Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
Arbitrary Authority Legalized: Court Turns Date Stamp into a Doomsday Verdict and Allows Manipulation of DeadlinesA citizen files an appeal on time via registered mail – but because the authority simply stamps the letter three days later, it is deemed too late. And the court? Blesses the arbitrariness! This ruling throws the door wide open for manipulation – and hacks away at the very foundation of trust in our rule of law. 
What I’m reporting today belongs in the category of “News from Absurdistan.” Content-wise it’s actually boring legal formalism. But the decision I’m discussing today sends an absolutely fatal signal. Here’s what happened: On June 2, 2023, someone was served with a fine notice. The alleged offense: failure to provide proof of measles vaccination. The affected person lodged an appeal against the fine notice by registered mail (I don’t know exactly whether it was with delivery confirmation or with return receipt). On June 16, 2023, a staff member at the authority’s mailroom confirmed receipt. However, the authority stamped the appeal letter with an incoming mail stamp dated June 19, 2023 and rejected the appeal as late (the appeal period is two weeks). This decision stood up in court – even before the Bavarian Supreme Regional Court (case no.: 202 ObOWi 476/25). The BayObLG followed the arguments of the public prosecutor general, who had stated that only the date stamp was decisive, citing § 37(1) StPO in conjunction with §§ 169, 174 ZPO. The problem is: these provisions regulate how to proceed when court documents are to be served on a citizen. Here, however, it was the opposite case: the citizen had himself contacted the authority and was faced with the necessity of proving that he had managed to deliver a document – namely the appeal letter – to the authority. Citizens’ attempts to bring documents into the sphere of authority are of course not even covered by the legal term “service of documents.” Be that as it may: the provisions relied on by the public prosecutor general and the BayObLG could by no means justify the thesis that only the date of the incoming mail stamp matters. In the Code of Civil Procedure, however, there is a clue on how to deal with cases like this one: the incoming mail stamp constitutes a public document within the meaning of § 418(1) ZPO and serves as proof of the fact that the document actually arrived on the day of the date stamp. However – subject to deviating regulation by state law – proof to the contrary is admissible (§ 418(2) ZPO). The BayObLG should therefore have examined whether such proof to the contrary – namely the proof that the appeal letter actually arrived on June 16, 2023 – had been successfully provided by means of the receipt confirmation of June 16, 2023. That was not entirely clear; because the receipt confirmation – which was presented to me – contained the note “8 item(s) received.” The receipt confirmation thus referred to a number of postal items that apparently arrived at the authority on June 16, 2023, and not specifically to the appeal letter in question. BUT: on the one hand, this receipt confirmation at least ended up in the hands of the citizen, and on the other hand, the shipment can also be tracked online using the tracking number and thus additionally serve as evidence for (timely) receipt. The decision of the BayObLG discussed here means nothing less than an invitation to authorities to arbitrarily manipulate the receipt date of time-sensitive documents through a false date stamp. If the courts play such games with the public seeking justice, we should not be surprised about the loss of trust in the judiciary.
Author: AI-Translation - Martin Schwab | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Filming for ARD TV Series in Naumburg and Surroundings Leads to Temporary Traffic Restrictions and Closures on June 3 and 4, 2024Currently, filming is underway for the new TV series “Two Women for All Cases” commissioned by ARD Degeto Film and MDR in the Naumburg area, Freyburg, and Leipzig.... zum Artikel |
 | Why Law Is So Important from First Grade Onwards – The Example of City Council Chairman Ekkart Günther vs. the PublicToday, 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 ... zum Artikel |
 | How crowded will the marketplace in front of the town hall be on Monday?"You can break our bones, but not our resistance!" This is the call from Colette Bornkamm-Rink for the demonstration on Monday, August 19, 2024, in Aschersleben, due to the events ... 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 |