Interesting parallels in Germany

8 03 2010

This blog was meant to serve as an information source for journalists, bloggers, and for those who are interested in the ongoing legal battles of Geert Wilders against the Dutch state.

However, ( and my apologies that it has taken me so long to move on this ), someone sent me some very interesting information regarding some legal troubles in Germany. The parallels between this case and Geert Wilders’ are  rather interesting: They both seem to show a rather callous disregard of the standard process in favor of simply pushing through the will of the persons involved.

This, of course, is not something that we want to see happening.

I’ll begin by quoting from the body of the text of an email sent to me by this person ( who I’ll keep anonymous, for safety’s sake ):

As a first piece of evidence I attach a professional translation of a letter from the German Ministry of Justice which is of November 2000 origin, the original German letter is available to prove authenticity. In it, they admit to using Hitler’s Law on Legal Advice 13.12.1935. It is most certainly not used as they describe, indeed exactly the opposite. I was personally set up in an employment court in Moenchengladbach Germany in a closed hearing, which was totally rigged and, the verdict directly contravenes the law on the subject. I had a lawyer planted on me who said precisely nothing bar his name, I was not allowed to speak personally. This is not the best legal advice which the letter suggests I should have got. Could anyone imagine being told that their right to the best legal advice possible was guaranteed by a law from Hitler?

I was deliberately blocked from appealing the case by lawyers I tried to get help from who were working for the government, which this NAZI law makes sure they do or they lose their permit to be solicitors under it. The employer admitted in writing to having lied in court, which in itslef proved I had a right to appeal but this was never allowed because they had RIGGED the hearing in the first place.

Towards the end of this letter it states clearly, that this law is deemed to be compatible with EU legislation by the European Court.

I have evidence of many cases that were deliberately RIGGED.

As to the translation itself, here it is in full:

Federal Judicial Ministry Berlin, 28 November 2000

Ref No: RB 1 – 7525 – R 3 793/2000

Please quote when replying


The secretariat of the petition committee of the Federal Parliament

Platz der Republik 1

11011 Berlin

Subject: Legal Advice Act

Here: Petition introduced by Herr Stefan Füger, 64673 Zwingenberg dated 19.10.2000

Reference: Your letter dated 26 October 2000 – Pet 4-14-07-37-028039

I comment on the petition of Herr Füger dated 19 October 2000 as follows:

At present the Federal Government is not intending to initiate significant changes of the Legal Advice Act (reply to question 4 of the overall enquiry by, amongst others, delegates Rainer Funke, Jörg van Essen and the FDP faction, Diet printed matter 14/3959 concerning the future of legal advice).

Although the Act originates from 1935, it has been subject to several post-war amendments and no longer contains discriminatory regulations.

The regulations of this Act are aimed at pursuing justified common interests. The Act serves to protect the general public. The individual seeking justice is to be protected against the danger of leaving the settlement of his legal interests to a person not having the required expertise. On the other hand, legal action should not be impeded by the employment of unsuitable i.e. unreliable persons.

The Legal Advice Act contains occupation regulating regulations as can be found to exist, for instance, for a number of occupations such as medicine. Such regulations are necessary to prevent third parties from suffering damage due to malpractice. Consequently, the Act serves to protect the user. The person seeking justice and tasking another person with the representation of his legal interests is consequently facing a “user situation”. Often he cannot even properly assess the quality of the legal advice. Consequently, the person seeking justice does not only run the risk of receiving poor advice. He also risks suffering from legal disadvantages and losing his legal position. That is why there are restrictions for people providing legal advice.

The Legal Advice Act, as outlined by the Federal Government in respect of the occupation of business advisor in the reply to the enquire made by the FDP faction regarding the future of legal advice (reply to questions 23, 24, Diet printed matter 14/3959, page 12), provides a flexible legal instrument enabling a proper assessment of the handling of non-business related legal interests by entrepreneurs. Article 1 § 5 of the Legal Advice Act allows entrepreneurs to deal with the legal interests of their clients if there exists a direct connection with a concrete case related to the actual occupation. Consequently, entrepreneurs who, as stated by the petitioner, are involved in energy advice can also provide legal advice if the commercial activities cannot be carried out effectively without that legal advice.

The compatibility of the Legal Advice Act with European legislation has been confirmed by the European Court by verdict dated 12 December 1996 – Rs. C-3/95 (Travel Agency Broede/Gerd Sandker), European Magazine for Commercial Law (EuZVV or EuZW) 1997, page 53. The Federal Constitutional Court adopted the compatibility of the law with the constitution by its decrees dated 29 October 1997 – 1 BvR 780/87 (Monitoring of patent fees), official collection of decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE) volume 97, page 12 = New Judicial Weekly (NJW) 1998, page 3481 and dated 15 December 1999 – 1 BvR 2161/93 (Girmes). NJW 2000, page 1251.

By order


Certified by Federal Judicial Ministry

Sgd: Government Clerk 

You can read it here.

I’ll leave off with another email from our tipster:

from ***
to ***

dateMon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:24 AM
subjectRe: Do you require more evidence.

hide details Feb 15
Hi Walker,
                I also know a man in the UK who was treated in exactly the same manner in court, his lawyers failed to turn up with the evidence and the judge claimed also not to have received it. Therefore, this meant that there was a set up. There is an agreement with the lawyers, the judiciary and the governments in the EU that anything that is within Demcoracy that the regime does not like is blocked. The Germans use this law to keep control of lawyers. I have the law if you require it.

 Mr. Wilders will be sacrifced to this set up because the Dutch government sees fit.

I went to a Dutch lawyer in Roermond, Mr. Goumans who in the first instance was trying to get me Dutch legal insurance to take the case forward because my German legal insurance was worthless. He was not going to get me insurance in the Netherlands to then go on and lose.

He later backtracked and refused to help.

Another Dutch lawyer I met in a pub in Venlo, a Mr. Peeters, said that my case was a blatant and he said he would try and help. I got an e-mail from him that he had arranged a metting with someone. I never heard from him again. A few months later I saw him in the same pub, I never spoke to him, but as I turned around when I realised who it was, I saw him running across the square in Venlo, even though he was 60+ years of age.

I’ll follow up on this as best I can. I think this shows a rather disturbing mentality within the European court system – this action in Germany can be easily seen in the railroading process being endured by Geert Wilders in Holland.



5 responses

17 03 2010
Interesting Parallels in Germany « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] Parallels in Germany 17 03 2010 Earlier I had written briefly about a rather interesting legal situation in Germany, whose parallels to the Wilders case were […]

20 03 2010

There is no moderate muslims there r only ignorant muslims and the radicals. Islam is not a moderate religion.Read the Quran. or better yet go to and learn from a victim of Islam It is time we made Islam history

25 03 2010
Interesting parallels in Germany, part three « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] parallels in Germany, part three 25 03 2010 To continue onward with our Parallels in Germany series, I’d like to highlight a little more correspondence between Kristina Link of the […]

31 03 2010
Interesting parallels in Germany – part four « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] 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 […]

5 04 2010
Interesting Parallels in Germany – part seven « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] 5 04 2010 In this instalment of the Parallels in Germany series ( by the way, here are parts one, two, three, four, five, and six ), I’d like to provide some more correspondence that has […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: