Interesting Parallels in Germany – part sixteen

13 06 2010

Continuing with our Parallels in Germany series ( for background, click here ), I’d like to highlight some correspondence between my ‘informant’, and a certain Mr. Duhaime, a lawyer in Victoria, British Columbia. First, here’s the lead-in by my ‘informant’:

Here are the e-mails between myself and Mr. Duhaime. As yet he has not replied to my second e-mail. He knows more about this law and he does not want to get involved with someone who sholudn’t know but does.

I will enquire further. There is far more to this law than I know, in the sense of its continued use and of course geographical boundaries. It is the basis for all lawyer misdemeanours in betraying clients who they have taken on.

And here is the correspondence itself, with my ‘informant’s’ enquiry to kick it off:

Dear Mr. Duhaime,

I have been studying Nazi legislation for some while now and, have come across a piece of legislation that appears to have been written out of history. It appears now, that all Jewish lawyers were struck off on 27th September 1938, which is not correct, this law banned any Jew from entering the premises of a lawyer. It clearly states, Jews are prohibited from all legal practices. This was obviously to stop Jews in groups, entering legal parctices, when they had been abused, after such nights as the infamous Krystallnacht 9/10 November 1938.

On the other hand, the piece of legislation never mentioned in timelines, almost never in the internet and, not at all in any documentaries on WWII, namely, the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935. In this law, it clearly states, Jews are not allowed a PERMIT to act as a lawyer. The first clause of this law made it clear that a PERMIT was required to operate as a lawyer. This legislation ended the partial striking off of Jewish lawyers that Hitler had to live with, because he had bent to the wishes of Hindenburg, with an earlier law in April of 1933 which allowed Jews who had fought in WWI or, had lost a close relative in that conflict.

Hitler’s Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 ended the chance of any legal challenge to him, because the legal profession had made an agreement through this law which protected both parties. This led to rampant betrayal of clients and of course refusal to represent anyone who had a perfectly ligitimate case. The law also barred anyone acting with legal knowledge, which also meant that Jewish ex-lawyers could not represent fellow Jews who had been abused. 

Incidentally, this law clearly stated that Officials of the NSDAP (NAZI) Party were not constrained by this law. This in itself explains the ugliness of this piece of legislation.

I would be interested to hear if you have heard of the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 and if so, any other explanations of its use.

Here is Mr. Duhaime’s response:

Thank you, sir, for your e-mail. May presume that you come across my article Nazi Law: Prelude to Holocaust (1933-1943) at http://www.duhaime.org/lawmuseum/lawarticle-1179/nazi-law-prelude-to-holocaust-1933-1943.aspx and in that context, you provided information set out in your e-mail.

Would you mind if I ask in what country you live and what your interest is; for example, are you a lawyer, a legal history professor, a student of German or Jewish history, or just a person who studies Nazi legislation as a hobby.

Upon researching my Nazi Law article,  I came across the statewide disbarment of Jewish lawyers. I wrote: “In 1938, the German Nazi government issued a regulation which revoked the medical licenses that have been issued to Jewish doctors and restricted them to the treatment of Jews. Jewish lawyers were prohibited from practise.” This was an example of one of many laws which I did not mention specifically given the general nature of my article. I picked a few pieces of legislation to name only to highlight the general racist theme of the then-German statutes. In any event, any English-language name is by definition an “un-authentic” translation since no official English-language version of the statute was produced by the German Nazi government.

Have you found a reliable English language translation of “Hitler’s Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935”. If so, I would be interested in that.

Another email from my ‘informant’:

May I first thank you for your very quick reply. I am personally in the hobby bracket, I live in Germany. I also study Human Rights legislation and Constitutional Law.

I am aware of the legislation that applied to doctors, which was also part of the plan to eradicate Jews from all types of better employment. 

I attach a professional translation of the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935. 

Yours faithfully,

And then this, a more detailed reply:

Dear Mr. Duhaime,

I was wondering if you found the translation of the Law on Legal Advice 13th December quite interesting. One of the most interesting sentences in it is in 7 & 8 THESE ACTIVITIES MAY HOWEVER BE PROHIBITED. It is obvious what was not allowed to anyone with the slightest idea of the Nazi’s.

Amongst my research, I came across the following explanation of what the law is for. This is unbelievable to read, no one in their right mind could describe such a law as the following:

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. 

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.

I would be most interested to hear if you find this plausible.

Yours faithfully,

More to come…

UPDATE: My ‘informant’ writes:

Lloyd Duhaime, the Canadian Barrister I had correspondence with a few weeks ago concerning incorrect facts on his website has not further conversed with me about the Hitler law. He knows about it and its influence on Western legal systems and of course that of North Korea for example.

He did not go any further because he knows I also realise the consequences of this law in protecting crooks such as lawyers judges and politicians.

So, I guess that’s that, then.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

One response

13 06 2010
Sharp Aquos 42d64u Banding Part II | Sharp Electronics

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

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: