirschfeld has long been active on the streets, protesting against government policy. He often hits the road with his Unimog. This was also the case on January 8, 2024, when farmers followed through on their promise made in Berlin and once again took to the streets to protest across Germany. Because he expressed his protest on the A9 near Lützen / Dehlitz on that date, and traffic came to a standstill, he received a charge for “dangerous interference with road traffic.” On January 17, 2024, he was sent a notification of hearing by the Saxony-Anhalt police. In the form, Steffen Hirschfeld exercised his right to remain silent and added: “I reserve the right to make a statement after my lawyer reviews the case files.” On February 27, 2024, the public prosecutor’s office in Halle (Naumburg branch) informed him that, under §153a para. 1 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), they would refrain from pressing charges if he paid €150 to the state treasury by March 4, 2024. Hirschfeld promptly paid. The case was thus closed, which was confirmed again by letter from the prosecutor on May 2, 2024. The Legal and Regulatory Office of Burgenlandkreis Steps InOn February 29, 2024, the office sent another notification of hearing. Quote: “You were observed by the Halle Police Inspectorate (Central Traffic and Highway Service) on January 8, 2024, from 06:49 to 08:42 on the A9, km 142, at the overpass to the A38, with your Unimog. You participated in the nationwide farmers’ protests by deciding to block the highway at that location. However, this was not reported to the assembly authority as required. Because of the blockade – which you led with your vehicle – a traffic jam formed, creating a significant danger due to the risk of rear-end collisions. Unlike other participants, you refused to leave the scene despite police instructions and warnings about the dangers. Not even the threat of towing your vehicle changed your mind. Only at 08:42 did you leave the location, making the towing unnecessary. An administrative offense is committed by anyone who, under §28 para. 1 no. 2 of the Assembly Act of Saxony-Anhalt (VersammlG LSA), holds a public assembly or procession without the required notification under §12 para. 1 sentence 1. Violated regulations §12 para. 1 in connection with §28 para. 1 no. 2 and para. 2 of the Assembly Act of Saxony-Anhalt (VersammlG LSA) Evidence: Police report dated 09.01.2024 Witnesses: Witness Comment from me: The Legal and Regulatory Office seems to have forgotten that spontaneous demonstrations do not need to be registered 48 hours in advance. While §12 para. 1 sentence 1 VersammlG LSA is cited, the very next sentence says: This does not apply to assemblies that arise spontaneously due to a current event without an organizer, or to urgent assemblies where the purpose cannot be achieved if the registration period is observed. Once again, it's fascinating to see whether the Legal and Regulatory Office lacks the competence to read the law in full, or if they are deliberately ignoring exactly those parts that apply to spontaneous assemblies. In this context, I refer to the investigative principle in §24 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which states in paragraph 2: The authority shall consider all relevant circumstances of the case, including those favorable to the party involved. I also find “Witnesses: Witness” quite amusing. Who are these witnesses? Isn’t it part of the investigative principle to clearly identify witnesses? Or was this just sloppily put together? Knowledge is Power!On March 4, 2024, Steffen Hirschfeld responded to the hearing as follows: There are currently two proceedings – a criminal and an administrative offense proceeding – even though one can only be punished once for the same act. If an assembly is dissolved by authorities or police and demonstrators remain in place, they may commit an administrative offense and risk a fine. According to §84 of the OWiG, the principle of “ne bis in idem” (not twice for the same offense) also applies to administrative offense proceedings. §84 para. 1 OWiG prohibits further sanctions if a criminal penalty has already been imposed. This also includes terminations under §153 or §153a StPO (BGH, NJW 2004,375). This is a single historical act, and the actions are so closely linked that treating and punishing them separately would feel like an unnatural division of one continuous event (BVerfGE 45,434; BGH per Tepperwien, DAR 2009,251). The public prosecutor officially closed the case under §153a para. 1 StPO, file number 1706-090071-2 618 Js 