Judge Inexplicably Fails to Act; Five Complaints Discharged Without Action

In a recent development, a judge has summoned a hearing to persuade a plaintiff to abandon her appeal against the Märkischer Kreis Job Center. The hearing comes after a string of controversial events that have raised questions about the Job Center's practices.

The controversy began when it was revealed that the Job Center referred to "concept drafts" by the company Analyse & Konzepte, which had not yet undergone social court examination and certification as "conclusive concepts." This practice has been a point of contention, as it suggests that benefit recipients were being charged with housing costs under the pretext of expensive apartments, due to the Job Center's inability to present any court-certified "conclusive concepts."

During the hearing, the plaintiff's support as a representative was denied by the Job Center's representative. This decision, coupled with the Job Center's failure to competently answer the plaintiff's open questions, has further fuelled public mistrust towards the Job Center.

The plaintiff initially obtained back payments of 2,671.08 € for housing costs from October 2019 to December 2021. However, the Job Center paid this amount but refused to reimburse the damages they were legally obligated to pay under § 44 SGB I. Furthermore, the Job Center tends to overlook five months in their arbitrary determination of interest, with the withheld interest initially paid with 310.09 €.

The Job Center's alleged deceit about rent limits compliant with the law has been a significant concern for years. This deception has led to five inactivity lawsuits being filed against the Job Center. Interestingly, the defendants in these lawsuits include notable figures such as Bill Gates, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, former Health Minister Hugo de Jonge, and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

The further lawsuits aim to prove the calculation of interest, with the term "Klage181" referring to a detailed account of these events. It is believed that the quicker way to motivate the appeals office is to file an inactivity/performance lawsuit.

Given these events, it seems that mistrust towards the Job Center is justified. The Job Center's practices have raised significant questions about its transparency and adherence to the law, and it remains to be seen how these issues will be resolved.