Interesting Parallels in Germany – part seven

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 been forwarded to me by the fellow – who shall remain anonymous – currently dealing with a rather disturbing legal process in Germany.

First, here’s the text of a letter that he sent to Member of British Parliament David Cameron:

To the Right Honourable David Cameron MP.Subject: The Ministry of Defence UK and its connection to Nazi’s in Germany, making a mockery of Democracy, that has also allowed the theft of taxpayer’s money.

Dear Mr. Cameron,

Because of the serious nature of the information in this letter and, the need for it to become public knowledge, I will declare this letter to be open. This allows me to place it on the internet and, to hand it to members of the public. I say this, because the state of the media in the West today is nothing but deplorable, as the following will prove. A Mrs. Damilolu at the European Federation of Journalists called this information “too sensitive to publish.” A Herr Offermann at the Bild newspaper in Dusseldorf when confronted with this case said “the Germans are not interested in Democracy.”

What is “too sensitive” about exposing the use of Nazi laws to control law abiding citizens right to legal representation in Germany and the EU?

However, I put the case to a reporter from Hurriyet the Turkish newspaper and, they immediately agreed to publish, in the name of Democracy. This report concerned Barroso at the EC, it made it clear he is sympathetic to Nazism being used by the German government, to control its legal system. I duly sent the link to this report to Barroso and asked if he would like to take legal action, if it was incorrect, he declined. As you are aware, he is a lawyer, so he was quite able to challenge. The only problem was he knows I am correct, so he could not possibly challenge the truth, in public that is. His office admitted the verdict in my case was impossible, yet they did nothing.

You have probably heard of the recently released CIA document called ‘The Red House Report.’ This document concerned a meeting in 1944 set up by that ‘erstwhile true believer in Democracy Heinrich Himmler.’ This dealt with the method of spreading Nazism in the light of the defeat of Hitler. The conclusion was that Nazi’s were to infiltrate politics and business wherever possible.

This helps prove that they have succeeded in getting total control over the EU all the way to Barroso.

As you are aware, the West is at present locked in a war in Afghanistan, that it has absolutely no chance of winning. There are soldiers of many nationalities (including Germans, who I am also defending) dying to impose some kind of ‘bogus democracy’ on the Afghans, which the leaders of the opposition groups say in our media. It is worth noting, they are never allowed to explain what they mean.

You will probably remember, earlier this decade, a delegation of Afghani politicians were invited to Germany, to be advised on how to set up a Democracy and, to help them draw up a Constitution, even though at the time, the German government were not on very friendly terms with the Bush regime.

This could be called the most ridiculous decision, or the most contrived in recent political history. I say this because I have discovered that the German regime has been using Hitler’s Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 to control its legal system and, when necessary totally override its own Constitution. The German government has got nothing but contempt for Democracy and, their politicians, when confronted with the truth, immediately start lying or claiming they do not have a clue about the law, when they are asked to explain a letter I have from the German Ministry of Justice. (See page 5) In this letter, it states this vile piece of legislation is now used to guarantee that a client in a legal contest gets the best legal advice possible because due to this law only lawyers are allowed to give advice on legal matters. As you can read this letter basically declares that Hitler was a good all round believer in Democracy, who believed in giving people their full rights.

This legislation made it clear that Officials of the Nazi Party were not constrained by this law from giving legal advice, the following is from the actual legislation:

§ 3. Not subject to this law are:
1. Legal advice and legal supervision provided by the authorities of the NSDAP and its associations, public law bodies as well as affiliated NSDAP associations within the scope of their competency.

Could you, or anyone in their right mind, imagine going to the Gestapo to get unbiased legal advice, if they were going to challenge the Fuhrers regime through the courts?This in itself proves that this law was not democratic and, therefore, never could be.

Can you possibly imagine today being told by a lawyer, that your right to the best legal advice is guaranteed by a law from the Nazi era?It may also be of interest to you, that ordinary Germans are not in any way aware of this legislation, yet according the arrogant idiots at the Ministry of Justice, it protects them. You will also note that their letter was a reply to a petition question, which it is every one’s right in Germany to place. This in itself proves the worth of a Constitution, if the reply the citizen gets is nothing but a pack of lies, which that must be.

I would be interested to hear if you consider it to be plausible to describe a Nazi law of this nature as being to protect a client in a case? This law had been in force almost 3 years, when the infamous Krystalnacht took place. It seems amazing that not one person who was attacked on that night took legal action, which resulted in a conviction of the thugs who assaulted them, yet this law must have given them the right to the best legal advice possible.

I would now like to introduce the response of two of the politicians involved in this case. One of them you will know, the other a German, more than likely not.

I will start with the German first, a Frau Link, spokesperson on legal matters for Die Linke, the so called left wing party, which you would think would make them anti Nazi. I will not address her as a female, because no one of her ideology could possibly be a member of the fairer sex. I discovered that it was a lawyer and, therefore, it must be aware of this law, because as a solicitor, it had to get a permit every year as a result of this legislation.

At first it claimed that this law was no longer in use, this was proved to be a lie because I told it to read the letter from the German Ministry of Justice. It openly admitted that all Nazi law is s—t but it was not prepared to act. It admitted I was a special case and, that as a party in the Bundestag, they respected my case. Even admitting this it still refused to act. To prove its stupidity as a lawyer, it said it could not understand why I wanted a copy of the recording of my court hearing, even though I had made it clear it was blatantly rigged, as I was present. I had a lawyer planted on me, who I had never met before who said precisely nothing, except his name. The judge Barth, a Nazi, refused to allow me to speak, she tampered with the recording device when I asked a question and recorded over what I had said.

The MoD UK admitted in writing, they lied in court, which was also a good reason for wanting a copy of the recording.

Because of its blatant lying and downright stupidity I made it clear in writing to it that it was a Nazi. This is a statement that could have cost me up to 5 years in prison in Germany for insulting someone in political life. The only problem is that it knew it was the truth and that made it difficult to challenge because they know I am aware of their court fixing.

I would, therefore, be grateful if you as leader of the Conservative Party could ask for a copy of the sound recording of the court hearing, the German regime refuses to hand this over, even though I have written evidence one was made?

I would now like to turn to Sir Peter Tapsell, who you probably know as he is one of your MP’s. Sir Peter is the MP where my father lives. Even when it was pointed out that the MoD had written to him admitting they lied in court, he refused to act, he made the excuse that he is only a “little MP” with no real power. The MoD even sent a copy of the contract of employment in dispute through him to my father, which they later admitted in writing, was worthless because it was out of date. Sir Peter still refused to act, which means he considers his normal constituents to be not worth the bother of representing. He is obviously only a big MP I would, therefore, suggest for certain people within his constituency.

Why did Tapsell accept them admitting they had lied in court and, why did he do nothing when the MoD admitted sending legal documents to him that were outdated?Could you please explain what a “little MP is in your party and, the precise powers of such a species and how they differ to “big MP’s”?

As the contents of this letter concern Democracy and, therefore, are not constrained by constituency boundaries and, the fact that you must be a “big MP” by the very nature of your position, I have decided to put this problem to you.

Could you please let me know if you condone the use of Nazi legislation against British ex-servicemen of the lower ranks?

I asked the MoD directly to name their lawyers in Germany; they refused point blank to say who they were. I later discovered that their lawyers are connected to a Dr. Huppertz a Nazi lawyer (the connection was on his letter heading), he refused to represent me, because I was a foreigner, in his eyes I had no right to challenge the German regime, although he had initially taken me on as a client, even before he had seen the verdict, or had chance to study any of the evidence. He was responsible for wrecking my period of appeal; I have enough evidence in writing to prove he is a liar.

I wrote to General Richards, when he was ComARRC in the first few days of 2006, informing him of serious criminal activity in the personnel department, at the highest levels, including naming Herr Holzapfel as having written the judgment in my case. They did not challenge this statement of facts. As you are aware, lies are challengeable but facts are not.

As I have previously informed you and, the media in the UK has blatantly tried to cover it up, there have been many millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money stolen, by mainly senior management at bases in Germany. These people were obviously given their jobs by a personnel department, that was itself involved in criminal activity, therefore, they were hardly likely to allocate influential posts to true and honest people. This criminal activity also involved the Works Council, who were most certainly collaborating with management. These senior people have for years been giving themselves 10 extra days paid leave per year, to which they are not entitled. It was impossible to stop this because both they and the Works Council were reaping this benefit.