201991/24. Therefore, your administrative hearing is unlawful and would constitute a violation of law. Punish One, Scare Hundreds!On March 20, 2024, Steffen Hirschfeld received a penalty notice from the Burgenlandkreis Legal and Regulatory Office. The allegation remained the same. Ironically, the letter Hirschfeld wrote on March 4 was listed as evidence. The fine was set at €500, plus €25 administrative fee and €3.50 in expenses. The notice was signed by the already familiar Mr. Runkewitz from the Legal and Regulatory Office. While the prosecutor was satisfied with €150, Burgenlandkreis wanted to collect more than triple that amount. On March 27, 2024, Hirschfeld filed an objection to the fine. He again pointed out that the matter had already been closed with the payment to the prosecutor and that he cannot be punished or fined twice for the same offense. On March 23, 2024, the office replied that the case had been reviewed and they would uphold the fine. The case would now be forwarded to the district court via the public prosecutor’s office. The Failure of the Rip-off AttemptOn May 15, 2024, the district court ruled to dismiss the case due to a procedural obstacle under §206a of the StPO in conjunction with §46 of the OWiG, at the expense of the state treasury, because criminal prosecution had already taken place. The court reasoned: A criminal case involving the same facts had been conclusively dropped under §153a StPO. This constitutes a sanction-based decision, which rules out additional punishment as an administrative offense (§21 para. 2 OWiG). Therefore, a procedural obstacle exists under §206a StPO in conjunction with §46 para. 1 OWiG. Thus, the court fully followed Steffen Hirschfeld’s legal reasoning. Was It Intentional?The attentive reader might now ask why this didn’t occur to the staff of the Legal and Regulatory Office earlier and why they didn’t simply refrain from issuing the fine, or why the review of the objection didn’t lead to the case being dropped. One might also ask: Why are they doing this? The answer might be: Because they can! Because there are no consequences for the Legal and Regulatory Office staff! They just try. And with people who fear prosecutors or court proceedings, they probably get away with unlawful fines often enough. Apparently, there’s no one higher up the chain who checks what the employees of this office are actually doing. That would be the job of the chief administrative officer – namely, District Administrator Götz Ulrich. He’s also responsible for ensuring that the office is staffed with competent people who know the law. Or is it perhaps intentional? You Shall Not Protest Against the Government!It appears that those who express criticism of the government on the streets are repeatedly targeted for punishment. To enforce or at least attempt this, one or two reliable people seem to be strategically placed in the Legal and Regulatory Office. On one hand Mr. Runkewitz, and on the other the head of the office, Mr. Hoeckstra, who apparently has no issue with how the agency operates. If crimes are committed by administrative staff, the office prefers not to know. Waste of Taxpayer MoneyIt should always be remembered that the work of public servants, prosecutors, and courts costs money – taxpayer money. When we hear again that the county budget has no funds for something, maybe someone should look at where staff costs can be saved – especially among those wasting work hours on cases that, if they had the competence to see it, were doomed and unlawful from the start. Of course, I don’t make personnel decisions. But if the district administration and its leader wanted to act in the interest of citizens and democracy, then in my opinion, personnel changes in the Legal and Regulatory Office are urgently needed. The longer these fail to happen, the more the impression solidifies that the office’s conduct is not only tolerated – but intended. Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | vor dem 01.07.2024 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Safe, Strong, Self-Determined! Citizens of Zeitz Demand: Peace and Freedom for Our Country!Monday Demonstration, Protest March, and Car Convoy in Zeitz, July 1, 2024... zum Artikel |
 | What Time Are We Living In?Grit Wagner with her thoughts about the times.... zum Artikel |
 | Over 10,000 Attend Bridge Lighting Over the A9 at Kreuz RippachtalUnexpectedly, the participants of the bridge lighting demonstration on November 28, 2024, received a visitor — which led to over 10,000 additional attendees.... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |