



	Home About Contact Deutsch Français

Lawless Zone Burgenlandkreis

How should it be interpreted when the district administrator participates in demonstrations against the right-wing, against the AfD, warning of terrible conditions that could arise if the AfD were to assume governmental responsibility, while such conditions are already established in the district administration under his responsibility?

The manner in which the Legal and Regulatory Office of the Burgenlandkreis deals with organizers of government-critical demonstrations is very concerning. I have obtained some additional information from people in Zeitz and had explained to me how some cooperation talks took place.

At the end of last year, the number of demo participants in Zeitz was very manageable. As Arnd Eiert also stated in his interview, the number of participants sometimes dropped to 12. Occasionally, such demonstrations were no longer even registered. When police were present on site, they demanded that demonstrators use sidewalks for their walk or procession. No other requirements were imposed. If no police appeared, not even that condition was enforced. Demonstrations completely without conditions are therefore possible.

This changed when the number of participants increased. The Legal and Regulatory Office called for cooperation talks. From my legal perspective, chasms opened up there. As Arnd Eiert reported, it was an explicit demand from Mr. Runkewitz of the Legal and Regulatory Office that organizers must mandatorily provide their own marshals. Arnd Eiert asked what would happen if no marshals were provided. Mr. Runkewitz's answer was that in such a case the demonstration would be banned or could not take place. However, a look at the Assembly Act (https://landesrecht.sachsen-anhalt.de/bsst/document/jlr-VersammlGST2009rahmen/part/X), which should basically be known to the Legal and Regulatory Office staff, shows that an organizer CAN employ their own marshals. There is no obligation anywhere to provide their own marshals. The demand to provide own marshals is therefore unlawful. The threat that the demonstration might not take place or be banned if no marshals are provided, in my view, constitutes the criminal offense of coercion (https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/240.html). Even the attempt is punishable. Section 240 paragraph 4 of the Criminal Code states: “In particularly serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment from six months to five years. A particularly serious case generally applies if the offender abuses his powers or his position as an official.” I certainly see this as the case here.

What is coercion?

In road traffic, coercion already exists if another driver aggressively cuts in front of you in flowing traffic, forcing you to brake to avoid a collision. The threshold at which coercion can be spoken of is therefore very low.

Holding a demonstration is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 8 of the Basic Law. The hurdles for a ban are accordingly high. Making the holding of a demonstration dependent on something for which there is no legal basis is absolutely unacceptable. An employee of the Legal and Regulatory Office should know that such demands are incompatible with law and must not even be made. If the Legal and Regulatory Office does not declare that this employee, who is supposed to take care of rights established in the Basic Law, is incompetent, it can be assumed that this unlawful conduct is undoubtedly intentional and the employee knew he was committing coercion. Nevertheless, he obviously had no scruples.

After the events of March 11, 2024, further talks with the Legal and Regulatory Office followed, where the said employee Runkewitz no longer wanted to admit that he intended to impose a fine of 80 euros on some convoy participants for allegedly honking too loudly. The head of the Legal and Regulatory Office, Mr. Hoeckstra, was also present at this meeting. He defended Mr. Runkewitz, tried to smooth things over and to prevent the demo organizers from filing official complaints or pressing charges. I see this as the criminal offense of obstruction of justice (https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/258.html). Here too, the attempt is already punishable.

I assume Mr. Hoeckstra is aware of the consequences Mr. Runkewitz would have to bear if the Legal and Regulatory Office actually ensured compliance with legal requirements. Mr. Hoeckstra could rely on Section 258 paragraph 5 StGB, which states: “A person is not punished for obstruction of justice if they simultaneously want to wholly or partly prevent that they themselves are punished or subjected to a measure or that a penalty or measure imposed on them is enforced.”

However, Mr. Hoeckstra surely knows the orders and coercions against the demonstration organizers. As head of the authority, he is therefore likely equally implicated in the coercion aspect. As far as is known, the requirements regarding providing marshals have been in the orders for years. So it can be assumed that this is in any case also a demand of the head of the Legal and Regulatory Office.

During the cooperation talks, it was also asked what happens if demo participants file an objection to the order notice. Such an objection would immediately have a suspensive effect (see Paragraph 80 of the Administrative Court Rules VwGO - https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwgo/__80.html) — the order notice would then initially not apply and therefore would not have to be observed. Mr. Hoeckstra’s answer was that demo participants could not file objections against the order notice.

