Source: http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=11080&sid=dc342b97f971c1e7f8b53fac706d3850
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 05:21:01
Document Index: 128698594

Matched Legal Cases: ['§126', '§126', '§16', '§16', '§15', '§ 45', '§ 15', '§ 45', '§ 16', '§ 1', '§ 33', '§ 3', '§ 18', '§ 21', '§ 14', '§ 16', '§ 15', '§ 92', '§ 15', '§ 38', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 33', '§ 119', '§ 126', '§ 135', '§ 45']

Postby Seelenblut » Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:23 pm For my first post about the German freeman/oppt movement - an important and commonly used term here is “Reichsbürger” (“Citizens of the Reich”) - I chose to translate a court decision in 2015, where a German freeman argued that he didn’t need to pay taxes because, among other reasons, Germany as a nation does not exists. The court was of a different opinion. It shows some of the most common arguments used by sovereigns in Germany, and the court in this case provides a fairly detailed explanation why those are bullocks. I want to mention right from the start that I have no law education and apologize beforehand for any laymen’s mistakes.Oh, and if you like drinking games - drink every time when you read the word “Reich”, and empty your glass if it’s used twice in a phrase (like in “reich-constitutional Second German Reich”).Court: FG Münster (Financial Court Münster, which is a district capital in the German state of Nordrhein-Westfalen)Date: April 14th, 2015Link to the German text of the court decisionNote: The text is anonymized, the names of the plaintiff and the involved tax office were already removed in the original text. Blue text was inserted by me for some specific comments and explanations.Decision:1) The suit is dismissed.2) The plaintiff bears the costs of the process.Well, that was quick, I thought this would be more work ... wait, there are 15 more pages? Well, fiddle-stick ...Facts:3) The plaintiff is a Diplom Kaufmann [Degree in Business Studies] and self-employed as a management consultant.4) The plaintiff denies the existence of the internationally recognized Federal Republic of Germany". The Federal Republic of Germany has, according to his opinion, no legitimization as a nation. In its place exists the “Second German Reich” with an acting national government. The plaintiff also believes, that the tax laws of the Federal Republic of Germany are invalid. He contests the legitimization of the tax office to determine and collect taxes. In his view the tax office (“Financial Agency/Administration”) is no public-law entity, but a private commercial company, which is not entitled to exercise official sovereign functions.5) The plaintiff has, on September 15th, 2014, filed eight declaratory actions (the suits were originally filed under eight separate cases, 1 K 3123/14 F to 1 K 3130/14 F, and later combined into this single one). There we have it, folks, classic OPPT arguments with a German twist. This special version of it is hard to pin down, mostly because there are by now a number of entities claiming to be the “Second German Reich”, a term originally coined by Wolfgang Ebel as far back as 1985 (as far as I can tell). Ebel claimed the title “chancellor” for himself and sold citizenships and offices for his imaginary empire, but there were several schisms with members of his “acting government”, creating competitive groups. And after his death in 2014 his own “official” group split into several new ones, too. The ideas mentioned in this court decision are all based on his theories, he can be considered one of the fathers of the “Reichsbürger” movement and is probably worth a write up on his own.6) The plaintiff puts forward the following arguments:7) There are a number of differences of opinion with the tax office that need clarification. As an example the plaintiff names an assessment about setting the sales tax advance payment [quarterly VAT advance payments] for the second quarter 2014 on October 1st, 2014 (court file, page 18 ) as well as a request to file a tax return for 2013 (court file, page 33). The assessment and request are supposedly missing any legal foundation. As a public official of the reichs-constitutional nation “Second German Reich” he is in an exterritorial relation to the Federal Republic of Germany and enjoys immunity, which the tax office is not allowed to ignore. Neither the tax office nor any other financial administration is entitled to set or collect taxes from him. In any case such a legitimization was so far never provided. The employees of the tax office also didn’t provide identification, even after a number of requests, that showed they were public officials, allowed to exercise sovereign functions.8 ) Regarding the non-existence of the Federal Republic of Germany the plaintiff advocates the following opinion: Because of the repeal of article 23 of the German constitution [“Grundgesetz” (GG) = “Fundamental Law” = German constitution; the old article 23 limited the validity of the constitution to the states of the “old” Federal Republic of Germany (“West-Germany”), excluding the states of the former German Democratic Republic (“East-Germany”), and it was indeed removed during reunification; there is now a new, EU-themed article 23] by the then US state secretary James Addison Baker on July 17th, 1990 at the “Zwei-plus-Vier Konferenz” [“Two-plus-four conference” = Conference between the two former German states, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic - the “Two” - and the former WW2 allies USA, Russia, France and England - the “Four” - about the reunification of Germany] at Paris, the Federal Republic of Germany was incapacitated and effectively terminated. In the BGBl [federal law gazette] on September 28th, 1990 (part II, page 885 and following) this repeal was confirmed. Therefore there is no territory where the German constitution is applicable. Consequently this would - justifiably - put into question all legal foundations for determining or collecting taxes - like the constitution, tax laws and statutes. The sales tax laws and statutes would therefore have no area of validity and also break the “quotation law”, article 19 of the German constitution [which roughly says that every German law that limits basic rights has to name the article of the constitution it is based on].9) The plaintiff also advocates the opinion that the state “Nordrhein-Westfalen” does not exists. There exists no deed of foundation and the state constitution was not confirmed by a plebiscite.10) The plaintiff also alleges that the majority of the notifications by the tax office were not signed and therefore void. That a signature is absolutely necessary results from §126 BGB [“Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch” = Civil law code; §126 deals with signatures for civil legal transactions].11) In addition the plaintiff justifies his charges by referring to a resolution by the “Reich’s Minister of Finances” of the “acting Reich’s government” of the “reich-constitutional nation Second German Reich” on July 7th, 2010 (court file, page 3 and following). This document is confirming that he - the plaintiff - is the current “Reich’s Minister of Economics”, an office holder and state official, who does not fall under the jurisdiction of the “Federal Republic of the reunified German Inc.”