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

Well, in this instalment, I’d like to present some paperwork that he sent to the ECHR, prior to his becoming aware of Germany’s Nazi-instated Law on Legal Advice: 

Article 6 Right to a Fair Trial states: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

I have read that a legal description of this Article is that both parties shall be allowed to put their case before the court.

This means that the matter should have been discussed, with both parties talking to put their case across. The judge should listen to the discussion, applying the Contract of Employment and German Employment Law on the subject, to the proceedings. This should surely have been the grounds of the reason for her decision in the judgment.

The hearing was not fair, absolutely nothing was said by my solicitor, as I have described in the preceding section.

When I tried to ask a question, as my solicitor was saying nothing, Judge Barth looked at me as though I had no right to speak and, duly wound the recording device back, to tape over what I had said. She then raised her hand to her face nearest to me making it clear I was to be allowed no input into the proceedings. She was most certainly not acting in an impartial manner.

The MoD(UK) stated in a letter that the German Labour Courts fully understand the contract of employment(see page 26 of documents). If this is so why did the judge leave all the relevant parts out of her decision that were in my favour within the contract of employment?

These points are highlighted in the copy of the judgment with my comments as to why it is not correct attached to this document.

The two lay judges accompanying Judge Barth did not intervene at all to ask either myself or my solicitor our opinion. This seems rather strange, because the party that takes a case to court would normally have something to say or the whole exercise is pointless.

Because I was basically isolated from the events in the court the judgment seems to be flawed in so many ways as to make it meaningless. There was no input from my side and I would most certainly not have agreed to so many mistakes.

Article 13 Right to an Effective Remedy states Everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. I attempted to appeal the decision of the 1st Instance immediately. I used another solicitor to appeal, Dr. Huppertz from Krefeld. He agreed to take me on as a client immediately, before he had even seen the judgment. (see page 18 of the documents).

Article 13 Right to an Effective Remedy states Everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

In his second letter, after he had been on leave and, having read the judgment, he decided to withdraw, because he said he could see no way of my winning the case. However, he did agree to lodge the appeal, for me to take the matter further with another solicitor.

Some 15 months later I discovered whilst reading the judgment of my colleague, which incidentally, contradicts a part of my verdict, that Dr. Huppertz worked in co-operation with the firm of solicitors contracted to the MoD(UK) in Germany. This fact is printed on his letter heading

I attempted to appeal the decision of the 1st Instance immediately. I used another solicitor to appeal, Dr. Huppertz from Krefeld. He agreed to take me on as a client immediately, before he had even seen the judgment.

In his second letter, after he had been on leave and, having read the judgment, he decided to withdraw, because he said he could see no way of my winning the case. However, he did agree to lodge the appeal, for me to take the matter further with another solicitor.

Some 15 months later I discovered whilst reading the judgment of my colleague, which incidentally, contradicts a part of my verdict, that Dr. Huppertz worked in co-operation with the firm of solicitors contracted to the MoD(UK) in Germany. This fact is printed on his letter heading (see page 18 of the documents).
I did contact another solicitor, Herr Esser within the period of appeal; he only confirmed what the judgment had stated even though there are so many flaws in it. As I had to pay the solicitors myself for the initial appointment I knew that I was throwing money away. I did see some other solicitors later, they all but one, confirmed the judgment and also used the excuse that the appeal period has expired, therefore, the case is finished on this fact alone.

The solicitor, who admitted that something could have been done, had the appeal period not expired, was based in Holland. This also means that I did have a case previously which was only blocked by solicitors working against me, to hinder my right to justice.

Late in 2003 I wrote to the German Constitutional Court, explaining my case and, asking them to investigate the matter, as is their mandate within the Constitution, article 93 (4a).

They refused to act (see page 17 of attachments).

Had I been given fair legal advice from the outset of this case none of the illegal events would have happened in the first place. If I had been advised by a solicitor acting on my behalf fairly, in the event that they did, I could have met all the appeal period deadlines. As a lay person I was not aware of all these time limitations. The case was blocked because the employer was liable to a large claim for back payment, had I won. This has also proved to be an infringement of my rights within the German Constitution, possibly why that body would not investigate the matter.

It would also have been ridiculous to appeal to the Constitutional Court in the initial period whilst I was trying to get the case heard through the normal channels, the court of the 2nd Instance.

More to come…

Advertisements

Actions

Information

2 responses

12 04 2010
How To Have A Successful Court Appearance | Tucson Marketing Pro

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

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

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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: