Laws can be intricate and difficult to grasp
A Fight Against Odds, But to the Wrong Battleground.
My grievance against the prolonged court proceedings by the North Rhine-Westphalia Social Court was dismissed yesterday, a decision I firmly disagree with.
Although I mistakenly perceived my long-standing disputes (2008-2025) with the Jobcenter Märkischer Kreis over performance refusal (€1,551.82), unjustified recovery claims, accusations of false allegation in two instances (criminal charges), and hidden compensation payments (€540.80) as excessive, the LSG NRW focused only on parts of this tangled web in their rulings for the case numbers S 53 AS 583/23 and L 19 AS 916/24 NZB (01.03.2023-09.07.2024 and 08.07.2024-09.10.2024).
While I bore the melody of countless legal violations in mind, the five-judge panel took a narrowed approach, focusing on specifics for their verdict. Such a decision was legally sound: §
In 2011, the former managing director of the JobCenter Märkischer Kreis, V.R., had gloated about reporting me for "false allegation in two instances, in one case maliciously" stating:
"Therefore, I am also of the opinion that there is a public interest in prosecution."
However, it took nearly three years for the accusations to be proven true, and the charges of malicious slander to be refuted. Klage009
Learning from Missteps
Let me shed light on my errors, so others may learn from them.
I recall a story from the New Testament, Jesus and the adulteress. In the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John Verse 1-11, it is written:
"1 Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he returned to the temple courts, and all the people came to him. He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand in the middle 4 and said to Jesus: Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 5 In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say? 6 They said this to test him, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept questioning him, he straightened up and said to them: Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, starting with the older ones, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? 11 She said, No one, Lord. Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."
"The woman was used by the men to set a trap for Jesus. If Jesus had said: 'Let her go,' he would have broken the Mosaic law. If he had said: 'Stone her for adultery,' Jesus would have appeared harsh and could have been accused of violating the Roman law that prohibited execution for religious offenses."
Indeed, the rejection of my complaint by the 11th Senate in the case L 11 SF 377/24 EK AS was meticulously reasoned, anchored in paragraphs and judgments. The law was adhered to, but hidden injustices continued to linger, as the repeated criticisms of the job center's legal abuses were ignored, almost legitimizing them.
One may argue that minor procedural errors were rejected, enabling the continued concealment of proven criminal offenses.
Justice isn't just about upholding the letter of the law; it's about seeking justice for the greater good.
Historical and Contemporary contexts:
In some cases, laws have been applied technically correctly, but underlying injustices have been overlooked. Examples from history include the use of torture to extract confessions, which were later used as evidence in trials[2]. In contemporary times, racial disparities within the justice system have led to systemic injustices, despite the law being applied technically correctly, resulting in unequal treatment under the law[1]. In cases like Lloyd v Google, the court's decision followed the letter of the law regarding class actions, but the scope for addressing collective injustices was limited, potentially overlooking the collective harm experienced by victims[5]. These instances illustrate how legal proceedings can satisfy technical requirements while ignoring underlying injustices, often due to systemic issues or judicial interpretations that fail to account for broader societal impacts.
- In the midst of my ongoing battle with the North Rhine-Westphalia Social Court and the Jobcenter Märkischer Kreis, I can't help but draw parallels to the political landscape, as my case seems to intersect with policy-and-legislation and general-news.
- Despite the seemingly accurate rulings, I question whether the broader societal impacts were considered, as instances of hidden injustices continued to linger, casting a shadow over the Technical upholding of the law, reminiscent of historical and contemporary instances where the letter of the law trumps the pursuit of justice and fairness in politics and legal proceedings.