. The document also declares that all citizens of the “Second German Reich” are free from taxation until the proclamation of that nation.First of all - Reich’s Minister of Economics, what an honor. If you think that would allow to easily identify the plaintiff than I have to remind you that there were numerous “Reich’s governments” with quickly changing members and some even just sold off certain offices. It might be possible but I actually didn’t try - maybe when I put something together about that specific version of the movement. Some arguments here are classic (signature, deed) while others are specific German (they are at least better than the ones that just got copied from some US/UK schemes, often making no sense for Germany). Generally the hypotheses in this area overestimate the influence of the Allied powers on Germany after 1949 (while, technically, Germany could be considered occupied until 1990, when the two-plus-four treaties not only handled the reunification but also officially ended all influence of the big four, factually the Federal Republic of Germany was an independent country and neither USA, UK nor France had any direct influence on its legislative, executive or judicial system).Here the term “Federal Republic of the reunified German Inc.” slips into the decision, I am pretty sure that’s a term the plaintiff used regularly, maybe even exclusively, expressing that Germany is only a cooperation. Here we see the mix with the more classic OPPT arguments, because the existence of a cooperation does not really follow from the “Germany does not exist” arguments. Is Germany still occupied or a cooperation - take a pick!12) He - the plaintiff - has a justified interest in clarification of those issues, based on the actual legal position determined by a lawful judge according to §16 GVG [“Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz” = judiciary code; §16 basically guarantees everybody a legal judge], who is employed by a “State Court” according to §15 GVG [revoked 1950] conditional upon the rights of the victorious allied powers according to SHAEF article 2 [regulations by the occupying forces in 1945], which he, as a civil servant based on SHAEF 1 and 52 and government official of the reich-constitutional nation “Second German Reich”, is entitled to. Such a clarification has not happened so far but is absolutely necessary, according to the constitutional principles of legal certainty, legal unity and peace under law.13) The plaintiff further clarifies that he expressly agrees to a “Sprungklage” [shortened proceedings, in case both sides agree on the basic facts and just differ on the legal interpretation, I didn’t find the respective english term] according to § 45 FGO [“Finanzgerichtsordnung” = Financial court statutes] to clarify the matter in a hearing. A simple court resolution will not do.Here we have a variation of the “illegal judges” argument, again rooted in the removal of a certain law (always conveniently forgetting that those changes didn’t happen by themselves but were accompanied with other changes and events - article 23 of the constitution, listening German states, was removed, but the argument forgets that at the same time the preamble was changed to, wait for it, list the German states - which wasn't even necessary in the first place, as the court decision later explains - and here § 15 of the judiciary code was removed, supposedly eliminating the legal standing of judges, when this was just cleaning up, removing a term that came from crown courts in the imperial Germany and was no longer in use at the time).We also see the reference to SHAEF “laws” (SHAEF itself is actually just the short form for “Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces”), the regulations set up by the occupying allies in 1945. Some temporary rules were only in power until July 14th, 1945 and replaced at the Potsdamer conference with the Allied Control Commission (which theoretically existed until 1990, but which practically stopped its activities in 1949 when the cold war lead to both sides creating German states in their respective occupying zones). Believing those emergency laws are still in effect allows for the weirdest conclusions.14) The plaintiff moves to:15) 1) determine, that the interference in an international lawsuit constitutes a violation of GG, article 25 [declares that the principles of international law are a part of the national justice system] and that the administration of the Federal Republic of Germany (in this case the tax office) has encroached on an ongoing international lawsuit and therefore has ignored GG article 25.16) 2) determine, that civil servants and conscripted government officials of the reich-constitutional nation Second German Reich are entitled to immunity and that the administration of the Federal Republic of Germany is in an exterritorial relation to civil servants and citizens of the reich-constitutional nation Second German Reich with citizenship from July 22nd, 1913 (BGBl II, page 583 and following) and is therefore not allowed to determine, collect or conduct taxes from them (or otherwise naming a respective legal foundation and law).17) 3) determine, that the income tax laws violate SHAEF 1, the UN resolution 217 A III from December 10th, 1948 [General declaration of human rights] and the EU charta for human rights.18 ) 4) determine, that the sales tax laws violate SHAEF 1, the UN resolution 217 A III from December 10th, 1948 and the EU charta for human rights.19) 5) determine, if the tax statutes in their latest version even took effect (or substantiate that tax statutes and the constitution have an area of validity at all).20) 6) determine, that the sales tax laws violate the “quotation law”, article 19 of the German constitution (or substantiate that the tax statutes, the constitution and the sales tax laws have an area of validity at all).21) 7) determine, that the company “Finance Agency Inc.” arbitrarily redefined income from self-employed activities into commercial income or income from commercial activities.22) 8 ) determine, that