Interesting Parallels 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 who’s gotten caught up in the European legal process – and the European Court of Human Rights.

First of all, here’s a letter that my ‘informant’ sent to the ECHR after his discovery of the German Law on Legal Advice, which was originally put in place by the Nazis:

Dear Sirs,

As a result of further investigation into the reasons for the convening of what I am almost certain, was an EXTRAORDINARY COURT HEARING, contrary to Article 101 (1) of the German Constitution and, most certainly Article 6, of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I have, through searching the internet, discovered a letter from the German Ministry of Justice dated 28th November 2000; I enclose both a copy of the German original and an English translation.

This letter admits a law dated 13th December 1935, The Law on Legal Advice, is still in use. The German Government was asked about the relevance of this law in the European Court on 12th December 1996. As you can see, they said that it was a law which protected the consumer (client), by making sure they are only allowed to be given legal advice by a qualified lawyer. This meant that the consumer was guaranteed the best legal advice possible and, that this, therefore, stopped a client losing a case through bad legal advice.

As you are aware in my case, I was most certainly never given fair legal advice, which this law is supposed to guarantee. However, that legal advice did exist. My solicitor sent a letter to the court on 17th July 2001 setting out my case which demonstrated that, in a fair hearing, I could not lose.

I never knew of the existence of this letter until I found it recently among the papers returned to me by Dr. Huppertz after he refused to take my case to appeal. It is my opinion that I was never intended to see the letter. It was only intended to alert the legal authorities to the reality of the situation. Proof of this is the fact that it was never mentioned in court.

The time between receipt of the letter at the court office and the hearing nine days later meant that it would be relatively simple matter to re-organise the court to get the desired conclusion. I would imagine that the judge was changed because Herr Mostardt was not prepared to be a party to the conspiracy. I am not sure why Herr Gillessen, my solicitor did not appear. The excuse put forward was that he was on holiday, bearing in mind that he had agreed to the date of the hearing, that seems to be very unlikely. My feeling is that he was offered some ‘incentive’ which he could hardly refuse.

This Law on Legal Advice insists that only qualified legal advisors can be used. This must surely apply to both parties. In my case the defendants’ spokesman was no more qualified than I am, so the law seems somewhat flexible. This did have the effect that I was not able to take the case to appeal because no solicitor would touch it. I would suggest that the true reason for the laws continued existence is precisely what it was intended for in the first instance, the protection of the interests of the Government of the day and its various departments.

The law, still being in use, is directly contrary to International Laws on Human Rights and the German Constitution. If it is as it would seem, with the evidence that I have, it is used to make sure that a court hearing is superfluous, as this law guarantees that the subordinate party in a legal contest is going to lose. This possibly explains the German Constitutional Courts unwillingness to investigate an obvious breach of procedure in a hearing. Their use of the excuse that the amount of time that had elapsed, since the hearing meant they could not act, does not justify the fact that the whole proceedings were contrary to article 101 (1) of the Constitution.

This is perhaps the reason why it states on the last side of the judgment, that I must use the services of a solicitor registered in Germany. Dr. Huppertz had also made this point, in his letter concerning my appeal. They most certainly did not want a solicitor, who was not bound by the true meaning of the 1935 Law on Legal Advice, entering the fray.

To add to the evidence concerning my case, I am also aware of numerous other cases which my colleagues mysteriously lost when the evidence clearly shows that they should have won without question. This evidence includes a judgment of my colleague, which he managed to appeal to the court of the 2nd instance at Düsseldorf. He was allowed to go this far because the solicitors and the judiciary were quite satisfied that he had been set up successfully, because he was relying solely on his solicitor representing him fairly, a fatal mistake in cases against the Government.

This case can be proved to be fixed by just one sentence in the judgment, which proves the employer was being to say the least, ‘economical with the truth.’ The very same sentence also proves the collusion of the judiciary, at both the court of the 1st instance and of the 2nd.

My employer also stated in a written answer at the time, that there were 30 cases pending, on the same subject as my colleague, Herr Wolski’s, in Paderborn and Gutersloh alone. I’m not sure if the thirty cases actually went to court, one assumes they at least sought legal advice, which according to the use of the law on legal advice 1935; they should have been treated fairly within the terms of this act.

This evidence is available should you require it, as part of your investigation.

Yours faithfully,


Attached documents:

1). Letter from the German Ministry of Justice dated 28th November 2000.(German copy). Page 1
2). Translation of the above document into English. Pages 2 & 3
3). Letter from my Solicitor, Herr Gillessen to Monchengladbach Employment Court & AVL Soest dated 17th July 2001. (German copy). Pages 4, 5 & 6
4). Translation of the above document into English. Pages 7 & 8 

The German Ministry of Justice Letter can be seen on the URL below.

More to come…




2 responses

12 04 2010
Interesting Parallels in Germany – part ten « Defend Geert Wilders

[…] Interesting Parallels in Germany – part ten 12 04 2010 Yesterday, in the Parallels in Germany series, I published a letter from my ‘informant’ – a fellow who has been caught up in the European legal system – to the European Court of Human Rights. Check that out here.  […]

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

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

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: