As many already know, the JobCenters are responsible for granting or rejecting social benefits and Harz 4 funds to those in need after submitting an application.
Is this really so?
As a sovereign person, one is responsible for one's own actions and therefore has no account to anyone except God. This significantly undermines the JobCenter. I took the liberty of questioning something and would like to share my findings here once again. In advance it should be explained that the job centers are only registered companies in the international commercial register (look at www.upik.de). None of these employees have sovereign rights and are therefore liable under private law for every sanction and reduction, whereby a sanction has already been confirmed by various social courts that these are unconstitutional, although we have no constitution at all (which certainly mean the Basic Law as a constitution).
Since letters arrive occasionally, come to our house at this appointment blah blah to sign the integration agreement.
Why is someone writing to me from this company, even though they only have one payment order to pay social benefits, what else was not requested?
Mrs. Ulrike Bellmann
Job center Chemnitz
Heinrich Lorenz Street 35
Room 518
09120 Chemnitz
and
Mrs. Katrin Emmrich
Job center Chemnitz
Elsasser Strasse 10
Room 604
09120 Chemnitz
Referring to your subpoena dated September 18, 2015
Your letter lacks credibility in advance, as you cite paragraphs which intervene in the fundamental rights of people and thus undermine human dignity.
I.
This is an invitation in accordance with Section 59 Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II) in conjunction with Section 309, Paragraph 1, Third Book of the Social Code (SGB III).
If you do not accept this invitation for no good reason, your unemployment benefit II or social benefit will be reduced by 10 percent of the standard requirement for you according to Section 20 Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II) for a period of three months. "
Guidelines for follow-up invitations that are also applicable to invitations:
1. Follow-up invitations from the job center due to failure to report are - void and ineffective, because § 309 SGB III is not a legal basis for this, recipients of help are required
to impose an intended sanction to appear for a hearing on the facts.
2. A follow-up invitation is too vague because the stated content of the request to report cannot be interpreted as a legal reporting purpose within the meaning of the catalog of Section 309 (2) SGB III.
Section 309 (2) SGB III also applies to so-called summons / invitations
(2) The request to report can be for the purpose of
1. career counseling,
2. Placement in training or work,
3. Preparation of active job promotion services,
4. Preparation of decisions in the performance procedure and
5. Examination of the existence of the prerequisites for entitlement to benefits.
An obligation to appear for a hearing on the facts of an intended sanction is not given in Section 309 (2) SGB III.
Section 309 also does not provide a term "conclusion of an agreement on cooperation (integration agreement)", as this is a private contract between you and the above-mentioned natural person and people.
II.
Note on sending invitations by post:
The job centers send the invitations as "normal mail". However, this is an extremely insecure dispatch, because it happens again and again that such standard letters do not reach their recipient.
For this reason, according to the law and case law, in case of doubt (i.e. if the recipient declares that he has not received a letter), the job center has to prove that and when the post reached the job center “customer”. An "integration agreement" issued by administrative act and sent out in a normal letter is therefore not legally effective, a summons (euphemistically called an "invitation") to a "reporting date" cannot be taken, an application for a job "offer" cannot be met and a measure cannot be taken, if the recipient has not received the relevant letter.
If a sanction is nevertheless imposed, an objection must be lodged if the job center cannot provide proof of delivery. If there is no remedy by objection, a lawsuit must be submitted to the social court against the job center. Also the claim of the job center “supervisor” together with an alleged “computer note” that he had the “invitation” to the next reporting date or the start of a measure, a job “offer” or an “integration agreement” to the “ Customer ”is no proof that it actually took place, because he may have printed it out but then forgot to hand it over.
According to a letter from the Federal Parliament of Germany, the job center is obliged to prove that a personal handover took place, which is only the case with an acknowledgment of receipt, i.e. the "customer" confirms with his signature that the job center letter was handed over personally by his "agent" or with the help of a witness present in the room to confirm the delivery, which is generally not the case.
III.
§ 2 SGB II principle of demands, paragraph 1, sentence 2 and § 15 SGB II integration agreement.
Both of these paragraphs violate the citation requirement under Article 19 sentence 1 of the Basic Law and are null and void, retrospectively since SGB II came into force on January 2, 1.
The replacement of integration agreements in accordance with Section 1 (2005) SGB II by administrative act has also been void since January 15, 1.
This replacement of the EGV by an administrative act comes about when the integration agreement, for whatever reason, has not been signed by the recipient of the service.
