Am I an idiot (Part 2)?
- Bernd Liske
- 10 hours ago
- 47 min read
Is Saxony-Anhalt experiencing a legal scandal similar to that of Gustl Mollath?
People often only become aware of the possible length of a shadow
when the sun is in the right position relative to the object.
Gustl Mollath is a victim of the Bavarian justice system. In 2006, he was committed to a psychiatric hospital for crimes he was accused of committing, even though experts had determined that he was not criminally responsible. After the Bavarian judiciary had declared the admission lawful for years, he was released in 2013 and it was determined that the conditions for his confinement had not been met. I already devoted a chapter to this case in my first book, PRISM – Ein Lehrstück für unsere Demokratie (PRISM – A Lesson for Our Democracy), in which I used my experiences in the NSA affair to examine the German constitution. In it, I quote from an interview in the taz with Henning Ernst Müller, professor of criminal law at the University of Regensburg:
The judiciary must learn to deal with mistakes more openly. Wherever people work, mistakes are made. We have to live with that. But if mistakes are not admitted, we cannot learn from them. In the Mollath case, the judiciary entrenched itself behind the legal force of old judgments for far too long and blocked a retrial. As we have seen, such poor error management can ultimately cause a massive crisis of confidence in the judiciary.
Failure has many facets. In this article, I will clarify my initial question:
Am I an idiot, or does Saxony-Anhalt have a judicial scandal similar to that of Gustl Mollath?
I—Bernd Liske—have been suing the Magdeburg tax office for fraud and coercion against public morality at the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court since 2014. Its actions led – with some others also contributing – to the destruction of an investment of over four million euros in the MIRAKEL reading machine, and the tax court is doing everything it can to protect the tax office from conviction: ignoring the Basic Law, the law, and the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, misleading the plaintiff with crude logic, and now also including document forgery, unsworn false testimony, and other failures. If Professor Müller sees poor error management as a crisis of confidence in the judiciary, then in my case the following theses are up for debate:
The independence of the judiciary is a myth.
The judiciary is increasingly becoming a fifth column of political arbitrariness.
Since judges come from the constitution of a society as it is – and that is primarily determined by self-interest – judges cannot be allowed to have their failures reviewed by other judges. They lack too much of a moral sense that is already of considerable civilizational quality in the imagined space of our society, but is not lived in the real space of the broader society.
I was disappointed by the numerous reactions to the first part of this series of articles. Quite a few people confirmed: You are not an idiot. But what use is such an assessment if it cannot be awarded with a clear conscience after concrete examination? What use is a TÜV seal to us if it does not test our cars? Or a chancellor who swears to devote his energy to the welfare of the German people and to avert harm from them, when he wants to deliver TAURUS to Ukraine with the aim of targeting the Crimean bridge – something the voters knew even before the election and therefore thoughtlessly handed him their seal of approval – but simply ignores the fact that Russia considers this an declaration of war, which will inevitably lead to attacks on Germany: inevitable because Russia would otherwise open the floodgates to action against itself?
The very fact that I am prepared to question myself publicly thus goes beyond the initial question, and while the clarification in the first article was derived specifically from the discussion in these paragraphs,
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 was 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." In doing so, 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.
I am now following up with the publication of my complaint against a decision by the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court, which rejected my request to declare a judge biased. My actions are based on Article 20(4) of the German Constitution, because my efforts to curb the actions of the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court by bringing the matter to the attention of the Dessau-Roßlau Public Prosecutor's Office, the Naumburg Attorney General's Office, the Saxony-Anhalt Ministry of Justice, and the Legal Affairs Committee of the Saxony-Anhalt State Parliament have so far been unsuccessful.
I recommend that every reader read the complaint in its entirety. It is written in such a way that it can be understood with common sense, and I would be extremely grateful if it were read for the sole reason of identifying any failure on my part, so that one can conclude: Yes, Mr. Liske, you are an idiot. I have addressed the fact that there is much more at stake for me in both articles, and I urge you not to lose sight of that.
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, expose 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.
BEGINNING OF THE TEXT
Finance Court of Saxony-Anhalt
Anhalt Justice Center
Willy-Lohmann-Straße 29
06844 Dessau-Roßlau
May 8, 2025
In the matter of
lawsuit
Bernd Liske, Libellenweg 2, 39291 Möser, representing
Liske Informationssysteme Ltd., Liebknechtstraße 35, 39108 Magdeburg
- Plaintiff -
against
Magdeburg Tax Office, Tessenowstraße 6, 39114 Magdeburg,
- Defendant -
in proceedings 3 K 1053/14/ 3 K 106/25, the decision of April 22, 2025 – received on April 29, 2025, APPENDIX 1 –, rejecting the request to declare Judge Burckgard biased, is challenged on the grounds of a violation of the right to a fair hearing in a manner relevant to the decision.
In summary, the plaintiff states:
· The decision attests in various places that the allegations against Presiding Judge Burckgard, which are the subject of the motion to recuse him on the grounds of bias, are an expression of systemic corruption at the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court, from which the experiences with Judge Burckgard – in addition to those with the 1st Senate, which are described in – stand out.
· The court attempts to denigrate the plaintiff's representative as a liar and a fraudster in order to mislead him, i.e., to make him look like an "idiot," as will be discussed further in this brief. The brief states:
The claim that VRiFG Burckgard shouted at the plaintiff's representative during the oral hearing on November 21, 2018, and repeatedly interrupted him is inaccurate. RiFG Simböck, who himself participated in the oral hearing as an associate judge, cannot confirm this. Encouraging the plaintiff's representative to discuss circumstances that were actually relevant to the decision and to develop meaningful factual motions was the main challenge of the entire oral hearing, which VRiFG Burckgard addressed in an appropriate tone and with appropriate determination. The vast majority of the entire oral hearing was devoted to this effort.
The statements made by the plaintiff's representative in this regard are apparently his subjective impression. It may well be that the plaintiff's representative's subjective impression was such from his individual point of view. However, without this being relevant here, it cannot be ruled out that the plaintiff's representative is simply deliberately telling untruths in order to discredit a presiding judge he dislikes.
...
He was able to comment on all aspects relevant to the lawsuit up to that point. However, as described above, this only involved elaborating on the objective of the lawsuit and the specific motions associated with it.
The plaintiff's representative considers these subtle statements to be a violation of his honor (Section 185 of the German Criminal Code) and has therefore, using psychological and technical means provided by ChatGPT, ANNEX 3, requested clarification of the truth by means of an expert opinion in which the truthfulness of his statements and those of Judge Burckgard and Judge Simböck are examined, ANNEX 4. If this request is not granted, a criminal complaint against the judges with the same content will follow.
· In its stubborn effort to issue Judge Burckgard with a 100% clean bill of health, the court does not shy away from questioning the statement of the Federal Finance Court that the complaint of February 19, 2025, did not include a declaration of personal and economic circumstances.
· In its effort to explain the absence of the statement on personal and economic circumstances, the court fails to notice that it is itself proving its own document forgery – and thus that of Judge Burckgard.
· When the plaintiff's representative recently raised aspects of the case for discussion in an article and asked whether his view of the case made him an idiot (https://www.liske.de/), the court's conviction that the plaintiff is an idiot became clear in the contested decision. As open-minded and grateful as is to such perspectives, because they give him the opportunity to question himself, it is of course necessary to clarify whether such assessments are justified. The present brief serves to clarify this.
