Why Law Is So Important from First Grade Onwards – The Example of City Council Chairman Ekkart Günther vs. the Public
Today, 29.01.2025, was the day of the oral hearing in the matter of City Council Chairman Ekkart Günther against me and against the publication of the video recording of the city council meeting from 07.11.2024.
Knowledge is power!
Knowing nothing gives others power over you!
Therefore: Know!
Well, dear children and parents. Today was another day that showed how important knowledge of the intricacies of law really is. But let’s start from the beginning.
The hearing was scheduled for 1:20 p.m. today in room 39 at the Weißenfels District Court. There was a big turnout. If Ekkart Günther had come with two others, there wouldn’t have been enough seats. One chair from the “applicants” trio was taken by a visitor. However, neither Günther nor his lawyer appeared.
I have witnessed many court hearings, sometimes procedural rules were ignored. Today was the exact opposite.
The judge opened the hearing and stated into his dictation device that Ekkart Günther and his lawyer were absent. They had apparently tried to get a postponement, which the judge denied, since urgency was seen on the part of Günther and his lawyer. They had presented urgency in their request for the court order, which the judge then issued without hearing me in any way.
Often it is beneficial for the appearing party if the other side does not show up. However, from experience, I know judges are reluctant to revise their prior rulings, even when, in my opinion, nonsense is written in them.
The judge also said at the beginning that he would neither revoke nor amend the order. Günther’s lawyer had written to the court that the CDU council members, who also did not want to be seen in the video, should be included in the order. I knew this would not be possible anyway. Why Günther’s lawyer came up with this idea is unclear to me.
The reasoning why the judge did not want to revoke his order, which would have allowed the video recording of the city council meeting from 07.11.2024 to be put online again, was, in my view, quite strange.
The judge relied on the statement in the letter from Günther’s lawyer that there had been an agreement—a contract—between Günther and me to cut those council members out of the video who wanted to remain invisible and inaudible to the public. So basically the entire CDU group, including Mr. Günther, a few SPD members, etc. I had stated that there was no such contract. But the judge was not interested, because according to his December ruling, I should have already responded in writing. I had only requested an oral hearing in order to clarify such matters during the hearing. I had wanted to summon Ekkart Günther, the other council members, and the mayor to question them. None of these people were summoned by the court. The judge said there was no valid address for summons. In my application, I had indicated that these addresses should be obtained via the city administration. The court apparently was not interested in that. Notably, Ekkart Günther’s address was given as Markt 1 in Weißenfels—the address of the city administration. Therefore, the mayor Martin Papke could have been summoned, as well as the other council members. But well, my guess is the judge was quite reluctant to set a new date or hear many testimonies.
The Alleged Contract
I understand that evidence gathering also happens during oral hearings. So one would think that my statement that there was no contract would have to be included in the evidence. The judge saw this differently. According to him, the facts are already in the file. Günther’s lawyer had claimed in the letter to the court that there was an agreement. And the judge stuck to that—that is the factual basis for him, since I did not respond in writing. I did not do so because I assumed the principle of immediacy in such proceedings and because I considered this false statement irrelevant. I also did not expect that the judge—so I interpret—would come up with this argument on his own initiative. This could have been discussed with Mr. Günther, in my opinion it should have been, if he had been present. The judge refused to summon Mr. Günther again.
A witness among the spectators came forward to confirm my statement. I asked if the judge wanted to record this statement into his dictation device, but he declined. It makes me wonder whether this could be considered evidence suppression and witness suppression.
We now have to wait and see how the judge will formulate his decision in writing.
Don’t read the primer! Read the Code of Civil Procedure!
Dear children and parents,
this is an example of how important it is to deal with the intricacies of law as early as possible. Don’t read the primer, read the Code of Civil Procedure! Otherwise, any of you might find that a discussion you had turns into an agreement or even a contract. It can happen that fast.
But now, dear children, you know about it and can apply it for yourselves.
If, for example, your mom cooks something and you agree to eat it only under the condition that it tastes good, and your mom also says it will taste good, but it doesn’t, you can accuse your mom of breach of contract.
Or if your mom buys you new clothes and you agree to wear them only on the condition that they look good and are comfortable from your point of view, which your mom also assures you, but this is not the case, you can again accuse your mom of breach of contract.
Okay, with bedtime stories it gets difficult and you have to move out by your 18th birthday, but you have clearly shown that you don’t accept breach of contract. Just as Ekkart didn’t accept it, even though there was no contract, but he claimed there was.
Who won and who lost the case?
If the judge sticks to his opinion in writing, democracy, press freedom, and the public have lost, because the city council chairman has continued to prevent the video recording from being re-published. If I were to publish the video again, I face a 250,000 Euro fine or alternatively 6 months imprisonment.
I and the viewers have won new insights, and once again it has been confirmed that law is often about technicalities and not necessarily facts. One should never make any statements to authorities, offices, institutions, and their staff that could later be interpreted as a concession or even an agreement in the sense of a contract.
Also winning are those who might have been unsure where to place their vote in the upcoming election—for example, for the CDU, which apparently in Weißenfels places great value on acting extremely undemocratically and opaquely. Wink smiley!
I and Mr. Günther will lose several hundred euros because the court has so far decided that the costs of the proceedings should be split equally between me and Ekkart Günther. Okay, the attorney fee for Günther’s lawyer will be waived because he didn’t show up.
Your Support
Anyone who wants to support me and Bürgerstimme will find payment information further below. Thank you in advance. Experience so far shows that there are some so-called democrats in our region who don’t like independent media keeping an eye on local politics and reporting about it. One can assume that such and other disputes will continue in the future. Besides that, journalism is time-consuming and costly.
I also thank today’s audience for the moral support. I think the judge did not expect so much interest.
Make democracy real again!
Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 29.01.2025
|
