New
On May 27, 2025 the Regional Court Munich court sent summons to court date in Sept. 2025 to the defendant. The court also announced that Judge Ehegartner from the Munich Social Court had been summoned as a witness against the defendant for alleged defamation because he had described the judge as a notorious liar, document suppressor, and racist. The court records, on the other hand, corroborate the defendant's statements that he is a liar and suppresses important documents. This prompted the defendant, who has been blogging for years about Judge Ehegartner and his shabby judgments to the financial detriment of his Tibetan daughter to submit an application with the Regional Court Munich on June 15, 2025 based on Art. 6(3)(d) ECHR to summon Social Court President Mente and Judge Ehegartner for cross-examination. Social Court President Mente has been engaged against defendant in a SLAPP-suits vendetta from June 2020 until June 2025 with the sole purpose to shut defendant up for good. In a letter dated June 24, 2025 the president of the Social Court Edith Mente sent a letter to the Regional Court in which she referred to the summons of Judge Ehegartner by the Regional Court on May 27, 2025. In it, she mentioned the defendant's application dated June 15, 2025. This motion based on Article 6 of the ECHR apparently did not please her. The letter of the president of the Social Court was strikingly poorly worded from a legal perspective and should never have been sent. Perhaps she thought it would remain internal. In any case, the president expressed her concerns in part as follows: "With all due respect for your judicial independence, I request that you reconsider the necessity of hearing testimony from Judge Ehegartner: To my knowledge, this is a case of criminal proceedings pursuant to Section 194 (3) of the German Criminal Code (StGB). The purpose of the provision requiring supervisors to protect their employees would be undermined if the employees concerned were to be questioned as witnesses (possibly unnecessarily) at the request of the perpetrator in further proceedings. Regardless of this, it seems reasonable to assume that the Accused, through his desired “adversarial examination” of Judge Ehegartner as a witness after multiple rejected motions for recusal, wishes to substantiate a new motion for recusal of Judge Ehegartner. Should it nevertheless be necessary to hear witnesses, I urge you to ensure - that Judge Ehegartner is not photographed in connection with the main hearing. The Accused has repeatedly complained that no picture of Judge Ehegartner can be found on the Internet. that no personal data relating to Judge Ehegartner (date of birth, marital status, private address) be disclosed in connection with the main hearing.” According to the date stamp, the letter from the president of the Social Court dated June 24, 2025 was received by the Regional Court on July 1, 2025. That same day Judge Schulz issued an order that Judge Ehegartner is to be dismissed as a witness. Reason: official duties. The defendant immediately filed a complaint in which he suggested that judge Schulz recuse herself. On July 28, 2025, Judge Schulz informed the defendant that there will be a change of judge. Judge Diplich took over on Aug. 5, 2025. On August 8, 2025, the defendant was informed of a new date for the court hearing and that Judge Ehegartner had been summoned. Strikingly, the president of the Social Court Mente was not summoned despite defendants explicit request of June 15! On Aug. 18, 2025, the defendant was informed by Judge Diplich that the witness Judge Ehegartner is to be dismissed. Reason: Official business. One cannot help but get the impression of collusion between the Munich Regional Court and the president of the Social Court and that the verdict has already been decided.
Aug 27, 7:58am

Your description raises serious concerns about the fairness and independence of the judicial process in this case. Here’s a structured analysis of the key issues and possible legal avenues:

1. Summary of the Main Issues

Alleged Defamation
Defendant accused of defamation for calling Judge Ehegartner a "notorious liar," "document suppressor," and "racist," but court records allegedly corroborate these claims.
SLAPP Suits
Social Court President Mente accused of using SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suits to silence the defendant since 2020.
Witness Summons
Defendant requested cross-examination of Judge Ehegartner and President Mente under Art. 6(3)(d) ECHR (right to examine witnesses).
Interference by President Mente
Mente sent a letter to the Regional Court, arguing against summoning Ehegartner, citing §194(3) StGB (protection of officials) and expressing concerns about new recusal motions.
Judicial Independence
Mente’s letter appears to influence the Regional Court, raising questions about judicial independence and impartiality.
Dismissal of Witnesses
Judge Schulz dismissed Ehegartner as a witness, citing "official duties," and was later replaced by Judge Diplich, who also dismissed Ehegartner.
Selective Summons
Ehegartner was summoned, but Mente was not, despite the defendant’s explicit request.
Appearance of Collusion
Rapid dismissal of witnesses and change of judges suggest possible coordination between courts.

2. Legal Analysis

A. Right to a Fair Trial (Art. 6 ECHR)

  • Art. 6(1) ECHR guarantees a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
  • Art. 6(3)(d) ECHR gives the defendant the right to examine witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against them.
  • German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) §244(2) requires courts to take evidence requested by the defense if relevant to the case.

Possible Violations:

  • Denial of Witness Examination: The repeated dismissal of Judge Ehegartner as a witness, especially after the defendant’s explicit request, may violate the right to a fair trial.
  • Appearance of Bias: The letter from President Mente and the rapid change of judges could be seen as undermining the court’s impartiality.

B. Recusal of Judges

  • §24 StPO (German Code of Criminal Procedure) allows for the recusal of a judge if there are grounds to doubt their impartiality.
  • The defendant’s request for Judge Schulz’s recusal was followed by a change of judge, but the new judge (Diplich) also dismissed the witness, raising further concerns.

C. Protection of Officials (§194(3) StGB)

  • §194(3) StGB protects officials from insults related to their official duties, but this does not override the defendant’s right to a fair trial or to present a defense.
  • The court must balance the protection of officials with the defendant’s rights under Art. 6 ECHR.

D. SLAPP Suits and Abuse of Process

  • If President Mente’s actions are part of a pattern of SLAPP suits, this could be seen as an abuse of process, especially if the goal is to silence criticism rather than seek justice.

3. Possible Next Steps for the Defendant

1. Constitutional Complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde)
File a complaint with the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) alleging violations of Art. 2(1) (general personality right) and Art. 20(3) (rule of law) in conjunction with Art. 6 ECHR.
2. Complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
If domestic remedies are exhausted, the defendant can file a complaint with the ECtHR for violation of Art. 6 ECHR.
3. Request for Reconsideration
File a formal request for reconsideration of the witness dismissals, citing the right to a fair trial and the importance of cross-examining Judge Ehegartner.
4. Public and Media Attention
Given the allegations of judicial misconduct and SLAPP suits, bringing the case to the attention of legal NGOs, press, or parliamentary oversight bodies may increase pressure for a fair process.
5. Disciplinary Complaint
File a disciplinary complaint against Judge Schulz and/or Judge Diplich for alleged bias or procedural irregularities.
6. Request for Case Transfer
Request that the case be transferred to a different court to ensure impartiality.

4. Strategic Considerations

  • Document Everything: Ensure all correspondence, orders, and decisions are carefully documented.
  • Legal Representation: If not already represented, the defendant should seek a lawyer experienced in constitutional and human rights law.
  • Public Record: If the defendant’s blog is well-documented, it may serve as evidence of the pattern of alleged misconduct by the judges involved.

5. Conclusion

The sequence of events you describe—especially the letter from President Mente, the rapid change of judges, and the selective dismissal of witnesses—raises serious questions about the fairness and independence of the proceedings. The defendant should pursue all available legal remedies, both domestically and at the European level, to ensure their rights are protected.

If you need help drafting a formal complaint or legal motion, or if you want to explore specific legal arguments in more detail, let me know. I can also help you find relevant case law or legal precedents.

Aug 27, 7:58am
1/2

This Chat is read-only. Login to resume chatting.

Sign in