Why ministers of justice stop procecuters in Germany to defend the constitution

Um den Artikel in Deutsch zu lesen bitte runter scrollen/for reading the article in german please scroll down.

In this week's articles, I have been looking at the effects of bureaucracy in real life. Each article has been about the effects of bureaucrats and how little a citizen can do against their decisions in case of doubt. How much one is at the mercy of these powers.

This should not be the case. To ensure that such actions do not occur, the criminal code of the German Empire defined corresponding criminal offenses in §§ 331 to 358. These offenses can only be committed by persons in office. They range from taking advantage of, to bribery and omission, to perverting the course of justice and inciting a criminal offense.

The emperor himself seemed to know that it was necessary to bind office holders, such as judges and civil servants, to rules. It was therefore assumed at the time that an oath and simple provisions in laws were not sufficient to ensure good work. Nevertheless, the public prosecutors' offices do not seem to consider it necessary to enforce the laws.

They seem to ignore these provisions, if you read the three letters in the picture above the article. Without dealing with the specific content of the accusations, it is simply stated that there are no grounds for investigation.

It should be noted that none of the letters state that the relevant office holders have not committed a criminal offense. Rather, these letters state that they are not responsible. A typical bureaucratic phrase for “I don't feel like dealing with it, ask someone else.”

The problem is that there is no one else to ask. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the public prosecutor's offices have the task and responsibility of ensuring that acts that are punishable under the law are punished. They have to investigate and present their findings to a judge. The judge then decides on guilt or innocence after hearing the defense. No one else has this task or is allowed to exercise it.

Nevertheless, public prosecutors do not even deal with the content of the corresponding criminal charges, as the three letters show. The two letters from Frankfurt are particularly interesting in this regard. Both state that it is not the responsibility of the public prosecutor's office to “subject judicial processing or decisions to a review of their material or factual justification”. Instead, they shift the responsibility to the courts.

Yet §339 of the criminal code is very clear: “A judge, another public official or an arbitrator who, in the conduct or decision of a legal matter, is guilty of bending the law in favor of or to the detriment of a party, shall be punished with imprisonment from one to five years.”

If public prosecutors are unable to review decisions for their material or factual justification, how can they apply §339 of the criminal code? They cannot, at least I don't know how. The public prosecutors in Frankfurt therefore justify their refusal to work with their wording.

The exciting thing here is that the underlying criminal complaint describes a case in which two branches of the court have made contradictory decisions. They did not recognize the decisions of the respective other court. The administrative court declared itself to be competent before the civil court, according to which the civil court should not have made a decision according to the law. Nevertheless, the civil court made a contradictory decision to the administrative court and even ruled on administrative acts, for which it has no jurisdiction. So one of the two courts must be wrong, probably the civil court, since it takes on responsibilities that it does not have by law.

In any case, both decisions cannot be right at the same time, otherwise you as a citizen are left in the middle wondering what to do. Both at the same time is not possible. Therefore, I asked the administrative court what would be right. The proceedings have been going on for over 3 years without anything relevant happening. Meanwhile, the civil court is ruthlessly enforcing its decision and the administrations on the other side are also regularly taking action.

What is missing, then, is precisely what the above-mentioned criminal laws were made for: to ensure the rule of law. The administration should act according to the law and not according to its own opinion. The task of ensuring this is ultimately the task of the public prosecutor's office in applying the criminal code. After all, judges here are refusing to follow the law. At least §339 of the criminal code is thus fulfilled.

Since the Federal Constitutional Court also refused to allow a complaint without giving reasons, i.e. contrary to the provisions of Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the only option left is the public prosecutor's office. That is why the criminal complaint, which was partially decided in the above three letters, was filed. However, the public prosecutors do not want to have anything to do with it. It seems that the laziness of the public prosecutor's offices is winning over the legal provisions and social responsibility.

