Class-action

Text of the class-action


 

District Court of Columbia, Washington D.C.

 

Class-action

Joint Plaintiffs according to list

                                Plaintiffs

v.

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,

EUROPEAN UNION,

                               Defendants

 

 

JUSTIFICATION FOR JOINING THE CLASS-ACTION

 

Those named in the attached list are suing for the same causes of action as in the action filed in the District Court of Columbia, Washington D.C. Case No. 1:19-cv-03529-CJN.

 

A. Eligibility to sue:  Right to procedural safeguards under Art. 6 ECHR

The Plaintiffs are citizens of the European Union.

All states of the EUROPEAN UNION have recognized that they can be sued before a court that fulfils the procedural requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

1. 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.

 

 

In Bavaria/FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, judges and public prosecutors are subject to the disciplinary law for soldiers.

German public prosecutors are bound by the instructions of political officials.

In Bavaria, public prosecutors are appointed as the disciplinary superiors of the judges who are to decide on cases for which their disciplinary superiors are responsible.

This is not only a violation of Art. 6 ECHR, it is also a violation of Art. 97 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany:

Evidence: Basic Law: Art. 97

               (1) Judges shall be independent and subject only to the law.

 

Evidence: Penal Code: Section 92 Constitutional High Treason

                   Definitions

  (1)  Within the meaning of this statute, the continued existence of the Federal 

  Republic of Germany is deemed to be undermined by whoever ends its      

 freedom from foreign domination, abolishes its national unity or secedes one 

 of its constituent territories.

                 (2) Within the meaning of this statute, ‘constitutional principles’ means

                      5.  the independence of the courts and

                      6.  the exclusion of all forms of tyranny and arbitrary rule.

           

The specific case: Mr. Lückemann, Attorney General of the Bamberg Higher Regional Court, with the district of Coburg, Bavaria, FRG, was appointed President of the Bamberg Higher Regional Court. Mr Lohneis, Chief Senior Public Prosecutor at the Coburg Regional Court, was appointed President of the Coburg Regional Court.

The concrete consequence: At the request of Mr. Lohneis, Mr. von Prince was extradited from Switzerland to the Coburg Regional Court only for presentation for the trial, because innocence was already in the arrest warrant. For all other purposes, the extradition is to be rejected."

 

This was violated. The judges of the Bamberg Higher Regional Court now had to decide on this violation of international law, for which the Attorney General Lückemann, who was bound by instructions, was responsible.

Everyone can imagine how this decision turned out.

The violation of the obligations and conditions of the extradition of Mr. von Prince consists, among other things, in the fact that a criminal prosecution against Mr. von Prince is taking place for a period during which Mr. von Prince was already in Switzerland.

Now the judges of the Coburg Regional Court are to decide on this case, for which Mr Lohneis acted on behalf of Mr Lückemann.

The clerk for this case was the Public prosecutor of the Coburg Regional Court, Mrs Ursula Haderlein. She is now Mr Lohneis' successor as President of the Coburg Regional Court.

The criminal prosecution arising from the violation of the obligations and conditions of the extradition has not yet been completed.

 

Every Swiss national is jointly and severally liable.

But likewise, every citizen of the European Union.

Theoretically, any EU citizen could, by chance, end up in the investigations of Bavarian public prosecutors and be extradited to Bavaria on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.

This gives them the right to bring an action.

 

 

B. The jurisdiction of the court.

The lawsuit filed with the District Court of Columbia, Washington D.C. Az. 1:19-cv-03529-CJN was submitted to the European Union.

The EU can no longer claim, at the latest now, that it knows nothing about the legal relations in Bavaria/Federal Republic of Germany.

In the case of the Polish judicial reform, the EU is suing against it. Even after the judicial reform, the Republic of Poland is still a constitutional state in relation to Bavaria.

The EU criticizes Hungary for its authoritarian style of leadership. But the EU remains silent about Bavaria.

The former deputy EU commissioner Frans Timmermanns says of the Polish judicial reform: "Either we have an EU of law or no EU.