· The decision documents the willingness of the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court to prosecute a criminal – document forgery, perjury, falsified minutes, breaches of law such as the refusal to separate the criminal aspects despite accepting the lawsuit or to indicate from the outset that this will not be done, the refusal to record motions in the minutes, and the "employment" of a judge declared to be biased – with the jurisdiction in the present main proceedings. As explained in the aforementioned article, the actions associated with this are not only incompatible with the Basic Law and the law, but are also directed against the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany and have implications that go beyond the specific case. xxx
In this respect, the plaintiff's representative will do everything in his power to oppose this. Last but not least, it must be taken into account that aiding and abetting is itself a criminal offense.
· It is with great regret that the plaintiff's representative must conclude that Judge Simböck is now a liar in his eyes. When he wrote to the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court on January 30, 2019, with regard to the oral hearing on November 21, 2018 – quoted on April 2, 2025, in a letter to Judge Simböck in connection with the crude attempt to refuse to send a copy of parts of the file
One of the standard strategies at the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court is to take things out of context and treat them in isolation, not to deal with or use them without taking into account their inherent complexity, and to argue without any logic or connection to the law. From the judges' perception, I cannot conclude that the reasons for this are to be found in limited intellectual capacity. It is disturbing to see how young, tall judges, who are clearly intelligent, allow themselves to be broken in order to earn a living in an arbitrary system.
It must be noted that their backbone has obviously suffered damage, which may be irreparable. The view of this is not sufficiently obscured by the view of a bottle of water provided, which was vainly acknowledged by the concern expressed.
Attributing forgetfulness to Judge Simböck fails.
· He himself discusses memories: However, the plaintiff's representative was present at the hearing and knows the truth: Any argument against this also fails because he is committed exclusively to the truth and the law in everything he does – even beyond the background noise, based on the understanding that any failure would be exploited immediately.
· The issue was already raised in a brief dated April 2, 2025, to Judge Simböck concerning the receipt of copies from the file. In his response dated April 7, 2025, he did not address the issue, so that one can assume a lack of objection.
First things first. We will first reflect on the toilet story and then address the aspects in which the plaintiff is denied a fair hearing in the decision.
Contents
0 Water from the toilet
The decision states, 2. d:
The fact that the plaintiff failed to provide for his own meals cannot be held against VRiFG Burckgard, so that this too cannot give rise to any appearance of bias. The reference to the hand basins in the visitors' toilets as the only place in the tax court building where drinking water is available does not constitute degrading treatment or "white torture" in this respect. The fact that an associate judge provided the plaintiff's representative with a bottle of water from his own supply of drinks in order not to jeopardize the continuation of the oral proceedings does not alter this. There was no obligation to do so.
First of all, it should be noted that Judge Burckgard did not refer to the fact that water was only available in the toilet in an apologetic manner: the tone set the tone at that point, and it was aggressive, derogatory, and humiliating. The manner in which he referred to the toilet, together with his overall treatment of the plaintiff's representative, later led to it being classified as white torture and was included in the motion for recusal.
However, the plaintiff's representative finds the point of view expressed to be quite interesting from a systemic perspective, and it prompted him to reflect on the matter at length. He must acknowledge that one could take the view that he himself was to blame for Judge Burckgard brusquely referring him to the restroom to quench his thirst because he had failed to bring something to drink with him and should have known that such a hearing could sometimes be delayed and take longer: In particular, one can attribute an educational interest to in guiding the plaintiff to plan his actions more carefully in order to prevent possible consequences of failure.
The systemic significance of such efforts can be recognized by looking at two further aspects of past failures and then drawing a conclusion from them.
Be courageous: analyze today and shape tomorrow
in such a way that it also serves the day after tomorrow.
Otherwise, tomorrow you will have to live with the consequences of
what you have not addressed today.
Just as you are already experiencing today.
1. As the plaintiff's representative,https://www.liske.de/post/gedanken_zum_09_november, wrote:
Eastern Germany was annexed by the West, its existing competitive strength was destroyed, it was fed with West German ideas, and it was developed first as a market and then as a low-wage country. Painting this picture deliberately neglects many fine brushstrokes—which would certainly be conducive to a romanticized view of the situation—because the rough outline makes it possible to ignore many things that would only interfere with the effort to get to the core analytically.
This starting point reveals that although educated East Germans were able to travel to the West and elsewhere after the fall of the Wall, they lost their homeland in the process. Not only ideologically, but also materially. While the East Germans conquered the world, the West Germans came to the East and conquered it – including all relevant leadership structures. Instead of glass beads, the East Germans got freedom – the West Germans may not have gotten a continent, but they did get a considerable expansion towards the East.
When identities are erased and replaced by phrases that cannot be tied to reality, when freedom unfolds primarily in dependence on economic, intellectual, and social capital, then freedom only enforces the right of the stronger, to which more and more people fall victim. The result is, in particular, increasingly unbearable transformational follow-up costs.
According to a "Federal Concept for Increasing the Proportion of East Germans in Management Positions in the Federal Administration" published by the Federal Government Commissioner for Eastern Germany in January 2023, one of the consequences of the conquest of East Germany "by the West Germans" is that the proportion of East Germans in the judiciary outside Berlin is 5.1% based on their place of birth, and their proportion in management positions is 2.2%.
If, in this respect, Judge Burckgard conducted the oral hearing on November 21, 2018, in an increasingly aggressive, domineering manner – see, among other things, the plaintiff's correction of the minutes dated September 8, 2023 – and exercises arbitrariness in his decisions because an East German is defying his efforts to protect the tax office, which is accused of fraud, coercion, and violation of public decency, from criminal prosecution in particular, and now the present decision attributes responsibility for the aggressive referral to the toilet to the plaintiff's representative, this has an internal logic: At the time, East Germans did not resist this clientele spreading throughout East Germany, dispensing justice in a lordly manner and having to note with astonishment "that there is another East Germany."
In this sense, of course, one cannot speak of white torture – as the plaintiff does. But this also has consequences: following this logic, torture is to be judged in a similar way – the guilty party is the one who did not think ahead and ensure that third parties did not act in a way that was disadvantageous to him – and so
· Jesus Christ himself is to blame for being nailed to the cross and
· millions of Jews were killed in the gas chambers.
The previous briefs on the rejection should be recalled.
2. In the run-up to the federal election, the plaintiff's representative stated in several articles: This federal election will be a referendum on Germany's path to war. Before the election, every voter knew about the intention of Friedrich Merz, Christian Lindner, and Robert Habeck to supply Ukraine with TAURUS and to massively increase military spending. The fact that, just two days after the election, the way was paved for a special fund for rearmament, which ultimately amounted to 500 billion euros, was certainly not clear beforehand, but the path for such a move had already been clearly laid out. In this respect, voters cannot complain if they or their sons and grandsons have to go to war again in the not too distant future.
3. In the article mentioned above, the plaintiff's representative explains where it can lead when judges such as Judge Burckgard are given carte blanche to continue to act arbitrarily outside the constitution and the law and to administer justice. The present decision shows how the poison of such actions has already spread in the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court.
