



	Home About Contact Deutsch Français

Judge Murders the Rule of Law in District Court

I’ve witnessed a lot of illegal behavior—also by judges—but what I had to experience on November 25, 2023, defies belief.

The background is a fine proceeding for allegedly excessive speed—though the term “rip-off” a few meters before the town exit better describes the situation. Two police officers with a laser device were lurking. Suddenly, one of them jumped out onto the road in front of my car. I wanted to pull over to the right—but no: I was told to drive onto a property on the opposite side of the road. Naturally, the officer first had to stop oncoming traffic to make that possible.

Those who still remember the farmer protests in January might recall the article about the case against one of the protesters which was dropped after a payment of 150 euros. That person had blocked an off-ramp at a highway interchange. For the prosecution, that constituted a dangerous interference with road traffic. That’s exactly what the officer did in my case. From my perspective, this also qualifies as coercion, since he forced the oncoming traffic to stop.

Coercion and dangerous interference with road traffic are criminal offenses. A court would have to decide on the sentence. But are police officers allowed to commit crimes to collect fines? Definitely not. If the police want to enforce administrative offenses, they must do so without violating the law themselves. The question is: Where does it start, and where does it end? Can police eventually start shooting out the tires of violators—or worse?

I refused to pay the fine and requested the case files. Lo and behold: the protocol filled out by the officers contained a false statement. It said I had been shown the measurement result. That never happened. A lie.

Judge Murders the Rule of Law – Abyss at the District Court of Weißenfels

A court hearing was scheduled for November 25, 2024, at 9 a.m. I had previously requested that both officers and their superior appear for questioning. The court summoned only one officer. No explanation was given.

The judge called us into the courtroom. The officer and I entered. The officer headed to the witness table and was still taking off his jacket when the judge began instructing him that he must tell the truth in court.

There was no proper opening of the oral hearing. From other cases, I know that the presiding judge usually begins by recording the location, date, time, and the names of the judges present. It is also recorded who is appearing as the opposing party. None of this happened. No one from the fine authority was present.

The officer was dismissed from the courtroom again, and I was left alone with the judge and the court reporter. That may have been the judge’s plan. The rush he displayed gave me the impression that he wanted to push the case through and convict me. The judge briefly stated it was about a fine. I explained that the officers had committed criminal offenses, making the fine legally void. I had already written this to the court in advance. But the judge didn't care. He only cared about the fine. If the officers committed crimes, I would have to report them separately.

He suddenly called the officer back in. I reminded him that I had requested both officers and their superior be summoned. A discussion ensued between the judge and me. He showed zero interest in my objections. I repeated my request to summon all three. The judge said I had to make that request after the officer's questioning. I had no choice but to file a motion to recuse the judge. His conduct of the hearing was utterly unacceptable.

The judge said I had to submit the motion to recuse in writing immediately. I told him that wasn’t possible because I had no writing materials with me. He told me to go into town and get some, and asked again when I would submit the written motion. I replied that I would do it in three weeks. The judge said it had to be done by 1:15 p.m. that same day. Then the hearing would continue.

There was another discussion where the judge asked if I was familiar with the legal basis. He likely assumed I had no real knowledge and it appeared to me that he intended to exploit this presumed ignorance against me. That a judge must remain neutral clearly didn’t matter to him. He also said he would decide based only on the files. The fact that this meant siding entirely with the fine authority didn’t seem to bother him.

The Judge Declared: He Runs the Hearing!

Now it had to be clarified whether the officer could return at 1:15 p.m. He said he would have to extend his shift. The judge then told him he didn't need to come back and dismissed him.

The judge closed the hearing. Normally, at the end of an oral hearing, the minutes are read aloud and all parties confirm their accuracy. This did not happen either.

The Motion to Recuse (Bias Claim)

Alright, I went home and got to work on the motion. It ended up being nearly 23 pages long. AI can be really helpful—it quickly provided legal foundations and court rulings. The motion highlighted numerous procedural violations: failure to name the judge, breach of documentation duties, violation of the right to be heard, disregard of the Basic Law, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Code of Criminal Procedure, coercion, the rushed deadline to submit the motion, and ultimately perversion of justice, among other issues.

Technically, the judge could not have scheduled a 1:15 p.m. hearing because the motion to recuse had been submitted. Only the justification was missing, which can always be filed later in writing. A new hearing can only be scheduled once the motion has been decided. But hey, for this judge, those are apparently irrelevant details, right?

The Judge Continues to Murder the Rule of Law

Back at court: at 1:15 p.m. we were called into the courtroom again. This hearing could have been very short—just to submit the recusal motion. But no. The judge opened the hearing just as unlawfully as the one at 9 a.m. and refused to accept the printed motion. He claimed it had to be read aloud. I replied that I could have faxed it—no one would’ve read it aloud then. He didn’t care. He insisted it be read out, or he wouldn’t accept it. I said I’d put it in the court’s mailbox. The judge then dictated into the record that I was refusing to read it. In hindsight, another clear case of coercion and perversion of justice. It was obviously an attempt to humiliate me.

Alright, I’m no stranger to confrontation, so I said I’d read it—and I did.

The first sentence stated that the motion was directed against the presiding judge, whose name had still not been disclosed. The judge responded that I could read it off the display outside the courtroom. He still wouldn’t tell me himself. That’s clearly unlawful, since litigants must know who the judge is.

I read the motion, pausing after each paragraph to ask if I really had to read it all. The judge confirmed and said I no longer needed to ask—he had time. Strange, considering how rushed he was at 9 a.m.

The early parts of the motion covered procedural flaws, before moving on to coercion and perversion of justice. I particularly enjoyed reading those parts aloud. If the judge hadn’t forced me to read it, he wouldn’t have had to hear it.

The motion repeatedly requested that the case be transferred to another judge. This judge is definitely not impartial and, in my view, completely unfit for office.

I also requested a hearing regarding the motion because I would like to question the judge directly.

Almost as if he had been waiting for me to finish, the judge immediately announced the next hearing for December 4, 2024, at 10 a.m. at the Weißenfels District Court. But a judge cannot conduct further proceedings once a motion to recuse is filed. First, the motion must be decided. But this judge didn’t care.

This 1:15 p.m. hearing ended the same way. No minutes were read out. Apparently such things are completely unimportant to this judge. Yet he still wants to decide on a fine for an alleged offense?

Filing Criminal Charges

On my way to the 1:15 p.m. hearing, I wondered whether I should send the motion to recuse directly to the prosecutor. But I thought maybe the motion alone would be enough to secure a fair trial.

But after how that hearing went, I have no choice but to send a second motion to the court—and also file criminal charges. It’s simply unbearable that this “Judge at the District Court Berg” (as the display said) thinks he can do whatever he wants, ignore the law at will, and belittle defendants like he tried to do with me. I honestly felt like I had been transported back to the 12-year Reich. A judge like that has no place on the bench. Anyone who is to rule in the name of the people must first and foremost strictly adhere to the law.

What the prosecutor will do remains to be seen. I assume the complaint will sit there for a while and eventually they’ll say that while what the judge did wasn’t right in many ways, it still wasn’t illegal. They’ll find a way to justify it. After all, prosecutors are bound by the instructions of the state justice ministry. I doubt anyone will seriously investigate, let alone initiate criminal proceedings.

But if such behavior by a judge is considered acceptable, how do you explain to people out there that going a few km/h over the speed limit *must* result in a fine?

Standing Up for the Free Democratic Basic Order with All One’s Strength

I had to smile just now. On https://justiz.sachsen-anhalt.de/ themen/ justizkarriere/ richter-und-staatsanwaelte the requirements for becoming a judge are listed—among them: “someone who stands up at all times for the free democratic basic order as defined by the Basic Law.” Has anyone ever checked if this “Judge at the District Court Berg” qualifies? Apparently not!

Let me quote the much-admired district administrator Götz Ulrich (CDU), who said in the district council on March 11, 2024: "We all know who used such instruments of intimidation, repression, and threats, and where that leads... But as a Christian, I firmly believe that you and your henchmen will be held accountable one day. Until then, I say to you: I will stand up to these Nazi methods and continue to defend our free democratic basic order with all my strength, wherever necessary."

Is There a Solution?

Yes, it would be quite simple. The court could lift the fine. That would end the case—and also the motions to recuse.

But will the court do so after everything that’s happened? The judge has gone all in. I can’t imagine this was an isolated incident. Someone who acts like this probably does it regularly. I suspect the court will want to maintain a hardline image. They can’t undermine this judge now—otherwise, they would’ve had to stop him long ago.

Besides, how dare a rude... um... citizen challenge a judge? What would happen if *all* rude... um... citizens started doing that? Next thing you know, people will be talking about democracy, the rule of law, and fair trials. Surely no one wants *that*, right?

How Can Citizens Avoid Experiences Like This?

That’s easy. You give up your rights. You don’t try to assert them. You submit to any arbitrary treatment. You accept being a subject. You pay fines without objection—even when they have no legal basis or are imposed unlawfully. You don’t think further about it. That way, you don’t have to deal with the recurring realization that what’s often called “our democracy” and the rule of law often has nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. And you don’t have to witness judges like the “Judge at the District Court Berg” effectively murdering the rule of law on a daily basis.

Or you say in such situations: No! I do not accept this! I will file legal remedies! And I will go public with it!

PS: Before any “smart alecks” show up claiming I shouldn’t write and publish such an article because it concerns a court proceeding—let me just say this: the hearing was public. Therefore, everything that happened there may be made public. In fact, I believe such actions *must* be made public.

Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 26.11.2024

Jeden Tag neue Angebote bis zu 70 Prozent reduziert

Other articles:

City of Weißenfels Offers 500 Euro Reward for Stolen Schiller Memorial Plaque

The city of Weißenfels is asking for help: Between April 3, 2025, at 14:00 and April 5, 2025, at 20:30, the historic bronze plaque was stolen from the Schiller Memorial in Klemmbe... zum Artikel

The Bogeyman Called Peace – Some Naumburg Residents Are Not Afraid of It

They have been present every Monday for many years. And they continue to show up, even though attendance has declined significantly — because politics still does the opposite of ... zum Artikel

The Federal Ministry for Truth and Propaganda invites you: Demonstration for AfD ban in Merseburg

Welcome to the new Federal Republic of Germany, the land of double standards and moral arrogance. The command center of political correctness – in this case, the alliance “Mers... 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