The reason for this becomes clear when you look at the articles from the last few days. Each article describes how bureaucracy is undermining the rule of law and democracy. In other words, if the public prosecutor's office were to start using the means available to it under the criminal code to fight corruption (the word “corruption” means “broken” and thus implies more than just bribery) in Germany, they would have their work cut out for them.

An additional hurdle is likely to be the personal environment. You would have to take action against colleagues and former fellow students and against yourself. Who likes to take action against acquaintances, especially if they could retaliate?

Beyond this personal level, such an approach would also reduce the number of state employees. After all, office holders, like everyone else, are not allowed to hold public office if they have been sentenced to at least one year in prison. For judges and other office holders, this possibility even exists for half a year in prison.

Pursuing criminal offenses under the criminal code would therefore mean that fewer people would have to do more work. And this at a time when the public service in Germany, with its 1.9 million judges and civil servants (not counting general employees - in Germany there is huge difference between those), is constantly demanding more staff. In particular, the superiors of the public prosecutors, the ministers of justice, would not like this at all.

They are elected for four years and probably want to keep their office beyond that. To do so, they need the approval of the respective prime minister or chancellor and/or party leader. If the ministers of justice or public prosecutors were to start prosecuting employees of other ministries, for example tax officials, they would probably be removed from office at the end of the proceedings. This is unlikely to be well received by the cabinet. After all, the ministers would then have to think about reorganizing their departments.

Prosecutors themselves are directly dependent on the ministers of justice. They are not allowed to make independent decisions, which is why arrest warrants issued by German public prosecutors are not valid in other EU countries, as the European Court of Justice ruled years ago.

This is where the signal takes its course. Prosecutors would have to expect to be removed from office if they were to solve a case like the one described above. After all, they would not only be making their superiors' work more difficult. They would also be proving that the Federal Republic of Germany is not as constitutional, incorruptible and democratic as it always claims to be. Especially in times when many party members only have the topic of democracy for election campaigns, such an approach is likely to cause even more displeasure among their superiors.

As a result, state employees continue to do as they have always done. They do not ensure that laws are observed in the future, but rather determine the law according to their own opinion, as has been demonstrated in recent days.

This explains why this bureaucratic system is self-perpetuating and apparently accelerating. There is simply no incentive for anyone in this circle to work for the citizens and according to the laws. It is more work and costs time and nerves. It is therefore rational to ignore the laws and pretend that everything is fine.

The responsibility for bureaucracy and the abolition of democracy and the rule of law in this system clearly lies with the governments and in particular with the ministers of justice. Christian Heinz (CDU) in Hessia and Georg Eisenreich (CSU) in Bavaria are currently responsible for the documents shown above. As for Mr. Heinz's protection, it must be said that he took office on the day the latter of the Frankfurt letters was written. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether much has changed since then.

The justice ministers therefore have the responsibility to use the public prosecutors as the controlling body that they are. With their help, it must be ensured that bureaucracy in Germany has no chance and that at the same time democracy and the rule of law are lived in the administration. The criminal code also provides the necessary means to do so. All that needs to be overcome is laziness and cowardice in order to end the high treason against the German constitution.

Dear ministers of justice, you have it in your hands to dismantle bureaucracy and give democracy and the rule of law room to breathe. A few cases at all levels of the courts would probably be enough to convince the others to work in accordance with the constitution from now on. Of course, this requires the cooperation of your cabinet colleagues. In the end, they would have to ensure that their employees are properly prepared. That is exactly why you were all elected, so that laws are applied in the Federal Republic of Germany by administrative staff and decisions are only made on this basis.

What do you think? Should the ministers of justice go down this path or do you think the whole thing is exaggerated? Please feel free to write your opinion in the comments.In this week's articles, I have been looking at the effects of bureaucracy in real life. Each article has been about the effects of bureaucrats and how little a citizen can do against their decisions in case of doubt. How much one is at the mercy of these powers.

This should not be the case. To ensure that such actions do not occur, the criminal code of the German Empire defined corresponding criminal offenses in §§ 331 to 358. These offenses can only be committed by persons in office. They range from taking advantage of, to bribery and omission, to perverting the course of justice and inciting a criminal offense.