In view of the court's position, it is a logical consequence for the plaintiff's representative to do everything in his power to ensure that judges such as Judge Burckgard do not get away with their actions and increasingly bring disaster upon Germany again. Based on all experience to date, he will fail in this endeavor because the public prosecutor's office, the attorney general's office, the Ministry of Justice, and the Legal Affairs Committee of the Saxony-Anhalt state parliament—encouraged by the previous failures described above—have no objection to these actions and protect them. As stated in a brief:
The aforementioned individuals act as a gang that legitimizes each other. Through their ignorance of the Basic Law, the law, and case law, they are a danger to the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany. By attempting to protect the Magdeburg tax office from my lawsuit of September 30, 2014, which covers tax, criminal, and civil law aspects, for fraud, coercion, and violation of public morality, and by protecting the lower levels of responsibility, they themselves are committing criminal offenses.
...
One can see how accusations are met with vague phrases and silence. The entirety of the coordinated actions leads to the classification of those involved as a gang.
On the other hand, one can see how every aspect is treated with "respect" and analyzed and evaluated objectively and logically in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law, the law, and case law. The advantage of this approach, when applied consistently, is that the other side suffers from a lack of arguments against it. This disadvantage is compensated for by acting as a gang.
But in addition to the unabandoned hope of being able to put a spoke in the wheel of these activities, there is also the assumption that, at the latest, the cranes of Ibykus will ensure an objective judgment and show "that there was another Germany."
I Failure to hear the case
In his brief of March 27, 2025, in which he responds to the judge's official statement, the plaintiff accuses Judge Burckgard twice of document forgery. The decision does not address this in any way. To make matters worse, the plaintiff is being denied copies of parts of the court file in such a way that, contrary to long-standing previous practice, access and use are only possible under difficult conditions.
A Violation of § 155 FGO in conjunction with § 329 (2) sentence 1 ZPO
Despite requests to date, the plaintiff has not been served with the decision of July 18, 2024, in which Judge Burckgard removed the proceedings from the register. In his written statement of March 27, 2025, the plaintiff writes:
First of all, it should be noted that this decision was made one week after the decision of July 11, 2024, in which the plaintiff's representative was dismissed from the proceedings. The fact that the decision was not communicated to the plaintiff constitutes a violation of § 155 FGO in conjunction with § 329 (2) sentence 1 ZPO. In its decision of October 7, 2010, the Federal Finance Court ruled, VIII B 24/10:
Court orders and decisions that do not have to be formally served must at least be communicated to the parties informally (Section 155 of the German Fiscal Court Rules (FGO) in conjunction with Section 329 (2) sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)). The duty to notify also serves to guarantee the right to a fair hearing.
As a result, he was unable to contest this – e.g. in the manner in which it is done in the present written statement.
The decision does not address the alleged violation of § 155 FGO in conjunction with § 329 (2) sentence 1 ZPO.
The court is attempting to present the decision as an "internal court" decision – in other words, to imply that it is not subject to notification.
In an (internal) decision dated July 18, 2024, the Senate had already decided, on the basis of its assumption that the proceedings had been interrupted, to instruct the Senate's registry to delete the proceedings from the court's registers. For details, reference is made to the aforementioned decision.
The effort fails. A clarification via ChatGPT comes to the following conclusion – APPENDIX 2:
A decision by which the court deletes a case from the register is not a purely "internal" administrative procedure, but a judicial decision on the status of the proceedings. It affects the rights of the parties involved (the case no longer exists in the register!) and therefore falls under Section 329 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).
The court is in error here: even if it does not trigger a formal service of process, it must at least notify you of the deletion decision informally – e.g., by written submission or simple letter.
In addition, the court also ignored the following, thereby violating the right to a fair hearing: it should not have deleted the proceedings from the register. In his response of March 27, 2025, to Judge Burckgard's official statement, the plaintiff writes:
Two aspects were ignored when the case was deleted from the register. The successful removal of the plaintiff's representative from the proceedings does not mean that the proceedings were then lacking a plaintiff, because, as is also stated in ANNEX 2:
In the matter of
lawsuit
Bernd Liske, Libellenweg 2, 39291 Möser, representing
Liske Informationssysteme Ltd., Liebknechtstraße 35, 39108 Magdeburg
- Plaintiff -
against
Magdeburg Tax Office, Tessenowstraße 6, 39114 Magdeburg,
- Defendant -
The decision of July 11, 2024 states:
Bernd Liske, Libellenweg 2, 39291 Möser, acting as representative for the plaintiff, is dismissed from the proceedings.
The subject of the plaintiff "Liske Informationssysteme Ltd." – which became the sole proprietor "Bernd Liske" as a result of BREXIT – would therefore continue to be a party to the proceedings even if the legal representative "Bernd Liske" had been successfully removed from the proceedings. For this reason alone, removal of the proceedings from the registers was not permissible.
It can be assumed that Judge Burckgard was aware of the plaintiff's subject. Incidentally, it is irrelevant to the proceedings whether the "representative" of a plaintiff is affected in any way by any form of insolvency, but the plaintiff cannot simply be thrown out of the proceedings, whose composition argues for throwing the plaintiff's "representative" out of the proceedings, is further evidence of the dishonesty of the entire proceedings, crude jurisprudence, and perversion of justice.
The decision of July 11, 2024 even states – ANNEX 2/6:
The plaintiff is still capable of participating.
However, this does not prevent Judge Burckgard from issuing a decision on July 18, 2024, to delete the proceedings from the registers: In other words—expressed in simple language, which seems necessary—even though the plaintiff continues to have standing. This further explains why Judge Burckgard committed document forgery by removing the declaration of personal and economic circumstances – again in simple language – in order to conceal his unlawful actions.
In addition, the application for legal aid dated June 9, 2024—which cannot be rejected on the basis of the objective facts of the plaintiff's hardship—would mean that the plaintiff would once again have legal representation.
B Document forgery and unsworn false statement in the decision of July 18, 2024
The failure to send the documents discussed in the previous section is all the more serious as it is associated with perjury under Section 153 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) and document forgery under Section 267 StGB. The decision does not address this either.
In order to implement his decision of July 18, 2025, to delete the proceedings from the register, Judge Burckgard claimed "that no party involved had declared a retrial": But how can a party declare a retrial if they are not informed of the court's intentions and the decision is made one week after the decision to remove the plaintiff's representative from the proceedings – which the plaintiff receives one day before the decision to delete the proceedings from the register?
The brief dated March 27, 2025 states, among other things – and the court decision completely disregards this:
but also, as the attentive Federal Finance Court noticed – and the plaintiff would normally never have known about this:
To further the proceedings, the Senate also points out that the FG deleted the proceedings from the registers by order of July 18, 2024 – 3 K 1053/14 (p. 741 of the FG file) (not communicated to the parties involved) on the grounds that no party involved had declared a retrial. This is also not correct. The complainant declared the reopening of the proceedings. The FG should therefore have waited for the outcome of the appeal proceedings before deleting the case. In addition, the FG became aware through the appeal that claims from the proceedings had been released by the insolvency administrator. The deletion must therefore be reversed and the proceedings continued.
...
To make matters worse, the reason given for the removal from the register was "that no party involved had declared a resumption." This presupposes that the parties involved are aware of the intention and have been notified of it by the court. However, this was not the case. The Federal Finance Court's decision states:
The Senate also points out, in order to promote the proceedings, that the FG terminated the proceedings by its decision of July 18, 2024 (which was not communicated to the parties involved) ...
There are therefore two failures. First of all, the assertion that the plaintiff, in particular, as a party involved, did not declare the resumption constitutes an unsworn false statement under Section 153 of the German Criminal Code (STGB) – Judge Burckgard is the "expert" here: Due to the fact that he did not receive the decision of July 11, 2024 until July 17, 2024, the plaintiff was objectively unable to declare the reopening of the proceedings until the decision of July 18, 2024 to delete the proceedings from the registers. This only happened with the appeal of July 29, 2024, which then went to the Federal Finance Court – but without him being aware of the decision. Making the false statement the basis of the decision of July 18, 2024, constitutes document forgery under Section 267 of the German Criminal Code (StGB).
The court is trying to sell the decision as an "internal court" decision – in other words, to imply that it is not subject to disclosure.
Already in its (internal) decision of July 18, 2024, the Senate had decided, based on its assumption that the proceedings had been interrupted, to instruct the Senate's registry to delete the proceedings from the court's registers. For details, reference is made to the aforementioned decision.
The effort fails. A clarification via ChatGPT comes to the following conclusion – APPENDIX 2:
A decision by which the court deletes proceedings from the register is not a purely "internal" administrative procedure, but a judicial decision on the status of the proceedings. It affects the rights of the parties involved (the proceedings no longer exist in the register!) and therefore falls under Section 329 (2) ZPO.
The court is wrong here: even if it does not trigger a formal service of process, it must at least notify you of the deletion order informally—e.g., by written statement or simple letter.
Regardless of this, Judge Burckgard's statement is an unsworn false statement, as it implicitly assumes the will of the parties involved, which presupposes knowledge of the intention – which an uninvolved third party must certainly assume when looking at the statement. Including this in the decision therefore also constitutes document forgery. However, the contested decision does not address this.
C Responsibility for document forgery in PKH
The attempt to exonerate Judge Burckgard from the accusation of document forgery in connection with the missing statement on personal and economic circumstances at the Federal Finance Court turns into a veritable disaster. The decision states:
It is also not true that documents relating to Bernd Liske's application for legal aid to the Federal Finance Court, submitted as part of the appeal against his removal from the proceedings, were removed by VRiFG Burckgard. The documents are kept in a separate 'supplement' to the case files, entitled 'PKH application (BFH)'.
After the corresponding non-remedial decision was issued, the responsible rapporteur, RiFG Leifermann, arranged for the files to be sent to the Federal Finance Court by the office of the 3rd Senate by order of July 30, 2024. If the corresponding PKH file was not included when the files were sent, this is in any case not attributable to VRiFG Burckgard. In the absence of his involvement in this file transfer, there can be no concern about bias on his part.
It should first be noted that
· The plaintiff rejected the "competent rapporteur RiFG Leifermann" in written submissions dated September 8, 2023.
The appointment of Judge Leifermann to the court constitutes a violation of Article 101(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law, as changing the distribution of cases during ongoing proceedings violates the right to a lawful judge (see, inter alia, 2 BvR 581/03).
There is a difference in persons between the judges taking evidence and the judges deciding the case. Judge Leifermann was not part of the court panel for the oral hearing on November 21, 2018, which was interrupted on November 21, 2018 – ANNEX 1. The decision refers to the oral hearing on November 21, 2018.
Nothing is known about a change in the distribution of cases, and it is otherwise also an aspect of the arbitrary special treatment of the plaintiff by the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court if this particular judge is involved in the proceedings. Judge Leifermann has already acted in a manner characterized by multiple instances of arbitrariness in the proceedings against Liske Informationsmanagementsysteme as rapporteur of the 1st Senate in – see Arbitrariness – Insights into German (un)jurisprudence – and is therefore rejected by the plaintiff.
The inclusion of Judge Leifermann in the adjudicating court renders the findings of the oral hearing of November 21, 2018, which were incorrectly and inadequately reproduced in the minutes, null and void.
The proceedings are not yet concluded, so Judge Leifermann should not have taken such action. It is interesting to note that Judge Leifermann reappears a few months later. In a letter dated March 3, 2025, he points out as a matter of course that the proceedings have since been deleted from the registers and will be continued under a new file number, and refuses to provide the requested copies from the file, ANNEX 9. The plaintiff responds to this in a letter dated March 15, 2025, ANNEX 10:
In a written submission dated June 9, 2024, the decision of May 18, 2024, to reject the application on the grounds of concern about Judge Leifermann's bias was challenged. No decision has yet been made on this complaint. Pursuant to Section 51 (1) sentence 1 FGO in conjunction with Section 47 sentence 1 ZPO, he is not authorized to decide on the request to send a copy of the file.
In a letter dated March 20, 2025, Judge Simböck—the presiding judge in the present recusal decision—responded by stating that Judge Leifermann had only been mentioned in the letter dated March 3, 2025, by mistake and that he had been the author, ANNEX 11. The plaintiff responded in a letter dated March 28, 2025, ANNEX 12:
It is regrettable that the court's actions to date lead to the assumption that the court is attempting to remedy Judge Leifermann's unlawful involvement by portraying it as an "oversight" and holding Judge Simböck and the court office responsible for it.
...
It can be assumed that the court office has sufficient competence to be able to copy a fully formulated letter, as provided in the annex to the court letter, in its entirety – i.e., including the signing author. Apart from an accusation of forgery – from the plaintiff's review of the files to date, he is not aware of any concluding phrases such as "Yours sincerely ..." and these would also be unnecessary if one considers that the author is named at the beginning of the order and one assumes the role of representative of Judge Burckgard – the facts of the case can at best be explained by the fact that Judge Simböck drafted the content of the letter but – as the court office is aware – did so on behalf of Judge Leifermann, who was acting as rapporteur despite the challenge for bias.
This assumption is supported by the fact that, in the overall proceedings of the lawsuit of September 30, 2014, the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court has repeatedly disregarded the fact that, despite undecided motions for recusal, the judges concerned were involved in order to demonstrate its omnipotence over the plaintiff in a manner that the latter now subsumes under white torture. On September 17, 2018, in proceedings 1 K 460/14, the First Senate of the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court, with the participation of Judge Leifermann, decided to reject a complaint by the plaintiff against the decision of July 27, 2018, to reject his motion for recusal against Judge Leifermann. The plaintiff described this as "judicial inbreeding." Presiding judge in the decision – of the 1st Senate – of July 27, 2018: Judge Burckgard.
So while Judge Leifermann assumes responsibility "as the competent rapporteur" in a written statement dated April 22, 2025, in the case of the "disappeared" PKH declaration, Judge Leifermann assumes responsibility "as the competent rapporteur" in order to invalidate the challenge against Judge Burckgard, Judge Simböck assumes responsibility for Judge Leifermann's letter in order to invalidate the challenge against Judge Leifermann.
In old German, one would say: These judges at the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court are a bunch of liars.
· Along the lines of "It's not gone – it's just somewhere else," it can first be noted that the plaintiff had sent the declaration, that it was received by the tax court, that it is available there, but that it did not arrive at the Federal Finance Court. Furthermore, it must be noted that the tax court, aware of the decisions of the Federal Finance Court of February 13, 2025, did not inform it that it had the statement and did not otherwise assume any responsibility for rejecting the plaintiff's application for PKH.
· The three judges responsible for the decision are so focused on issuing Judge Burckgard a 100% clean bill of health that they actually dare to cast doubt on the Federal Finance Court's finding that the statement had not been submitted .