The administrative act is nothing more than a clear, arbitrary coercive measure without legal force, which simply completely ignores the legally guaranteed freedom of contract.
With the pretended obligation to contract (compulsory conclusion, Latin: contrahere, to conclude a contract) of the job center, basic rights such. Article 2 (general personal rights), Article 20 of the welfare state (constitutional principles, right of resistance), Article 19 paragraph 4, Article 80 paragraph 1 (application of legal provisions in the event of tension), Article 12, paragraphs 2 and 3 (freedom of career choice and prohibition of exploitation by Forced labor so-called 1 euro jobs), overridden.
Article 8 III of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (entered into force in Germany on March 23, 1976) and ILO Convention No. 29 and No. 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labor of June 5, 1957, should also be named.
This public law contract is regulated in Sections 53 to 66 of the SGB X of the Social Security Code.
The essence of the integration agreement:
The integration agreement is a contract under public law and is therefore of course subject to the freedom of contract under Article 2 of the Basic Law, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG). This freedom of contract is required in Section 311 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Freedom of contract is one of the most important basic principles of German civil law and an expression of private autonomy.
This means that this "agreement" only and exclusively comes about if there are two declarations of intent according to §§ 145 BGB ff and on the basis of voluntariness.
Section 2 (1) sentence 2 SGB II states:
"An employable person entitled to benefits must actively participate in all measures for their integration into work, in particular conclude an integration agreement."
Fulfilling this regulation (must… conclude an integration agreement) is impossible according to § 275 BGB, since the conclusion of contracts is based on voluntariness, quite apart from the unconstitutional compulsion.
Basically, you shouldn't sign an integration agreement, but rather check it out calmly. A refusal to sign does not lead to sanctions either, as is wrongly a very common opinion.
Should the case manager in the job center now insist on an immediate signature or suggest that this agreement must be signed in some form, then he makes the coercion punishable under Section 240 of the Criminal Code.
A threat of sanctions, in particular according to § 31 SGB II, in these agreements (so-called legal consequences instruction) must always be rejected, as these are prohibited according to the Basic Law and the Federal Constitutional Court ruling of February 09.02.2010, XNUMX.
IV.
Since you are registered as a company in the commercial register (copy) and several courts have already decided that your company cannot be an authority, but you want to work according to SGB X, which, on closer inspection, turns out to be a cheap copy of the Administrative Procedure Act , Like all other employees of the Job Center, you are deliberately violating this with your letter. If you want to work as an authority, then you should also adhere to the administrative regulations of SGB X. Sections 30, 33, 39, 40.
Even on your letter, I firstly miss the seal of the job center and the legitimate signature with first and last name. You don't want to shirk responsibility, do you?
V.
As officially known in the districts, the job center needs a permit from the federal government, i.e. the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Upon request from this office, this permit for the city of Chemnitz was never granted. The Chemnitz job center therefore works in this municipality without sufficient approval from the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. You will thus be asked for the required approval by
September 29, 2015
to be documented publicly and certified. If you cannot prove this certificate, you work as a private company. Thus, all sanctions must be stopped immediately, whereby the Dresden Social Court also determined a few days ago that all sanctions are void.
The undersigned reserves the right to publish the correspondence at any time, since the Jobcenter company is of the opinion that it is a public body, public law automatically comes into force here.
Sincerely
Annexes for damages contract
Of course I do not want to withhold the answer to this letter from you.
Now I have to laugh a little, they found an illegal association to justify lies.
Mrs. Katrin Heinze
-Managing director personally- c / o Jobcenter Chemnitz
DUNS® number 342597553
Elsasser Strasse 10
[09120] Chemnitz Wednesday, September 22, 2015
Your letter from 28.09.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX
Dear Ms. Katrin Heinze,
Dear Ms. Kathrin Emmrich,
I.
I hereby confirm the receipt of your offer / draft / letter from 28.09.2015/30.09.2015/126 received on 30/33/125, which I rate as an offer. Again, the legally binding signature is missing under the letter. The head bow identifies Ms. Katrin Emmrich, but the signatory is Ms. Katrin Heinze, who signed or canceled this letter in a wavy line as a paraphe. Furthermore, the legally binding seal for an authority is missing. Thus, the letter according to the Civil Code (BGB) § 40 (in connection with the Social Code (SGB) X (alleged authority) §§ XNUMX, XNUMX) of the signature obligation is void according to the Civil Code (BGB) § XNUMX (in connection with the Social Code (SGB) X § XNUMX.)