The emperor himself seemed to know that it was necessary to bind office holders, such as judges and civil servants, to rules. It was therefore assumed at the time that an oath and simple provisions in laws were not sufficient to ensure good work. Nevertheless, the public prosecutors' offices do not seem to consider it necessary to enforce the laws.

They seem to ignore these provisions, if you read the three letters in the picture above the article. Without dealing with the specific content of the accusations, it is simply stated that there are no grounds for investigation.

It should be noted that none of the letters state that the relevant office holders have not committed a criminal offense. Rather, these letters state that they are not responsible. A typical bureaucratic phrase for “I don't feel like dealing with it, ask someone else.”

The problem is that there is no one else to ask. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the public prosecutor's offices have the task and responsibility of ensuring that acts that are punishable under the law are punished. They have to investigate and present their findings to a judge. The judge then decides on guilt or innocence after hearing the defense. No one else has this task or is allowed to exercise it.

Nevertheless, public prosecutors do not even deal with the content of the corresponding criminal charges, as the three letters show. The two letters from Frankfurt are particularly interesting in this regard. Both state that it is not the responsibility of the public prosecutor's office to “subject judicial processing or decisions to a review of their material or factual justification”. Instead, they shift the responsibility to the courts.

Yet §339 of the criminal code is very clear: “A judge, another public official or an arbitrator who, in the conduct or decision of a legal matter, is guilty of bending the law in favor of or to the detriment of a party, shall be punished with imprisonment from one to five years.”

If public prosecutors are unable to review decisions for their material or factual justification, how can they apply §339 of the criminal code? They cannot, at least I don't know how. The public prosecutors in Frankfurt therefore justify their refusal to work with their wording.

The exciting thing here is that the underlying criminal complaint describes a case in which two branches of the court have made contradictory decisions. They did not recognize the decisions of the respective other court. The administrative court declared itself to be competent before the civil court, according to which the civil court should not have made a decision according to the law. Nevertheless, the civil court made a contradictory decision to the administrative court and even ruled on administrative acts, for which it has no jurisdiction. So one of the two courts must be wrong, probably the civil court, since it takes on responsibilities that it does not have by law.

In any case, both decisions cannot be right at the same time, otherwise you as a citizen are left in the middle wondering what to do. Both at the same time is not possible. Therefore, I asked the administrative court what would be right. The proceedings have been going on for over 3 years without anything relevant happening. Meanwhile, the civil court is ruthlessly enforcing its decision and the administrations on the other side are also regularly taking action.

What is missing, then, is precisely what the above-mentioned criminal laws were made for: to ensure the rule of law. The administration should act according to the law and not according to its own opinion. The task of ensuring this is ultimately the task of the public prosecutor's office in applying the criminal code. After all, judges here are refusing to follow the law. At least §339 of the criminal code is thus fulfilled.

Since the Federal Constitutional Court also refused to allow a complaint without giving reasons, i.e. contrary to the provisions of Article 41 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the only option left is the public prosecutor's office. That is why the criminal complaint, which was partially decided in the above three letters, was filed. However, the public prosecutors do not want to have anything to do with it. It seems that the laziness of the public prosecutor's offices is winning over the legal provisions and social responsibility.

The reason for this becomes clear when you look at the articles from the last few days. Each article describes how bureaucracy is undermining the rule of law and democracy. In other words, if the public prosecutor's office were to start using the means available to it under the criminal code to fight corruption (the word “corruption” means “broken” and thus implies more than just bribery) in Germany, they would have their work cut out for them.

An additional hurdle is likely to be the personal environment. You would have to take action against colleagues and former fellow students and against yourself. Who likes to take action against acquaintances, especially if they could retaliate?

Beyond this personal level, such an approach would also reduce the number of state employees. After all, office holders, like everyone else, are not allowed to hold public office if they have been sentenced to at least one year in prison. For judges and other office holders, this possibility even exists for half a year in prison.

