Article 3 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Equal rights)                                           (1)    All persons are equal before the law.                                                                      (2)   Men and women have equal rights.                                                                        (3)   No one may be prejudiced or favored because of his sex,                                      his parentage, his race, his language, homeland and origin, faith or                    religious or political opinions.

Article 17 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Requests and complaints)          Everyone has the right individually or with others to address written requests or complaints to the competent authorities and to the representative assemblies.

Article 19 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Recourse open)                                 (4)   Should any person’s right be violated by public authority, recourse to            the court shall be open to him or her. If no other jurisdiction has been              established, recourse shall be as orderly provided.

Article 93 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Jurisdiction)                                      (1)   The Bundesverfassungsgericht decides:                                                                   4a   on complaints of unconstitutionality, which may be entered by any                 person who claims that one of his or her basic rights or one of his or                 her rights under paragraph (4) of Article 20 or under Articles 33,                     38, 101, 103 or 104 has been violated by public authority.

Article 101 Deutsches Grundgesetz (No extraordinary courts)           (1)   Extraordinary courts are inadmissible. No one may be removed from              the jurisdiction of his or her lawful judge.

Article 103 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Hearing in the courts)                  (1)   In the courts everyone is entitled to a legal hearing.

NOTE:  You can see the words “under paragraph (4) of Article 20″ above which have also been unlawfully inserted into Article 93 GG. These “judges” claim to protect an additional “right” with their “paragraph (4),” but they, in fact, use it only to eliminate the German Constitution. This is why the procedure prescribed by the “basic rights” above is not enforced and how these “judges” quietly claim that “basic rights,” (i.e., Germany’s Constitution/”Basic Law”), no longer exist. Please see German text of the procedure above in “dieses Grundgesetzes“.Germany’s Basic Law very clearly includes “basic rights” for legal recourse, i.e., in a court that always has “jurisdiction”. According to “the constitutional order” cited in Article 20 paragraph (3) GG, which includes Articles 17 GG and other “basic rights,” complaints must be addressed to “competent” authorities, i.e., all “complaints of unconstitutionality” directly to the Bundesverfassungsgericht. Jurisdiction for “complaints of unconstitutionality” against “public authorities” has obviously been established in the procedure prescribed by “this Basic Law”.There is no tolerance within “this Basic Law,” within “this European Conference on Human Rights,” within “this Treaty of Lisbon Charter” or the UN Universal  Declaration of Human Rights for the words “this constitutional order” which in practice displace the law. But that is exactly what “public authorities” within Germany and the European Court of Human Rights do with “paragraph (4).” These “judges” use their “paragraph (4)” to willfully and secretly violate all the “basic principles” of democracy, i.e., willfully violate the Rule of Law.

NOTE:  Where the Rule of Law requires “complaints of unconstitutionality” be directly addressed to the Bundesverfassungsgericht, then all the “judges” in the  Bundesverfassungsgericht are required to fulfill all their obligations (“duty”) in accordance with the procedure above, i.e., the Bundesverfassungsgericht must be “open,” afford an “entitled legal hearing” and make consequent decisions in accordance with the law, i.e., a judicial decision. Recourse not in accordance with the procedure prescribed above does not provide “an effective remedy.”

The “basic right” to legal recourse (to obtain “an effective remedy”) is, itself, a “basic right”. Germany’s Basic Law specifically says so in this procedure above, a procedure that cannot possibly include “paragraph (4).” It is the antithesis of democracy and only deprives the German people and others of all “basic rights”. Human rights only provide their “remedy” if the “public authorities” are acting in accordance with the specific procedure provided to enforce and apply the “basic rights”. The “public authorities” that do not apply them violate their duty.

“This Basic Law” and European Convention on Human Rights very clearly say that “national authorities,” including “judges” in the Bundesverfassungsgericht, do not have any authority to override “the constitutional order”. In other words the “national authorities” are not allowed at any time to put themselves above the law. They are employed (paid) to act under the law and willful violations of the “essential contents” of “basic rights” are nothing other than willful breaches of security—attacking  “the free democratic basic order” (Germany and the EU).

Article 18 Deutsches Grundgesetz states in part as follows:                        Whoever abuses freedom to attack the free democratic basic order,     forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced        by the Federal Constitutional Court.

Article 19 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Essential contents of rights)          (2)  In no case may a basic right be infringed upon in its essential content.

Articles 18 and 19 paragraph 2 GG (above) are also “basic rights” that the German people have estalbished to protect “the free democratic basic order,” the existence and security of Germany, and if these “basic rights” were enforced there would be far fewer complaints of unconstitutionality. But it is because these “public authorities” are violating all the “essential contents” of numerous “basic rights” that numerous “complaints of unconstitutionality” are filed in the Bundesverfassungsgericht. But this court refuses to decide on these complaints.

Article 19 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Naming of rights restricted)               (1)  Insofar as under this Basic Law a basic right may be restricted by or                 pursuant to a law, the law must apply generally and not solely to an                   individual case. Furthermore the law must name the basic right,                         indicating the Article.

Article 19 paragraph (1) GG (above) is also a “basic right” that is daily violated. Obviously, many “judges”  in the Bundesverfassungsgericht do not believe these “basic rights” have any relevance in Germany. The fact that “public authorities” do not name the “basic rights” they claim to “restrict” is only more evidence that they disrespect human rights (“basic rights”) and the authority (Sovereignty) of the German people—not giving the people any indication of their arbitrary acts, only willfully betraying the people’s trust—implementing informal laws.

Article 104 paragraph (1) GG (below) is also a “basic right” necessary to obtain “an effective remedy” and says that “only on the basis of a formal law,” (i.e., a law that is “subject to the constitutional order”), may a freedom be restricted. Articles 1, 20 paragraph (3) and 79 GG make this very clear. There is nothing in the law that allows the “public authorities” to “restrict” the freedom to obtain legal recourse and “an effective remedy” within the “jurisdiction,” (i.e., within the “competence”), of the Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe.

Article 104 Deutsches Grundgesetz                                                                   (1)  The freedom of the individual may be restricted only on the                                 basis of a formal law and only with due regard to the                                                forms prescribed therein.

Note:   There are “laws”  being used which have no “forms prescribed therein.”

Because Articles 1 and 13 ECHR also specifically provide for the “basic right” for legal recourse and “an effective remedy,” and because “national authorities” in Germany are obviously not securing this “basic right”—violating Germany’s Basic Law and the European Convention Human Rights—the European Court of Human Rights should have acknowledged in its 26 May 2011 “decision” that the alleged and obvious violations being committed by “public authorities” (seen in File No. 2341/11) are not based on “formal laws,” but on unconstitutional laws.

NOTE: Please see German texts of these Articles in “dieses Grundgesetzes“. Also, please see File No. 2341/11 including Ugly Wolves, all of which were denied for decisions by the Bundesverfassungsgericht and the European Court of Human Rights—both courts willfully violating numerous human rights.

They disrespect the Sovereignty (absolute authority) of the German people and the acknowledgement of human rights—have been surreptitiously violating “the constitutional order” and “basic principles” of Germany’s Constitution for over 43 years

They disrespect human rights and democracy—have been stealthily violating “the constitutional order” of Germany’s Constitution and international treaties for over 43 years, willfully and routinely violating all of the “basic principles” of freedom and democracy, committing fraud on the German people and others, stealing the taxpayers’ money while obfuscating the democratic rule of law and conspiring against the people: Usurping all state authority.

These pictures below are not evidence of the war against “terrorism,” but of an illegitimate “State government” within Germany and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that have been covertly and routinely violating the will of the German people for 43 years, i.e., unlawful surveillance against the German people and others. This shows that the “police” unlawfully seized my computer, passwords and data without a court order… with the tacit approval of the “two other branches of state” and the European Court of Human Rights.

This blog is in progress. Please check back for additional content.

——–
All the three organs of the government are willfully alienating Article 18 GG, refusing to enforce it. Article 18 GG is a “human right” intended by “the people” to protect individuals and the nation from abusive authorities. In fact, it is while Article 18 GG and numerous other human rights are being alienated by all the three organs of the government, (i.e., conspiring), that the authority of “the people” is being stealthily and covertly usurped—alienating “the people.” These illegitimate institutions do not protect anyone, but themselves—attacking “the free democratic basic order”—attacking the democratic rule of law.

The evidence presented here reveals that many “judges” are betraying the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union (EU), without respect for the democratic rule of law.

