Off and on in this blog, I have been focusing on a rather strange legal case in Germany. Readers of this blog might be wondering why I’m doing so: after all, isn’t this blog about Geert Wilders?
Well, the interesting thing about this case in Germany is that it shares a rather disturbing parallel with Geert Wilders’ in Holland, in that the legal process is, apparently, being used to railroad through a verdict.
This is obviously not as it should be. And as one reads more and more about this case in Germany, when tied in with the Wilders case ( and too many others ), one must wonder at the state of the European Union, that it would preside over such farces.
For more background on the Parallels in Germany series, here are parts one, two, and three. And in this instalment, I would like to present a letter from my ‘informant’ on this issue below ( who shall remain nameless for the sake of anonymity – I don’t want to make his life any more difficult ) to the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso:
Thema: FAO Mr. Barroso re: The NAZI Lisbon Treaty
Datum: 20.06.2008 16:00:18 Westeuropäische Normalzeit
Dear Ms. Riberio Da Silva,
Could you please pass the following letter on to Mr. Barroso
Dear Mr. Barroso,
My name is ***** you have had correspondence from me previously, the last batch of which you refused to answer, even though it contained documentary evidence, concerning a legal matter within the EU and Germany to be more specific. You are also aware that my legal status within the EU is Untermensche (Subhuman), i.e. most certainly not equal before the law, denied all right of legal representation or self representation before the court. This is a situation which you condone as being entirely acceptable within the EU by calling the court that
allowed this COMPETENT.
I note yet again, that both you and Angela Merkel amongst others appear to disregard any agreed guidelines and, the will of ordinary people, when they have decided convincingly in a
referendum. You have just said that Ireland had signed up to the Lisbon Treaty at the recent EU meeting in that city. It is true the Irish did sign up to a Treaty that in your words ‘strengthens Democracy.’ You are without doubt aware that the NAZI Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 has been ruled compatible with EU law. Therefore, as Angela Merkel resurrected your sham Treaty, she would not have done so if it was not compatible with this NAZI legislation. As a consequence the Lisbon Treaty cannot be democratic if it is compatible with NAZI law. This means that the whole Lisbon Treaty is null and void because you lied about it strengthening Democracy.
You and your co-conspirators to usurp democracy are personally responsible for the state of the European Union at present. To put it bluntly, the people are fed up with the arrogant attitude and blatant lying of certain politicians, including yourself and Angela Merkel e.g. The Berlin
Declaration 2007. Yours and Angela Merkels’ contempt for referenda, along with other governments within the EU prove that your allegiance is not towards Democracy.
The German Junta as you well know refuses referenda to its own people, on the grounds that Hitler used them. It is true that Hitler did use referenda in the early years, to bluff the German people into believing he had their interests at heart. However, he did not resort to using them, when he had achieved a total grip on power. His unbreakable hold on the German people was secured with the use of such legislation as the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935, which
as you are well aware is still used today by the German Junta headed by Merkel to make sure that no ordinary citizen has the right to legal representation, if they prove troublesome to the regime, in pursuing a fully justified case. You may also be aware that the German regime is quietly trying to
replace this law, as of July this year, with another law (The Legal Services Law). This new law will obviously have the same effect as the NAZI law it replaces but it will not be tainted with the historical date of its predecessor.
Angela Merkel is known as being personally responsible for resurrecting the dead EU Constitution and, dressing it up as the EU Treaty. As you are aware, Angela Merkel thinks that
Democracy is administered with the use of the NAZI Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935, therefore, it proves that her respect for her own people’s rights is none existent. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that she has any respect for any other citizens of the EU or further a field. I have previously informed you of the illegal use by the German courts of this NAZI legislation and, the reply I got from your empire, was that the courts in Germany are competent, even though it is blatantly obvious that NAZI style Special Courts are considered as being admissible. Your office has admitted that the verdict in my case is impossible which is obvious because I am still looking for someone who can carry out the consequences of the verdict which as you know is to walk 91kms to work carry out a 12hr day then walk home 91kms. Your office made no offer to
carry out this task to demonstrate its possibility. I understand that Untermensche could be ordered to do this because it is irrelevant if they die.
Therefore, how can a competent court come to a verdict that is impossible unless I am considered Untermensche?
I also note that you have seen fit to offer employment to Edmund Stoiber, who you describe as a devoted European. I suppose it could be possible in your eyes, to consider Adolf Hitler as being a devoted European, because he tried to unite Europe with exactly the same ideology. Stoiber will
interestingly, be looking into saving costs for business within the EU. It would obviously be a great saving to business if the employment court system across the EU could be conveniently
fixed, with the use of such legislation as the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 to make sure that employees were suitably set-up and denied the right to fair legal representation, much as I and my colleagues were, during our fully justified court action in Germany, where the German Government was the defendant on behalf of its sidekick, namely the British Ministry of Defence. The latter as you are aware, proudly admitting in writing that they had lied in court, by
contradicting the verdict of an obviously INCOMPETENT court, which had so willingly accepted their blatant lies, this was after writing in the previous paragraph that the German Labour Courts fully understand the contract of employment.
You are fully aware that Edmund Stoiber is a lawyer by profession and, therefore, has to have knowledge of the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 because he had to get a PERMIT, which is still a stipulation of this law today, if a lawyer wants to practice their profession. As you are probably aware, a citizen is not allowed to take the German Government to court and win, if the accepted law on the subject goes against the regime and, the plaintiff is aware of the justification of their case. I was told this by my employer, who had no problem with other employees taking them to court, as long as they were unaware that they had been duped into losing by their legal advisors, who were acting under the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935, or risking the withdrawal of their PERMIT which still has to be issued under this legislation. Incidentally, your ‘devoted European’ employee Herr Stoiber in late 2005 when he was leader of the CSU in Bavaria suggested that all foreigners living in Germany should swear an oath of
allegiance to the German Constitution (Basic Law).
Herr Stoiber is fully aware that the German Constitution is a subordinate document to Hitler’s Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 and is, therefore, not worth the paper it is written on. I e-mailed Herr Stoiber, immediately, upon reading this article in the Bild am Sonntag which referred to his speech. I made it clear that I had knowledge of the NAZI law and, that it would be better as this is the supreme legislation in Germany that controls people’s rights as citizens, surely, it would be more fitting to swear an oath of allegiance to the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935.
As you can imagine there was no reply from him. His brilliant idea was never mentioned again, which proves he must have been aware that some foreigners are not worth bothering with. I also explained that I was dismissed from my government employment because not only was I loyal to the Constitution, I also said it was my duty to resist its overthrow. I was not aware at the time that this clause in the Constitution does not apply if it is the German regime doing the overthrowing. To further prove the incompetence of the German legal system, you are aware that the Justice Ministry claims that this NAZI legislation now protects the client by making sure that they get the best legal advice possible, as only lawyers are allowed to carry out such work. On the other hand, the dimwit German legal profession, in the words of one employed within the
EU, claimed that the law is only controversial because it guarantees them payment from a client. This totally contradicts the Justice Ministry, because any client who was not satisfied with their representation would immediately refuse payment. The legal profession refuse to explain further,
when someone such as myself, gives them the real obvious reason for the NAZI legislation. I would also like to know why a piece of Hitler legislation that guarantees peoples rights to fair
legal advice is kept so secret from the German people?
At least ten lawyers were involved in lying in my case alone and, not one of them made it clear to me that my right to fair legal representation was guaranteed by Hitler’s Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935.
I would now like to turn to your own pathetic lamentable organisation. As you are aware there were anti-Treaty posters in the Eire referendum campaign with chimpanzees showing that the EU refuses to listen. As you well know this is correct because your sole duty is to protect member state regimes and deny rights to citizens of the EU. Answers such as “Oh we are not interested in the individual there are 400 million of you” prove that the rights of the individual are not
As for your Europe Direct line, their reply was totally unbelievable and it proves that the people who answer a citizen’s call have only one qualification, which is they have only to be cronies of their domestic regime.
The answer I got to an obvious overthrow of the Constitution was “that could never happen because the Constitution would not allow it.”
If it could never happen, then why is there a Constitution in the first place? There is no requirement for legislation to control something that could never possibly happen. I am fully aware that Merkel would love to use the EU botched version of a Constitution to have her cronies say that it is doubly impossible, because a citizen has not one but two Constitutions to protect them.
There are laws concerning murder but that does not stop people being killed unlawfully. On the next point I sent some detailed evidence on the judiciary and lawyers involved in these cases to your office. After having not received a reply I called to discover that yet again it had been passed to another department. I called this other department on the number your office had given me and you can guess, they had never received any such information. After sending the information to them and waiting sometime I called these people to ask how
things were getting on. They then duly informed me that they were the Press Office and had no idea what to do with such evidence.
As they admitted to being the Press Office I duly asked them if they could, therefore, put me in contact with some journalists, who could report on such a grave attack on Democracy. They then made the claim that they do not have any contacts with the press.
It is obvious that they only have contacts with the press when there is some EU lie that needs press coverage.
I also note that you speak of the Nice Treaty as being a worthy piece of EU legislation. The European Court of Justice was set up as a part of this treaty. This is to say the least; proof of
the garbage that comes out of the EU. As you will have read in the letter from the German Ministry of Justice, where they blatantly lie about the use of this law today, they also go on to say that this vile NAZI piece of legislation had been deemed compatible by the European Court of Justice.
