Austria describes itself as the first victim of the German Reich. The former nationals (Nationality Law of 1913) of the German Reich could also call themselves the first victims of the Austrian Adolf Hitler, when he abolished the nationality of the German Länder. And also France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have first accommodated Hitler in the Sudeten German question.
By contrast, in the case of the Free City of Danzig, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had made it clear that this State was under its protection and guaranteed the constitution, in which it had announced that it would take over the executive.
After the occupation of the Free City of Danzig on Sept. 01, 1939, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland gave the German Reich two days to clear the area, otherwise it would declare war. This happened on Sept. 03, 1939. France went to war with the battle cry: "For the freedom of Danzig."
One can therefore assume that the Second World War only revolves around the Free City of Danzig.
As long as the question of the Free City of Danzig is not clarified, there can be no peace treaty.
After the outbreak of the Second World War, the British sent Mr. Tom Adalbert von Prince, who is of British origin but speaks perfect German, from the League of Nations mandate area Tanganyika (Mr. von Prince's home country) to Germany. Of course not, so that he enters the Wehrmacht there and then shoot as many Brits as possible. But in fact as a representative of one's own interests.
According to Article 116 of the Basic Law, Mr. von Prince, despite the renouncement of German nationality, remained in the possession of German nationality within the meaning of the Basic Law.
A constitution under Article 146 can only come about through the consent of his legitimate children. There is in fact a right of veto. If the nationals of the Free City of Danzig agree to a constitution under Article 146 of the Basic Law, they lose their Danzig nationality. Thus, the nationality of the Free City of Danzig would be extinct.
So if a constitution under Article 146 Basic Law come about, it is first to identify who still owns this nationality.
Who among those living in Danzig was forcibly granted the nationality of the German Reich and who accepted it voluntarily? Who invokes the Danzig Constitution and demands the ordre public of the Free City of Danzig?
In order to clarify this question, on Febr. 22, 1955 the Law was created for the Renouncement of the German Nationality. Since these could no longer become deputies by the use of the law, there must be a list of those who made use of it.
If, according to the contract, a constitution under Article 146 was to be implemented, politicians would first of all have had to clarify what Article 116 of the Basic Law means. Then it would have become clear that those who are Germans within the meaning of Article 146 have been constantly lied to by their representatives.
Finally, one would have had to inform the former GDR citizens before joining.
This has not happened to this day.
The Allied side had thought early about what the post-war order should look like and, of course, about the Free City of Danzig.
The fact that the Germans would lose the war was foreseeable long before the end of the war and the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers was decided.
One had the experience from the Treaty of Versailles made, which was actually terminated by Adolf Hitler. A new peace treaty must therefore be designed in such a way that it is no longer canceled - see Potsdam Agreement.
The United Nations Charter, which only came into force after the complete collapse of the Axis powers, nevertheless included the Enemy State Clauses, Articles 53 and 107.
For which conceivable case should these be effective?
The SS as a war party under Part 1 of the Hague IV. Convention on the part of the German Reich did not surrender. The Allies only unilaterally declared the cessation of hostilities in the 1950s, even though the German Wehrmacht capitulated in 1945.
(Decree of the French Republic concerning the ending of the state of war with Germany of July 9, 1951, Note of the Government of Great Britain concerning the ending of the state of war with Germany of July 9, 1951, Proclamation of the President of the USA concerning the ending of the state of war with Germany of October 24, 1951, Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the termination of the state of war between the Soviet Union and Germany of January 25, 1955).
The fact that the SS can again actively wage war by military means is out of question.
But war is not only conducted by military means. War is definitely the endeavor to bring about a change of law with force against other nationals.
In the Federal Republic of Germany, there are definitely different nationals who are German within the meaning of the Basic Law. Therefore, the Federal Republic of Germany cannot enact a nationality law.
Germans within the meaning of the Basic Law include the nationals of the Free City of Danzig entitled to reparations and the people of the German Reich liable to reparations.
As long as these are not separated, no reparations can be demanded.
How is the separation done? And with it the reunification of the nationals of the German Reich?
States differ by different law.
The right to choose freely is determined by nationality.