These illegitimate “State authorities” and the European Court of Human Rights unlawfully claim immunity while willfully violating the democratic rule of law. They deny “the people” their say in the government and know that human rights for legal recourse and an effective remedy are to protect the people — without these rights the people do not even have the right to life — dead men do not have an effective remedy. And this is why the people also have the right to be protected from the prejudice of “State authorities,” usually acted out in secret, but violating “the law” more and more boldly with unconstitutional legislation.

It has been alleged in the Bundesverfassungsgericht, (i.e., in Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court), and in the European Court of Human Rights (as is seen in File No. 2341/11) that “national authorities” within Germany, including the Bundesverfassungsgericht, do not enforce “human rights” for legal recourse and an effective remedy and, instead, willfully violate the procedure prescribed by Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 20, 24, 79, 93, 101, 103, 146, and other rights, all being  in “this Basic Law,” in the ECHR, in the Treaty of Lisbon Charter of Human Rights, and in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 146 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Duration) (Amended 1990)
This Basic Law, which is valid for the entire German people following        the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany, shall cease to be        in force on the day on which a constitution adopted by a free decision           of the German people comes into force.

Below is the text of Article 146 GG before it was said to have been amended.

Article 146 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Duration)                                                          This Basic Law is valid and in force until the day that a constitution                         adopted by a free decision of the German people comes into force.

NOTE:  The words “this Basic Law” are very easily read in Article 146 GG. Please See the German text of Article 146 GG in “dieses Grundgesetzes.

Why was “this Basic Law” (Article 146 GG) amended upon reunification of Germany instead of the formal enactment of a “constitution”? You should be able to answer this question after you have read the following.

NOTE:  Please see the “Rule of Law,” as defined by the United Nations, which includes the basic principle of the “separation of powers,” as Article 20 GG does.

NOTE:  The term basic law is an alternative to “constitution,” implying it is a temporary measure given to have constitution powers and effect without the formal enactment of a “constitution,” i.e., is of an interim or transitional nature. In West Germany the term basic law (Grundgesetz) was used to indicate that “this Basic Law“ was provisional until the ultimate reunification of Germany.

NOTE: The term basic law is an alternative to “constitution,” implying it is a temporary measure given to have constitution powers and effect without the formal enactment of a “constitution,” i.e., is of an interim or transitional nature. In West Germany the term basic law (Grundgesetz) was used to indicate that “this Basic Law“ was provisional until the ultimate reunification of Germany.

NOTE:  A treaty that establishes an international organization is also a nation’s constitution in that it defines how that organization is, in fact, constituted.

“The constitutional order” of Article 20 paragraph (3) GG is very easy to read and understand in context with “this Basic Law” as read in Article 79 GG. “The constitutional order” of “this Basic Law” is the German people as they proclaimed on May 23rd, 1949 and went into force the following day. And “the constitutional order” of Article 20 paragraph (3) GG is in force today. Therefore, the “order” claimed and practiced by “State authorities” today, (i.e., the “order” which is obviously not subject to Article 20 paragraph (3) GG), is nothing other than an illegitimate government acting far outside the law.

NOTE: Prior to 1990 the words “this basic law” (“dieses Grundgesetzes”) seen in Article 79 paragraph (3) GG above were used to indicate that it was provisional until the ultimate reunification of Germany. Upon reunification these words continued as an alternative to “constitution” (“Verfassung”). This is why the words “the constitutional order” appear in Article 20 paragraph (3) GG above, i.e., in context meaning “the constitutional order” of “this basic law.” In any case “this Basic Law” has always formally defined the German people as a sovereign nation. “The German people are the absolute authority in Germany. A treaty establishing an international organization is also a nation’s constitution in that it defines how that organization is constituted.

NOTE:  It is not possible for “the people,” as defined in “this Basic Law”, to act as illegitimate “State authorities,” i.e., “the people” are “this Basic Law.” Thus, it is not possible for “State authorities,” (i.e., the three organs of government), and European Court of Human Rights to lawfully claim to respect “human rights” while willfully violating the democratic rule of law. Such “authorities,” in fact, do not represent “the people” or the European Union (EU), but are fraudulently claiming immunity while attacking “the people.” By not acknowledging the democratic rule of law, these “authorities” legislate their unlawful laws at whim.

nor the “European Court of Human Rights,” to justifiably claim to respect “human rights” while willfully violating the democratic rule of law. Such “authorities,” in fact, do not represent “the people” or European Union (EU), but are fraudulently claiming immunity while attacking “the people.” “Authority” that does not acknowledge the democratic rule of law is nothing other than illegitimate. legislating unlawful “law” at whim.

It is not possible for “the people,” as defined in “this Basic Law,” to act as illigitimate authorities. illegitimately, i.e., “the people” are “this Basic Law” and the “State authorities” violating  Therefore, the “State authorities” which are claiming to respect “human rights” while they are attacking the democratic rule of law. “State authorities” that willfully violate the rule of law prove themselves to be nothing other than illegitimate.

Prior to 1990 “this Basic Law“ (“dieses Grundgesetzes“) as seen in Article 79 paragraph (3) GG, implied that it was provisional until the ultimate reunification of Germany. Thereafter, these words were used as an alternative to “constitution“ (“Verfassung“). It was with the anticipated reunification of Germany and a new constitution that the people in West Germany had the words “the constitutional order“ provided in Article 20 paragraph (3) GG, i.e., “the constitutional order“ of “this Basic Law.“

NOTE:  A treaty establishing an international organization is also a nation’s “constitution” in that it defines how that organization is constituted.

The fact is that the majority of “judges” in Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) claim that their “decisions” have annulled “the constitutional order“ of “this Basic Law.”  In fact, their “decisions” have, in practice, annulled Germany’s “Basic Law” entirely—eliminating the nominative value of Articles 1, 20 and 79 GG. Instead of upholding (enforcing) “the constitutional order” of “this Basic Law“ as a “basic principle” in Article 20 GG, these “judges” claim that they have added “paragraph (4)” to Article 20 GG with the words “this constitutional order.” It reads as follows:

and as one of “the basic principles” specified by Article 79 GG stipulates that “legislation,” including amendments, not subject to “the constitutional order” of “this Basic law” is, in fact, not legislation. Article 79 GG also specifies that an amendment of “this Basic Law” affecting “the constitutional order” of “this Basic Law” is “inadmissible.” And it is a matter of law that unconstitutional “legislation” is void from the beginning.

including “an amendment”/”supplement” to “this Basic Law” must be subject to “the constitutional order” of “this Basic Law.” If not, it is not legislation. These are two of “the basic principles” of which Article 79 paragraph (3) GG says that an amendment affecting them is “inadmissible”. It is a matter of law that an unconstitutional “amendment”/”supplement” is void from the beginning.

NOTE:  A “supplement” eliminating the nominative value of “this Basic Law” is not a “supplement,” but an amendment that supplants “this Basic Law”.

The words “the constitutional order” are easy to see and read in their context in Article 20 paragraph (3) GG above, and with Article 79 paragraph (3) GG mean “the constitutional order” of “this Basic Law,” which the German people have been declaring publicly since May 23, 1949. It is also a fact of the law that Article 20 paragraph (3) GG says legislation, (e.g., an amendment), is subject to “the constitutional order” of “this Basic Law,” otherwise is not legislation. Furthermore, Article 79 paragraph (3) GG says that this is one of “the basic principles.”

The term basic law is an alternative to “constitution,” implying that it is a temporary measure given to have constitution powers and effect without the formal enactment of a “constitution,” i.e., of an interim or transitional nature. In West Germany the term “Basic Law” (“Grundgesetz”) was used to indicate that it was provisional until the ultimate reunification of Germany. However, upon the reunification of German territories in 1990 “State authorities” did not transition to the term “constitution” (“Verfassung”), but instead chose to continue with “this Basic Law” (“Grundgesetz”) seen in an amendment of Article 146 GG below.

Article 146 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Duration) (Amended 1990)
This Basic Law, which is valid for the entire German people following        the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany, shall cease to be        in force on the day on which a constitution adopted by a free decision           of the German people comes into force.

NOTE:  The words “this Basic Law” are again very easy to see and to read within Article 146 GG, and although the words “this Constitution” are not being used, “this Basic Law,” in fact, has constitution powers and the effect of a formal constitution of the German people, i.e., is their formal identity as a nation. Please see the German text of Article 146 GG in “dieses Grundgesetzes.“

The words “the constitutional order” are very easy to see and to read within Article 20 paragraph (3) GG above, and with Article 79 paragraph (3) GG mean “the constitutional order” of “this Basic Law.” And this is, in fact, one of “the basic principles” within Article 20 GG as specified in Article 79 GG above. Also, it is a fact that Article 79 GG is part of “the constitutional order” and with Article 20 paragraph (3) GG requires all legislation, including amendments, to be “subject to the constitutional order,” otherwise it is not legislation. Obviously, unconstitutional (“inadmissible“) legislation is null and void from the beginning.

i.e., “the basic rights” that bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as “directly enforceable law.” But traitorous “State authorities” are abusing these “rights” and “freedoms” “in order to attack the free democratic basic order.”

Article 18  Deutsches Grundgesetz (Forfeiture of rights)
Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5 paragraph 1), freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9),             the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10),          property (Article 14), or right of asylum (Article 16 paragraph 2)                     in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these               basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by                           the Federal Constitutional Court.

NOTE:   Article 18 GG and the others there are “basic principles” (“basic rights”), all of them clearly cited in Articles 1 and 79 GG as “directly enforceable law.”

NOTE: Article 1 paragraph (3) GG very clearly says, “The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law.” Article 20 paragraph (3) GG in no uncertain terms says, “Legislation is subject to the constitutional order; the executive and the judiciary are bound by the law.” “This Basic Law” and the international treaties agreed to are “the law.”

It is a fact of the law that an amendment of “this Basic Law” that is not subject to “the constitutional order” of “this Basic Law“ is “inadmissible,” because it is not from the German people. Article 20 paragraph (2) GG very clearly says, “All state authority emanates from the people.” Why would the German people pay “State authorities” if not to do the Sovereign will of the German people?

The unlawful “legislation” is not only from the “legislature”. The “executive organ” pushes for it and in 1970 “judges” in the Federal Constitutional Court did not decide whether or not it was constitutional, i,e., whether it was subject to “the constitutional order” of “this Basic Law.” Instead, they arbitrarily conformed their “decision” to it—conspiring in unconstitutional “legislation”. Additionally, “judges in Senate 2″ of the Federal Constitutional Court, with the “executive” have made “inadmissible” amendments to “this Basic Law” without the “legislature,” i.e., additionally obstructing and obfuscating  “this Basic Law”.

NOTE: The term basic law is an alternative to “constitution,” implying that it is a temporary measure given to have constitution powers and effect without the formal enactment of a “constitution,” i.e., of an interim or transitional nature. In West Germany the term “Basic Law” (“Grundgesetz”) was used to indicate that it was provisional until the ultimate reunification of Germany. However, upon the reunification of German in 1990 the “State authorities” did not transition to the term “constitution” (“Verfassung”), but apparently continued with the words “this Basic Law” (“Grundgesetz”) as seen below:

Article 146 Deutsches Grundgesetz (Before reunification)                 This Basic Law is valid and in force until the day that a constitution                  adopted by a free decision of the German people comes into force.

Article 146 Deutsches Grundgesetz (After reunification)
This Basic Law, which is valid for the entire German people following        the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany, shall cease to be        in force on the day on which a constitution adopted by a free decision           of the German people comes into force.

NOTE:  The words “this Basic Law” in Article 146 GG above are easy to read and understand in their context, and although the term “constitution” is not used, “the constitutional order of “this Basic Law,” in fact, has constitution powers and effect that “inadmissible” (unconstitutional) amendments do not. Please see the German text of Article 146 GG in “dieses Grundgesetzes.”

NOTE:  In Article 20 paragraph (3) GG the German people declare the words “the constitutional order,” because there is only one “constitutional order,” i.e., “the constitutional order” of “this Basic law.” But “paragraph (4)” has the word “this”  in “this constitutional order” and is not of “this Basic Law, but of an extra-constitutional order intended to supplant “this Basic Law.”

NOTE:  There are not four “organs” in the government that is clearly defined in Article 20 GG above. The political parties are not a fourth “organ” in Germany, but  are in the legislative organ and are under the legal obligation (“the duty”) to do the will of the German people. In other words, there is no indication within “this Basic Law” allowing political parties to usurp the Sovereignty of Germany.

not “the”, but “this”. which in practice with their many other unlawful “amendments” displaces the nominative value of Germany’s Basic Law.

These “State authorities” are illegitimate, because they claim “state authority” from their extra-Basic Law, i.e., it is unlawful legislation which the German people are not aware of and, therefore, is obviously not authority of the German people. These illegitimate “State authorities,” in fact, claim supremacy over the German people—robbing them of their Sovereignty.