If the relevant PKH file was not included when the files were sent
· The real madness—and, there is no other way to put it, the utter depravity of these judges—is revealed in a single word:
PKH attachment
There was no "PKH file." When the plaintiff quotes himself above as saying
It is disturbing to see how young, tall judges, who appear to be intelligent,
this word testifies to the fact that the judges were aware in their decision that they had to find a solution to ensure that not individual pages of this statement were missing or that the statement was removed from the complaint together with other pages, but that exactly the scope of the statement and no more and no less was removed from the complaint.
Being normal without normal makes being normal normal.
The solution for people who are used to cheating was, in this case, PKH stapling. But there was no PKH stapling; instead, the entire complaint was bound together in one piece—as the plaintiff already wrote in his response of March 27, 2025, to Judge Burckgard's official statement.
The entire complaint, including attachments, was bound together with a staple or a paper clip so that it could not have fallen out "accidentally."
This makes the deliberate fraud obvious: the declaration of personal and economic circumstances was deliberately removed – which is all the more serious given that the original case file was submitted to the Federal Finance Court – in which it then discovered the decision of July 18, 2025, on deletion from the register.
· But even the attempt to absolve Judge Burckgard of responsibility for this act fails miserably. The decision ignores what the plaintiff already wrote in his response of March 27, 2025, to Judge Burckgard's official statement:
At this point, it becomes embarrassing. At https://www.aktuelles-urteil.de/glossar_rechtsbegriffe/vorsitzender-richter/, it states:
The presiding judge is the judge who presides over a court proceeding and is responsible for ensuring that the proceedings are conducted properly. He or she has the right to make decisions, hear witnesses, examine evidence, and direct the debate and discussion in the courtroom.
The presiding judge plays an important role in ensuring a fair and equitable trial. He or she must ensure that all parties can exercise their rights and that the trial proceeds properly. The presiding judge has the right to examine and decide on motions from prosecutors, defense attorneys, and witnesses.
The presiding judge also has the task of announcing the verdict and explaining the reasons for the court's decision. He or she is responsible for evaluating the evidence, applying the law to the case, and rendering a fair and appropriate judgment.
When it has been proven repeatedly how the plaintiff in the proceedings was to be misled, Judge Burckgard does not shy away from doing so, even in his official statement. In the present proceedings, he bears responsibility for everything that is done or not done, regardless of who did it.
Without a doubt, this responsibility of Presiding Judge Burckgard also applies to the forgery of documents, namely the deliberate removal of the statement on personal and economic circumstances from the brief sent to the Federal Finance Court.
D Rejection of complaints does not violate the right to a fair hearing
Paragraph 2.c. illustrates the extent to which the Basic Law, the law, and the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court are irrelevant to the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court. The decision states:
The rejection of the appeals concerning the refusal of legal aid, the separation and referral on grounds of official liability, and the rejection of the request for correction of the minutes also did not constitute a violation of the right to a fair hearing. On the contrary, the plaintiff's representative was able to exercise his right to a fair hearing with the appeals. The fact that his requests were not granted does not constitute a violation of the right to a fair hearing.
The fact that the court does not give reasons for its decisions not to grant relief is once again in the nature of the matter: by rejecting the relief, the court makes it clear that it adheres to the reasons for the decision challenged by the appeal. It is therefore neither appropriate nor necessary to repeat these reasons in decisions not to grant relief.
The plaintiff also submitted this paragraph to ChatGPT for review – APPENDIX 6 – and additionally questioned the applicability of the logic presented in Chapter VII.1 of his book "Arbitrariness – Insights into German (Un)jurisprudence," which discusses the requirements for court decisions regarding the granting of the right to a fair hearing under Article 103(1) of the Basic Law, taking into account the Basic Law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court.
To avoid repetition, reference is made to ANNEX 6. The answers are a slap in the face for the court.
· The court's statements violate the Basic Law, the law, and the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court.
· In particular, in addition to violating the right to a fair hearing, they also violate the prohibition of arbitrariness and the right to effective legal protection.
The court's statements completely negate the right to review court decisions, because according to this argument, any argument brought against these decisions is nullified by a negative decision: Since the court thereby expresses "that it adheres to the reasons for the decision challenged by a complaint." This universally applicable – cost-saving – self-exemption optimizes the obligation to comply with the fundamental right to legal recourse guaranteed by Article 19(4) sentence 1 of the Basic Law. However, there is a small problem: the right to a fair hearing under Article 103(1) of the Basic Law is not fully upheld. This practice, which is also common among public prosecutors, raises the question of the direction in which the transfer of know-how took place in this case.
In this respect, in line with the court's opinion, the present complaint against the hearing is then also without any effect if the court rejects the remedy without justification in response to it, thereby removing a further part of the law from the binding nature of case law under Article 20(3) of the Basic Law with Section 133a of the Federal Fiscal Court Rules.
Apart from where the case law of the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court seeks to standardize the effectiveness of the Basic Law and the law, it must be noted in this respect that there is a flagrant systemic violation of Article 20(3) of the Basic Law and thus a perversion of justice under Section 339 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). The court's statements are effectively a self-reporting of the rejection of the appeals for legal aid, the separation and referral on grounds of official liability, and the rejection of the request for correction of the minutes. The present decision is also characterized by the application of this understanding of the law.
The following pleadings are affected by the ignorance expressed and the violation of the right to a fair hearing. In order not to inflate the present pleading to more than 100 pages, reference must be made to the arguments in the following pleadings – together with their annexes – as an integral part of the reasoning for the present complaint, in addition to the statements made in this pleading:
· 09/08/2023 Request for correction of minutes
· 08.09.2023 Complaint and objection regarding the decision on PKH of 09.08.2023
· 08.09.2023 Complaint and objection regarding the decision on official liability dated 09.08.2023
· June 9, 2024 Complaint regarding refusal to correct minutes
· 09.06.2024 Complaint regarding excessive length of proceedings
· June 9, 2024 Rejection of Judge Burckgard due to bias
· June 9, 2024 Complaint regarding rejection of the application for proceedings on official liability
· March 27, 2025 Response to official statement by Judge Burckgard
E Length of proceedings
The decision states, 2.e:
Nor can any conclusion be drawn from the length of the proceedings as to the concern that VRiFG Burckgard was biased. First of all, the legal system provides for a separate procedure in the form of a complaint of delay in order to counteract any excessive length of proceedings and to compensate for any damage that may arise as a result. Furthermore, the reasons for the delay (VRiFG Burckgard's failure to prepare a report and his heavy workload as chair of two senates, some of which were overstaffed) are clearly explained and can be seen from the case allocation plans, so that there is no reason to suspect bias against the plaintiff.
Here, too, it must be noted that the plaintiff is being denied his right to a fair hearing and that Judge Burckgard's assertions of protection are simply being rubber-stamped from his official statement. In his statement on this matter dated March 27, 2025, the plaintiff has already reduced these assertions to absurdity.
At this point, it becomes embarrassing. At https://www.aktuelles-urteil.de/glossar_rechtsbegriffe/vorsitzender-richter/, it states:
The presiding judge is the judge who presides over a court proceeding and is responsible for ensuring that the proceedings are conducted properly. He or she has the right to make decisions, hear witnesses, examine evidence, and conduct the debate and discussion in the courtroom.
The presiding judge plays an important role in ensuring a fair and equitable trial. He or she must ensure that all parties can exercise their rights and that the trial proceeds properly. The presiding judge has the right to examine and decide on motions from prosecutors, defense attorneys, and witnesses.
