To give up sends the message upstream, that they can do what they want; outside of the rule of the law; without consequence. Here in the UK it is entirely lawful to use the right to charge another with a crime, called a citizens arrest. That was why I made the suggestion that the answer is to make a citizens arrest. Yes, from that moment, anyone so arrested is innocent until proven guilty; but that demands in law that the arrested must be placed into a court of the law to do so. What the present trial has done is break the law; has removed Habeas Corpus; thus the solution is to create a writ of Habeas Corpus and set into motion, under the rule of the law, an action that in law challenges the actions of the presiding judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Make this a matter of international concern; that there is a Prima Facie case that the rule of the law has collapsed in Germany, and that that has brought severe embarrassment upon the entire legal system in Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
Sitting around bemoaning the difficulties is the wrong way; make this an existential matter that Must Be Addressed . . . in law. That time is of the essence.
Via a 1990’s phone conversation with Lord Denning, (at the time arguably the highest level law officer here in the UK), Lord Denning confirmed that I was correct; that the rule of the law applies to everyone. So I ask, is that the same in Germany today? if that is so, then am I correct to also believe that the presiding judge is not acting to the highest ethical standards; that they have placed themselves into a position of being ultra vires, above the law? Again, that there are others within the law profession within Germany that have also formed the same opinion. If that is so, then surely the way out of the present dilemma is to apply the rule of the law to the actions of the presiding judge. So why not apply a citizens arrest to the presiding judge via a more senior court and thus insist that they replace the current presiding judge on the simple basis that the presiding judge is bringing the rule of the law within Germany; into disrepute? That is certainly my opinion formed from these detailed reports.
After all, what we here are all witnessing is a classic cover up of the ultra vires actions of the administration in Germany, using this so called trial to cover up their own less than ethical actions, by creating an exact copy of the so called trials, in Germany, during world war two, of those who had the temerity to argue that the actions of the NAZI government were also unlawful and should be brought to an end. Surely the rule of the law today; in Germany; must be properly applied to the highest ethical standards, and as such, in law; the presiding judge must be replaced immediately?
I must add that the matter to which I was at the time debating with Lord Denning was taken all the way up to the UK Privy Council, who, eventually, wrote to me to present their conclusions regarding my concerns. That the rule of the law does apply to everyone.
During the trial the defence demonstrated that the charges brought against Reiner did not stand up. Rather than dismissing the case and releasing Reiner, the judge stopped the proceedings and claimed Reiner was guilty of some other vaguely specified offence which had not been argued. The judge has sought to prevent hearing further evidence, either on the new supposed offence or on defence allegations that the German intelligence services have set the court up with a fabricated case, and the judge now clearly wishes to declare Reiner guilty and sentence him.
By avoiding oral argument the judge is making it impossible for the defence to argue their case and confront the court with the contradictions, lies and illegality of the prosecution case and judicial actions. Courts rely on face to face interaction to function, just as most serious dealings between people also need to be conducted face to face. When the judge denies that possibility and denies the need to examine evidence, he denies Reiner justice and wields a rubber stamp rather than operates a court. The most benign interpretation is that the judge seeks to create a legal tangle around Reiner to prevent him taking part in public life, destroy his reputation, and ruin him.
But without due process the court is no longer a court of justice, impartially applying law in accordance with the constitution; instead the judge is acting on his own account or at the direction of others behind the scenes. In doing so he is exercising naked power unconstrained by law, which is an affront to constitutional right and thus a form of treason. Yes, the judge acts ultra vires; yes, the judge perverts the course of justice; yes, the judge falsely imprisons Reiner; and yes, the judge is, in common law terms, guilty of malfeasance (misconduct) in public office; but the judge is subverting the law and constitution, which is treason.
Yes, a more senior court should already have acted against Reiner's judges (I believe there are five of them), but clearly the German judicial system is corrupt and complicit in the ongoing political coup, which manifests itself in Reiner's case among others. It is unlikely there will be any lawful intervention from above: the noise and resistance must come from below. The stakes could hardly be higher.