Pursuing criminal offenses under the criminal code would therefore mean that fewer people would have to do more work. And this at a time when the public service in Germany, with its 1.9 million judges and civil servants (not counting general employees - in Germany there is huge difference between those), is constantly demanding more staff. In particular, the superiors of the public prosecutors, the ministers of justice, would not like this at all.

They are elected for four years and probably want to keep their office beyond that. To do so, they need the approval of the respective prime minister or chancellor and/or party leader. If the ministers of justice or public prosecutors were to start prosecuting employees of other ministries, for example tax officials, they would probably be removed from office at the end of the proceedings. This is unlikely to be well received by the cabinet. After all, the ministers would then have to think about reorganizing their departments.

Prosecutors themselves are directly dependent on the ministers of justice. They are not allowed to make independent decisions, which is why arrest warrants issued by German public prosecutors are not valid in other EU countries, as the European Court of Justice ruled years ago.

This is where the signal takes its course. Prosecutors would have to expect to be removed from office if they were to solve a case like the one described above. After all, they would not only be making their superiors' work more difficult. They would also be proving that the Federal Republic of Germany is not as constitutional, incorruptible and democratic as it always claims to be. Especially in times when many party members only have the topic of democracy for election campaigns, such an approach is likely to cause even more displeasure among their superiors.

As a result, state employees continue to do as they have always done. They do not ensure that laws are observed in the future, but rather determine the law according to their own opinion, as has been demonstrated in recent days.

This explains why this bureaucratic system is self-perpetuating and apparently accelerating. There is simply no incentive for anyone in this circle to work for the citizens and according to the laws. It is more work and costs time and nerves. It is therefore rational to ignore the laws and pretend that everything is fine.

The responsibility for bureaucracy and the abolition of democracy and the rule of law in this system clearly lies with the governments and in particular with the ministers of justice. Christian Heinz (CDU) in Hessia and Georg Eisenreich (CSU) in Bavaria are currently responsible for the documents shown above. As for Mr. Heinz's protection, it must be said that he took office on the day the latter of the Frankfurt letters was written. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether much has changed since then.

The justice ministers therefore have the responsibility to use the public prosecutors as the controlling body that they are. With their help, it must be ensured that bureaucracy in Germany has no chance and that at the same time democracy and the rule of law are lived in the administration. The criminal code also provides the necessary means to do so. All that needs to be overcome is laziness and cowardice in order to end the high treason against the German constitution.

Dear ministers of justice, you have it in your hands to dismantle bureaucracy and give democracy and the rule of law room to breathe. A few cases at all levels of the courts would probably be enough to convince the others to work in accordance with the constitution from now on. Of course, this requires the cooperation of your cabinet colleagues. In the end, they would have to ensure that their employees are properly prepared. That is exactly why you were all elected, so that laws are applied in the Federal Republic of Germany by administrative staff and decisions are only made on this basis.

What do you think? Should the ministers of justice go down this path or do you think the whole thing is exaggerated? Please feel free to write your opinion in the comments.

Warum Justizminister die Staatsanwaltschaften nicht das Grundgesetz verteidigen lassen

In den Artikeln dieser Woche habe ich mich mit den Auswirkungen der Bürokratie im realen Leben besch?ftigt. In jedem Artikel ging es darum, welche Auswirkungen Bürokraten haben und wie wenig man im Zweifel als Bürger gegen deren Entscheidungen tun kann. Wie sehr man Spielball dieser M?chte ist.

Dieses müsste und dürfte nicht sein. Um sicherzustellen, dass solche Handlungen nicht geschehen, wurden bereits im Kaiserreich im Strafgesetzbuch in den §§ 331 bis 358 entsprechende Straftaten definiert. Diese Straftaten k?nnen nur von Personen in ?mtern verübt werden. Sie reichen von Vorteilsnahme über Bestechlichkeit und Unterlassen bis hin zu Rechtsbeugung und Verleitung zu einer Straftat.

