EVIL cat by TCFIXer
blankety blank blank
A fixer is a person who makes arrangements for other people, especially of an illicit or devious kind. A fixer is not guided by morals, societal norms or conscious. A fixer is only interested in getting the job done - no matter what the cost.
Human dignity, truth and transparency are the last things a fixer is interested in.
Fixers primarily use legal means, such as lawsuits especially - SLAPP suits - and payoffs, to accomplish their ends and/or they may carry out unlawful activities.
The best way to describe a fixer is to let him describe himself:
April 18, 2017 Page 3
it came to violations /"...ist zu zur ...pflichtverletzungen gekommen"
refused to follow (law)/"..geweigert ...(gesetzliche) anweisungen...zufolgen"
neither willing to change (his) attitude nor to apologize for (his) malpractice/ "weder bereit war, von... Weigerungshaltung abzurücken noch sich für ...Fehlverhalten ...zu entschuldigen"
violated worker (law) /"gegen ...arbeits(rechtlichen) Pflichten verstoßen"
criticism that crosses the line/"grenzüberschreitende Kritik"
violation of duty/"Pflichtwidrigkeiten"
It is important to remember the time line. By the time the fixer was spewing this slander, it is well documented, that the Sparkasse had the verifiable proof, that all of the accusations made against me were false. (s. Attachment F)
Instead of correcting the lies and slander, it appears they hired this guy to double down and bury the truth.
What does this say about the two board members and three department heads?
Not only do these individuals have the authority to make personel decisions, they also have the right to use all of the resources of a public institution and the obligation to follow the law.
Is the use of the resources of a public institution - probably hundreds of thousands of euros in this case - to spread lies and slander acceptable?
If not, why do "we the people" tolerate it?
To my knowledge nothing has changed in the Sparkasse. As late as 2020 there is verifiable proof, that documented human rights violations continue. As of 2022, the Sparkasse has yet to fulfill its obligation in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation to correct the lies and slander it has been spreading about me since 2014, thus perpetuating documented human rights violations.
Knowing that the accusations against me were factually unsustainable, the fixer constantly claimed , that the legal decisions which partially incorporated the verifiably false allegations of the Sparkasse, were proof of the validity of the false accusations of the Sparkasse. Essentially he argues, that since slander works it is not slander.
The fact, that the false accusations had been even partially accepted by judges in their legal decisions, only serves to document just how effective lies and slander are.
The writers of the General Data Protection Regulation were very much aware of the danger of lies and slander. Acccuracy - accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay is a principle of data protection.
But let us get back to letting the fixer describe his actions and way of thinking:
the resulting negative prognosis (with respect to repetition of illegal acts) is not objectified through a warning based upon the same or similar malpractice/"...die ergebende negativ Prognose nicht durch eine vorangegangen Abmahnung eines gleichen oder ähnlichen Fehlverhaltens objektiviert"
an interest in persistance not particularly worthy of protection/"dem nicht sonderlich schützenswerten Beharrungsinteresse..."
at odds with stability/"stand der... Stabilität entgegen
June 23, 2017 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5
This document mostly just contains specious arguments claiming, that until a judge determines an action of a public institution to be illegal, it is not illegal.
"Gilt im Bereich des öffentlichen Dienstes als anerkannt, dass ein öffentlicher Arbeitgeber auch einen Feststellungstitel akzeptiert, folgt daraus im Umkehrschluss dass es sich in diesen Fällen gleichzeitig an der von der § 259 ZPO vorausgesetzten Besorgnis fehlt, dass sich der öffentliche Arbeitgeber anderenfalls der rechtzeitigen Leistung entziehen wird."
The fixer takes the fundamental protection against false accusations - innocent until proven guilty - and argues at length, that any action is legal until such time as a judge declares the action to be illegal. So much for law as a deterrent.
The fixer essentially argues, that since the Sparkasse is a public institution, it can be held accountable; therefore, it may do anything - literally anything - until it is held accountable.