Am I correct to assume from your comment, "Yes, a more senior court should already have acted against Reiner's judges (I believe there are five of them), but clearly the German judicial system is corrupt and complicit in the ongoing political coup, which manifests itself in Reiner's case among others." that you believe that there are no fully professional and honest judges in Germany?
My comments represent a firm belief that the vast majority of German Judges are totally honest and fully professional. Which in turn means that someone has to open a conversation with them. That is my earnest belief, but as a Englishman, it would seem to be a better course of action for a German citizen to show the courage to set that conversation into motion.
I am viewing things from abroad, and like you am not German.
It is striking that, as far as I am aware, none of the judges trying Reiner have distanced themselves from the words and actions of the presiding judge: if there is wrongdoing they are complicit.
Reiner’s is not the only worrying case. He publicised the persecution and prosecution of a judge for finding in favour of a mother who brought an action to avoid her children being masked and tested at school. It was not enough simply to overturn the judge’s decision on appeal, he had to be destroyed: for some details see https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/german-judge-gets-probation-sentence
There are a number of cases of critics of the corona measures being prosecuted including Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, who gave testimony on the dangers of the covid jabs to the Corona Committee: see https://fackel.substack.com/p/bhakdi-acquittal-failure-of-antisemitism; of CJ Hopkins, an American author living in Germany, prosecuted for his thoughtcrimes; once acquitted but now subject to a second trial: see https://cjhopkins.substack.com; and of Holocaust survivor Vera Sharaf, accused of holocaust denial for comparing German today with Germany yesterday, but living in the USA currently out of reach of the German state.
At the very least the German judicial system is conniving in lawfare, but Reiner's experience of kidnapping, apparent secret service involvement, confiscation of his assets and extended imprisonment goes beyond what most victims have suffered so far.
I don't know how many good or bad apples there are in the German judiciary, but a test of the system is whether it tolerates bad apples; and a test of individual German judges is whether they ignore the wrongdoing of those sitting next to them. If the majority of German judges are fully honest and professional where are they?
The evidence is that most judges are afraid. Some are fully complicit. Others fear for their jobs, their reputations, their financial well-being. It's a matter of priorities. Fear is ahead of honesty integrity professionalism.
I am sure you are right. There has been an attempt to intimidate the judges. However, if judges do not protect those subject to legal abuse and injustice they are failing in their principal duty. While fear may explain their action/inaction, it does not justify it. Many other people have to face and overcome fear in their work.
Of course it does not justify the behavior. I have never suggested anything like that. I'm just talking about reality. The question: how to deal with what is? so that justice prevails. Talking about what judges SHOULD do - how does that help? We all know that.
About: "you believe that there are no fully professional and honest judges in Germany? My comments represent a firm belief that the vast majority of German Judges are totally honest and fully professional." The evidence is strongly against your firm belief. The evidence is that there are a few honest judges with integrity who are terribly punished when they make rulings following the law. You need to go for evidence rather than firm beliefs.
Then my answer has to be that everyone here must take it for granted that we are always talking to; "a few honest judges with integrity". That it is these that have by far and away the most interest in a return to a full acceptance of the rule of the law. If all anyone does is constantly repeat that "The evidence is strongly against your firm belief". then the dishonest win every time; by default. Again, we must also assume that the average Judge is being forced to not apply the rule of law. Repeat; Forced! If that is so then it may well be that the majority will read and learn that there are many of us out here determined to help them in regaining their full professional status. It will only become a reality if we keep being fully positive of the need to help them in their own journey back to full respect.
I think that Reiner and his legal team are doing their best to force the court to do right by him and not allow the court to get away with perverting German justice and subverting the constitution. And it is in an effort to uphold right not just for Reiner but for everyone that so many of us try to support Reiner's efforts. These actions also show any honest judges they are not alone.
To give up sends the message upstream, that they can do what they want; outside of the rule of the law; without consequence. Here in the UK it is entirely lawful to use the right to charge another with a crime, called a citizens arrest. That was why I made the suggestion that the answer is to make a citizens arrest. Yes, from that moment, anyone so arrested is innocent until proven guilty; but that demands in law that the arrested must be placed into a court of the law to do so. What the present trial has done is break the law; has removed Habeas Corpus; thus the solution is to create a writ of Habeas Corpus and set into motion, under the rule of the law, an action that in law challenges the actions of the presiding judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
Make this a matter of international concern; that there is a Prima Facie case that the rule of the law has collapsed in Germany, and that that has brought severe embarrassment upon the entire legal system in Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
Sitting around bemoaning the difficulties is the wrong way; make this an existential matter that Must Be Addressed . . . in law. That time is of the essence.
Bless him we miss him he sud be freed long time ago 🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️❤️
Via a 1990’s phone conversation with Lord Denning, (at the time arguably the highest level law officer here in the UK), Lord Denning confirmed that I was correct; that the rule of the law applies to everyone. So I ask, is that the same in Germany today? if that is so, then am I correct to also believe that the presiding judge is not acting to the highest ethical standards; that they have placed themselves into a position of being ultra vires, above the law? Again, that there are others within the law profession within Germany that have also formed the same opinion. If that is so, then surely the way out of the present dilemma is to apply the rule of the law to the actions of the presiding judge. So why not apply a citizens arrest to the presiding judge via a more senior court and thus insist that they replace the current presiding judge on the simple basis that the presiding judge is bringing the rule of the law within Germany; into disrepute? That is certainly my opinion formed from these detailed reports.
After all, what we here are all witnessing is a classic cover up of the ultra vires actions of the administration in Germany, using this so called trial to cover up their own less than ethical actions, by creating an exact copy of the so called trials, in Germany, during world war two, of those who had the temerity to argue that the actions of the NAZI government were also unlawful and should be brought to an end. Surely the rule of the law today; in Germany; must be properly applied to the highest ethical standards, and as such, in law; the presiding judge must be replaced immediately?
I must add that the matter to which I was at the time debating with Lord Denning was taken all the way up to the UK Privy Council, who, eventually, wrote to me to present their conclusions regarding my concerns. That the rule of the law does apply to everyone.
Very nicely put!!!
During the trial the defence demonstrated that the charges brought against Reiner did not stand up. Rather than dismissing the case and releasing Reiner, the judge stopped the proceedings and claimed Reiner was guilty of some other vaguely specified offence which had not been argued. The judge has sought to prevent hearing further evidence, either on the new supposed offence or on defence allegations that the German intelligence services have set the court up with a fabricated case, and the judge now clearly wishes to declare Reiner guilty and sentence him.
By avoiding oral argument the judge is making it impossible for the defence to argue their case and confront the court with the contradictions, lies and illegality of the prosecution case and judicial actions. Courts rely on face to face interaction to function, just as most serious dealings between people also need to be conducted face to face. When the judge denies that possibility and denies the need to examine evidence, he denies Reiner justice and wields a rubber stamp rather than operates a court. The most benign interpretation is that the judge seeks to create a legal tangle around Reiner to prevent him taking part in public life, destroy his reputation, and ruin him.
But without due process the court is no longer a court of justice, impartially applying law in accordance with the constitution; instead the judge is acting on his own account or at the direction of others behind the scenes. In doing so he is exercising naked power unconstrained by law, which is an affront to constitutional right and thus a form of treason. Yes, the judge acts ultra vires; yes, the judge perverts the course of justice; yes, the judge falsely imprisons Reiner; and yes, the judge is, in common law terms, guilty of malfeasance (misconduct) in public office; but the judge is subverting the law and constitution, which is treason.
Yes, a more senior court should already have acted against Reiner's judges (I believe there are five of them), but clearly the German judicial system is corrupt and complicit in the ongoing political coup, which manifests itself in Reiner's case among others. It is unlikely there will be any lawful intervention from above: the noise and resistance must come from below. The stakes could hardly be higher.
Am I correct to assume from your comment, "Yes, a more senior court should already have acted against Reiner's judges (I believe there are five of them), but clearly the German judicial system is corrupt and complicit in the ongoing political coup, which manifests itself in Reiner's case among others." that you believe that there are no fully professional and honest judges in Germany?
My comments represent a firm belief that the vast majority of German Judges are totally honest and fully professional. Which in turn means that someone has to open a conversation with them. That is my earnest belief, but as a Englishman, it would seem to be a better course of action for a German citizen to show the courage to set that conversation into motion.
I am viewing things from abroad, and like you am not German.
It is striking that, as far as I am aware, none of the judges trying Reiner have distanced themselves from the words and actions of the presiding judge: if there is wrongdoing they are complicit.
Reiner’s is not the only worrying case. He publicised the persecution and prosecution of a judge for finding in favour of a mother who brought an action to avoid her children being masked and tested at school. It was not enough simply to overturn the judge’s decision on appeal, he had to be destroyed: for some details see https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/german-judge-gets-probation-sentence
There are a number of cases of critics of the corona measures being prosecuted including Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, who gave testimony on the dangers of the covid jabs to the Corona Committee: see https://fackel.substack.com/p/bhakdi-acquittal-failure-of-antisemitism; of CJ Hopkins, an American author living in Germany, prosecuted for his thoughtcrimes; once acquitted but now subject to a second trial: see https://cjhopkins.substack.com; and of Holocaust survivor Vera Sharaf, accused of holocaust denial for comparing German today with Germany yesterday, but living in the USA currently out of reach of the German state.
At the very least the German judicial system is conniving in lawfare, but Reiner's experience of kidnapping, apparent secret service involvement, confiscation of his assets and extended imprisonment goes beyond what most victims have suffered so far.
I don't know how many good or bad apples there are in the German judiciary, but a test of the system is whether it tolerates bad apples; and a test of individual German judges is whether they ignore the wrongdoing of those sitting next to them. If the majority of German judges are fully honest and professional where are they?
The evidence is that most judges are afraid. Some are fully complicit. Others fear for their jobs, their reputations, their financial well-being. It's a matter of priorities. Fear is ahead of honesty integrity professionalism.
I am sure you are right. There has been an attempt to intimidate the judges. However, if judges do not protect those subject to legal abuse and injustice they are failing in their principal duty. While fear may explain their action/inaction, it does not justify it. Many other people have to face and overcome fear in their work.
Of course it does not justify the behavior. I have never suggested anything like that. I'm just talking about reality. The question: how to deal with what is? so that justice prevails. Talking about what judges SHOULD do - how does that help? We all know that.
About: "you believe that there are no fully professional and honest judges in Germany? My comments represent a firm belief that the vast majority of German Judges are totally honest and fully professional." The evidence is strongly against your firm belief. The evidence is that there are a few honest judges with integrity who are terribly punished when they make rulings following the law. You need to go for evidence rather than firm beliefs.
Then my answer has to be that everyone here must take it for granted that we are always talking to; "a few honest judges with integrity". That it is these that have by far and away the most interest in a return to a full acceptance of the rule of the law. If all anyone does is constantly repeat that "The evidence is strongly against your firm belief". then the dishonest win every time; by default. Again, we must also assume that the average Judge is being forced to not apply the rule of law. Repeat; Forced! If that is so then it may well be that the majority will read and learn that there are many of us out here determined to help them in regaining their full professional status. It will only become a reality if we keep being fully positive of the need to help them in their own journey back to full respect.
Never assume. You do this over and over. Like you say:
If all anyone does is constantly repeat that "The evidence is strongly against your firm belief". then the dishonest win every time; by default.
THIS IS NOT A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. USE LOGIC. FACTS AND LOGIC. YOU DO ANYTHING BUT!!!!
I think that Reiner and his legal team are doing their best to force the court to do right by him and not allow the court to get away with perverting German justice and subverting the constitution. And it is in an effort to uphold right not just for Reiner but for everyone that so many of us try to support Reiner's efforts. These actions also show any honest judges they are not alone.
Agreed.
I very much agree!!
Likewise, I very much agree.