I have been trying to expose without success, in the so-called Democratic Western media, the use by the German & British governments of a Law that was first used by Hitler. This is the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935.
In 1935 the Nazis announced that ‘The Reich’s Government has decreed the following law.’
Its first article was: ‘Article 1. § 1 (1) The administration of third party legal affairs including legal advice and the collection of third party claims or abandoned claims for collection purposes can only be conducted – without differentiating between professional or freelance activities against or without payment – by persons who have been issued with a relevant permit by the competent authorities.’
No permit and you are gagged in court and cannot speak up.
The German government admits that this Hitler decree is the basis of their justice system.
The secretariat of the petition committee of the Federal Parliament wrote on 19.10.2000 ‘At present the Federal Government is not intending to initiate significant changes of the Legal Advice Act. . . Although the Act originates from 1935, it has been subject to several post-war amendments and no longer contains discriminatory regulations.’
Despite the fact that clauses such as ‘Jews will not be issued with permit’ has been removed, the essence of the Act remains – no permit and you are gagged as far as the legal system is concerned.
The German government uses a law which was first used by Adolf Hitler, to deny any citizen the right to challenge the government in Court.
In fact both governments have used this law to blatantly rig employment courts against both myself and other colleagues.
Because I refused to accept being treated unfairly before the courts I was sacked by the Ministry of Defence, United Kingdom.
I was employed as a security guard at JHQ Mönchengladbach, Germany, by the British Army, from January 1990, until I was dismissed in March 2004.
I was deliberately blocked from furthering the case through the normal legal system. During the course of my investigation, I discovered that the MoD(UK) had won other cases involving other colleagues, which they could not possibly have, without the courts having been rigged.
Initially, my problem was an employment issue. But due to the actions of my solicitor, both governments, and the way the court was convened, it became a matter of upholding democracy, the right to fair legal representation and not least, the defence of basic human rights.
This basic right is denied in Germany, in civil cases against the government, which they do not want to lose, with the use of the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935.
In the first instance my lawyers lost the case.
In July 2000, I obtained a copy of the contract of employment in English, which originates from 1967.
I discovered that I was entitled to shift allowances, which were never paid, even though I had asked both the Works Council and my employer about this on numerous occasions.
Having a copy of the contract in English to refer to, brought either refusals to answer questions, or ‘blatantly ridiculous answers’. This left me with no other path than to take legal advice and put the matter before a court.
NB: The employers’ excuse for not paying shift allowances, which they had to uphold in court was ‘because I could walk to work some 300mtrs and I lived within the “territory of the base”, I did not qualify for shift payments.’
My colleagues lived up to 91kms from their place of employment, which no one can suggest is possible to walk to work.
They also did not live within the Territory of the Base, which did not help their defence.
These colleagues living outside the base were not paid shift allowances, even though this judgment must have meant they were entitled to these payments.
One year later, I put a question to the MoD(UK) in London, asking them to specify a suitable distance from their place of work that an employee must live, above which those employees could claim shift payments. Their reply was that it is irrelevant where we live in relation to entitlement to shift payments.
This totally contradicts the judgment, which was legally binding on the employer, and proves without doubt, that I should have won in the first instance and, I was fully justified in attempting an appeal.
My original solicitor, Mr Gillessen did not attend the court on Friday 27th July 2001. I was instead represented by a Mr Krapohl, whom I had never met before and who, incidentally, was not qualified in employment law. Mr Krapohl said precisely nothing to plead my case; he only announced his name.
The judge, Ms Barth, who was also new to the case allowed Mr Krapohl to remain silent and she refused to acknowledge me when I asked a question. She paused the recording device and wound it back to tape over what I had said. Judge Barth made it quite clear that I was to be allowed no input in the proceedings, by turning to the employer’s bench and showing her back to me. The plaintiff is not allowed to speak in German courts even if their solicitor says nothing. This conveniently blocks the case of the plaintiff if the authorities so require, as it was in my situation.
My original lawyer had written to the court and my employer 10 days prior to the hearing, outlining the points on which I would win the case. This evidence was not used to present my case by the stand-in solicitor, whom I had never met before. I was not sent a copy of this letter at the time. In this letter, Herr Gillessen, my original lawyer, made it clear amongst other points, that where I lived had nothing to do with the right to shift payments.
I tried to lodge the appeal immediately, with Dr Huppertz, even before the judgment had been published. Dr Huppertz agreed to represent me straightaway.
A month or so later when Dr. Huppertz had returned from leave and having studied the judgment, he wrote again saying he could see no way I could win the case and therefore he was backing out. He agreed to lodge the appeal but I would have to be represented by another lawyer.
I tried to find another solicitor within the period of appeal, without success.
Being forced out of the period of appeal, effectively killed off any chance of taking the case further, which I now know was exactly what the authorities wanted, because losing was going to prove costly.
As a result of the authorities’ deliberate obstruction of justice in numerous cases I lost my employment.
How the European Courts can accept a law that gave Hitler dominance over the courts, as being a democratic piece of legislation is unbelievable. It infers the EU system is accepting that Hitler had democratic ideology, which is somewhat contrary to what history says.