Hessisches Landessozialgericht

I wonder what courts are there for when subjective assumptions paired with partiality are presented as facts. Legal competence and independence were obviously not the basis of a judgment in the following case. I had been stalked, which ended up in an arson at my apartment. That's why I tried to get victim compensation. After being bothered by my door at night after several harassments at my apartment, I didn't want to stay there again. I justifiably feared at the time that someday someone could be armed next to my bed. Physical threat is a prerequisite for claiming compensation. However, the judges simply claim that there was no danger to me. Because if the person I suspected had REQUESTED me, they would have been informed of my absence from the apartment during the arson at night. It is a hypothesis that the perpetrator should have known of my nightly absence. Likewise, that there would have been no danger to me. Would the judges have guaranteed that nothing would happen to me if I continued to stay there? The arson had even been dangerous for the neighbors. Why would they have been considered of all people if I had stayed there overnight? The judges have acted here as experts in hazardous situations. As if a lawyer could judge that better than me as a victim. The fact of stalking would also have entitlement to compensation. But they did not want to acknowledge this fact either. It should not be proven that all acts were carried out by the same person. It is also not proven that the acts were committed by different people. Again, a (completely absurd) hypothesis is handled like a fact. In addition, the judges had previously used the word "RE-ADJUSTED" to justify a refusal to pay compensation (see 3rd paragraph in capital letters). Re-enactment has the same meaning as stalking. Accordingly, "Mr. S." (in the singular, there is no mention of several perpetrators) me "RE-ESTABLISHED", but me "NOT STALKED". Not enough with this undecided statement. One also put a stop to the possibility of a revision with a legal move. My interpretation: I had a good lawyer who would have enforced my claim under fair conditions. However, they wanted to prevent this from happening. The government wanted to make this saving popular. A government whose politics had only brought me into this situation. In subsidized apartments, ghetto formation develops that tolerates criminal behavior for too long. This makes living together with tenants with decent behavior unbearable. You move out. But that's not all: I couldn't continue my studies for a long time. Since the period fell into the Bologna reform, I was also denied the diploma and at the same time the degree. Not even in this respect did one want to provide a balance. In addition, the victim compensation would have made it much easier for me to make up for lost time. Everyone is obviously more important than me. In this case, it was the professors who wanted it to be comfortable. In this case too, the judge mocked me (see rating "Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt"). I wish everyone involved a similar experience. So that they show more empathy, they sit on their comfortable armchairs in a prestigious residential area and tell others who are much worse off than what they are doing and what they should put up with. I am standing there now with lost life, lost my degree and a lot of debts that have arisen from the circumstances of stalking and studying.

Top 1A eat because just great the schnitzel