The Berlin Declaration

The Berlin Declaration clearly states: for us, the individual is paramount. His dignity is inviolable. his rights are inalienable.

I have evidence to prove that this statement is incorrect, and we seem to think that because it is declared that the right of man is inalienable, and his dignity is inviolable, that there is no way that anything could happen in the EU, to question this declaration.

I took a case against my government employer, and I was set-up in a totally rigged court, in which I was represented by a lawyer who said nothing, bar say his name, I had never met this man before. He was a replacement for my solicitor. who decided to go on leave at short notice, although he had destroyed the employers' defence in a letter he sent to the court 10 days prior to the hearing. This letter was not produced in court by the stand-in solicitor.

Due to the fact this stand-in solicitor was saying nothing, I tried to ask a question which would have destroyed the employers' defence. The judge duly paused the recording device, wound it back, and taped over what I had said. She then turned towards the employers' bench, so her back was towards me, making it clear I was to have no input in the proceedings.

Does this statement so far prove that I had rights within the Berlin Declaration, or for that matter, the Treaty of Amsterdam?

As a result of this rigged court, which was obviously decided in favour of the employer, because the authorities were determined there was going to be no other result, a verdict was issued that no one can agree with. Not even the employer did when asked in writing, how is it possible for one of my colleagues to walk to work 91kms, carry out a 12 hr shift, and then presumably walk home the same distance. This gave the employer the right reply to this question, by saying that it does not matter where an employee lives in your trade, he does not get shift allowances.

Could anyone explain how the employer can deny the grounds they won the case on, when the verdict was legally binding on them?

Surely in anyone's terms the employer has admitted to lying in court, and would you not consider that I, therefore, had justifiable grounds to appeal. The appeal was also blocked by lawyers who were wilfully doing the governments' dirty work, when all that was required, was one simple question to reverse the decision.

This proves that I was not treated as being equal before the law, because due to this court hearing, equality must mean that nothing can be said in court, except the names of the attendees. Then we must admit that this makes going to court pretty worthless?

So why did I bother taking my employer to court if I wanted nothing said on my behalf? A defendant has the right to remain silent but it goes beyond belief that the plaintiff should want to remain silent!

Oh to be treated with DIGNITY, to have INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and be recognised as a PERSON before the law.


Michael can be contacted here.