Occasionally I receive messages asking where all this hate comes from, or some even ask what this whole kindergarten is all about. Our new friends in particular, who don’t speak German and who don’t understand many things about the German justice system have some problems understanding it. And of course they don’t even know the characters in question, about whom others have been reading here for three years in some places and have had their own experiences even more often.
I would like to try to explain again here (for some for the first time, for others again in summary) what it is about and what it means to me personally. As always, no names are mentioned, the synonyms used here, which have now crossed borders, are familiar to some, and actually it’s about the principle. Names don’t matter.
In general, in life you should stick to the truth as much as possible, but especially if you see yourself as an activist who wants to change something, who wants to convince (and please not only persuade) other people to join a cause, an ideology, I think it’s important to stick to the truth. If the ignorance, polemics, lies are discovered, then it not only damages your own reputation, but also the cause. And very often you only have one chance to convince the undecided, the ignorant. If a third party then throws the lies in your face, that’s it. The damage can no longer be repaired, the whole thing is discredited (-> “all vegans are militant”).
It started with me getting upset about how “Princess Haughty” in particular always wanted to appear intellectual and educated, and accordingly liked to write didactic texts. That’s absolutely fine, because how are you supposed to convince people of your idea, of your attitude, how are you supposed to draw attention to problems and find allies for the common cause if you don’t explain things? That can be subtle, or it can be a sledgehammer approach – everyone can do what they think is right or what they can do (diplomacy has completely disappeared for me now).
But the truth should have priority, even if it sometimes goes against your own cause or you can’t criticize the supposed “enemy” for once, yes, maybe even only praise them. At least you can’t be accused of having used dirty methods or lying. But facts seem to be increasingly being reinterpreted, omitted, replaced. I would like to explain this using a single example (from memory, I’m not going to research the whole thing again for this purpose).
The topic is climate change, storing CO2, and reforesting forests. There was once a discussion in Germany about whether it might make sense to plant hedges on the edges of agricultural land (fields, pastures). There are many reasons for this. The discussion and research focused on whether these hedges could perhaps also be a replacement for the trees that had died due to storms and bark beetles. A study was commissioned from a federal institute (which should actually be fairly neutral because of this). The result was (among other things) that hedges store significantly more CO2 per hectare than forests and that planting hedges could actually make sense. So much for the facts.
Princess Headteacher took up the topic and evaluated this report (as mentioned, I am writing this from memory while observing the condensation trails in the sky, so please don’t take everything too seriously).
On the one hand, this institute would not be credible because it would be a “hunter’s institute”. Wrong, it is a federal agency and the report was commissioned by hunters, among others. It is clear that they have to pay for a report, but the fact that this means that every report automatically delivers the desired result for the client would not only make such reports pointless, but is simply a stupid assumption that falls more into the realm of conspiracy theory.
On the other hand, the princess assumed that the aim was to replace forests with hedges because hedges would store CO2 so much more efficiently, and that this would drive away even more wild animals, etc. What nonsense!!! In Germany, forests are (unfortunately) largely an economic factor, namely the extraction of wood. A hedge can store as much CO2 as it wants, but how am I supposed to get logs from them for construction? Why should the hunters, who supposedly shoot everything that comes their way for fun, be interested in replacing forests with hedges where a) the animals in question have no habitat and b) the hunters simply can’t see anything anymore?
In short: this study was neither about hunting nor about replacing forest with hedges, but simply about the usefulness of planting hedges on the edges of agricultural land, and one aspect of this was CO2 storage (among many other advantages that this would offer). And as a comparison, the CO2 storage of a hedge was compared to that of a forest and the hectare was used as a yardstick. The princess simply twisted the facts in such a way that it served her hatred of hunters.
I (we) reject this kind of thing. Because – as in my case – if there are people who also deal with the matter, even if only to keep an eye on others, and then point out these “lies”, then credibility is quickly lost.