After having studied the Contract for Employment for some years, I was one of the few people who could actually read it. The MoD admitted in writing, that because it dated from 1st January 1967 they do not know what it means anymore; therefore, they allowed their management to interpret it at will. This led to the personnel department rewarding themselves with this extra leave, which cost the MoD millions. The MoD is paying a Herr Schaferbarthold around £50,000 per year as their Chief Personnel Manager and, he has not got a clue how the contract of employment is applied. This admission came from his military superior, Lt.Col. Langford. To put it in straight terms the MoD had employed Schaferbarthold & Holzapfel because of their Nazi connections, not because of their competence in personnel management, if they could not even understand the contract of employment. These pair of criminals were also handing out taxpayer’s money to Nazi lawyers, who deliberately betrayed their clients. These lawyers had to be paid due to this Nazi law.

It would appear that the 55 million people who died as a result of the Second World War, including some hundreds of thousands of British servicemen, did so in vain, or was it possibly only to rid the world of the most ludicrous moustache?

I must again reiterate this is not an attack on ordinary Germans; I am doing this because they are not aware of the secret Nazi system running Germany at present.

I would be grateful if you could explain the dignity of man is inviolable and, why British ex-servicemen of the ‘lower ranks’ are considered by the MoD and German government as not subject to this basic right?

I am also fully aware as to how the German regime has worded its Constitution to allow the use of this Nazi law. This is done by ambiguous referrals to A LAW, BY LAW & THE LAW.

You are now aware that the German Constitution is dominated by this Nazi Law; therefore, the true guardians of the Basic Law must surely be the thugs of the NPD, the equivalent of the BNP in the UK. The thugs of the NPD are obviously not aware that their dream is in fact reality, they are not told of the NAZI law for obvious reasons. They are used by the establishment in Germany to show the ‘ugly face of Nazism’ which conveniently hides the truth. These thugs as you know go round beating up people with in their eyes the ‘wrong coloured skin’ and the regime duly claims this should not happen.

If the German establishment hates its own people enough to lie to them in this way, they surely cannot like people of different races?It is ironic that I was born in Worksop, which as you know is very close to Sherwood Forest, where another well known defender of Human Rights carried out his business.

I also realise that within the whole of the European legal and political system, as a law abiding citizen (No criminal convictions) who is prepared to defend Democracy, I am considered as Untermensche (Subhuman), not worthy of legal status.If there is anything that yourself or anyone considers as being a lie in this document I am most certainly prepared to defend my position in public, as the European legal system is corrupted at all levels.

I am prepared to meet with you personally, or anyone, to put this case forward and, to explain all the evidence I have to justify my stating these facts.

It is vital to give a reply to this letter as soon as possible to help save lives of people in Afghanistan, no matter whose life that is, as I am Democratic.

This proves that MP’s have total disregard for the two principal reasons they hold their position.
To uphold and defend Democracy.
To make sure that taxpayers money is not stolen or misused

In the name of democracy.

Yours faithfully,

Please note that on the following page No. 5 the sentence in BOLD type proves that the European Courts are sympathetic to Nazism. The German original of this document is available if required.

If this Nazi law is compatible with European legislation the latter must also be Nazi.

Federal Judicial Ministry Berlin, 28 November 2000
Ref No: RB 1 – 7525 – R 3 793/2000
Please quote when replying to
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
Government Clerk



5 responses

5 04 2010
Interesting parallels in Germany – part eight « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] a representative of Nick Griffin of the BNP ( yeah, yeah, I know ) sent after seeing a copy of the letter reprinted in the previous post: Dear […]

7 04 2010
UPDATE on my Court case against collection agency | Mortgage and Insurance

[…] Interesting Parallels in Germany – part seven « Defend Geert Wilders […]

8 04 2010
Interesting Parallels in Germany – part nine « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] in Germany – part nine 8 04 2010 In this instalment of Defend Geert Wilders’ Parallels in Germany series, I’d like to highlight an exchange between my ‘informant’ – a fellow […]

10 04 2010

Geert Wilder stance is not new but it is revival of the ignorance of seventeenth century. Can you imagine hight of plurism in Islamic Society since and e during the last 1000 years even in the in the Europe Jews and Muslims were persecuted in Spain but Muslims were protecting Jews in Turkey. Christians lived under the islamic rulers in Syria, Palestine Egypt . No forced conversion and demolishing or restriction on church building was imposed but even Govt were repairing ailing church buildings. Evidence is there after 1400 years of Muslim rule a significant number of Christian live in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt. They were never persecuted due to religion , obtained high position in the Courts.
I have strong and evident opinion that attitude and propaganda like Geert Wilder’s will increase rate of conversion in every country in Europe. Higher will be resistant and propaganda higher will be conversion to Islam. European individuals are free opinion makers.

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

[…] Interesting Parallels in Germany – part seven […]

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: