Am I an idiot (Part 1)?
- Bernd Liske
- 1 day ago
- 10 min read
It would be disastrous if I'm not an idiot, and what does this have to do with Easter?
First of all, if I interpret ChatGPT correctly, I am not an idiot. However, if I stick to what the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court has taught me since I filed my lawsuit against the Magdeburg tax office on September 30, 2014, for fraud, coercion, and violation of public policy – which is responsible for destroying an investment of over four million euros in the MIRAKEL reading machine – and to how the Dessau-Roßlau public prosecutor's office, the Naumburg attorney general's office, and the Saxony-Anhalt Ministry of Justice reacted after I filed a criminal complaint against a presiding judge at the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court, I cannot rule out the possibility that What if that is indeed the case, meaning that even with Chat GPT, artificial stupidity cannot be ruled out and we are both incapable of drawing logical conclusions from the Basic Law and the law.
It is my hope to meet lawyers who will endeavor to prove me wrong: However, by treating my briefs with respect and dealing with the arguments in substance, rather than acting like those mentioned above, who simply claim without evidence that my accusations are unjustified. It would be unfortunate, however, if, despite all efforts, the evidence were not successful because my arguments, like those of ChatGPT, are valid. We will come to that later.
The present text reflects a small excerpt from the proceedings, which are now over eleven years old: Arbitrariness – Insights into German (un)justice has already dealt with another part of it. What makes the proceedings special is that I could not afford a lawyer for such proceedings and am still denied legal aid today: As a result, I have been forced to
If you don't take care of the people, the people will take care of you.
all the pleadings myself, amounting to thousands of pages. Anyone who reads my work knows that I am not afraid to go into every corner, that I look for the connections between the details and the big picture. One consequence of my involvement has been that I have become a great fan of the Basic Law and the law in general – which never ceases to surprise me with its inherent harmony. I find it fantastic that, unlike other analyses, I have a standard at my disposal – similar to how we use the meter to measure distance and the kilogram to measure weight – against which I can measure my own view of the facts as well as the actions of the tax office and the judges.
My initial question is not meant to be rhetorical, and it is certainly not intended to increase interest in reading the article with a sensational headline. I take the liberty of questioning myself publicly – which seems necessary in view of my personal experience of being denied any rights and of decisions being made that can be picked apart endlessly, but which pass as case law. While this was subtle at first, over the years it shed this veneer and revealed itself freely in its efforts to exercise arbitrariness and unwillingness to ensure a fair trial.
This is embedded in a socially increasingly narrow-minded, repressive climate characterized by silent tolerance, which since the "turning point" has been dominated in particular by the monocultural Russophobic efforts of politicians and the media to dumb down the population, paving the way for Germany's rearmament. In the course of this, moral concepts are establishing themselves as the new normal, which have probably developed in a similar way at other times: "Germany 2025, I dread you: In the fourth year after the " " year 33 of the "Zeitenwende" of the fall of the Berlin Wall – on the way to the year 39, which this time will probably come much faster." If it seems to some that the "turning point" has suddenly come upon us, it is nevertheless a child of the climatic changes since the fall of the Berlin Wall and certainly not a reflex to the "Russian war of aggression" – as can be concluded from other texts I have written.
Must experience, death to the first,
the second generation hardship, the third generation bread,
follow, the sons again hardship, the grandchildren death,
because the spirit of the times refuses to accept any moral change?
Anyone who wants to form an opinion here must read – including what is made available via the links – and must engage with the issues. A former colleague who congratulated me on my birthday a few days ago said that I had written so much in February that it was impossible to read everything. Admittedly, it was a lot, but it arose from my concern about the direction in which our country is moving at an increasing pace. I can assume that he didn't read anything. He missed the fact that I wrote several times that this federal election would be a referendum on Germany's path to war (1, 2, 3). He missed how, in previous articles, I exposed the migration debate as a distraction from the relevant problems of our time and got to the heart of the nature of this problem (1, 2). I can assume that he voted in a way that contributed to Friedrich Merz being able to pave the way for the special fund for rearming the Bundeswehr just two days later. If conscription becomes mandatory again because limited civilizational progress manifests itself in insufficient voluntarism (Richard David Precht 1), his son may be affected, and he may only find out when he receives his draft notice.
Are we Germans idiots who, through our ignorance, our silence, and our actions, allow ourselves to be fooled again and abused for a war against Russia—also because we are fully occupied with the struggle for the golden calf?
Similar to the comprehensive political and media efforts (Richard David Precht 2) to make Germans afraid of Russians in order to justify the militarization of Germany—in complete disregard of Article 26(1) of the German Constitution—I perceive a development in case law that deviates from the Basic Law, the law, and the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court and is characterized by arbitrariness, unfair proceedings, and the violation of the right to a fair hearing. I perceive a development in case law that is moving away from the Basic Law, the law, and the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court and is characterized by arbitrariness, unfair proceedings, and the violation of the right to a fair hearing. Standards are being hollowed out with little resistance due to a spreading normality, only to be established as the new normal: While Russophobia has now been elevated to state doctrine in the coalition agreement,
287 We remain confident that the sanctions imposed in response to Russia's war of aggression will be effectively implemented at the national level
288. We support the EU's plans to impose tariffs on imports of
289 fertilizers from Russia and Belarus.
...
3962 Our security is under greater threat today than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
3963 greatest and most direct threat comes from Russia, which is waging a brutal and
3964 war of aggression against Ukraine that violates international law and continues to arm itself massively.
3965 Vladimir Putin's quest for power is directed against the rules-based international order.
And when the future chancellor casually links the delivery of TAURUS missiles with the recommendation to bomb the Crimean Bridge, I see a similar normalization in the administration of justice:
As the conflict dragged on, there was a growing awareness of systemic failure in the judiciary and a perception that the discussion about the independence of the judiciary is a myth that applies at best to its peers and to the enforcement of the law of the strongest. Not least, it is an instrument for enforcing political will. In doing so, it is becoming increasingly reactionary and thus a threat to the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Therefore, my efforts have long gone beyond dealing with my own concerns and are now devoted to being useful to Germany in this area as well – especially for the following reason: Based on my experiences with judges in various courts, I can see that the perceived type of judge, given further social developments, will once again come to decisions that will be a disgrace in the history of Germany.
In connection with the above-mentioned lawsuit, the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court was tired of me – as the plaintiff against the Magdeburg tax office – and tried to remove me from the proceedings. The Federal Finance Court put a stop to this. In the process, it turned out that the presiding judge – in my opinion – was guilty of document forgery on two occasions: Once, when – one week after the decision to remove me from the proceedings – he made a further decision to delete the proceedings from the registers, justifying this on the grounds that no one had declared the proceedings to be reopened, and when the application for legal aid disappeared from a brief sent to the Federal Finance Court – which I consider justifiable to reproach him for, I consider reasonable based on the combination of several pieces of evidence. In addition, there is perjury and perversion of justice to the advantage of the defendant, the Magdeburg tax office.
This prompted me to file another criminal complaint against this judge in March (attachments available on request). On April 8, the Dessau-Roßlau public prosecutor's office responded without providing information on legal remedies (§ 35a StPO) – but with formal service – stating that it would refrain from initiating further investigations "for known reasons." It referred to a decision on a previous criminal complaint against this judge from last year, which was somewhat more extensive, but which had also failed to address any of my arguments. I have now lodged a complaint with the Attorney General's Office in Naumburg.
Am I now an idiot who simply does not understand that this action is justified and covered by the law—which, in particular, recognizes the obligation to clarify the facts in § 160 StPO (Code of Criminal Procedure)? Readers may form their own opinion on this, and I particularly hope that readers with legal training will share their expertise on the matter. Clarification is of the utmost importance: at least if I am not an idiot. If I am not, then my consistent adherence to the Basic Law and the law exposes me to a development that is creeping into our society like Russophobia: the erosion of the "rule-based order" prescribed for Germany by the Basic Law and the law (oh, it really does exist here). As I wrote recently:
Anyone who is able to protect the Magdeburg tax office from prosecution by acting outside the Basic Law, the law, and case law; anyone who humiliates a plaintiff in oral proceedings; anyone who refuses me a lawyer despite knowing my plight; anyone who sits out court proceedings for years—since 2018 in particular, in order to wait for the end of insolvency in order to continue harassing me – who makes the minutes of the oral hearing available five years later and falsifies them in the process – and thus also who lets all arguments bounce off him, who ignores the Basic Law, the law, and case law in everything he does – which is actually the only thing he is obliged to do, who – after the "attention" the truth and logic to an extent that he can no longer counter with his means – wants to throw the plaintiff out of the proceedings in the manner of the three monkeys and, assuming the success of this action, has the proceedings deleted from the court register, for which one accepts an unsworn false statement and forgery of documents – and, incidentally, ignores an existing application for legal aid that would enable a lawyer to represent the plaintiff instead of his actual representative, because the subject of the plaintiff company is still a party to the proceedings and separate from the legal representative: Anyone who can do all this is acting under external influence, sees themselves protected by it, and is capable of sending people back to the scaffold or the gas chambers if the external influence demands it. And since the same thinking is obviously also present in the others mentioned – otherwise they would have opposed the action – the seed has long since sprouted. That is my thesis.
Thou shalt not be indifferent. Indifference kills.
What does all this have to do with Easter? Is it not the case that, just as over two thousand years ago at the crossroads, people are watching the events unfolding before their eyes with indifference—sometimes even aggression, sometimes concern? Not standing up to the injustice that could also affect them, not standing up to developments that will foreseeably change living conditions in Germany massively, not understanding that if they do nothing now, it may be too late?
Do not become servants of men. Do not let your rights be trampled on by others with impunity. Bowing and scraping before a human being seems in any case to be unworthy of a human being. But those who make themselves worms cannot complain afterwards that they are being trampled on.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), German philosopher of the Enlightenment, Metaphysics of Morals
More than two thousand years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and 300 years after the birth of Immanuel Kant, it is time and increasingly existential for us humans to live up to the assumption that already exists in the conceptual realm through our actions, namely that we are capable of walking upright in a self-determined manner. I think we must enliven our humanity – not be Christians, but Christ – (1), must work on climate change that will lead to a "turning point": otherwise there will be war, and while we are still looking for those responsible for the trenches, those responsible for the environment are already proving to be quite motivated and competent.
There is no crime, no trick, no ignorance, no complacency, no stupidity, no ruse, no deception, no fraud, no vice that should be withheld from discussion and disclosure. Meet their lack of respect with respect, reveal their silence as cowardice, their logic as dishonest, their speeches as serving their own interests rather than the common good, their scheming rather than their integrity, but do not ridicule them in front of everyone, because we are a people who only have a future together: do not associate with them, but change yourselves by confronting them. And sooner or later, public opinion will recognize the value. Confrontation and truth alone are probably not enough—but they are the only means
without which all others fail.