Judgment by the Federal Court of Justice:
Federal Court of Justice, decision of April 11.04.2013, 43 - VII ZB 12/XNUMX -
BGH: Signatures under pleadings must show the name of the person signing
Abbreviations are not allowed - any ambiguity is at the expense of the undersigned
In principle, a handwritten signature is part of the written form (cf. eg judgment of December 6, 1988 BVerwG 9 C 40.87; BVerwGE 81, 32 decision of January 27, 2003;
BVerwG 1 B 92.02 NJW 2003, 1544). The Joint Senate of the Supreme Courts of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany has decided that, when certain documents are transmitted electronically, the statutory written form requirement is satisfied under certain conditions, even without a personal signature (decision of April 5, 2000 GmS-OBG 1/98 Buchholz 310 § 81 VwGO No. 15); However, this only applies in those cases in which it is impossible for technical reasons to add a handwritten signature (e.g. email) and not for the written documents sent by normal post, which can and can be reasonably expected to be signed (see BFH, judgment of 10 July 2002 VII B 6/02 BFH / NV 2002, 1597; decision of January 27, 2003 BVerwG 1 B 92.02 aaO)
II.
According to the extract from the International Commercial Register, the JOBCENTER Chemnitz is managed as a normal trading company.
UPIK® data set - L
L - Registered company name: Federal Employment Agency
W - Unregistered name or part of the company:
Job center Chemnitz
L - DUNS® number: 342597553
L - Registered office: Heinrich-Lorenz-Str. 35
L - Post code: 09120
L - Postal City - Chemnitz
L - Country: Germany <- not BRD !!!
W - country code: 276
L - Telephone number: 03715670
L - activity (SIC): 9651
Where it says Federal Agency is far from being Federal Agency. The above-mentioned natural person hereby requests the management of the Chemnitz Job Center to present the approval as required in § 6 and § 6a of SGB II. On request for Saxony, 5 permits were issued (copy enclosed). Chemnitz as an independent city is not included. For sending me the
09.10.2015
intended to provide the legitimation. A certified copy of this approval must be presented. Should you not be able to prove this, it is clear beyond doubt that you have no authorization at all for the application of SGB II. This does not request approval for the Federal Employment Agency Heinrich-Lorenz-Straße 20, but for the company JOBCENTER Heinrich-Lorenz-Straße 35 and for the branch at Elsasser Straße 10. (Which illegal association you want to set up or already do Do not care at all, the fact is, you need a permit. (see letter Otto Schily). The application of the SGB is reserved exclusively for authorities. With regard to the judgment of the Landessozialgericht Berlin given below, it can be read that even they are not According to the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court, this is once again clearly confirmed that the company JobCenter is an American occupation company!
Thanks to the German press, it has got around that job centers are responsible for all Hartz IV issues. Since “Helena Fürst - Lawyer for the Poor” at the latest, TV viewers have known that the job center is responsible. Anyone who does not receive social assistance within the meaning of SGB XII and is still able to work must therefore go to the job center.
Put simply, that is correct, but the job center, which is actually a spin-off from the Federal Employment Agency, also needs approval. But most cities don't have one. Actually, no big city has one.
In SGB II § 6 the main carrier for the classic unemployment benefit 2, which by name actually only applies to the unemployed, is actually the Federal Employment Agency. However, the independent cities and districts can also appoint substitute carriers. These substitute carriers are actually referred to as job centers in accordance with SGB II § 6d. But SGB II § 6a now prescribes admission. In the "Ordinance on the approval of municipal bodies as providers of basic security for jobseekers" (Kommunalträger-Zulassungsverordnung - KomtrZV) all districts and cities that are actually allowed to have a job center are legally mentioned.
But Düsseldorf, Cologne, Neuss, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg, Berlin, Dortmund, Frankfurt / Main and many other large cities are missing from the list. In all the cities without a real job center, the classic employment office is actually responsible, but nobody wants to admit that, although the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has published its own brochure with the legally existing job centers. But the cities came up with their own job center, far removed from federal laws. So far, the federal government doesn't really care.
It is not at all incumbent on you to cancel my certification of will in the form of a compensation contract, 1. reject it, nor 2. lodge an objection or 3. lodge an objection. This declaration of will is legal according to the current BGB and HGB. Any rejection, objection or even contradiction on your part constitutes an inadmissible disclaimer and therefore unfair competition on your part. Since the compensation contract is duly signed, it is legal under current law and therefore applicable. The natural person and person mentioned above can assure you that they will not submit to your criminal activity. For this, the so-called private liability will come into force as a result of the damage compensation contract and / or the Basic Law Article 20 paragraph 4.
The implied, indirect, indirect declaration of intent expresses the will to do business through behavior that actually serves another immediate purpose.
In plain English, you or your employees commit a criminal offense, e.g. a sanction, in the name of the job center, only then does the compensation contract begin. Until that day, this is a dormant offer. My will does not need a second consent, because the will is subject to a process of humanity and is protected by the BGB and the HGB. Everyone has the right to express their will freely and to express it in writing.
Declarations of intent that require receipt are declarations of intent addressed to another person.
You have confirmed receipt in full with your letter.
On closer inspection, this is a private liability contract, since the name of the injuring party comes first. As the residential address is not known, you can use the workplace for delivery as a precaution. For more information, ask your legal department or your private lawyer, as the damage compensation contract is addressed to the private person and not, as you suspected, to the office of the job center. The Chemnitz District Court had found out the connections more quickly.
Furthermore, the above-mentioned natural person and person, Ms. Katrin Heinze, demand the powers of attorney that you, as managing director, may dispose of all your employees under private law and thus undermine your basic rights. Please sign this document with your first and last name legibly, let's see what your employees say about your hiring, if you, as managing director of the job center, have these dispositions and make their private law a business matter! (Guardianship matter)
Do you notice something? Your lies are no longer believed. What happens when this becomes public? The citizens are already annoyed about your sanctions.
Actually, the above-mentioned natural person and human does not demand anything other than the termination of the sanctions and threats or threats against them. Furthermore, respect for interpersonal relationships should be maintained, i.e. interference with human rights and the basic rights of the above-mentioned natural person and people. This includes the illegal private law contract of the integration agreement, which is also a unilateral contract and violates the Federal Constitutional Court judgment 1 BvL 01/09. What is right must remain right, otherwise “where injustice becomes right, resistance becomes a duty” - Bertold Brecht.
Incidentally, as is referred to in all letters, the social court is no longer competent at all. After deletion of SGG § 15 “All courts are state courts” with reference to Basic Law 101 “Exceptional courts are not permitted. No one shall be deprived of his legal judge."
JobCenter not an authority!
Decision LSG Berlin-Brandenburg 07.03.07, L 28 B 134/07 AS. (14.05.07/XNUMX/XNUMX)
Sanctions prohibited!
SG Gotha, order for reference May 26, 05 - S 2015 AS 15/5157
Social Court Dresden 10.08.2015/20/1507 - S 14 AS XNUMX/XNUMX
Regulation of the JobCenter and prohibition for this!
BVerfG 09/02/2010 - 1 BvL 1/09 - 1 BvL 3/09 - 1 BvL 4/09
Before the secretary forgets, Ms. Ulrike Bellmann is liable, like you, under private law according to BGB § 839 with your private assets. She works according to instructions. You can follow this instruction or give it back with the so-called remonstration obligation, which Ms. Bellmann obviously tried to do. You have thus confirmed that the compensation contract has been received, thank you for that. If you have advised Ms. Bellmann incorrectly, Ms. Bellmann and you as an entrepreneur in a non-state “authority” company are liable under private law according to the damage compensation contract, which you have even confirmed receipt, according to BGB § 839, as the necessary documents are up to now were not provided!
With discretionary respect
Investment:
Letter from Otto Schily
Judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court - repeal of all civil servants
Approved municipalities
##########################
If you like you can leave us a coffee for the effort and the time invested,
Thank you very much
As a precaution, the editors distance themselves from each article. The articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors, rather they only serve to free opinion. Nobody is perfect and error is possible. In addition: it is only information and does not necessarily have the attention of the editors.
As an Amazon partner, the blog operator earns qualified sales via the Amazon links inserted in the blog. Almost all of this earnings are converted into animal feed.
To comment on posts or to rate them with stars, you have to registered and logged in be. Not registered yet?
forest power
☘️ Kills all kinds of disease-causing germs through oxidation
☘️ Eliminates and drains heavy metals and environmental toxins
☘️ Increases performance...
"Chlorine dioxide is the most effective bacteria killer known to man."
Follow us on Telegram