Bereits der Kaiser schien demnach zu wissen, dass es notwendig ist, Amtsinhaber, wie Richter und Beamte, an Regeln zu binden. Man ging demnach damals davon aus, dass ein Eid und einfache Bestimmungen in Gesetzen nicht ausreichen, um gute Arbeit sicherzustellen. Dennoch scheinen die Staatsanwaltschaften die Durchsetzung der Gesetze nicht für n?tig zu halten.

Sie scheinen diese Bestimmungen, wenn man sich die drei Schreiben im Bild über dem Artikel durchliest, zu ignorieren. Es wird über allgemeine Formulierungen, ohne sich mit dem konkreten Inhalt der Anschuldigungen auseinanderzusetzen, einfach gesagt, dass keine Ermittlungspunkte vorliegen.

Wohlgemerkt wird in keinem Schreiben gesagt, dass die entsprechenden Amtstr?ger keine Straftat begangen haben. Man erkl?rt in diesen Schreiben lieber, dass man nicht zust?ndig ist. Ein typischer Satz in der Bürokratie für ?ich habe keine Lust mich damit zu besch?ftigen, frag wen anders.“

Das Problem ist, es gibt niemanden anderes zu fragen. In der Bundesrepublik Deutschland haben die Staatsanwaltschaften die Aufgabe und Verantwortung dafür zu sorgen, dass Taten, die nach dem Gesetz strafbar sind, bestraft werden. Sie haben zu ermitteln und ihre Ermittlungsergebnisse einem Richter vorzulegen. Dieser entscheidet dann nach Anh?rung der Verteidigung über Schuld und Unschuld. Niemand anderes hat diese Aufgabe oder darf sie ausüben.

Dennoch setzen sich Staatsanwaltschaften nicht einmal mit dem Inhalt entsprechender Strafanzeigen auseinander, wie die drei Schreiben zeigen. Insbesondere die beiden Frankfurter Schreiben sind dabei sehr spannend. Beide formulieren, dass ?justizielle Sachbearbeitungen bzw. Entscheidungen auf ihre materielle oder sachliche Berechtigung hin einer überprüfung zu unterziehen“ nicht der Staatsanwaltschaft obliegt. Sie schieben die Verantwortung stattdessen in die Gerichte.

Dabei ist der §339 Strafgesetzbuch sehr eindeutig formuliert: ?Ein Richter, ein anderer Amtstr?ger oder ein Schiedsrichter, welcher sich bei der Leitung oder Entscheidung einer Rechtssache zugunsten oder zum Nachteil einer Partei einer Beugung des Rechts schuldig macht, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft.“

Wenn Staatsanwaltschaften also keine Entscheidungen auf ihre materielle oder sachliche Berechtigung hin überprüfen k?nnen, wie k?nnen sie dann den §339 Strafgesetzbuch anwenden?

Sie k?nnen es nicht, zumindest wüsste ich nicht wie. Die Staatsanwaltschaften in Frankfurt begründen mit ihrer Formulierung daher Arbeitsverweigerung.

Das spannende hier ist, dass die zugrunde liegende Strafanzeige einen Fall beschreibt, indem zwei Gerichtszweige sich widersprechende Entscheidungen getroffen haben. Sie erkannten dabei die Entscheidungen des jeweiligen anderen Gerichts nicht an. Das Verwaltungsgericht erkl?rte sich vor dem Zivilgericht als zust?ndig, wonach das Zivilgericht nach dem Gesetz keine Entscheidung h?tte treffen dürfen. Dennoch traf das Zivilgericht eine widersprüchliche Entscheidung zum Verwaltungsgericht und entschied dabei sogar über Verwaltungsakte, wofür es gar keine Zust?ndigkeit hat. Eines der beiden Gerichte muss also falsch liegen, vermutlich das Zivilgericht, da es sich Zust?ndigkeiten nimmt, die es gesetzlich nicht hat.

Auf jeden Fall k?nnen beide Entscheidungen nicht gleichzeitig richtig sein, sonst steht man als Bürger in der Mitte und fragt sich, was man machen soll. Beides zugleich ist nicht m?glich. Daher fragte ich das Verwaltungsgericht, was richtig w?re. Das Verfahren l?uft seit über 3 Jahren, ohne dass etwas Relevantes passiert w?re. W?hrenddessen setzt das Zivilgericht seinen Beschluss rücksichtslos durch und auch die Verwaltungen auf der anderen Seite melden sich regelm??ig.

Es fehlt demnach genau das, wofür die genannten Strafgesetze gemacht wurden: Sicherstellung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Die Verwaltung soll nach Gesetzen handeln und nicht nach ihrer eigenen Meinung. Die Aufgabe dafür zu sorgen ist dabei letztlich die Aufgabe der Staatsanwaltschaft über die Anwendung des Strafgesetzbuches. Immerhin weigern sich hier Richter dem Gesetz zu folgen. Mindestens §339 Strafgesetzbuch ist damit erfüllt.

Da sich auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht begründungslos, also entgegen den Bestimmungen des Artikel 41 der europ?ischen Grundrechtecharta, weigerte eine Klage zuzulassen, bleibt auch nur die Staatsanwaltschaft. Deswegen wurde die Strafanzeige, über welche in den obigen drei Schreiben in Teilen entschieden wurde, gestellt. Jedoch wollen die Staatsanw?lte damit nichts zu tun haben. Es scheint, als würde die Faulheit der Staatsanwaltschaften über die gesetzlichen Vorschriften und die gesellschaftliche Verantwortung siegen.

Woher das kommt, wird klar, wenn man sich die Artikel der letzten Tage vor Augen führt. In jedem Artikel wurde beschrieben, wie die Bürokratie Rechtsstaat und Demokratie aushebelt. Mit anderen Worten, wenn die Staatsanwaltschaft anf?ngt die Korruption (korrupt bedeutet kaputt, und ist damit mehr als nur Bestechlichkeit) in Deutschland mit ihren Mitteln aus dem Strafgesetzbuch zu bek?mpfen, h?tten sie viel zu tun.

Eine zus?tzliche Hürde dürfte auch die pers?nliche Umgebung sein. Man müsste gegen Kollegen und ehemalige Kommilitonen vorgehen und die gegen einen selbst. Wer geht schon gern gegen Bekannte vor, vor allem wenn die sich revanchieren k?nnten?

über diese pers?nliche Ebene hinaus, würde man auch die Anzahl der staatlichen Mitarbeiter durch ein solches Vorgehen reduzieren. Immerhin dürfen Amtsinhaber, wie alle anderen, die zu mindestens einem Jahr Freiheitsstrafe verurteilt wurden, keine ?ffentlichen ?mter mehr ausüben. Für Richter und andere Amtsinhaber besteht diese M?glichkeit sogar schon bei einem halben Jahr Freiheitsstrafe.

Eine Verfolgung der Straftaten nach dem Strafgesetzbuch dürfte also dazu führen, dass weniger Leute mehr Arbeit machen müssten. Und das wo der ?ffentliche Dienst in Deutschland mit seinen 1,9 Millionen Richtern und Beamten (die Angestellten sind hier nicht berücksichtigt) st?ndig mehr Personal fordert. Insbesondere den Vorgesetzten der Staatsanwaltschaften, den Justizministern dürfte das gar nicht gefallen.

Sie sind für 4 Jahre gew?hlt und wollen wohl auch darüber hinaus ihr Amt behalten. Dazu brauchen sie die Zustimmung des jeweiligen Ministerpr?sidenten bzw. Kanzlers und/oder Parteichefs.

Wenn die Justizminister bzw. Staatsanwaltschaften anfangen würden, Mitarbeiter der anderen Ministerien, bspw. Finanzbeamten, anzuklagen, dürften sie am Ende des Verfahrens vermutlich für die Entfernung aus dem Amt sorgen. Das dürfte im Regierungskabinett auf wenig Gegenliebe sto?en. Immerhin müssten sich die Minister dann Gedanken um die Neuorganisation ihrer H?user Gedanken machen.