the resolution by the “Reich’s Minister of Finances” on July 7th, 2010, has obtained legal force and also determine how it is to be implemented.So the eight motions by the plaintiff are a colorful mix, from almost “normal” issues, like arguing about what type of tax is used for a specific income, to the whacky, when a state financial court is asked to declare the Second German Reich legal and explain how this can best be implemented - on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.Also quite typically, a simple administrative disagreement is immediately escalated to a human rights violation. What about my human rights to not have my taxes pay for such frivolous lawsuits? Oh wait, the plaintiff bears the costs of the process … phew.23) The plaintiff motions to24) dismiss the charges.25) Within his counter statement the plaintiff points out that there were no out-of-court pre-trial proceedings. He therefore assumes a “Sprungklage” according to § 45 FGO and explicitly agrees to that. The plaintiff further points at a decision from June 22nd, 2010 about a sales tax advance payment for the fourth quarter 2009 which was, in a notification from March 16th, 2010, determined in estimation proceedings (including late fees). There he has dealt in great detail with the arguments about the (non-)existence of the Federal Republic of Germany as well as with the legitimization of the state financial administration to determine and collect taxes. 26) The court had a hearing in this case on April 14th, 2015. The decision references the protocols of that hearing.27) Regarding the detailed state of positions and facts the court file references documents and declarations submitted by both sides.So the decision does not have to talk about the (boring) financial facts of the case and can go right into the meat of the delusions - that’s fine by me, too.Reasons:28 ) The suit is, for a number of reasons, inadmissible and in addition, alternatively, arbitrary.The decision almost runs out of different words to call the lawsuit bullcrap. I am pretty sure that in later paragraphs a thesaurus had to help out.29) I) The first senate of the financial court Münster had a hearing on April 14th, 2015, in the composition noted in the records of proceeding, to debate and decide. The judges were, in reference to the person and the case of the plaintiff, legal judges according to article 101 paragraph 1 GG [nobody can be denied a legal judge] and § 16 GVG .30) Addressing the questions that were brought up by the plaintiff during the hearing about the “legitimization” of the court the senate points out the following:31) According to article 92 GG the power of jurisdiction is entrusted to judges, it is executed by the supreme court, constitutional federal courts and courts in each state. The federal legislator has exercised its concurrent legislative power accorded to it by article 74 GG [listing all domains where both state and federal laws can exist, with federal laws overruling state ones] in the area of the judiciary and legal proceedings with the financial court regulations (FGO, October 6th 1965, BGBl I 1965, page 1477, in the version on March 28th, 2001, BGBl I 2001, page 442 and 2262, BGBl I 2002, page 679), which regulate, nation-wide consistently, the creation of separate courts (§ 1 and 2 FGO) for matters named in § 33 FGO. According to § 3 FGO the states decree through laws the creation and organization of financial courts. Based on this the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen has, at first through the law to implement a financial court organization (February 1st, 1966, GV NW 1966 page 732) and later through § 18 “Justizgesetz NRW” [laws for the judicial system in Nordrhein-Westfalen], ordered the creation of the financial courts Düsseldorf, Köln and Münster (Justizgesetz NRW, January 26th, 2010, GV NW 2010 page 30).32) The presidium of the financial court Münster has, as per § 21e paragraph 1 GVG and according to the duty distribution scheme 2015 - published on the internet page of the court - assigned all cases against the plaintiff, as far as they have been introduced after December 31st, 2011, to the first senate. The senate consists of the professional judges listed in the records of proceeding of this decision according to § 14 and 15 FGO as well as the two voluntary judges according to § 16 FGO, listed in the current duty distribution scheme, paragraph C II, which were called in for the hearing. There was no deviating special assignment within the court.33) The repeal of § 15 GVG does not mean that the previous cited regulations have become void or that they are meaningless to the determination of a legal judge. In the judicial system of the Federal Republic of Germany there are no “State courts”, but there are “state-run” courts as per § 92 GG [the difference between “State court” and “state-run” court is clearer and maybe more elegant in the german phrase, with “Staatsgericht” - “State court” an older, more authoritarian meaning and “staatlich” - “state-run” giving a more democratic connotation - more provided by the state than dictated by the state]. The motion by the plaintiff during the hearing to declare that the financial court Münster is a “State court” according to § 15 GVG is therefore vacuous. Beyond that the opinion that “courts in Germany are obviously not State courts and therefore have no area of validity” is incorrect in its legal conclusions (OVG NRW [Supreme Administrative Court in Nordrhein-Westfalen] Decision on February 28th, 2014, 19 E 191/14).Logically, the rebuttal about the “illegal judge” argument comes first, showing very nicely the legal “chain” that leads from the constitution to the individual judge and clarifying why the removal of that one obscure law didn’t collapse the entire legal system.Sadly the idea that judges and other officials and civil servants have no legal foundation and are just cooperate employees that “cheat” the German public has already lead to more than a few frivolous lawsuits. Only a few weeks ago, March 15th, a bailiff was shot while doing his job - facebook comments by German “Reichsbürger”: “That’s how you deal with people that illegally call themselves state officials” (saved posts). This is not an isolated case and the German justice department only a few days ago announced that it will invest in increased security for courts and staff, explicitly pointing at the raising aggressiveness of the “Reichsbürger” movement as a reason.34) II) The suit is inadmissible, because it is misusing the legal system.35) It is a common legal principle that only those are entitled to protection under the law that follow interests worth protecting. Misuse of the legal system, on the other hand, does not deserve or get protection under the law. The common principle, that every court decision bound to a motion requires first the need for legal protection, exists to prevent misuse of judicial rights. It is there to prevent lawsuits where the claimant can not achieve an improvement of his legal position, which makes seeking legal protection useless. Petitions that are based entirely on motives of trouble-making, that are drenched in insults or that for other reasons show no serious interest in the case and that utilize the court's protection by the law for useless, pointless or dishonest reasons, are misusing the legal system (as in FG Köln, decision on September 8th, 2014, 8 K 5803/98; FG Sachsen, decision on March 31st, 2004, 2 K 92/04; FG Brandenburg, decision on August 17th, 2005, 4 K 1739/04; FG Baden-Württemberg, decision on January 21st, 2014, 14 K 160/03; VG Frankfurt, decision in July 12th, 2011, 7 K 626/10; Book References [authors - shortened title]: Tipke/Kruse - AO/FGO; Gräber - FGO7; Kopp/Schenke - VwGO19; Zöller - ZPO29).36) This is the case here too: The written and oral presentation of the plaintiff includes no objective request. In its core he just tries to reason that the Federal Republik of Germany as a nation and Nordrhein-Westfalen as a state do not exist. The plaintiff instead assumes that, as a supposed citizen or civil servant of a reich-constitutional nation Second German Reich he is not bound to the Federal Republic’s legal system and therefore also isn’t governed by the sovereign powers of the Federal Republic of Germany and its states to create tax laws as well as collect and manage tax revenue. Such a plea is absurd and well beyond any (legal) reality. The argument by the plaintiff, he is in an exterritorial relation to the Federal Republic of Germany and the state Nordrhein-Westfalen and therefore to its federal and state authorities (including the state financial administration) is recognisably wrong.37) With the entire content and style of his complaint as well as the oral arguments and written documents he presented during the hearing he positions himself within the context of the so called “Reichsbürger” [“Citizens of the Reich”] movement, which are critical, even hostile, towards the constitution and the legal system of the Federal Republic of Germany and its individual states and are therefore under observation of federal agencies (References: Webpage of the Nordrhein-Westfalen ministry for interior and local affairs; Book References: Rathje - “Wir sind wieder da - Die Reichsbürger: Überzeugung, Gefahren und Handlungsstrategien” [“We are back - Citizens of the Reich: Convictions, Risks and Strategies”]; Schumacher - “Vorwärts in die Vergangenheit - Durchblick durch einige reichsideologische Nebenwände” [“Back into the past - View into some reich-ideological spaces”]).38 ) With the suit’s immanent request for the court to decide about the presented declaratory actions by violating the constitution and the existing legal system the plaintiff crosses the line of what can be considered reasonable, which makes the complaint evidently a misuse of the legal system and therefore it can be dismissed as inadmissible. 39) The legal opinions brought forward in oral arguments and documents by the plaintiff, which deny the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany as a nation, the validity of the constitution or the simple right and legitimization of the acting authorities and courts, are legally absolutely unsupportable, so that a further analysis of the motion by the court doesn’t really seem necessary. The presented views about historic events and political occurrences are not accessible to a legal examination anyway. In light of that the trial senate considered to treat the motion by the plaintiff as a “non-motion” and not schedule a hearing for the case. It is the duty of the judiciary in general and the financial courts specifically to provide citizens with effective and timely legal protection (for example see BFH, decision on November 7th, 2013, X K 13/12). This is made more difficult when the courts have to deal with motions that provide no sensible submission but instead base their arguments by opposing the judicial system, the nation as well as provide absurd political statements. But, as the plaintiff comes before this senate for the first time and the general claim for justice (article 19 paragraph 4 GG) exists independently of the person or the opinions of the citizen looking for legal protection (§ 38 paragraph 1 Deutsches Richtergesetz [German Judges law]), the trial senate decided to accept the suit into the process register, complied with the motion to have a hearing and discussed the eight declaratory actions individually.Here we have an explicit mentioning of the “Reichsbürger” movement, making clear the court knew what they were facing. The court also clarifies that they would not need to go into such detail to dismiss this suit, but I am glad they went the extra mile, had the hearing and rebutted all the weird arguments one by one.And it’s nice to see that “absurd” made it into the text twice.40) III) The suit is inadmissible for another reason. The requirement for legal protection is also missing because by appealing to the court the plaintiff contradicts his own arguments about the non-existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and the powerlessness of the national legal system.41) Protection under the law by the judiciary and therefore by the financial court can only be achieved on the foundation of the constitution and within the framework of the current laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. Only the constitution provides legal protection by courts from actions by the executive branch. A judge, that denies the liberal, democratic, legal and social order by questioning the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany as a nation, the validity of the constitution and the simple rights as well as the legitimization of the acting authorities and courts would have to be disposed from his office (OLG Dresden, decision on December 8th, 2014, 2 AR 37/14). With this in mind the declaratory actions by the plaintiff demand something from the trial senate that is impossible.42) Overall the plaintiff lacks any legal interests in the demanded court decisions that are worth protecting because he calls into doubt the entire legal system of the Federal Republic and therefore the very existence of the judiciary he himself is appealing to. It is very doubtful that the plaintiff will even accept the decision by the financial court. Despite repeatedly presenting arguments about the non-existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and the