So who gets held accountable - the acting parties or the public institution? If the institution is held accountable for illegal practices and not the acting parties, what if anything ever acts as a deterrent to such parties?
And how effectively can such parties avoid judgement and accountability with simple tools - Denials, lies, slander; FUD; Agnotology; Shooting the messenger - spread using the resources and reputation of the public institution?
If 45 is any indication, such parties can reasonably expect to avoid accountability.
I digress, let's get back to the fixer in his own words:
would otherwise not fulfill obligations in a timely manner/"sich der Schuldner ansonsten der rechtzeitigen Leistung entziehen wird"
unreasonable performance expectation /"eine unbillige Leistungsbestimmung"
would not fulfill an established obligation /"einer festgestellten Verpflichtung nicht Folge leisten würde"
September 7, 2017 - the sweeping attack/"Rundumschlag"
Page 2
not undisturbed/"nicht störungsfrei"
violated the (legal) obligations /"hat ...(Gesetzes)pflichten... verletzt"
refused to fulfill (data protection obligations)/"sondern die Ausführung (der datenschutzrechtlichen Berichtigung) abgelehnt"
insulted by spreading a magazine article (to be precise the supervisor originally did this s. Attachment B. All others just repeated the lie.)/"hat sich...beleidigend verhalten, indem ...einen Zeitungsartikel... übermittelt hat"
the expressed criticism was not covered by freedom of expression/"zum Ausdruck gebrachte Kritik...war vom Recht der Meinungsfreiheit nicht mehr gedeckt"
This is a really good point.
At no time did the Sparkasse ever attempt to express its allegations with resevation or qualification. The act of stating an "opinion" as fact is misleading. Claiming to speak for another person is a human rights violation. Willfully claiming content, that is verifiably false, is lying, slander or perjury depending on the purported content and the recipient. If you do this in an official capacity and process, you undermine the process, but, of course, that is the point.
nonfeasance/ "pflichtwidriges Nichtbefolgen (des Gesetzes)"
acts of personal attack/"persönlich angreifendes Verhalten"
hauled off to a sweeping attack/"zu einem Rundumschlag...ausgeholt"
discredits/"diskreditiert"
Seriously, no one could describe the fixer better than he does himself.
Page 3
with the goal of vilifying someone/"das Ziel der Herabwürdigung... zu verfolgen"
using unlawful & dishonest methods/"unlauteren Methoden eingesetzt"
willfully false legal briefs/"bewusst unwahren Prozessvortrags"
the non-existant non-implementation of an order used to justify the Sparkasse's actions/"die streitige Umsetzung vorgebrachte innerbetriebliche Grund nicht vorliege"
dishonest and illegal behavior in court/"unredliches und unzulässiges Prozessverhalten"
Page 4
questions the objectivity of the courts/"bezweifelt die Objektivität der Gerichte"
to deflect from the negative results/"um ...von den bisher...nachteiligen Festellungen abzulenken"
supposedly objective facts to support directed accusations/"angeblich objektive Tatsachen zur Stützung (seines) ...gerichteten Vorwurfs"
the denied (vacation order/second contract) are verifiably existent/"das von (the fixer) abgeleugnete (Urlaubsanordnung/Prozessarbeitsverhältnis) sind tatsächlich existent"
relies on false facts /"setze, somit auf falsche Sachverhaltsangaben"
untrue/"wahrheitswidrig"
false claim/"Falschbehauptung"
left objectivity behind/"hat die Ebene....sachlicher Auseinandersetzung verlassen"
attempted to slanderously revenge (himself)/"hat sich in verleumderischer Art und Weise ...zu rächen versucht"
will not accept court decisions, that (he) does not like/"nicht genehme gerichtliche Feststellung ...nicht gelten lassen"
It is clear from the langauge of the fixer, that he knows exactly, what he is doing. He describes his thoughts and actions perfectly. Of course, the fact, that he is projecting his actions and thought processes on me is a serious violation of human rights, but that is the point of baseless accusations/projection - to deflect from one's own actions.