Staatsanw?lte selbst sind von den Justizministern direkt abh?ngig. Sie dürfen keine selbstst?ndigen Entscheidungen treffen, weswegen Haftbefehle deutscher Staatsanwaltschaften im EU-Ausland nicht gültig sind, wie der europ?ische Gerichtshof vor Jahren entschieden hat.

Damit nimmt das Fanal seinen Lauf. Staatsanw?lte müssten mit der Entfernung aus dem Dienst rechnen, wenn sie einen Fall wie den oben beschriebenen aufkl?ren. Immerhin würden sie ihren Vorgesetzten nicht nur Arbeit machen. Sie würden zus?tzlich auch beweisen, dass die Bundesrepublik Deutschland nicht so rechtsstaatlich, unbestechlich und demokratisch daherkommt, wie sie immer tut. Gerade in Zeiten, wo viele Parteimitglieder nur noch das Thema Demokratie für Wahlk?mpfe haben, dürfte ein solches Vorgehen noch mehr Unmut bei ihren Vorgesetzten erzeugen.

In der Folge machen auch die staatlichen Angestellten weiter wie bisher. Sie schauen nicht, dass zukünftig Gesetze eingehalten werden, sondern bestimmen das Recht gem?? ihrer eigenen Meinung, wie in den letzten Tagen dargelegt wurde.

Damit ist zu erkl?ren, warum dieses bürokratische System selbsterhaltend und anscheinend noch beschleunigend ist. Es gibt schlicht für niemanden in diesem Zirkel einen Anreiz für die Bürger und gem?? den Gesetzen zu arbeiten. Es macht mehr Arbeit und kostet Zeit und Nerven. Es ist somit rational Gesetze zu ignorieren und so zu tun, als w?re alles in Ordnung.

Die Verantwortung für die Bürokratie und die Abschaffung der Demokratie und des Rechtsstaates liegt in diesem System damit eindeutig bei den Regierungen und insbesondere bei den Justizministern. Für die oben abgebildeten Dokumente sind derzeit Christian Heinz ( CDU Hessen ) und Georg Eisenreich (CSU) verantwortlich. Zu dem Schutz von Herrn Heinz muss man sagen, dass er an dem Tag ins Amt kam, wo das letztere der Frankfurter Schreiben erstellt wurde. Dennoch dürfte es fraglich sein, ob sich seitdem viel ge?ndert hat.

Die Justizminister haben daher die Verantwortung, die Staatsanwaltschaften als das Kontrollorgan einzusetzen, dass sie sind. Mit ihrer Hilfe ist dafür zu sorgen hat, dass die Bürokratie in Deutschland keine Chance hat und dass zugleich Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der Verwaltung gelebt werden. Mit dem Strafgesetzbuch gibt auch die notwendigen Mittel dazu. Es ist lediglich die Faulheit und Feigheit zu überwinden, um den Hochverrat an der deutschen Verfassung zu beenden.

Liebe Justizminister, Sie haben es damit in der Hand die Bürokratie abzubauen und der Demokratie und dem Rechtsstaat Luft zum Atmen zu geben. Vermutlich würden ein paar F?lle auf allen Ebenen der Gerichte reichen, um die anderen davon zu überzeugen ab jetzt entsprechend dem Grundgesetz zu arbeiten. Natürlich erfordert dieses die Mitarbeit Ihrer Kabinettskollegen. Sie müssten am Ende dafür sorgen, dass ihre Mitarbeiter entsprechend aufgestellt sind. Genau dafür wurden Sie allesamt gew?hlt, das in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von den Verwaltungsmitarbeitern Gesetze angewendet und nur auf deren Basis entschieden wird.

Was meint ihr? Sollten die Justizminister diesen Weg gehen oder haltet ihr das Ganze für überzogen? Schreibt eure Meinung gern in die Kommentare.