The presiding judge also has the task of announcing the verdict and explaining the reasons for the court's decision. He or she is responsible for evaluating the evidence, applying the law to the case, and rendering a fair and appropriate judgment.
When it has been proven repeatedly how the plaintiff in the proceedings was to be misled, Judge Burckgard does not shy away from doing so, even in his official statement. In the present proceedings, he bears responsibility for everything that is done or not done, regardless of who did it.
The claim of overload is purely a protective assertion:
· The lawsuit of September 30, 2014, which consists of tax, criminal, and civil law aspects, is actually of manageable complexity. The contributions to the proceedings attributable to overload arise solely from the fact that the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court as a whole and Judge Burckgard in the part assigned to him act as defenders of the defendant and endlessly ignore the Basic Law, the law, and case law. And the more one does this, the more one has to do it and increasingly lie, cheat, and falsify: Compared to the ease of adhering to the Basic Law, the law, and case law, this naturally requires effort and can be stressful and even overwhelming.
· Even Judge Burckgard does not dare to explicitly explain, upon his retirement in 2019, that almost five years passed between the oral hearing on November 21, 2018, and the decisions of August 9, 2023, without the court taking any action or indicating that the proceedings were being delayed due to overload or whatever. Implicitly, however, he is trying to do so, and so once again, explicitly: that is almost five years in that period alone.
But now it has been over ten years, including the period between the lawsuit filed on September 30, 2014, and the oral hearing on November 21, 2018, in which Judge Burckgard also sat out the proceedings. However, this did not prevent him from coordinating with the president of the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court and the Magdeburg Administrative Court, as well as his colleague from the 1st Senate, to the effect that the hearing against the president of the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court on October 23, 2018, the oral hearing of the 1st Senate in the lawsuit of September 30, 2014, on November 1, 2018, and his own oral hearing on November 21, 2018. Is there any objection to this on the grounds that it was pure coincidence, and is the thesis that the burden imposed on the plaintiff – who had to manage without a lawyer – by the density of the oral hearings testifies to a completely different degree of overload rejected in view of the above thesis of overload?
Judge Burckgard has failed to fulfill his responsibility to ensure that the proceedings are conducted properly, has delayed the proceedings for years even before the alleged period of overload, and is responsible for the expense of the proceedings with his decisions, which are not covered by law and are designed to benefit the defendant. In addition, he used the interval between oral hearings, for which he was responsible, to commit fraud with the minutes of the oral hearing.
F Nullity of the minutes and loss of probative value
The decision states, 2.f:
The statements on the "nullity" of the minutes and the loss of their "evidential value" or on the rejected request to correct the minutes also do not give rise to any concern about bias.
In this regard, reference is first made to the relevant reasons given in the decision rejecting the request for correction of the minutes of May 13, 2024.
The statements on the probative value of the minutes are not comprehensible. The proceedings have not yet been concluded. The court adjourned at the end of the oral hearing. As there has been no waiver of a (further) oral hearing, the court will reconvene in this matter and hold another oral hearing. It is not clear to what extent the "evidential value" of the minutes of the hearing on November 21, 2018, should be relevant, especially since neither the matter itself was heard nor evidence taken at the hearing. As explained above, the only attempt made was to clarify the plaintiff's motions.
The commentary cited by the plaintiff's representative in this context (Prütting/Gehrlein ZPO § 165) is clearly irrelevant in the present proceedings, as it concerns "announcement minutes" of ordinary jurisdiction. However, a future announcement date was not recorded here.
The late dispatch of the minutes cannot give rise to the impression of bias, as the minutes have no adverse effect on the plaintiff due to the fact that no judgment or other decision was handed down in the oral hearing and the hearing must be continued.
The plaintiff's representative freely admits that he also shook his head at this point.
· The effort "In this regard, reference is first made to the relevant reasons for the decision to reject the request for correction of the minutes of May 13, 2024," ignores the plaintiff's comprehensive statements in his complaint against the rejection of the request for correction of the minutes of June 9, 2024 – at , to which reference is made here to avoid repetition – in which he summarizes:
The decision violates the plaintiff's right to a fair hearing. The minutes have lost their evidential value and an objection of falsification has been raised. The decision violates the plaintiff's right to a fair trial and the prohibition of arbitrariness.
· ChatGPT was asked within what period of time the minutes of an oral hearing must be sent, ANNEX 7. According to this, the minutes must be sent "without delay" – which is ensured by a four-week deadline – in order to guarantee the right to a fair hearing, and the same standards apply to an interrupted oral hearing as to a completed hearing: How could it be otherwise, in order to ensure the relevance of the hearing? This also means that whether it is a "proceedings transcript" or an "interim transcript" is irrelevant for the deadline for sending it. Ultimately, this already follows from the existence of the "interim minutes" and Section 165 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), because how can the minutes of an "interim hearing" have any evidentiary value if they are treated differently from "announcement minutes"?
· The argument that the minutes had no adverse effect on the plaintiff is absurd—which is evident from the fact that the plaintiff's motions are not included in the minutes and the court refuses to change this. As already stated in the motion to correct the minutes, Judge Burckgard has rewritten the minutes in a manner that serves his interests and is also preventing the inclusion of relevant aspects that the plaintiff still remembers. The argumentative gem "since the minutes have no adverse effect on the plaintiff due to the fact that no judgment or other decision was handed down in the oral hearing and the hearing must be continued" – but will have – would be described in Old German as illogical blabla.
The fact that the plaintiff explains the loss of evidential value in his application for bias on June 9, 2024, as follows
Sending it after five years deprives the parties of their right to a fair hearing when dealing with the details of the minutes, because they cannot know with regard to these details whether the reason for their lack of understanding is their poor memory or the fact that it is a falsification of what was actually the subject of the oral hearing.
This situation denies the plaintiff the right to a fair trial, which includes, in particular, the principle of expediency. The right to a fair trial gives rise to the right "to influence the course and outcome of the proceedings in order to safeguard one's rights" (1 BvL 7/68). In the present case, however, this is not possible. The minutes contain extensive aspects which the plaintiff believes were not the subject of the oral hearing, and furthermore, they lack aspects which the plaintiff knows were part of the oral hearing.
the decision is not included. In order not to inflate this brief too much, reference is made to the further explanations on this subject in the chapter "Reasons for rejecting the request for correction of the minutes – ANNEXES 2" and to pages 9 to 12 in the response to the official statement of March 27, 2025.
G Legality of the decisions
The decision states, 2.h:
Insofar as the plaintiff's representative's submission is limited to questioning or denying the (formal or substantive) legality of the decisions of the tax court, insofar as VRiFG Burckgard was involved in them, this does not give rise to concerns of bias.
A challenge cannot, in principle, be based on the fact that a judge has made incorrect decisions in a dispute in terms of formal or substantive law (BFH decision of March 2, 2017 XI B 81/16 BFH/NV 2017, 748 with further references). Legal errors can only justify concerns about bias in exceptional cases if reasons are presented that suggest that the possible error is based on a judge's biased attitude toward the party seeking recusal or on arbitrariness (BFH decision of June 20, 2016, X B 167/15 BFH/NV 2016, 1577; BFH decision of May 3, 2000 IV B 46/99 BStBI. II 2000, 376).
Such reasons have not been substantiated and are also not apparent. The plaintiff's representative's submission consists of a very subjective perception. In any case, there are no discernible objective circumstances that would allow the conclusion that the conduct of VRiFG Burckgard was based on irrelevant attitudes or arbitrariness. If the plaintiff's representative subjectively perceives this differently, this is not sufficient to assume a concern of bias. A reasonable objective assessment is decisive.