In the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as in Austria, the arbitrary laws of the German Reich is practiced by the authorities and the judiciary, while the laws are officially remained unchanged. This is easy for anyone to find out, because no more judgments, contrary to the legal regulations, are handed out. This practice was introduced by the jurists of the German Reich.
The political persecution of the nationals of the Free City of Danzig started in 2004. In 2006, the nationals of the Free City of Danzig founded the Foundation for the Right to demand compliance with German law under Article 116 of the Basic Law and published the book "Do Your Duty - Save Your Existence"- Tue Deine Pflicht. After falling on less fertile ground, the Free City of Danzig has politically reorganized on May 23, 2008.
The author was arrested on Dec. 12, 2012 by the Swiss police and extradited on Jan. 24, 2013 to Germany. However, only for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority. The author had rejected this until the end, on the grounds that he is due to his nationality of the Free City of Danzig German prisons leave only in the horizontal. Only by presence of mind and knowledge of the international law of the author have saved him from this fate. The terms and conditions of extradition was completely violated, in mass processes, followed closely by the press, to convict anyone as an instigator and accomplice for document falsification of the possession or application for a Danzig ID-card. In this case, the author without hearing was already referred to as the perpetrator. Even a bail of 1.344.000,- € / day was too small to release the author from custody, judgment of Sept.18, 2013 of the Coburg Regional Court, Case Number: 2 Ns 118 Js 181/08. The reason given by the Arrest Warrant of Sept. 19, 2013, Case Number 1 KLs 123 Js 3979/11: The accused is the representative of the Free City of Danzig.
In order to cure the breaches of the obligations and conditions, an explicit request for extended extradition was made under the same Case No. B 224`163/TMA of the Swiss Federal Office of Justice by the Bamberg General Prosecutor's Office, the Coburg Public Prosecutor´s Office/Bavaria by Mr. Lohneis, Senior Prosecutor.
In retrospect, the Swiss Federal Office of Justice has refused the entire extradition on the grounds that it is not asking for the prosecution of punishable acts, but for political reasons.
Despite this express prohibition of extradition, the front door of the author was broken down by the Cantonal Police of Aargau / Switzerland on April 15, 2016 and he was extradited to Germany. The Court for the Execution of Prison Sentences Freiburg: The prisoner remains in custody because he is convinced to be a national of the Free City of Danzig.
The author had rejected the judges of the Coburg Regional Court because of bias because they wanted to negotiate against him because of the purely Swiss proceedings 1 KLs 123 Js 3979/11. The author was seriously injured. Therefore, the duty lawyer has proposed a binding agreement. Thereafter, the author should be released on probation on the day of trial. For this he was not allowed to call in any more lawyers and should confess (without knowing what).
In order for the author agree, he was denied access to the prison doctor. The author would have survived only a few weeks and therefore agreed.
On April 07, 2017 was then negotiated. The Presiding Judge Mrs. Franke confirmed the agreement, as well as the Public Prosecutor. However, after a brief break, the Public Prosecutor appeared and said that his boss did not agree with the agreement. Nevertheless, it was negotiated. No evidence of guilt could be provided, no witness testified against the author. Nevertheless, the author was released only in a cloak-and-dagger operation on April 13, 2017 from custody. There is again an arrest warrant in breach of the European Convention on Extradition.
This fully proves that the nationals of the German Reich again carry out political persecution against other nationals, because of their nationality by force. Just as at the beginning of the Second World War against nationals of the Free City of Danzig.
Thus, they have declared the United States Enemy State Clauses to be effective.
Expert opinion on reparation claims
2.7.1 Article 116 Basic Law
2.7.2 The „Gleichschaltungsgesetze“
2.7.3 The Reich and Nationality Law of 1913
2.7.4 Summary „German within the meaning of the Basic Law is...“
2.7.5 The Law for Renouncement of the German Nationality from Febr. 22, 1955
Continue to 3. The capacity to be a party to legal proceedings
© 2018 Beowulf von Prince Use only with naming the author. Any change of the work or its parts is prohibited.
Beowulf von Prince
Schweizer Str. 38