Interesting Parallels in Germany part two

Earlier I had written briefly about a rather interesting legal situation in Germany, whose parallels to the Wilders case were rather uncanny in their common apparent disregard for process in favor of a railroaded result:

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?

Read the rest here.

In that post, I had promised to focus more on this particular situation, and, man of my word that I am, here’s the next instalment.

In this instalment, I’d like to present some correspondence between the fellow providing me with this information ( who underwent this rather strange court rigamorole in Germany ) and Kristina Link of the German political party Die Linke. My source explains:

You asked me for some of the correspondence I had with a Frau Link of Die Linke (The LEFT), a so called German Left wing party as the name suggests.

She admitted to being trained as a lawyer when I asked her because of her stupid replies and lies. She claimed that she was no longer practiscing as a lawyer. This is not correct because she could not possibly be the spokesperson for legal matters for Die Linke if she was not a lawyer. She would not have been allowed to give legal advice, especially of a political nature had she not had a PERMIT under this NAZI law.The reason she said this was that as a lawyer she has to renew her permit to operate every year under the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935. She originally claimed that this law had been withdrawn many years ago but this did not work because I told her to read the letter from the German Ministry of Justice.

And so, here is a copy of some of that correspondence, slightly edited for formatting and to protect personal emails and some personal information:

Von: *********

Gesendet: Montag, 8. September 2008 16:27

From ********** reference court documents

Dear Frau Link,

I was just wondering if you had much success with getting the documents and sound recording of my court hearing.Yours faithfully,

*************

[…]

AW: From ********* reference court documentsDatum: 09.09.2008 13:29:15 Westeuropäische Normalzeit

Von: ************

Dear Mr. *****,

I am very sorry but I couldn`t find the time to get your documents and I am not sure if this could help you anyway.

I am now informed about your case, but I don’t have the time to help you in your special case. But we as a party in parliament will respect your case. As we have done before even knowing this when we discussed the Rechtdienstleistungsgesetz.

More information is to be found on homepage of the Bundestag.

Best regards,

Kristina Link

Kristina Link
Referentin für Rechtspolitik
Fraktion DIE LINKE. im Bundestag
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin
Telefon +4930/227-54580
Telefax +4930/227-56580
kristina.link@linksfraktion.de

Now, that’s just the first round of emails that I’ve been able to get my hot little hands on. Make of them what you will. I still believe that this matter is quite concerning, and so there will be more to come.

Stay tuned…