The comments are similar in nature to those addressed in "I Bias of a judge." In this regard, there are only two comments to be made.
· The failures listed in the section "I Bias of a judge" exclusively comprise objective circumstances "that allow the conclusion" that the behavior of VRiFG Burckgard is based on subjective attitudes or arbitrariness.
· The analysis of the quality of the court's arguments made by ChatGPT there is also applicable to the present remarks: it only has value if one does not engage with it.
H Tax court not competent to separate criminal aspects
The decision states succinctly, 2.b:
With regard to the lawsuit for "fraud, coercion, and violation" of public policy, the court pointed out several times that the assessment of such matters does not fall within the jurisdiction of a tax court and that there will be no referral to a criminal court.
The court believes that this remark allows it to dismiss the paragraph "Reasons for rejecting the appeal for separation and referral of the proceedings for official liability – APPENDICES 3 and 4" from the application for recusal dated June 9, 2024, as well as its appendices 3 and 4. However, this is by no means the case. In his appeal of September 8, 2023, for separation of the proceedings for official liability – to which reference is hereby made – the plaintiff explains in detail the absurdity of the court's efforts to separate the official liability without first clarifying the criminal liability of the defendant and his futile efforts in the oral hearing of November 21, 2018, to bring this about. In particular, he writes there:
Over the years, the plaintiff has repeatedly raised the issue of separation – which will not be proven individually here for reasons of expense. However, a letter dated November 11, 2018 – i.e., ten days before the oral hearing in response to a letter dated November 6, 2018, from Judge Kerber, who attended the oral hearing , in which the plaintiff described in great detail the procedural route prescribed by the GVG, the FGO, and the ZPO for the action based on tax, criminal, and civil law aspects – ANNEX 4.
The letter dated November 11, 2018, to Judge Kerber, which is to be included in the present complaint for violation of the right to a fair hearing, contains extensive evidence that the tax court is obliged under the GVG, FGO, and ZPO to separate the criminal law part and describes the procedure for doing so. So while the plaintiff substantiates his argument that the court must separate the criminal part of the action – in the same way as it did for official liability – which is awaiting review, the court merely asserts this without even beginning to explain how it arrived at this view. This therefore also constitutes a violation of the right to a fair hearing, and it can be assumed that the court is also trying to mislead the plaintiff with this assertion.
I Bias of a judge
The decision states, 1.:
A judge may be rejected on the grounds of bias if there is a reason that justifies mistrust of the judge's impartiality (Section 51 (1) of the German Fiscal Court Rules (FGO) in conjunction with Section 42 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)). According to the established case law of the Federal Finance Court (including BFH decision of July 4, 1985 - V B 3/85, BStBI. 11 1985, 555 with further references), such a case only exists if a party to the proceedings has, from its point of view and based on the external circumstances, reasonable grounds for believing that the judge it has rejected will be guided in its decision by inappropriate considerations for personal reasons. There must be indications of an unobjective attitude or arbitrariness on the part of the judge. It is irrelevant whether a decision would actually be influenced by bias.
Accordingly, there is no reason in the case in dispute that would justify mistrust of the impartiality of VRiFG Burckgard (Section 42 (2) ZPO).
It is interesting how the hurdle of being able to assume bias is reduced to the assumption by the person who assumes bias, but then the eyes are closed to the objectively existing reasons that certainly prove bias.
When the court asserts that "there must be evidence of an unobjective attitude or arbitrariness on the part of the judge," — which, in its opinion, do not exist — it ignores the facts presented by the plaintiff: Without claiming to be exhaustive, the following reasons, among others, are given which the court has not addressed. It merely puts forward theories that it does not substantiate in any way and refuses to address the particularly relevant allegations.
· Violation of Article 101(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law due to the appointment of Judge Leifermann to the court
· Violation of § 155 FGO in conjunction with § 329 (2) sentence 1 ZPO,
· Multiple document forgery,
· Perjury,
· prolonging the proceedings,
· Refusal to make efforts to include motions in the minutes despite violation of § 94 FGO in conjunction with § 160 (3) sentence 2 ZPO and the significance of § 94 FGO in conjunction with § 165 ZPO,
· Refusal to supplement the minutes, which is a problem in this respect – Motion for recusal dated June 9, 2024:
In view of all previous experience with the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court, the expected ruling is extremely relevant for an appeal and a constitutional complaint, as the aspects of a fair trial, the prohibition of arbitrariness, and the right to a fair hearing are of paramount importance there.
· No separation of the criminal aspects,
· Humiliating treatment of the plaintiff's representative in the oral hearing on November 21, 2018.
Judge Burckgard, as presiding judge, is responsible for all of this.
The plaintiff took the liberty of having ChatGPT analyze the following part of point 2. a) of the decision, ANNEX 5.
It may not be relevant to the question of concern about bias that a court decision would actually be influenced by prejudice. However, what is necessary in order to reject a judge on the grounds of concern about bias is a reasonable and comprehensible reason why the party involved has the impression of prejudice. However, this is not the case in the dispute. It is also not sufficient for a judge to express a legal opinion that differs from that of the party involved. The subjective impressions of a plaintiff, his individual sensitivities and feelings, cannot in fact be decisive. Otherwise, the door would be open to abuse. A plaintiff could easily "get rid" of a judge he dislikes by accusing him of being biased based on his purely subjective impression, without any rational grounds based on the actual events. However, the plaintiff's impression must be comprehensible to a neutral observer in the plaintiff's position based on factual evidence in the actual proceedings, which is completely lacking here.
ChatGPT comes to the following conclusion:
Yes, the logic of this paragraph effectively torpedoes the right to challenge a judge on the grounds of bias. By proclaiming the prima facie standard on the one hand, but on the other hand imposing an unspecified, extremely high "reasonable" hurdle and rejecting any individual case justification as insufficient, the right to challenge becomes largely ineffective. The decision thus departs from the fair standard of review required in the literature and cements judicial self-sufficiency against allegations of bias.
The plaintiff concurs with this understanding. The present brief shows that the court's efforts are insufficient.
The plaintiff has also had his criminal complaint against Judge Burckgard analyzed in advance, ANNEX 8. The content is fully incorporated into the argumentation of bias. To avoid repetition, reference is made to the annex.
J Merits of the plaintiff's submission
The decision states, 2. i:
Finally, the reference to notes made by the plaintiff's representative himself or to publications he has published himself ("Arbitrariness - Insights into German (Un)Justice") has no further value or even evidential value.
The court has extensively proven that virtually all of the plaintiff's statements have "no further value or even probative value" – apart from conceding a few sentences on individual aspects, which ultimately express the same thing in slightly different words: How could it be otherwise when the court's sole task is to protect the defendant from responsibility for its criminal actions? However, for the law of the Federal Republic of Germany, this statement is a summary description of a systemic action that fundamentally denies the plaintiff the right to a fair hearing. In this respect, it is a fitting concluding sentence to the contested decision.
K Further
1.
In his motion of June 9, 2024, to recuse Judge Burckgard, it states:
In his decision to reject the addition to the minutes, Judge Burckgard attempts to claim that the oral proceedings have come to an end – yet elsewhere he contradictorily bases his rejection on their continuation. This is incorrect: the proceedings were only interrupted and adjourned. One can assume that a judge is aware of this. Treating a layman with no legal training in this way suggests a biased attitude. For full details, please refer to APPENDIX 2.