In this way, the official bodies of the EU are pretending to have a Europe of law for the citizens of the EU.

 

The above-mentioned lawsuit in the District Court of Columbia, Case no. 1:19-cv-03529-CJN, was filed on the grounds that no court in Europe allows plaintiffs to sue or be sued that provides procedural safeguards for legal and independent courts.

 

Swiss nationals have now also launched a Citizens´ Initiative for judicial reform.

This Citizens´ Initiative states that the "classe politique" has taken over the judiciary and authorities to the detriment of the citizens.

 

The plaintiffs therefore face European courts on an extraterritorial basis. This means that the plaintiffs face an EU of injustice on an extraterritorial level. Extraterritorial means that the plaintiffs in the EU area stand on their own ground of law. The institutions of the EU do not stand on the ground of law within the EU. This means that the plaintiffs enjoy immunity from the European courts and therefore immunity from these authorities to execute arrest warrants issued by judges who ultimately act on the instructions of political officials.

At present, only courts in the United States of America offer the procedural guarantees provided for in Art. 6 ECHR.

A competent court for plaintiffs must first be independent.

This means that the courts in the USA have jurisdiction.

In contrast to European courts, including the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, courts in the USA publish, for example, this complaint. This way, everyone can understand why the court makes its decision.

Therefore courts in the USA also have jurisdiction.

Due to the Extradition Agreement between the EU and the USA, the USA must also execute a Bavarian arrest warrant without examination. This would mean that the USA would also be jointly liable.

This means that the courts in the USA have jurisdiction.

 

 

CLAIMS

 

1. CLAIM

 

The plaintiffs demand that the treaties be observed:

The European Convention on Human Rights must be respected.

An essential point of Article 6 ECHR is the provisions on the appointment of the court/judges.

The previous practice has proven to be unsuitable.

The freedom of contract includes the choice of the judge in case of dispute. In every democratic country it is part of the right of the people to elect their state authorities directly, including the third state authority, the judiciary.

 

Demand for arbitration tribunals

In order to prevent the political class from once again determining the appointment and promotion of judges, it is therefore called for the establishment of permanent arbitration tribunals with a sufficient number of judges to ensure that court proceedings are concluded quickly.

The parties in dispute can choose their own judges. If the parties cannot agree on judges, the decision will be taken by lot.

 

The complaints filed are published on the Internet, where they can be viewed by anyone. Unless the parties jointly refuse publication. Thus, parties in dispute can refuse judges who are suspected of having decided in a biased manner.

There is no lawyer's duty. The obligation to consult a lawyer has not led to compliance with the law, but to the fact that one cannot effectively enforce one's rights.

 

Alternative claim if the defendant parties do not comply with the requirement for arbitration

US government institutions are responsible.

If the EU does not comply with the demand for recognition of arbitration tribunals under point 1, it is requested that US courts be established in Europe. According to the plaintiffs, US military sites can be used for this purpose.

In this way, Western values are simply defended and financed by the USA.

 

2. CLAIM

 

The plaintiffs demand compliance with the contracts:

The implementation of the 2+4 Treaty by the FRG

As in the amendment of the complaint, Doc. No. 6, of the complaint in the District Court of Columbia, Case No. 1:19-cv-CJN, the FRG never implemented the 2 + 4 Treaty. The condition was to adopt a constitution for Germany. This would be a binding confirmation of Europe's borders under international law.  The implementation of the 2 + 4 Treaty with a constitution for Germany is therefore indispensable for Europe to maintain an area of justice, freedom and security. There are only two possibilities for the EU: either the EU ensures that the FRG adopts a constitution or the FRG must leave the EU.

 

Alternative demand, if the 2+4 Treaty is not implemented by the FRG:

If the Federal Republic of Germany does not implement the 2 + 4 Treaty according to point 2 and remains with its illegal judges who have been deprived of their independence and the EU does not remove the FRG from the EU, then the state institutions of the USA remain responsible for the plaintiffs.

 

It is then demanded that courts of the United States of America be established in the Federal Republic of Germany, financed by the Federal Republic of Germany.