Page 5
wants for any respect for legal systems and the task of the courts/"lässt damit jedem Respekt vor der Rechtsordnung und der Aufgabe der Gerichte vermissen"
So let us look at this statement briefly with respect to the accusation that I would not understand the task of the court. Would the fixer be implying, that I should understand, that the court's task is to legitimize his lies? If so, he is correct, I do not understand this to be the task of the courts.
Thereby (the fixer) exacerbated the existing disturbance in the employee/employer relationship and lack of trust in the loyalty (of the employer)/"Damit hat (the fixer) die aufgrund...vorangegangenen Verhaltens bereits bestehende Störung (des) Arbeitsverhältnisses und den dem zugrunde liegenden Vertrauensverlust in ... Loyalität vertieft."
the negative prognosis (exactly, that which I was trying to counter descreetly on June 21) for a professional working relationship...was (with this statement) confirmed in a well-nigh dramatic fashion/"die Negativprognose (die ich mit meinem Schreiben vom 21.06.2017 versuchte gesichtswahrend entgegen zu steuern) für eine weitere betriebsdienstliche Zusammenarbeit...hat sich (mit diesem Schreiben vom Sept. 7) in nahezu dramatischer Weise bestätigt"
as such (he himself) provided the proof, that (he) was no longer able to integrate into (societal) structure and in addition made clear, that (he) had no respect for the constitutional rule of law/"hat so selbst unter Beweis gestellt, dass (er) nicht mehr in eine (gesellschaftliche) Ordnung integrieren lässt und zudem erkennen lassen, dass (er) auch die rechtstaatliche Ordnung nicht respektiere"
Attacks devoid of fact in crude amounts, that lead to the undermining of (others) positions/"im groben Maßen unsachliche Angriffe, die u.a. zur Untergrabung der Position (anderer) führen"
false statements and defamatory claims, especially when they are insulting and slanderous in character and fulfill the legal definition of libel/"falsche Tatsachenbehauptungen und herabwürdigende Aussagen, insbesondere dann, wenn sie beleidigenden oder verleumderischen Charakter haben, bzw. die Erklärungen den Tatbestand der üblen Nachrede erfüllen"
defamation/"Formalbeleidigung"
blasphemy/"Schmähung"
willfully untrue assertions/"bewusst unwahre Tatsachenbehauptungen"
defamation/"Ehrverletzung"
The fixer is really good at precisely describing his thoughts and actions.
If this sounds disgusting, that is probably the point. FUD is all about getting people so disgusted and confused, that they tune out.
Page 6
defamatory method/"ehrenverletzende Art und Weise"
excessive and polemic criticism/"überspitzte oder polemische Kritik"
purposefully placed false claims in the legal dispute/"gezielt falsche Tatsachen in die gerichtliche Auseinandersetzung gesteuert"
willfully untrue assertions/"bewusst unwahre Tatsachenbehauptungen"
willful denial of binding legal declarations in the course of the previous litigation /"bewusster Ableugnung bindender gerichtlicher Feststellungen im Zuge der zurückliegenden gerichtlichen Auseinandersetzung der Parteien"
This one is really brazen. The fixer is claiming, that past court decisions, some of which partially - never word for word - included the defamation spread by the Sparkasse, were somehow "binding legal declarations".
At this time the Sparkasse had NOT won a single court case.
This begs the question - who exactly is in willful denial of binding legal declarations in the course of the previous litigation?
desirous of winning a legal case by dishonest means/ "mit unlauteren Mittel einen rechtlichen Erfolg erzielen zu wollen"
with which the objective criteria for criminal slander are fulfilled/"womit die objektiven Tatsbestandmerkmale der Verleumdung (§ 187 StGB...) erfüllt sind"
with defamatory remarks (he) damaged the trust and disrupted the peace between the employer and the employee/"mit ehreabschneidenden Äußerungen hat (er) ...das Vertrauensverhältnis...in schwerwiegender Weise belastet und den Betriebsfrieden gestört"
defamatory statements made to external parties (here by the fixer to the court) or in public are not worthy of protection/"... Äußerungen, die gegenüber Außenstehenden oder der Öffentlichkeit wegen ihres ehrenverletzenden Inhalts nicht schützwürdig sind,..."
more to the point (he) only wanted to revenge the previous court cases/"Vielmehr ging es ....allein darum, sich für die vorhergegangene gerichtliche Auseinandersetzung ...zu revanchieren"
In this sentence the fixer seems to sum up his thoughts and actions - ONLY WANTED TO REVENGE THE PREVIOUS COURT CASES.
So, if you are a fixer and have never won a court case for your client - mostly because the client continuously vagrantly disregards the law - how do you prove your value to the client? Deny? Lie? Slander? Use your contacts to judges to manipulate decisions outside of the court? Knowing full well, that the victim does not have contact to judges and is honest to a fault, where would a fixer start? Should we not ask the judges? All I know is that my legal representation in the case of 12 Ga4/17 ArbG Leipzig had to ask the judge in the proceeding, where he had gotten the information he was stating about my person, as it was not in any legal brief? The judge was then quick to stop proselytizing and make a judgement against my petition.
Page 7
This page is less about insulting, than it is legal reasoning as to why false and misleading statements/slander should be given no quarter. That being the case the Sparkasse has a lot to account for.
the loss of trust caused by the neglect of law ist no longer reparable/"durch den Pflichtenverstoß verursachte Vertrauensverlust...nicht mehr auszugleichen ist."
Agreed - what the fixer, as well as the personnel and legal departments before him, did, is hardly reparable. Nonetheless, the Sparkasse has the legal obligation according to the Basic Law/Grundgesetz and the General Data Protection Regulation/Bundesdatenschutz (alt/neu) to repair it.
to maintain a peaceful working environment no unobjective blasphemy will be tolerated/ "zur Aufrechterhlatung der betrieblichen Ordnung keine unsachliche, insbesondere Schmähkritik duldet"
Awesome! - so the Sparkasse is going to correct the lies, slander and data manipulation immediately, right?
Uh...if the past is any indication, not until a judge forces the issue.
The fixer continued in the same style up to November 2018 - six months after the GDPR went into force in German law. The GDPR went into effect for Europe in April 2016. I agreed in Nov. 2018 to take this dispute out of the public realm of the courts, specifically, so I would not have to publicly denounce the Sparkasse after the representatives of the Sparkasse acknowledged in court, that their claims were false. Since the Sparkasse to date has not fulfilled its legal obligations of data correction, I have the protected legal right in accordance with the Whistleblower law to take this completely public, which is good, because any court without court reporting is anything but transparent. Without transparency denials, lies and slander can and will undermine the constitutional rule of law.
The Sparkasse (s. Letter April 10, 2017) and the fixer repeatedly import the finality of a judge's decision - claiming that they are bound by no less, no more and not even a judge's decision, if they do not agree.
This is a dangerous assertion for any democracy.
The distance between the assertions in the name of the Sparkasse and the verifiable facts is unsurtmountable, and yet through the continuous process of spreading slander, withholding evidence and blatantly denying facts, the acting parties have in the name of the Sparkasse, literally been able to get judges to give lies quasi-legitimacy.
The United States was able to fend off an attack on the democracy itself in 2020, because judges did not give lies legitimacy.
If the standard exhibited in the legal decision making in these court cases is the standard for Germany, would Germany currently be able to hold off an attack like the Big Lie of 45?
I would be afraid to test it.
One last word on fixers
Fixers do not like transparency.
Lies work better, when the recipient cannot get or does not care to pursue the facts.
If you try to go to the website www.p*****g-plc.de of the fixer you will get a "content of the page cannot be displayed" message.
Which is kind of appropriate, when you think about it. When is a fixer ever interested in providing real verifiable content?
It is not easy to find a picture of the fixer on the internet, which is fine. Personally, I think Evil Cat by TCFixer is much more flattering than this.