[light_cone]

It is sad that you would rather believe the parent has mental health issues, rather than entertain the possibility that yes, someone is actually doing something effective against powerful corrupt people, and that requires creative thinking.

To me, it echoes "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude" by La Boétie. Powerful people are just people. They are powerful because we are collectively granting them that power. This is not a case of delusion of grandeur, but a case of saying no to learned helplessness.

So thank you byecancer21 for what you're doing against corruption, from a stranger on the internet.

[Eezee]

One of the documents shared on the page is a letter to the constitutional court of Germany where the plaintiff explains how not taking his case constitutes a mortal sin for which the president of the court will go to hell and lectures him that he cannot visit church services anymore. It is very hard to take the rest seriously if the same person is claiming the corruption.

[byecancer21]

This was a fun thing sent three days before the election, which his party was expected to lose. The same judge was vice-leader of this party until his appointment and is known to be ultra-catholic.

Such writing is obviously not directed at him but rather at his staffers. At the lower courts the same tactic actually worked to change staff willingness to make themselves an accessory to crimes. An interesting consequence is later decision were not served correctly because no staffer wanted to put any identifying information on there anymore – this is however a legal requirement for certified copies.

Note I am not actually accusing the top judge of a crime but merely of inappropriate bias.

I am well aware it is important to convey the events in manner understandable to the general public. This has not occurred yet as I had no immediate plan to go public. Before HN the site was only known to a small circle of lawyers.

[zeckalpha]

Was that sent by the poster or someone they are targeting?

[throwawayHN378]

It’s fairly obvious to infer that OP is experiencing some type of psychosis or schizotypical behavior

[light_cone]

Well, adding "obviously" to an argument does not add anything to the argument.

I can see how you _might_ think this some type of mental health issue, but seeing a behavior that is weird from your point of view does not make it a medical behavior automatically. It might, it might not, and you can't tell for sure.

To push another armchair diagnosis with exactly the same value, I'd say it looks someone who plays the game of life at a high level, which can sometimes looks like lunacy from the outside. But that's just like, my opinion, man.

[sillysaurusx]

My inference is that you've never felt strongly about a topic like this, and live a fairly normal life. That's fine, but you shouldn't drag others down.

[byecancer21]

Not being able to tell if the facts are true I see why one might be inclined to think as much. I did discuss the matter with friends throughout the course of events to assure my own sanity however, also because certain aspects are in our view rather entertaining.

A future matter is the health data protection violation the judge's family committed by hiring problem solving consultants first and giving them my personal info, prior to escalating to a false threat claim.

Interestingly the law assigns such cases to her branch of the judiciary.

So this judge might soon become a witness or even defendant at her very own court, in a matter directed against her actions.

I will grant you this sounds crazy on the face of it. It is the law however (SGB X).

[tsol]

It's fairly obvious that actual psychiatrists make that diagnosis on a lot more than a HN post