invalidity of its legal system the plaintiff himself invokes constitutional rights like the right to a legal judge, the right to a fair trial or the “pillars of a nation under law, legal certainty, legal unity and peace under law”. As a result the behavior and the presentation of the plaintiff are an inextricable contradiction (FG Hessen, decision on October 9th, 2013, 4 K 1406/13; FG Brandenburg, decision on August 17th, 2005, 4 K 1739/04; FG Sachsen-Anhalt, decision on March 31st, 2004, 2 K 92/04).Yes, the court noticed the inconsistency of this and other “Reichsbürger” (and other freemen, for that matter), who claim that the state, its administration and its laws do not exists, but are quite happy to accept their existence when it is in their benefit.It is sad but probably true when the court noticed “It is very doubtful that the plaintiff will even accept the decision” as this is the perpetual wheel one is always faced with these believers. Winning would prove that they are right - of course they never win - but losing only proves to them that the conspiracy is powerful, that there are too many sheeps and shills, but that they are still right. 43) IV) The complaint is also inadmissible because the declaratory actions brought forward by the plaintiff didn’t take into account the principle of subsidiarity of the declaratory action (priority of actions for the modification of rights).44) According to § 41 paragraph 1 FGO a motion to determine the existence or non-existence of a legal relation or the invalidity of an administrative act can be demanded, if the plaintiff has a rightful interest into the definition. The determination of the existence or non-existence of a legal relation can not be demanded if the plaintiff can persuse his rights by an action for the modification or the satisfaction of rights (§ 41 paragraph 2 FGO). Thereby it is ensured that the merit requirements of an action for annulment or the issue of an administrative act are not circumvented. On top of that the regulation takes into account that § 41 FGO only supplements the system of actions for the modification or the satisfaction of rights with this regulation to fill a gap in the legal system as a backup. (Book reference: Tipke/Kruse AO/FGO).45) The declaratory actions by the plaintiff could be or could have been (at least predominantly) handled more effectively, but at least in the same way, within the framework of actions for the modification of rights. This is applicable to the question “is the plaintiff subject to the federal taxation and are the complained against tax authorities even allowed to determine and collect taxes” (declaratory action 2 and incidentally 1 and 8, too), as well as to the motion to check the validity of the income tax laws, the sales tax laws, the tax statutes and the commercial tax laws as well as their compatibility with other legal codes (declaratory actions 3 to 6). Even more so this is applicable to the declaratory action 7, the request by the plaintiff to determine the illegality of the redefinition of income from self-employed activities into commercial income, which is inadmissible because against the respective tax assessment (income or commercial tax amount) an action of annulment would be appropriate.While I, more or less, understand the reason behind this argument I admit it’s too “technical” for me to comment on it. I am also not sure I translated everything correctly or even in an understandable manner, this part included the biggest number of terms that I found hard to translate.46)	V) Beyond that the complaint is also unfounded.47) 1) There is no doubt about the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany and its states (in this case Nordrhein-Westfalen) as well as the validity of the constitution and the (simple law) judiciary system.48 ) a) The three elements determining the term nation in international law - “Staatsvolk” [national population], “Staatsgebiet” [national territory] and “Staatsgewalt” [national authority] - all exist in reference to the Federal Republic of Germany. The generally accepted, historically, politically and legally legitimized constitutional foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany, its legal system and its institutions is the “Bonner Grundgesetz” [German constitution; Bonn was the capital of West-Germany while Berlin was still split between East and West, Berlin became capital again with the reunification] from Mai 23rd, 1949 (BGBl I 1949, page 1) in its latest version, modified through article 1 of the law from December 23rd, 2014 (BGBl I 2014, page 2438 ). It is still in effect and after the reunification (even without an immediate plebiscitarian act of legitimization), according to its preamble, it applies to the whole German population of the current national territory within the German states. The legitimacy of the constitution (the “Grundgesetz”) results (also) from the fact that it is in accord with the, in the population predominantly, existing beliefs of values, justice and security and this consensus has been lived by for decades. In the democratic, social, legal and federative nation Federal Republic of Germany the state authority is based on elections and plebiscites by the citizens, executed by the institutions of legislation, executive power and the judiciary system (article 20 GG).49) b) The Federal Republic of Germany is the current German national state. It is identical with the earlier German Reich and is its current legal and actual manifestation. The German Reich in his historical form institutionally collapsed with the unconditional surrender of all forces in May 1945. All still existing authorities and other constitutional structures fell completely apart. In its place, in the periods following, new structures emerged, historically and legally completely legitimized by general elections. Between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German state founded in 1871 exists a political, historical, internationally recognized and nationally legitimized subject identity, although this is only partially true for its territory. This hasn’t changed through the new constitution taking effect. This national identity is documented by retaining the German citizenship in article 116 paragraph 1 and article 16 paragraph 1 GG and therefore preserving the previous national population in the fundamental decision of the “Parlamentarischen Rates” [=”Parliamentary counsel”; temporary political institution initiated by the three western allies and consisting of representatives of all West-German states to organize the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany, it drafted the German constitution and organized the first national election in 1949, after which it disbanded] (refer to BVerfG [supreme court] - decisions on October 23rd, 1952, 1 BvB 1/51; on July 31st, 1973, 2 BvF 1/73; on October 21st, 1987, 2 BvR 373/83, on June 8th, 1990, 2 BvR 1298/85; on September 18th, 1990, 2 BvE 2/90; on October 26th, 2004, 2 BvR 955/00).50) The sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is also expressed in numerous international contracts and treaties, is recognized by the international community of nations as well as in international legal decisions.51) The Federal Republic of Germany in its borders of 1990 is legally and factually the current German national country. There is no other. Neither does the German Reich exists nor any other German country. In the same way there is only one german citizenship. The deviating opinion of the plaintiff, who claims for himself the citizenship of the Second German Reich, claims the status of a state official and Reichs minister of economics, and concludes that this means he is in an exterritorial relation to the Federal Republic of Germany, can not be accepted. The plaintiff thereby blatantly denies (constitutional) reality.52) c) Within the constitutionally defined framework for the German states (preamble and article 28 GG) Nordrhein-Westfalen has its own state constitution. In accordance with the separation of legal authority between federal and state institutions (article 70 and following GG) all states are subject to federal and state law. The view of the plaintiff, the state Nordrhein-Westfalen does not exist because there is no deed of foundation, is wrong. The foundation of a territorial entity is not implemented by a deed but usually by law. The state Nordrhein-Westfalen was under british occupation, created by uniting the former prussian state Westphalia and the northern part of the prussian Rhine Province, expanded in 1947 by the territory of Lippe. Since 1949 it is part of the Federal Republic of Germany. Its legal foundation is the state constitution from June 28th, 1950 (Verf NW, GV NRW 1950, page 127). Its validity is independent from a special plebiscitarian act of legitimization. 53) d) Within the framework of the constitutional foundations of the federal and state constitutions the current laws for financial courts, tax proceedings and material tax statutes have to be applied.54) e) Apart from all that and in reference to the complaints by the plaintiff against the existence and sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany as well as the validity of its constitution and the (simple law) legal system the following decisions are listed as examples: BFH - decision on February 21st, 2002, VII B 281/01; on April 28th, 2010, VI B 167/09; Hessisches FG - decisions on December 12th, 2002, 1 K 2474/02; on October 22nd, 2010, 6 K 134/08; A Duisburg, decisions on January 26th, 2006, 46 K 361/04; VG Braunschweig, decision on February 23rd, 2007, 6 B 413/06; FG Sachsen-Anhalt, decision on July 21st, 2008, 4 K 1741/06; FG Hamburg, decision on April 19th, 2011, 3 K 6/11; FG Berlin-Brandenburg, decision on January 17th, 7 K 7303/11; FG Baden-Württemberg, decision on November 27th, 2013, 4 K 3798/10; OVG NRW decision on February 28th, 2014, 19 E 191/14.55) 2) The core argument provided by the plaintiff, as a reason for the non-existence of the Federal Republic of Germany, that the then US State Secretary James Addison Baker has, on July 17th, 1990, during the “Two-plus-Four” conference in Paris repealed article 23 of the German constitution and therefore the Federal Republic of Germany ceased to exists, because it did no longer have a defined territory, is wrong in several ways.56) The assumption, that the US State Secretary is in fact able or lawfully empowered to order the repeal of an article of the German Constitution, is in itself already completely out of touch with reality (see VG Braunschweig, decision on February 23rd, 2007, 6 B 413/06). The resulting assumption, that the elimination of that article (article 23 GG) would automatically invalidate the entire constitution, resulting in the entire legal system in the Federal Republic of Germany becoming void, is simply bizarre. To counter the lecture of the plaintiff it should be clarified that the Allies themselves obviously didn’t believe in the “elimination” of the Federal Republic of Germany, as otherwise it is hard to explain why, a short time later, they entered into the “Two-plus-Four” treaty with it.As for a legal reasoning, the trial senate points out that article 23 GG was not primarily there to define the territorial area of validity of the constitution, but was, in connection with article 146 GG, there to facilitate a possible future reunification (wording: “applies for now”) [article 23, apart from listening the (West-)German states, was specifically provided to give other German states a way to join the Federal Republic (accepting the German constitution as their own) and was used as such in 1957, when the Saarland joined, and again in 1990 as the base for reunification; it’s removal after that also served to underline to Germany’s neighbours - especially Poland - that it considered itself “complete” and would not look for any more territorial additions]. Beyond that the territorial area of validity of the constitution is sufficiently defined by the title (“Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany”) and its preamble. More importantly, it is taken for granted in international law that constitutions are in force even without listening a territorial area of validity. The majority of constitutions in other European countries and worldwide don’t include any mentioning of their territorial area of validity or at least no exact definition, how the national territory is actually shaped (delimited) - this is, by the way, also true for the “Weimarer constitution” [German constitution of 1919]. One-sided definitions of borders can’t exist in international law simply by the fact that national law has only an “internal” effect and does not influence other sovereign countries. Consequently this means that concrete borders are not legally defined in a constitution but only through international contracts and treaties with the country's neighbours. Finally the view of the plaintiff about the repeal of the constitution as a result of the supposed elimination of article 23 is also, legally, contradicted by the so called “Ewigkeitsgarantie” [“assurance of perpetuity”] in article 79 paragraph 3. Whereupon any change of the constitution that touches upon the division of the country into states, the fundamental participation of the states in the legislative process or the basic principles in articles 1 through 20, would be prohibited.I enjoyed the excursion into the legal and historical elements at the very core of the argument. And how a community of 80 million people with centuries of history in the very heart of Europe don’t depend on a single line of text for the very foundation of its coexistence.But context is always lost in conspiracy theories.57) To the individual declaratory actions by the plaintiff the trial senate (alternatively) adds the following:58 ) 1) The declaratory action stating that the interference in an international lawsuit constitutes a violation of GG, article 25 and that the administration of the Federal Republic of Germany has encroached on an ongoing international lawsuit, cannot be legally handled by financial courts as it doesn’t constitute a public law matter concerning taxes (§ 33 FGO). Apart from that, the court wants to point out that there exists no outstanding international lawsuits against any employee of the charged financial authority. The plaintiff also doesn’t have the power to bring a motion before such an international court. That power is limited to the responsible prosecutor (Head prosecutor).59) 2) The declaratory action stating that civil servants and conscripted government officials of the reich-constitutional nation Second German Reich are entitled to immunity and that the administration of the Federal Republic of Germany is in an exterritorial relation to citizens of the reich-constitutional nation Second German Reich is pointless, because such a nation (Second German Reich) does not exists.60) Besides that, the authority of the state’s financial agencies, (and with that also the local tax offices) to determine and collect taxes, results from article 108 GG and the law about the financial administration (FVG in the version of its announcement April 4th, 2006, BGBl I 2006, page 1202, most recently changed by article 12 of the law on December 22nd, 2014, BGBl I 2014, page 2417).61) In as far as the plaintiff believes the past administrative decisions by the charged tax office to be void for breaking formal rules - especially missing a signature - the trial senate points out that written or electronically issued administrative documents only need to list the issuing office; no signature is necessary for administrative acts that are issued by forms or electronic facilities (§ 119 paragraph 3, 157 AO). The civil law regulations in § 126 BGB are therefore not applicable.62) 3) A violation by the income tax laws in its entirety against higher ranked laws is not apparent for the trial senate. The SHAEF law number 1 mentioned by the plaintiff is not part of the legal system of the Federal Republic.63) 4) A violation by the sales tax laws in its entirety against higher ranked laws is also not apparent for the trial senate. The SHAEF law number 1 mentioned by the plaintiff is not part of the legal system of the Federal Republic.64) 5) The current tax statutes came into effect on January first, 1977 (AO on March 3rd, 1976, BGBl I 1976, page 613), have been rewritten on October 1st, 2002 (BGBl I 2002, page 3866, corrected in BGBl I 2003, page 61) and most recently changed by article 2 of the law on December 22nd, 2014 (BGBl I 2002, page 2417). A violation by the tax statutes in their entirety against higher ranked laws is not apparent for the trial senate. The territorial area of validity of the tax statutes is limited, according to international principles, to the national territory under the authority of the Federal Republic of Germany (Book Reference: Tipke/Kruse, AO/FGO).65) 6) Neither the tax statutes not the sales tax laws are violating the “quotation law”, article 19 paragraph 1 GG. This question has been answered by multiple financial court decisions and was also clarified by the supreme court. As far as tax laws authorize an intrusion into the property sphere of the taxpayer they only constitute regulations about content and limitations of the property rights, which are not subject to the “quotation law” of article 19 paragraph 1 GG. On top of that any violations by individual regulations would only invalidate parts of the respective law but not the law in its entirety (see BFH - decisions on January 9th, 2009, V B 23/08, on April 12th, 2009, XI B 24/08, on Mai 18th, 2011, VII B 195/10, on January 19th, 2012, VI B 98/11, on January 17th, 2013, II E 19/12; FG Hamburg - decision on April 19th, 2011, 3 K 6/11; FG Baden-Württemberg - decision on November 27th, 2013, 4 K 3798/10; FG Berlin-Brandenburg - decision on January 17th, 2013, 7 K 7303/11; BVerfG - decision on October 26th, 2011, 1 BvR 1808/11).66) 7) The motion to determine, that the charged tax office arbitrarily redefined income from self-employed activities into commercial income is already inadmissible because of the priority of actions for the modification of rights (see above IV). In addition to that the plaintiff did not clarify, which type of tax was affected, and over what period. Therefore, because of indeterminacy, the motion can not be decided.67) 8 ) Any kind of resolution by the “Reich’s Minister of Finances” on July 7th, 2010 has neither obtained legal force nor has it any legal effect on anything, as at that time there existed neither a German Reich nor an acting national government, and therefore also no Reich’s Minister of Finances, to pass a resolution with any legal effect.68 ) The suggestion by the plaintiff during the hearing to question the provided witness (the alleged Reich’s Minister of Finances of the alleged Reich’s government of the alleged Second German Reich) was rightfully not seized on by the trial senate. The senate has pointed out several times to the plaintiff that the documents about the first instance decisions are available to the court in multiple copies. The legal interpretation of these decisions (especially the question, if and what legal effects these decisions have) is not part of the evaluation of the facts, but is part of the legal evaluation by the court. There was therefore no reason to hear that evidence.The individual take-downs of the eight suits was almost anti-climactic after dealing with the big issue of Germany’s existence. It's basically like dropping the mike after destroying your opponent. 69) VII) The decisions about fees is based on § 135 paragraph 1 FGO.70) VIII) The appeal could not be approved. The case has neither essential importance nor does it need a decision by the federal financial court to further educate the law or secure a uniform interpretation of it.Well, there you go, congratulations if you read through all of this. I admit I underestimated the effort in this, translating 15 pages of legal talk and bringing it into a presentable form. The last few days I didn’t even have time to check the flat earth forums for some light entertainment.
