In the USA, law firms are taking on class-actions.
The task of the lawyers is to find enough plaintiffs. Then the suit is submitted to the judge. The judge has to decide whether to allow a class-action or not. It is a legal requirement that all plaintiffs have the same rights infringed and similar damages have been incurred. Furthermore, there must be a large number of plaintiffs, as would happen, for example, if hundreds or even thousands of buyers of a washing machine were affected, all of whom would have suffered water damage, due to a fault of the manufacturer.
We want to take the first step and get a law firm interested.
By biased, unlawful and dependent judges, the first point of a class-action has already been fulfilled - all are violated in the same rights.
There are two groups for the quantification of damages:
You have already made the acquaintance of German or Bavarian judges who are illegal, biased and dependent.
a. You have already received a judgement that was not signed by the judge and/or where the protocol was falsified (where the signature is also missing).
b. For example, you have been charged in the first instance before the regional court and therefore had no chance of an actual second instance (which is internationally required!). Because this does not exist in this case. In contrast to proceedings before the district court, the second instance is the regional court. However, if the trial starts at the regional court, then only the appeal before the German Federal Supreme Court is possible, that either the appeal is allowed or not. However, an appeal is not a second instance in which the case is heard again correctly. The German Federal Supreme Court only judges in its quiet chamber whether the judgment is consistent in itself. That is all.
c. In your case there was no actual recording of the hearing, but in your case the judge declared that he/she determines what is recorded in the minutes.
At the regional court, no witness statements at all are recorded in the minutes. If the Federal Republic of Germany were to submit an application for membership to the EU only today, this state of affairs would already be the reason why the Federal Republic of Germany would not be admitted to the EU. Nevertheless, the EU remains silent on these lawless conditions.
Form for accession group 1
You have not yet made acquantance with the German justice system.
A. For residents of the federal territory:
You have not yet made acquaintance with the German justice system. But you do not want to watch until one day you yourself will be judged before an illegal, biased and dependent judge, as in the Third Reich!
Perhaps you have experienced how a fellow citizen was judged and you do not want to accept this legal development.
By joining the class-action, you are fulfilling your direct duty, which was imposed on you by Article 25 of the Basic Law: International law - among other things the Versailles Treaty and the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV.) take precedence over German laws - so no matter what your MPs decide - you are directly obliged to ensure that international law is respected in the FRG - this includes EU and UN human rights and thus legal, independent and impartial judges.
B. For the people of Europe:
a. Spread of arbitrary law
All inhabitants of Europe are basically affected by the violation of rights, even if their rights have not yet been directly violated by the judicial system of the FRG. However, the danger of a
renewed rule of the National Socialist system is real. This must be prevented here.
As an Austrian, you have a State Treaty with the Allies. A state treaty is not a constitution. It is a contract that can be terminated. Therefore this Treaty contains conditions, e.g. the observance of human rights and the prohibition of reunification with Germany.
If judgments of the FRG are enforced in the Republic of Austria, through the agreements with the EU, then the arbitrary right of the FRG spreads over Austria. The State Treaty is thereby terminated:
Violation of the condition: compliance with human rights.
Violation of the further condition: no reunification with Germany - which, however, juristically takes place at the moment when the arbitrary decisions is adopted.
It is the first civic duty of every Austrian to observe the State Treaty of 1955. It is therefore impossible to agree on the existence of an extradition agreement or an agreement on administrative assistance with Bavaria/FRG.
Since Austria, for which we have evidence, implements the arbitrary decisions of the FRG and the EU does not intervene, each Austrian is therefore jointly and severally liable.
What does this mean?
The State Treaty has been terminated.
1. It means that reparations can also be requested from Austria.
2. The nationality Republic of Austria no longer exists. It is only guaranteed by adherence to the State Treaty. Think for yourself what nationality you will have then...
By joining the class-action, you declare yourself to be a representative of the sovereign Republic of Austria with the nationality of the Republic of Austria and you stand up for the observance of human rights and thus for the rule of law in Austria.
b. The borders of Europe
Borders that are called into question under international law by the refusal to implement the 2+4 Treaty:
As long as the Federal Republic of Germany does not implement the 2+4 Treaty with a constitution and thus does not confirm the borders in a binding manner under international law, the border question is not clarified under international law for Austria either.
Poland's borders are also not secured under international law as long as the FRG does not make a constitution in which the borders are confirmed.
The FRG claims (lies) that the Basic Law is a constitution. The Article 23 GG, in which the scope of application originally stood and all federal states were listed, was overwritten with a text about the EU. So where are the borders of the FRG now? - About the whole EU?
In 2018, Poland made demands for reparations in an expert opinion. With the 2+4 Treaty these would have been invalid. But Poland has received East Pomerania and Silesia - or not? The Poles, too, would have to be very keen to have these questions clarified.
What about Eupen-Malmedy and Alsace-Lorraine? It is also a question of confirming these borders. Since the German Reich never recognized the Treaty of Versailles, no scope was written into the Weimar Constitution. Thus, the German Reich would have confirmed these borders under international law. That means that until today there was no international recognition of the borders to France or Belgium.
Thus, the borders with Denmark are also not confirmed by international law. Neither are the borders of Hungary.
Form for accession group 2
a. If there is no judge, no right can be claimed:
- With 100 cases per judge per day at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the enforceability of human rights in Europe is pure fantasy.
b. A judge who is not a judge:
- by the fact that an "adviser" of the country in question sits at the table and all the cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights go over his desk and the Court rejects the cases from the outset - shreds the case - or leaves it lying around for years. So, initially, it is not a neutral, independent judge who decides your case, but a dependent, biased and therefore illegal "advisor".
c. Compulsory legal advice:
Theoretically, the EU should, as is the case in the USA, grant every plaintiff the right to represent himself in court. At the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, however, this is not granted. As the plaintiffs themselves have learned, no action could be brought because they could not find a lawyer who wanted to represent them! - Because the knowledge advantage was so great that a lawyer admitted that he would have needed a quarter of a year to familiarise himself with the law and there was simply not enough time.
d. Application for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU is prevented:
There is a right for an EU citizen to make an application to the court for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In other words, this Court of Justice is called upon to give an opinion on whether the conduct of a national court is compatible with EU law. But even in the last national instance, which is obliged to pass on this request, this is refused and thus EU law is broken. Even in the case of detainees, this forwarding is an immediate obligation, but it is refused. We, for example, made the request at least three times: once during the detention of Mr Beowulf von Prince in Kronach in 2013. The mandatory lawyer boycotted the request. Due to the lack of information Mr von Prince sent the application directly to the European Court of Justice. The Court sent it back to him. A second time on June 03, 2019 to the Coburg Regional Court. The Court did not forward the application. A third time during his detention in Belgium - the Court did not forward the application.
Beowulf von Prince
Schweizer Str. 38