The order notice is also directed at participants and prescribes among other things which symbols are prohibited and how posters and banners must be designed. It is thus an administrative act, and according to the Administrative Court Rules (including Paragraphs 42 and 70), everyone affected by an administrative act has the right to object and, if necessary, take further legal action.

If, according to Mr. Hoeckstra, demo participants are not allowed to object, he thereby declares that the conditions in the notice are invalid for the participants from the start. But then why should these conditions be announced to the participants by the assembly leader if the participants are not concerned by them? That would make no sense. In my opinion, the demand of the Legal and Regulatory Office that the assembly leaders read out the conditions is an attempt to humiliate the organizers by publicly forcing them to submit to those they are demonstrating against.

It can be assumed that Mr. Hoeckstra from the Legal and Regulatory Office simply wants to restrict the rights of the demo participants. He deliberately wants to deny demo participants their right to file objections.

Mr. Hoeckstra told Arnd Eiert that the only person entitled to object to the conditions in the order notice is the leader of the demonstration who registered it and received the notice. Thus, Mr. Hoeckstra declares that the notice is really only meant for the assembly leader. The demo participants are therefore not concerned with the conditions and do not have to comply.

In my opinion, the announcement of the conditions should also be made by the authority itself. Shifting this responsibility onto the assembly leadership is likely unlawful, since the assembly leadership is not part of the authority.

Furthermore, Mr. Hoeckstra made it clear to Arnd Eiert that the assembly leader is personally responsible for ensuring the conditions are met and must enforce compliance. Otherwise, the assembly leader faces a hefty fine.

Thus, the head of the Legal and Regulatory Office contradicts his previous statements and effectively turns the assembly leader into an "auxiliary police officer." The assembly leader would have to check every demo participant for prohibited symbols according to the order notice and inspect the design of posters and banners. On the other hand, Mr. Hoeckstra wants to hold the assembly leader liable for any administrative offenses caused by individual demo participants. There is no legal basis for this, especially since the conditions are not supposed to apply to the demo participants at all. From my point of view, this is another clear case of attempted intimidation (threat within the meaning of Paragraph 241 StGB - (https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/241.html) and again coercion. The attempt and goal are unmistakably to intimidate those who want to demonstrate against the government in an absolutely unacceptable way so that no demonstrations take place.

In my opinion, the Legal and Regulatory Office clearly acts according to the motto "No complainant, no judge!", hoping that the organizers swallow these unlawful conditions and get intimidated. That the employees of the Legal and Regulatory Office thereby commit criminal offenses is apparently accepted.

The supervisory responsibility over the district administration, which also includes the Legal and Regulatory Office, lies with the chief administrative officer of the district. That is District Administrator Götz Ulrich. He would be required to ensure that such unlawful conduct does not even occur and – unless he himself invokes Section 258 paragraph 5 StGB, i.e., is involved in the incidents – to ensure that those employees who repeatedly commit coercion and similar offenses are handed over to law enforcement authorities. Of course, the courts would decide on the severity of the penalty.

But if even the district administrator does not act, it would actually be up to the public prosecutor’s office to initiate investigations and prosecute the offenders. But why has this not happened so far?

At the latest since the declaration of the pandemic, it should be clear to everyone that in this best Germany that has ever existed, there is constant double standards. Government critics are harassed, while those on the side of the government are allowed to do things incompatible with law and justice. It is now widely known that public prosecutor’s offices are bound by instructions from the justice ministries. This means that justice ministries can dictate where and to what extent public prosecutor’s offices investigate – and where not.

Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the following paragraphs (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__160.html) defines the duty to clarify facts. It is,

Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | vor dem 01.07.2024

Jeden Tag neue Angebote bis zu 70 Prozent reduziert

Other articles:

I don't want this coldness and so much hate everywhere

Say it with a song.... zum Artikel

Honor Where Honor Is Due! – Grit Wagner Responds to Posts by the Kasper Frogs

My thoughts on the recent posts by the self-proclaimed Kasper voice, commonly called "Kasper heads" or affectionately "Kasper Froggies."... zum Artikel

Peace Demo in Zeitz - 02.12.2024 - Never Again Old Parties

On Monday, December 2, 2024, at 6 p.m., citizens gathered in Zeitz at the Altmarkt – between the town hall of our hometown and the former Gestapo torture cellar – for a peace d... 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