Postby The Observer » Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:01 pm Thanks, Seelenblut, for reporting on the spread of Freemanism to the continent of Europe. And as well, you have provided another entry into our Sovrun Thesaurus: "Reichsburgers". Of course here in the US, that might be a good name for a new fast food business.
Postby grixit » Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:22 pm “Sprungklage” would translate into english usage as "stipulation". Example: "Defendants stipulate that they were inside the bank waving guns, but deny they were engaged in a robbery".I'm a little confused though, by the use of the term "Second German Reich". In history, that would be the country created by Bismark. I'm pretty sure it levied taxes and had strict responses to people that didn't pay. Why not go back further, and claim that your house is one of the pocket kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire?Finally, let me add to the appreciation for all your hard work. This decision just might turn out to be the german Meads.
notorial dissent	A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth	Posts: 9401	Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm	Re: Germany - Citizens of the Reich
Postby notorial dissent » Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:36 pm Yes, as a point of order, the Second Reich did in fact have quite a well developed, and in my opinion, and expensive tax system for the ENTIRE populace, up to and including the Kaiser. At one point Krupp and the Kaiser were two of the largest payers of tax. So I don't think your Reichsbürgers have much of a legal leg to stand on there. I always love sovcit comedy, even when it is in German.
Postby Dr. Caligari » Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:50 pm The Observer wrote:Thanks, Seelenblut, for reporting on the spread of Freemanism to the continent of Europe. And as well, you have provided another entry into our Sovrun Thesaurus: "Reichsburgers". Of course here in the US, that might be a good name for a new fast food business.A Reichsburger is served with Muenster cheese and hot mustard, nicht wahr?
JamesVincent	A Councilor of the Kabosh	Posts: 2644	Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am	Re: Germany - Citizens of the Reich
Postby JamesVincent » Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:55 pm Queensryche wrote:In the dead of nightShe'll come and take you awaySearing beams of light and thunderOver blackened plainsShe will find her wayFlying high through the nightShe will hide your fateAs she takes your soul from underAnd the blinding light of the castle fadesThere is no escapeIt's the ending of your precious lifeYour soul slipped awayIt belongs to the Queen of the ReichThe Queen of the ReichYeah she's coming for youYou're fading awayYour life cast astrayA victim the beast shall obtainThe light will not shineFor you'll die tonight at her shrineAnd black is the last thing you'll seeOver and overDreams of dying fill your headIt's the sign of the crossThat you'll find aheadNo one will answerThe light is fading awayCaptive souls are screaming out in painThere is no escapeIt's the ending of your precious lifeYour soul slipped awayIt belongs to the Queen of the ReichYou're fading away, No, No, NoThe Queen of the ReichYou're slipping away, yeahThe Queen of the Reich
Postby The Observer » Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:23 am Dr. Caligari wrote:The Observer wrote:Thanks, Seelenblut, for reporting on the spread of Freemanism to the continent of Europe. And as well, you have provided another entry into our Sovrun Thesaurus: "Reichsburgers". Of course here in the US, that might be a good name for a new fast food business.A Reichsburger is served with Muenster cheese and hot mustard, nicht wahr?I wish I was a commercial artist; I have this vision of a Reichsburger franchise with a mascot of a World War soldier with a burger stuck on the spike of his pickelhaube.
Postby Seelenblut » Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:19 am Reichsburger - only the best German "Rindvieh" (which literally translates to "cattle", but in Germany and Austria is also a term used to call someone very, very stupid)
Doxxer	Tourist to Quatloosia	Posts: 2	Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:14 pm	Re: Germany - Citizens of the Reich
Postby Doxxer » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:38 pm grixit wrote:“Sprungklage” would translate into english usage as "stipulation". Example: "Defendants stipulate that they were inside the bank waving guns, but deny they were engaged in a robbery".No. It translates in "Jump-Suit" (funny, isn´t it) and means that you jump one round in the judicial fight - instead of seeking first administrative relief you sue directly (§ 45 FGO).
Postby Doxxer » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:57 pm Dr. Caligari wrote:A Reichsburger is served with Muenster cheese and hot mustard, nicht wahr?/offtopicThe city of Münster - where this financial court is seated - is the old capital of Westphalia. Their culinary specialities are the "Altbier" (a top-fermented beer) and the "Töttchen" - a sort of ragout made traditionally from the flesh of a calvs-head. The name "Töttchen" derives from the french "t´e`te". And there is of course the famous "Westfälische Schinken". But no famous cheese in "Münster in Westfalen" - the official name.The "Münster Cheese" is produced in the Münster (Munster) Valley in Alsace. If you get the chance, try a very ripe raw-milk Münster Cheese with a bottle of dry Gewürztraminer, preferably on a sunny afternoon on the banks of the Ill in Straßburg (Strassbourg). Life can be so good.