In the aforementioned ANNEX 2 – which concerns the complaint against the rejection of the correction of the minutes of June 9, 2024 – it states in detail:
The decision of May 13, 2024, on the rejection of the correction of the minutes states:
The application for an addition to the minutes pursuant to § 94 FGO in conjunction with § 160 (4) ZPO is obviously inadmissible.
A request to supplement the minutes that refers to facts during the hearing or the taking of evidence or to specific statements made by a party (Section 160 (4) sentence 1 ZPO) must be made by the end of the oral hearing (established case law of the Federal Finance Court – BFH –; see, for example, BFH decision of September 26, 2005, VIII B 6/04, BFH/NV 2006, 109: BFH decision of August 8, 2011, XI B 53/11, BFH/NV 2011, 2081; BFH decision of November 10, 2011 IV B 47/11, BFH/NV 2012, 425; general opinion also in the other jurisdictions, e.g. BVerwG decision of March 10, 2011 9 A 8/10, HFR 2011, 916; Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court, decision of February 25, 2011, 5 W 7/11, MDR 2011, 751). This did not happen. The supplementary application filed in the brief of September 8, 2023, is clearly late.
The minutes state at the end:
The matter is adjourned.
In this respect, the oral proceedings that began on November 21, 2018, have not yet been concluded and additions to the minutes are therefore possible, as the presiding judge has not yet closed the proceedings (Section 136 (4) ZPO). Therefore, the motion to supplement the minutes pursuant to Section 94 FGO in conjunction with Section 160 (4) ZPO is obviously admissible. The fact that Judge Burckgard ignores this and attempts to mislead the plaintiff—exploiting his insufficient legal knowledge—violates the plaintiff's right to a fair trial, the prohibition of arbitrariness, and the right to a fair hearing ( ), because the court concludes from the inadmissibility that it does not have to deal with the desired additions in detail.
If the decision then goes on to state
Insofar as the plaintiff complains about the late submission of the minutes, this is not a matter that was realized during the oral hearing; for this reason alone, it cannot be included in the minutes.
...
With regard to the alleged timing of the transmission of the minutes of the hearing, the above applies equally here. This is not a matter that was raised during the oral hearing.
This is therefore incorrect, as the oral hearing has not yet been concluded. Therefore, the reference to the "late" delivery – discussed below – may well be included in the minutes.
If the decision states
The proceedings relevant to the decision and the outcome within the meaning of Section 160 (2) ZPO include, among other things, the submission of requests for evidence (Herbert in Gräber; FGO, Commentary, 9th edition, Section 94 margin number 7 with further references). The request for evidence now formulated in the brief of September 8, 2023 (page 4 above) was not made in the oral hearing. This is despite the fact that, as the minutes accurately reflect, the plaintiff's representative was asked twice whether he wished to make any further requests in addition to requests 0 to 8 made in the brief of September 30, 2014. On this point, therefore, the minutes are not incorrect.
The court is thus attempting to assert its authority over oral proceedings that it interrupted for five years and whose minutes it only prepared and sent after five years. In his response to the minutes, the plaintiff wrote – ANNEX 2:
With regard to the aspect that the Magdeburg tax office had threatened the plaintiff via the tax office to continue its investigation if he did not accept the (fraudulent) result of the tax audit, and the questionable final meeting, the court refused to recognize a connection. The plaintiff unsuccessfully submitted the following request for evidence:
In case 3 K 1053/14, the following request for evidence is made:
As evidence of the fact that the defendant threatened the plaintiff that it would continue its investigation and could even close the companies if he did not accept the audit result, it is requested that the employees
Anja Kuchta and Werner
of Magdeburger Treuhand, Alt-Ottersleben 40-41, 39116 Magdeburg, be summoned and heard as witnesses to the alleged fact.
The hearing will prove that the threat was made.
The motion was therefore made during the oral hearing on November 21, 2018, and not in response to the minutes. Proof of this is also provided by the fact that the above attempt to suggest that the plaintiff had denied the question fails. The court itself proves in the minutes that motions were made (page 5 of the minutes). Incidentally, it is also disputed here that the question was asked – see the statements on the "ill" judge for proof. Motions were made by the plaintiff on his own initiative.
The decision does not address this. However, the plaintiff's successful efforts are of paramount importance for the anticipated appeal.
2.
In his motion of June 9, 2024, to recuse Judge Burckgard, it states:
The fact that the court does not address the plaintiff's statements – ANNEX 3 – with a single word – ANNEX 4 – violates his right to a fair hearing. It also contravenes the requirement of § 133a (4) sentence 4 FGO:
The decision should be briefly justified.
The decision does not address this. This shows how little importance Presiding Judge Burckgard attaches to the law of the Federal Republic of Germany and, in particular, how Art. 20 (3) GG is being violated here. The brief dated June 9, 2025, which complains of a violation of the right to a fair hearing with regard to the decision of August 9, 2023, on official liability, states:
The appointment of Judge Leifermann to the court constitutes a violation of Article 101(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law, as the change in the distribution of cases during ongoing proceedings violates the right to a lawful judge (see, inter alia, 2 BvR 581/03).
There is a difference in persons between the judges taking evidence and the judges deciding the case. Judge Leifermann was not part of the court panel for the oral hearing on November 21, 2018, which was interrupted on November 21, 2018 – ANNEX 1. The decision refers to the oral hearing on November 21, 2018.
Nothing is known about a change in the distribution of cases, and it is otherwise also an aspect of the arbitrary special treatment of the plaintiff by the Saxony-Anhalt Finance Court if this particular judge is involved in the proceedings. Judge Leifermann has already acted in a manner characterized by multiple instances of arbitrariness as the rapporteur of the 1st Senate in the proceedings against Liske Informationsmanagementsysteme – see Arbitrariness – Insights into German (un)jurisprudence – and is therefore rejected by the plaintiff.
The inclusion of Judge Leifermann in the adjudicating court renders the findings of the oral hearing of November 21, 2018, which were incorrectly and inadequately reproduced in the minutes, null and void.
The decision also fails to address the aspects discussed in the brief, namely that the court is lying, that the separation of official liability is untimely, and that the plaintiff's representative is being subjected to white torture. To avoid repetition, reference is made to the brief.
B e r n d L i s k e
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1: 04/25/2025 Postmark of the decision
ATTACHMENT 2: May 4, 2025 ChatGPT – Delivery of "internal court" decisions
APPENDIX 3: May 5, 2025 ChatGPT – on the truthfulness of statements
APPENDIX 4: May 7, 2025 Request for an expert opinion to clarify the truth
APPENDIX 5: May 5, 2025 ChatGPT – Standards regarding concerns of bias
APPENDIX 6: May 5, 2025 ChatGPT – Obligation to state reasons for decisions not to remedy
APPENDIX 7: May 6, 2025 ChatGPT – Time period for sending minutes
APPENDIX 8: March 17, 2025 ChatGPT – Questions
APPENDIX 9: March 3, 2025 FINANCIAL COURT Case dismissal, no sending of files
APPENDIX 10: March 17, 2025 Response to letter dated March 3, 2025
APPENDIX 11: March 20, 2025 FINANCIAL COURT regarding Judge Leifermann
APPENDIX 12: 02.04.2025 Response to letter dated 20.03.2025
END OF TEXT