The princess’ husband, Lord Gobi, had a similar experience. He set about making videos to sell his view of things to the less well-off out there. The whole thing was done in a way that would make any German comedian green with envy, peppered with untruths, distorted facts or ignorance. The instructional videos (professionally produced and with great technical effort *) explained how stupid hunters would be if they placed two hunting seats at a feeding station in such a way that they would shoot each other. The self-proclaimed expert either did not realize that these seats were not placed at opposite locations a) just for shooting (usually forbidden at feeding stations) and b) simply for reasons of wind direction (discovery by the animals), so that the location could be adjusted to the wind direction, or it did not fit into his concept of spreading his hatred on the internet. The real highlight was a video in which he explained how much corn (so-called “Kirrmais”, food to attract animals) could be spread. In the area in question, that was four kilograms, and so he came along with the funny face of a schoolmaster and explained: “Everyone has bought a net with 5 kg of potatoes. If you now subtract one kilogram from that, you get exactly the amount of corn that can be spread.” Awesome instructional video. Dozens, if not hundreds, laughed their heads off.
Criticism is a must – preferably of others, and woe betide such elite animal rights activists if they get backlash themselves, then things get really bad. The princess then started a campaign to ruin me financially. It’s a shame for her that she actually only lives in a bubble where she only allows her own opinion and her limited worldview. She had so much information that could have prevented massive financial losses for herself and, what’s more, my corresponding backlash. But if you constantly believe that everyone else is always telling lies because of your own lies, then reality will catch up with you at some point. She is probably still sitting on her sheepskin-covered throne today and thinks all the information she receives is hot air. It’s always good when enemies misjudge you.
Her funny husband also tried to get involved in the princess’ campaign for a while. He then had his lawyer warn him about the parody of the complex calculation “five minus one is four” and threatened to go to court. As already mentioned, he would create high-quality instructional videos and I should pay him 750 euros for each clip used. I laughed back loudly, and he was left with the costs for his funny lawyer, just like his wish to use the 1,500 euros to buy some halfway professional equipment or to invite his cell phone-holding wife to a meal. At some point, the demand for such idiotic videos was no longer great enough, and another of this animal welfare couple’s heartfelt projects disappeared into obscurity. Bye bye “little hunting school” – my condolences.
Just as I was “friends” with the princess back then, if you want to call it that, and then things went wrong because of our opposing attitudes to the truth, it was similar with Sonja Sonnenschein.
Actually, we had nothing to do with each other and I never really understood how what she and her association (well, which “association” – you only see her own family or those who hope to be part of it at some point, with changing members) were doing had anything to do with animal protection. But true to the motto “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, Sonja also seemed to want to ingratiate herself somehow. At least that was my impression.
The fact that we both had our problems with the animal protection princess and her Lord Gobi back then was probably one of the reasons why we stayed in touch. So at some point we got to know each other personally because she wanted to fly over a wolf area with one of our drones. I also met her non-daughter – and that one meeting was enough for me.
With a camera (and flash!) in 30 degree heat through the woods to take photos of wolf poop and document how supposedly unsafe fences were, without any consequences for anyone arising from the information I collected, was a waste of time and money for me and had nothing to do with animal protection in my eyes.
So I delivered the promised photos and videos from the drone and that was it. There was no reason for any further contact. No bad blood, no nasty comments online. I didn’t hate these people or anything, but as it is sometimes the case: it doesn’t fit together and then you just have to let it go.
But being ignored was probably too hurtful for Sonja. The fact that someone would simply stop contacting Germany’s best-known wolf protector is completely incomprehensible. Back when COPPERFIELD (and I) were still active on Facebook, I wrote an article about veganism (if I remember correctly) and that I didn’t care if people broke up with me because of my attitude to various things. I think I used the somewhat drastic sentence “it’s nice when the garbage takes itself out” (in the same sense – you can still read all about it). As I said – I have completely lost my previous penchant for diplomacy.
After a few months, Sonja took this as an opportunity to complain on our site about her suffering, how she had been ignored and to attack me. You can read all about that here too. Critical comments became fabricated accusations and lies.
Since she had lost an ally in me (or rather, not found one), she then tried to curry favor with the oh-so-unpopular animal protection elite in the far north. And she did so by not only sending them excerpts from my private messages to Sonja (of course she removed her own nasty comments so that she wouldn’t be portrayed in a bad light). I might have let it go, but I wasn’t interested. But when she then filmed my entire (!) message history with her, blurred her own comments (of course, only I’m the bad guy) and put the whole thing online for everyone to see, that’s where it ends.
Everyone will understand that I would then like to get an injunction for that, because that’s where the fun ends. At the same time, she had her lawyer prepare a warning: I am no longer allowed to say that her daughter is a daughter. Her “daughter” had told me this information in confidence and I had abused it. It is provably true: I did not exchange two words with her daughter, Sonja told me herself. Sorry, if someone, for example, says that “Fiffi” is a foster dog and I therefore say everywhere that said “Fiffi” is a foster dog, then I have them warned for that? I was not aware of the reprehensibleness of my actions. She also had me warned for claiming that the guy who lives in the same house as her, uses the same car, looks after the dog and children, and is probably even allowed to climb on that witch, is her husband. Admittedly, I do not know whether there is a marriage certificate. But marriage is somehow a pretty fluid concept these days, which does not necessarily mean that we have the same surname. But for the sake of simplicity, to use the “reprehensible” term husband at a time when a guy with a beard and a penis in his pants can call himself “Uschi” and everyone has to address him as a woman if he/she/it so wishes, under threat of punishment… is a bit unrealistic. Regardless – there will be reasons why people want to keep such things secret.
If you insist on the truth, then you should stick to it yourself. Sonja saw it completely differently – her specialist lawyer probably did too, and that was the final straw for me.
I’m fairly inexperienced in civil law, but criminal law is my daily companion, and I even had to take exams on this subject in order to have a side job here in Germany that finances my hobbies. So I’m well aware of it, and I think it’s legitimate to some extent when lawyers – let’s say – stretch the facts a little. To explain it more figuratively: if someone in Mallorca is doing the typical dances in a club and there’s a picture of a person raising their right arm, then I think it’s borderline legitimate to ask the question here in court whether a certain attitude might not be apparent from this photo, if the court proceedings even touch on this topic. However, if something like that is taken out of context, then I think it’s a bad move.
In my various contacts with lawyers for professional reasons, but especially through the disputes with Sonja, the Princess and her Lord Gobi, I’ve always experienced one thing with my lawyers: moral boundaries! Often ideas were rejected with “I’m not going along with that” or “I can’t support it like that”. One or two lawyers might have gone along with the aforementioned arm in the Mallorca club if the case had been about accusing a person of a certain attitude or behavior. Certainly not if it had been about a traffic offense.
I am also familiar with the written banter between lawyers and sometimes I think to myself “why are they accusing me of being in kindergarten?”. For me it is always a kind of “legal dick-measuring game” – who can express themselves more complicatedly, quotes the most laws or refers to current case law. I learned about this almost exclusively BEFORE any negotiations.
So if I had claimed that a person had tried to kill me and I wanted to claim this in court, the first thing my lawyer would have said would have been: “This is not fun, I’m in, but then I have to be able to support it. Can we prove it?” Sonja’s “club’s own” lawyer doesn’t really care. He is so cheeky and stupid that he claims exactly that: I tried to kill Sonja and her non-daughter. Well, he is also a club member, so maybe he will get a very special present at the next Christmas party (shudder). Thankfully, he provides a screenshot as alleged evidence, which clearly refers to a communication through which I can prove: everything is completely taken out of context, what was said even means the opposite, and is a lie. You can also read about that on this page.
This lie, that I threatened to kill Sonja, was not something two lawyers threw at each other, but something Sonja and her lawyer dared to say in all seriousness in front of a district court judge, and even later in front of a higher regional court.
For me, that’s where the fun stops. This is not about the succinct accusation of some insult like “idiot”. I am accused of trying to kill people, or at least of threatening to do so. No judge would take something like that lightly, why should I? Just let it go that someone makes up such nonsense, even though the text in question actually said that I could protect her in the event of an attack by hunters. Sonja turns an offer of protection into a death threat – I’ve had enough of that!
Sonja lied in court, made two affidavits that neither the district court nor the higher regional court really believed. Unfortunately, Sonja’s great lawyer did not point out to her that if she gives a sworn statement in court to underpin her credibility, she is then forced to tell the truth for the rest of the trial. Here she has proven to have lied (several times, not only because of my alleged death threats, but because she claimed things that my lawyer was able to refute), and this will probably soon be heard again in the Siegen Regional Court, provided that the public prosecutor’s office, which has now finally got the files that Sonja wanted to deny her, files a lawsuit. That could (but probably won’t) mean up to three years in prison.
The courts now have to deal with these lies. Just like the suspected fraud that she took the costs for her private misdeeds from the club’s coffers. People are already so stupid that they donate money to a club that does absolutely NOTHING for animal welfare or wolves – on the contrary, it harms them – and then this money (this has been proven) is used to cover private debts. A verdict is still pending here.
But of course these are not all the lies that Sonja tells. I don’t want to go into the many little lies and insults, they don’t interest me in principle. But there is one thing that interests me. Sonja, who always presents herself as a great journalist, who (supposedly) always wants to tell the truth in her articles, who would love to do investigative journalism if she were allowed to and who always points out her seriousness. This serious, honest journalist publicly claims that I am an animal fucker (literally: “has been noticed for sexually abusing animals”).
Terms like “honor” have never really existed in my life, but when I read this lying claim, I pulled the safety pin out of the grenade in my pocket (figuratively speaking). I let a lot of things bounce off me; if things get too much for me, I’ll sit on a prosecutor’s lap. If things get way too much for me, I don’t really want their help. After I offered Sonja to publicly admit her lies and apologize, yes, finally even to save her face and make a private written apology, there were only stupid answers and belligerent talk. OK, then no. I don’t need the police, no courts to give satisfaction to my honor as a vegan, as the operator of a sanctuary, as a veterinarian, as an animal rights activist. Just patience and the right moment. This lie made me feel my honor was violated for the first time in my life – to the core. The person who invented it and who Sonja is now using as a source deserves a lot of credit. He was sick, he targeted everyone from celebrities to the average Joe and insulted them in the most vile way. Even people like lawyer Posch and animal rights lawyer Beacaump. They then put him in jail. Several times. Others were not so lenient: he still has to have his schnitzels pureed today and he can no longer ride a motorcycle.
As I said – the guy was sick. Sonja is just malicious, because she sells these provable lies as serious research. EVERYTHING, absolutely EVERYTHING that we argue about in court are her lies. I’m fed up with diplomacy and mediation here. I’m starting to enjoy it, and some developments allow me to do things that I previously thought were conceivable but not feasible. Times change.
Nevertheless, I am sticking to my offer: Sonja publicly names her lies and apologizes for them. Then Sonja will be history for me. I will not deal with her any further and I will delete every statement about her – whether with real name or a synonym. Let’s call it a peace offering. My priorities lie elsewhere.
While Sonja is only a matter of personal honor for me, has not only caused herself a lot of damage (at least 6,000) through her lies and it currently looks like she will face two more lawsuits (and then I will make the corresponding claims for damages if she does not apologize for her lies), all of that is nothing compared to my blue-blooded friend from the far north.
She reacted quite sensitively to the evidence of her lies and then thought she had to start a war. Well, she won the first “battle”, to use martial terms. And I admit – rightly so. Yes, I find the German laws here a little bit out of touch with life and narrow-minded, but I can somehow understand the reasons given. Let’s put it briefly: whether it justifies financial damage of around 6,000 euros for me is pointless to discuss. I behaved incorrectly, I was convicted, all good. I stand by my mistakes.
But just how much the laws are problematic is shown by a single example: the princess claims that she lives in the forest and keeps suggesting this to her followers. She runs various businesses, which is why she is required to have an imprint. Anyone can see her address – anyone! What did I do? I took a satellite view from Google Maps and showed where she lives. It shows that it has nothing to do with a forest. There is also an extract from the land registry office, which a) shows the property as a holiday home plot (which probably has nothing to do with a forest) and b) with a price per square meter that is a tenth of the price that is being asked for my property. Why did I do that? Because I criticize her lies. She wants everyone to see how intellectual she is, how close to nature, how knowledgeable when it comes to nature. Having texts delivered by AI or encyclopedias and then explaining nature to others……… whoever needs it. But the truth is always neglected. As in this example.