Quote from Germany Ministry of Justice letter dated 28th November 2000: The compatibility of the Legal Advice Act with European legislation has been confirmed by the European Court by verdict dated 12 December 1996.
So we have a situation of the very law that made sure that there would be no challenge to the Hitler regime, consequently that the holocaust would happen and, the Second World War to boot, is agreed as being a democratic piece of legislation.
It is not possible for NAZI legislation to be compatible with democratic law so this confirms that EU law must be NAZI.
I would grateful if you could let me know the names and nationalities of the judges at the European Court who decided this NAZI law was compatible?
This compatibility of the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 only have come from judges loyal to the regime, because no one in their right mind could call a law compatible that gave Hitler total control of the legal system. The lawyers and the judiciary at the time, who were also guaranteed that they could never be taken to task for deliberately rigging a court hearing, if they remained loyal to the Führer of course were eager to accept this NAZI legislation, ditto today. It would appear that you are at least half way to rehabilitating Hitler, as you consider his legislation acceptable. Could this lead to your eventual denial of the Holocaust, after all it was only Hitler leading the world in reducing the carbon footprint, by annihilating a good percentage of the global population, accidentally of course because the experiment went wrong.
This explains why no EU legislation protects the rights of the individual, although it clearly states it should. In fact as you have made it clear you have no power over Member States regimes; even though the Amsterdam Treaty declares otherwise, therefore, there is little reason to replace all these meaningless treaties with one totally repressive bill of oppression, called the Lisbon Treaty.
Therefore, it is obvious that the Nice Treaty was the first step in the conversion of Europe to NAZISM, by setting up a court system that is totally loyal to the regimes and working to laws
compatible with NAZI legislation.
The compatibility with EU legislation of a NAZI law that originally had the following in it beggars belief:
§ 3. Not subject to this law are:
1. Legal advice and legal supervision provided by the authorities of the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and its associations, public law bodies as well as affiliated NSDAP associations within the scope of their competency.
This article is no longer in the law but it proves the reason for this NAZI law and that it was not implemented to guarantee the rights of the citizen against the Hitler regime. As you have read, it clearly states that such authorities as presumably, the GESTAPO and SS being authorities of the NSDAP (NAZI Party) as not being subject to this law.
So it is fair to presume that anyone who was dragged off to a concentration camp had only to demand to speak to, for instance Heinrich Himmler and, he would have realised his duty when confronted with this law and, immediately have ordered the release of the poor unfortunate victim.
To follow on, I also assume he would have had the SS Guards court marshalled and shot for failing to obey this law.
The mind also boggles at the Gestapo giving legal advice and possibly later, pressing charges against Hitler on behalf of a citizen who wanted to challenge his regime. So, all those people who decided to resist the Hitler regime and were picked up by the Gestapo, taken away and tortured and in many cases killed, had only to produce this piece of legislation and the Gestapo would have immediately been Saints.
Of note about the Nice Treaty is also that it set out the rules concerning QMV. This I am led to believe gave voting rights to each EU Member State according to their size of population.
This is of specific interest to the smaller Member States by population, because the biggest ones i.e. Germany, The United Kingdom and France appear to be the least democratic. They were all
involved in Germany after the end of WW II and, therefore, were obviously aware of the NAZI Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 and the fact that it was allowed to remain on statute after the end of the war.
As you can see this would leave the smaller states in the EU at the mercy of non-democratic larger regimes and end up with them being dragged into wars to export the sham democracy of the bigger states, for example Iraq & Afghanistan.
Also noteworthy is your much lauded concern for the people of Africa, which is obviously propaganda, designed for European consumption to make citizens within the EU believe you are
caring. This is not compatible with NAZI law, as you are probably aware; Hitler ordered the castration of all Africans who had ended up in Germany after being employed in various ways in the German African colonies.
Angela Merkel was recently in Israel where she expressed sorrow for the holocaust. This brings into question why she is using the very law that made sure the holocaust would happen. After all, the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 would never have materialised had the man who cut short the lives of 6 million people in concentration camps alone, never held power in Germany.
To end this e-mail I would like to make an offer to you, as you are a lawyer by profession. This is that we meet on the television and you can explain that my rights to legal representation are controlled by the NAZI Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 and you can also explain to the citizens of the EU how NAZI law is compatible with EU legislation.
I will then carry out my duty to defend the Constitution and Democracy within the EU against the NAZISM that you support.
We could then also discuss the meaning of RESIST in terms of the Constitution. As you are aware this is the minimum amount of force necessary to bring the Constitution back into authority.
If there is anything in this e-mail that you consider to be in any way insulting, I am willing to defend my position. If you do not wish to challenge these statements of facts, it proves that it must be the truth.
May I also reiterate I am in no way anti-German but I am strongly anti-NAZI, wherever they may raise their ugly heads? I hope you consider this to be a noble cause and that you are willing to take up the defence of Democracy.