It was therefore obvious that the justiciary laws were not being applied. They were just pretending. If it was recognized that a § was not applied and one complained as a citizen, this had no consequences. If one denounced the officials concerned because they disregarded laws and were not willing to apply them correctly even after repeated reminders, this also had no consequences. The complaints were not processed.
In 2006, the First Act to Adjust Federal Law was created and on November 23, 2007, the Second. It was then clear that a third would follow.
The First Act to Adjust Federal Law had repealed the introductory laws of the Courts Constitution Act, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then the Second Act to Adjust Federal Law followed. It was to put the crown on everything. The abolition of the occupation law was repealed and thus reintroduced. Beo called the Bundestag because of its importance:
"Can you please tell me when the reading of the Second Act to Adjust Federal Law took place and which Members of Parliament were present?" he asked the secretary on the phone.
"I have to look up the minutes. Which day was that?" she replied.
"It is the law of Nov. 23, 2007 according to the Federal Law Gazette I page 2614," Beo replied.
The secretary began to search. After a while, the question came, "Are you sure it's the 23rd of November 2007?"
"Yes, that's what it says here, and there are 78 different laws that were changed or repealed. So the meeting would have to have been extremely long."
"No, I can't find anything here on that day. I don't understand, it can't be."
"Do you find the Act to Adjust Federal Law? Have a look at the Adjustment of Federal Law.
"Which page in the Federal Law Gazette was that?" "That was page 2614."
"Yes, I can find that in the Federal Law Gazette. It says so right here. There are 80 articles." She kept looking. "I can't believe it's not in the protocol. I don't understand it."
After a while, the secretary gave up looking and said, all confused and upset, "I'm sorry. I can't help you there. I don't know why there's no reading in the minutes."
Beo thanked her and left behind a completely confused secretary. He then wrote a question to the Bundestag. He received a written reply from a Dr Histand that the reading had taken place in the Bundestag on November 23, 2007. ???
In case of further inquiries, concerning the laws on signatures etc., this Dr. Histand always answered us in the future....
In a ruling of the Federal Administrative Court it was stated that every law must contain where it is to be applied - i.e. the so-called scope of application, because it must be clear to everyone where this law applies.
With the repeal of the introductory laws, however, the scope of application was deleted. When asking lawyers, the answer was always that the scope was not necessary, that the introductory laws
were no longer necessary because they were old, outdated laws, etc. Then, of course, the question arises as to why these laws existed in the first place, when all this is superfluous, and why it
was not deemed necessary to repeal them after more than 100 years.
We did the work of looking closely at Article 4 of the Second Act to Adjust Federal Law. That was not so easy. But of course we also wanted the lawyers to comment on it. After all, it was a question of their own tools of their activities. They had to know what they could and could not rely on. After all, for years we even offered a reward of 1.000,- € on the internet for the lawyer who was able to explain this law to us in detail and discovered a contradiction in our explanation. But no lawyer ever answered us.
©2020 by Beowulf von Prince, Karin Leffer
Beowulf von Prince
Schweizer Str. 38