Now you could say “then let her go”, but you could just as easily say to her “then let him go”. But she felt hurt that her lies were being exposed and wanted to have it banned. The result was a ruling by a regional court: “showing the address using Google Maps is considered a threat.” Damages: 1,000 euros. Really? Okay, that’s a court ruling, what should I do?
One day I wrote an article . It only mentioned the princess in passing: I described how the princess invited me and asked me to bring night vision goggles. From the cryptic invitation, I described, I figured out that it was PROBABLY about tipping over hunter’s seats. In the same breath, I explained this text again in detail (although using her real name):
“Princess Haughty once invited me to northern Germany. From the personal conversation, I suspected that the idea was that I should turn hunting facilities into firewood based on my presumed experience and technical capabilities. This was not least due to the code word “fox observation”, which I obviously had a long way to go with and initially did not understand why I should drive over 400 km to observe foxes with a night vision device when I constantly have foxes here on our property and the forest is filled with dozens of our game cameras. From this context, I concluded that it was probably not a case of fox observation, but rather something more illegal (which seemed quite honorable in certain circles at the time).”
I thought that would mean I was off the hook. That’s what I thought. I received a warning letter, the amount in dispute was tens of thousands of euros, and I was told to take it back immediately. Yes, they even included an affidavit:
Okay. Firstly, that was a lie, she later confirmed explicitly on the phone that it was about exactly that: illegal actions. Lord Gobi knows that – why didn’t he advise her to keep quiet? Some other people knew about it, for example a Galgo owner from Lower Saxony. Why doesn’t she say “Princess, stop it, I know it myself”?
She sues at the Stade Regional Court, which refuses to grant an interim injunction. She sues at the Celle Higher Regional Court. The Higher Regional Court agrees. She gets her interim injunction. Now comes the kicker (I hope I’m giving this legally correct information): the injunction is only valid for a limited period, which is why it is an INTERIM injunction. In order to be permanently protected from never repeating what I said again, I would have to sign a cease and desist declaration. I refuse to do that. I don’t pay any court costs either, nor her lawyer – why should I? She wanted me to provide the asset information, I did that, now she has to see how she gets her money.
Now we are at the point: either I can do it again at some point without being punished, or she takes legal action before the Stade Regional Court in the main proceedings. This entails high risks: a) I “can’t” pay anyway, so she is left with the costs, b) it is very doubtful whether this will even go through, because whether there is a legal right to this order, precisely BECAUSE I have clarified again what it is about (see above), could go wrong. Then there is the fact that her sworn statement will of course also be mentioned. On the one hand, I have documents that show her husband committing crimes (she has nothing to do with that, of course). On the other hand, the princess won 1,000 euros (converted) in compensation for pain and suffering before the Stade Regional Court for showing her publicly visible address to the Stade Regional Court, because she was allegedly threatened as a result. The same district court would then have to decide how high the compensation would be for something like this?
So there is a possibility that our princess will have massive problems implementing her wishes to silence the evil Uncle Joey. Either way, she will have to bear the costs.
I also have a photo that the police have confirmed that Lord Gobi knocks over hunting seats. I am keeping this as my last trump card and will therefore not publish it anonymously here. Please let her sue again in a district court – I would be happy 😉
So much for the legal part, which now only interests me marginally. If these two animal welfare beauties think they can harm others (in this case me) with their lies, then they will have to expect a corresponding reaction. As far as Sonja is concerned, there is still a peace offer on the table.
The princess will not receive one. Anyone who is not one bit better than others but then thinks that they can silence others with financial superiority (whether that is the case remains to be seen) is a bit twisted in my opinion. Anyone who (whether successful or not) tries to cause maximum damage to me, my family and my work through lies and demands for money, even though their statements are based on lies, will get to know me. I repeat: feeling threatened because of a Google Maps image – for me that is sporting banter and she has practically lost that. Anyone who lies in court to generate costs of around 10,000 euros from me will be given a receipt. Especially when she knows what I said was absolutely true. That is not sportin banter, that is an attack on me personally. She’ll get the receipt. Without a lawyer. Without a judge. Without a professional judge.
So, I have to put the computer away and sit upright. I hope this explains why I’m currently more active again.
