Interesting parallels in Germany – part five

4 04 2010

The Parallels in Germany series continues, as, in this instalment, I would like to bring to you some more correspondence and the like that has been sent to me by my ‘informant’, an amiable fellow who has been struggling with the German and EU political and court system for what I am sure has been far too long.

Here’s some correspondence that he sent to me:

Thanks for that, there is plenty more evidence to prove that the EU is anything but Democratic. The legal system is now anything but an upholder of the written law, which they must have to be Democratic. I have also got verdicts in other cases, where the courts were certainly fixed. Civil law has now been harmonised across the EU because the EU claims it will benefit the citizen. In reality it means that it is not possible to take a Civil case into another member state. I tried this, as I live not too far from Holland, this lawyer (Mr. Goumans) backed out after first being very interested, he was also acting on behalf of an ex- colleague of mine who lives in Holland. At first he was going to get me Dutch legal insurance as my German cover was trying not to pay for it. He was not going to hastily arrange Dutch legal insurance to lose.

Another Dutch lawyer (Mr. Peeters) I met in a pub in Venlo, said, what I know is worth €10,000,000 to pay me to keep silent. He later hastily ran away, when I entered the pub some months later having refused to make contact with me, after having e-mailed me to say he had arranged a meeting on my behalf.

Meanwhile, I have recieved from him a reply that was sent by the German Constitutional Court, which shows they do not uphold their Constitutional remit when it is actually the German regime messing around with the Basic Law. My ‘informant’ explains thusly:

Attached is the reply I received from the German Constitutional Court. Page one is the actual reply and page 2 are the relevant points from the Constitution.

You can see in the first piece in RED they maintain that they cannot investigate because the complaint has to be lodged with them within 1 month of the final court hearing.

This is not possible because I had a 1 month period to appeal to the court of the 2nd Instance which was allowed to be extended to 2 months which I did because I was desperately searching for a lawyer to take up the case, after being betrayed by a second and third lawyer, with blatant lies, which prove they do not even understand even basic employment law in Germany, or of course they were lying to protect the regime.

The second section in RED proves that they deny what they are supposed to do. They knew full well that the judgment was most certainly illegal and the recording of the court hearing would have proved that the court was totally RIGGED because absolutely nothing was said by the lawyer I had planted on and I was denied the right to speak.

How was it possible for me to know I had 1 month to apply to them, when I was denied the right to legal representation which I have plenty of evidence to prove that is correct.

Also the employer admitting they had lied in court by saying that the verdict was not correct because it did not matter where I lived, when the verdict made it clear it did more than proved an appeal was justified.

Here’s the reply:

Constitutional Court

Presidential Council

Mr. *******************
****** Avenue ***
Ref: AR 7129/03 (quote) dealing: ***********************

Dear Mr *****,

Concerning the admissibility requirements in respect of a constitutional complaint – with which only the individual citizen can approach the Constitutional Court – you have already been informed by means of the information leaflet forwarded to you on 16 December 2003. There are objections against the admissibility of you filing a constitutional complaint.

As can be seen from the information leaflet, an appeal against legal decisions can, on principle, only be lodged by means of a constitutional complaint once all legal means have been tried in front of the competent courts(c.f. Section III sub 2 of the information leaflet) and even then only within a laid down period of one month(c.f. Section III sub 1 of the information leaflet). Regardless of the question whether all legal means have been tried, the appeal period of one month in respect of the constitutional complaint you want to lodge against the verdict pronounced by the M-Gladbach labour Court dated 27 June 2001 – 2 Ca 1785/01 expired a long time ago and would subsequently be dismissed for that reason alone.

Subsequently, additional objections against the admissibility (arguments) do not require further clarification at this stage.


Outside the scope of a constitutional complaint procedure, the Federal Constitutional Court does not have the possibility to become actively engaged in the appeal of individual persons. In particular, it cannot get involved in the procedures of other authorities or courts and instruct them or provide recommendations or even take decisions of its own in their name. Nor is the Court, on principle, entitled to carry out a general check and comment on a case presented to it or provide legal information.

We therefore ask you to understand that no further action can be initiated in respect of the case you presented to the Federal Constitutional Court (c.f. § 60, 61 GOB Constitutional Law i.e. section VIII of the information leaflet at your disposal).

With kind regards,
Dr. Hiegert
Government Director
Certified: (Mohr) Government Clerk

Some additional information and commentary from my ‘informant’:

Article 93 (Federal Constitutional Court, jurisdiction)

(1) The Federal Constitutional Court decides:

4a. on complaints of unconstitutionality, which may be entered by any person who claims that one of his basic rights or one of his rights under paragraph (4) of Article 20 or under Article 33, 38, 101,  103, or 104 has been violated by public authority;

Article 103.
(1) In the courts everyone is entitled to a hearing in accordance with the law.

THE LAW mentioned in Article 103 is most possibly the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935?

Article 101.
(1) Extraordinary courts are inadmissible. No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judge.
(2) Courts for special fields may be established only by law

These special fields are any case the Government does not want to lose; therefore, they are subject to the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935.

This is how the German Government has made the Constitution look like it protects the citizen as it is read by someone with no legal training. They are not even aware of the existence of the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 and most certainly not of its hideous past or its totally opposite meaning today.

Could you imagine being told that your right to fair legal representation was guaranteed by a law, which was written initially to give Adolf Hitler supreme power over the courts and legal profession?

If a citizen is denied the right to a lawyer because of the illegal use of this law, how are they supposed to be able to put forward a COMPLAINT to the Constitutional Court within a time period of ONE MONTH?

Very interesting. More to come…




2 responses

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

[…] 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 been forwarded to me by the […]

3 05 2010
Interesting parallels in Germany – the road so far « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] Interesting parallels in Germany – part five […]

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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: