The People Do Not Want the Truth – Nonsense Judgment from the District Court
The verdict from the District Court regarding my objection in the case of the City Council Chairman of Weißenfels, Ekkart Günther, against me, independent journalist Michael Thurm, has arrived. The insights already gained from the oral hearing were confirmed by the judge at the Weißenfels District Court, Baatz.
The People Do Not Want the Truth
This verdict by Judge Baatz is also given in the name of the people. The people, that is you, that is all of you. I am also part of the people, but this verdict was not spoken or written in my name. I see things differently.
Judge Baatz maintains his view that there was an agreement, a contract between me and the City Council Chairman Ekkart Günther, according to which I had promised to cut him and the other city council members out of the video recording of the city council meeting on November 7, 2024. Okay, Günther and I talked, but I never considered that an agreement in the slightest. Judge Baatz was not present at that conversation, but that does not seem to bother him.
At the oral hearing, which Ekkart Günther did not attend, I made it clear that there was no “contract.” Questioning Ekkart Günther could have clarified this, but Günther, the plaintiff, did not appear. Judge Baatz also showed no interest in scheduling another hearing to uncover the truth. For him, what Günther had his lawyer write to the court was sufficient.
My mistake was assuming that evidence would be taken at the oral hearing. That is why I had requested that the mayor of Weißenfels, Martin Papke, as well as city council members Christopher Hesselbarth, Beatrix Schierhorn, Michael Spengler, Angela Braune, Beate Schlegel, Walter Wolter, Heidi Föhre, Jana Loth, Mike Koch-Frischleder, Jörg Riemer, Sandy Scheunpflug, Ekkart Günther, Silke Krause, Johannes Kunze, Dr. med. Burcin Özüyaman, and Horst Ziegler be summoned.
Obviously, I did not have their service addresses. Therefore, I wrote to the court that these should be obtained through the city administration. But Judge Baatz apparently didn’t want to bother with that either. The address given for serving Ekkart Günther was “City of Weißenfels, Markt 1, Weißenfels” – exactly the address that could have been used for the summons of the mayor and the other council members, had Judge Baatz wished to do so.
I would have liked to question these people to find out why they have such a problem being visible and audible to the citizens of Weißenfels and their voters. Judge Baatz obviously didn’t want to know. Finding the truth doesn’t seem to be his thing, many might say.
Instead of just requesting an oral hearing, I should have disproved the “contract” in writing. Because only what was written on paper mattered to Judge Baatz at the oral hearing.
These are the tricks and tactics used at the district court, in my opinion, to suppress the truth. Since the verdict was issued in the name of the people, one must conclude that the people, meaning you, are not interested in the truth. Once a lie is written down, it is regarded as truth if it can somehow be interpreted as truth and is already documented somewhere.
Note the sentence that Judge Baatz probably copied:
“However, it is not decisive how a participant interprets the content of a conversation, but how the meaning of the relevant declaration aimed at concluding an agreement is perceived from the so-called recipient’s perspective, § 133 BGB. This is not determined by subjective understanding or misunderstanding, but by the objective content according to interpretation in good faith, taking into account customary practice (general opinion, see e.g. Ellenberger in Grüneberg, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 83rd edition, para. 9 on § 133 BGB et al.).”
Well, you, the people, the community – as once said by Sabrina, Moses’ foster sister:
Everyone should be a shepherd! Everyone should be careful
what they discuss with whom, lest suddenly a contract be derived from it.
(At least, that’s how I interpret it, which would make it true, right?)
There are a few positive aspects: Ekkart Günther had also tried to represent the aforementioned council members with his lawsuit. Judge Baatz agrees with me: that is not allowed. I just wonder why Günther’s lawyer didn’t realize this himself. I am not questioning competence or the opposite here, though.
The Costs of the Procedure
I don’t like that I have to pay half the court costs, because this matter could have been settled out of court and without a lawyer. If anyone has a few euros to spare and wants to support me and thereby the Bürgerstimme overall – bank and PayPal details are at the bottom of the page.
Thanks a lot!
The Nonsense Judgment
Below is the nonsense judgment. Yes, I call it that. It would have been easy for the judge to find the truth and overturn the previous order based on the truth. Instead, he muddled something together.
Maybe some democracy-aware teacher wants to use this verdict in ethics class? And don’t forget: Law studies should be compulsory from the first grade.
“Our Democracy” and “Our Rule of Law”
Now some will probably say that this is our democracy and our rule of law. For them, maybe it is “our rule of law.” I understand rule of law to mean that the court has an interest in the truth and revises or overturns judgments and decisions when it becomes obvious that previous assumptions were wrong. If a judge instead uses the law just to hold on to his previous views, then in my opinion this has nothing to do with rule of law. And without rule of law, there can be no real democracy.
The (Nonsense) Judgment in Full
District Court Weißenfels
1 C 334/24
In the name of the people
Judgment
In the legal dispute
Mr. Eckart Günther, City of Weißenfels, Markt 1, 06667 Weißenfels
Plaintiff
Attorney: Björn Fehse, ...
Case Number: 01512F24 fe/za
vs.
Mr. Michael Thurm, ...
Defendant
The District Court Weißenfels, presided by Judge Baatz, decided on 29.01.2025:
The preliminary injunction in the same matter dated 27.11.2024 is upheld.
The costs of the procedure shall be borne by the parties equally.
The judgment is provisionally enforceable.
Reasons for the Decision
The court refrains from reproducing the facts pursuant to § 495 a ZPO.
The claim made by the plaintiff by way of preliminary injunction is admissible. In particular, the jurisdiction of the court is given. Since two persons with German citizenship are litigating before a German court and the facts to be decided occurred in Germany, international jurisdiction of the German courts cannot seriously be doubted. Local jurisdiction is also given both with regard to the place of the event and the parties’ residences, §§ 12, 13 ZPO.
The plaintiff’s claim is also well-founded, §§ 311 para. 1, 241 para. 1 BGB. According to the facts underlying the decision, the parties agreed before the city council meeting on 07.11.2024 in Weißenfels that the defendant would either not film the plaintiff or remove corresponding footage later from his video report. However, he did not do so but published the entire recorded footage – without omission of the plaintiff – on the internet. Thus, he acted contrary to a contractual obligation, so the plaintiff has a corresponding claim for injunctive relief based on contract. As contractual partner of the plaintiff, the defendant is also passively legitimized, regardless of who is designated as the “disclaimer” on the used websites. Moreover, his possibility to comply with the asserted claim also follows from his own statement (page 3 of the objection, bottom, page 4, top); there he himself states that he initially took the video offline on request.
The defendant did not contradict the claim of an agreement in his written submissions up to the hearing, in particular not by the deadline which corresponded to the end of the oral hearing according to the injunction dated 13.12.2024. Since this injunction contained the explicit note that submissions made outside set deadlines at the court – in writing or on record – could be disregarded, a corresponding defense statement should have been filed within this deadline. Although the defendant made extensive use of the opportunity to comment within his objection and the submission of 19.12.2024, he did not contradict the plaintiff’s statement. Since such a submission should have been made in due time to prepare evidence, the defendant is precluded from denying an agreement, §§ 495, 273 para. 2, 296 para. 1 ZPO. Considering a possible claim that no agreement was made would delay the resolution of the dispute in the sense of the aforementioned norm; no excuse is apparent.
Even though it does not matter here, it should be noted that a relevant denial of an agreement could be doubtful anyway. The defendant clarified at the hearing that he does not consider the content of the conversation with the plaintiff on 07.11.2024 as an agreement. However, it is not decisive how a participant interprets the content of a conversation, but how the meaning of the relevant declaration aimed at concluding an agreement is perceived from the so-called recipient’s perspective, § 133 BGB. This is not determined by subjective understanding or misunderstanding, but by the objective content according to interpretation in good faith, taking into account customary practice (general opinion, see e.g. Ellenberger in Grüneberg, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, 83rd edition, para. 9 on § 133 BGB et al.).
Only the claim of the plaintiff is subject to the proceedings here, as already pointed out in the injunction dated 13.12.2024. Whether the other city council members mentioned by the defendant are also entitled to injunctive relief is irrelevant for the present matter and must be asserted by the affected parties themselves.
The costs of the procedure are to be borne by the parties equally, §§ 91 para. 1, 269 para. 3 ZPO.
The judgment is provisionally enforceable pursuant to § 708 para. 2 No. 11 ZPO.
Weißenfels, 29.01.2025
Judge Baatz
Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | 11.02.2025
|
