Michael Winston Smith

I was employed as a security guard at JHQ Mönchengladbach, Germany, by the British Army, from January 1990, until I was dismissed in March 2004.

Because of the nature of the dispute and, the way it was handled by both Governments, I was deliberately blocked from furthering the case through the normal legal system.

Initially my problem was an employment issue. But due to the illegal actions of my solicitor, both Governments and the way the court was convened, it became a matter of upholding democracy, the right to fair legal representation and not least, the defence of basic Human Rights.

This basic right is denied in Germany, in civil cases against the Government, which they do not want to lose, with the use of the Law on Legal Advice 13^th December 1935. Because of both Governments’ use of this law and its notorious past, I have been blocked through normal Democratic channels, being denied the basic right to legal representation. In the first instance my lawyers lied to me and deliberately lost the case. When they realised I had worked out these solicitors betrayal of me, other lawyers just refused to speak to me. This in effect killed off the case because of time limits, which were used illegally, for this purpose.

I was victimised and threatened, in an attempt to make me give up my basic democratic right to be treated as an equal before the law.

Initially, work related problems escalated in July 2000 when I obtained a copy of the contract of employment in English, which originates from 1967. It was hardly legible, because little of it related to the work we did. It was drawn up by NATO in politically very sensitive times as to security staff working shifts. I discovered that I was entitled to shift allowances, which were never paid, even though I had asked both the Works Council and my employer about this on numerous occasions. Having a copy of the contract in English to refer to bought either refusals to answer questions, or, 'blatantly ridiculous answers'. This left me with no other path, than to take legal advice and put the matter before a Court.

NB: The employers' excuse for not paying shift allowances, which they had to uphold in Court, was "because I could walk to work some 300mtrs and I lived within the Territory of the Base, I did not qualify for shift payments."

My colleagues lived up to 91kms from their place of employment, which no one can suggest is possible to walk to work. They also did not live within the Territory of the Base, which did not help their defence. These colleagues living outside the base were not paid shift allowances, even though this judgment must have meant they were entitled to these payments. One year later, I put a question to the MoD(UK) in London, asking them to specify a suitable distance from their place of work that an employee must live, above which those employees could claim shift payments. Their reply was that it is irrelevant where we live in relation to entitlement to shift payments. This totally contradicts the judgment, which was legally binding on the employer, and proves without doubt, that I should have won in the first instance and, I was fully justified in attempting an appeal.

It was obvious that this defence was never going to stand up to scrutiny in a fair hearing, and I was not totally relying on my lawyer to plead my case. The authorities hastily decided to fix what was to be the final hearing, as they saw I had attended on my own. This effectively blocked my case, and prevented me from going to the court for the 2nd Instance.

My original solicitor, Mr. Gilleßen did not attend the court on Friday 27^th July 2001. I was instead represented by a Mr. Krapohl, whom I had never met before and who, incidentally, was not qualified in employment law. Mr. Krapohl said precisely nothing to plead my case; he only announced his name.

The judge Ms. Barth, who was also new to the case allowed Mr. Krapohl to remain silent and she refused to acknowledge me, when I asked a question. She paused the recording device and wound it back, to tape over what I had said. Judge Barth made it quite clear that I was to be allowed no input in the proceedings, by turning to the employer's bench and showing her back to me. The plaintiff is apparently not allowed to speak in German courts, if they have a lawyer with them, even if their solicitor says nothing. This conveniently blocks the case of the plaintiff if the authorities so require, as was in my situation.

It is ridiculous that I should have taken a case to Court, and that I should want nothing said to plead my case.

The employer won the case on this ridiculous defence, whereas I could have won easily, if only the lawyer sat beside me had opened his mouth and, had stated the obvious. My original lawyer had written to the court and my employer, 10 days prior to the hearing, outlining the points on which I would win the case, this evidence was not used to present my case by the stand-in solicitor, whom I had never met before. I was not sent a copy of this letter at the time; I discovered it some time later in the file he had sent to Dr. Huppertz, who deliberately blocked my appeal. In this letter, Herr Gillessen my original lawyer, made it clear amongst other points, that where I lived had nothing to do with the right to shift payments.

I tried to lodge the appeal immediately, with Dr. Huppertz, even before the judgment had been published. Dr. Huppertz agreed to represent me straightaway, even though he had not seen the judgment. He wrote confirming this.

A month or so later when Dr. Huppertz had returned from leave and having studied the judgment, he wrote again saying he could see no way I could win the case and, therefore, he was backing out. He agreed to lodge the appeal but I would have to be represented by another lawyer.

I tried to find another solicitor within the period of appeal, without success: They refused to represent me, preferring to defend the wrong doing of the state and, therefore, denying Democracy.

I later discovered that Dr. Huppertz worked in co-operation with the firm of solicitors contracted to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) United Kingdom, in Germany. This fact is on Dr. Huppertz's letter heading. He did not disclose this vested interest to me at any time.

Being forced out of the period of appeal, effectively, killed off any chance of taking the case further, which I now know was exactly what the authorities wanted, because losing was going to prove costly, and "the parties knew they had illegally fixed the Court".

I persisted in my attempts to gain the right to justice and a fair hearing. This led to my being threatened by a British Army Officer, Major Mark Gore, who gave me an illegal written warning, which was later admitted in writing by his immediate superior as being incorrect.

As a result of continuous investigation, I discovered that the German Government uses a law which was first used by Adolf Hitler, to deny any citizen the right to challenge the Government in Court.

The Law on Legal Advice, originating from 13th December 1935.

This law makes sure that the judiciary and lawyers do the will of the Government and it ensures the citizen has no right to win, contrary to the Constitution. It also allows the convening of illegal courts if the Government so requires. It was obviously originally written to make sure that no one could challenge the Hitler regime through the courts.

The German Government allegedly maintains that this law is still in force today, as it now guarantees the client (citizen) the best legal advice possible, as only lawyers are permitted to give advice on such matters.

I knew my employer was desperate to dismiss me, because they were aware I was not going to give up my right to be treated fairly. They knew that I was correct within the contract of employment and German Law on the subject.

When I officially named Mr Holzapfel, the Chief Personnel Officer at JHQ who represented the employer in court, as having written the judgment, the reply I received did not deny this direct allegation, therefore, it must be deemed to be correct.

The judgment is full of falsehoods, contradictions and omissions and, does not once mention the relevant law being contested. The MoD (UK) also referred in their written reply, almost one year later, to a section of the contract that defined how we qualified for shift payments, this was not mentioned at all in the judgment.

The authorities do not want this matter to go back into a court because of their illegal actions at all times, throughout the affair. This proves without doubt, that equality before the law is a myth and governments’ are only too willing to ignore any right to a fair hearing if it suits them.

I was denied the right to legal representation in Germany, as was the case from day one, due to the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935.

Incidentally, Mr. Gilleßen my original lawyer betrayed a former colleague of mine. The mistake my colleague made was to rely on Mr. Gilleßen to represent him fairly. He was allowed to appeal to the Court of the 2nd instance, unaware that Mr. Gilleßen was working against him, making sure he would lose anyway. This case was, therefore, decided in favour of the employer because there was never going to be any other result. This method was also used in another case on the same subject, at almost the same time, with the inevitable result of the verdict in favour of the employer.

As a result of the authorities deliberate obstruction of justice in numerous cases; I lost my employment when I made it clear it was my right to resist overthrow of the Constitution as stated in Article 20 (4) of that document. Had I known that the German Constitution is rendered worthless by the Law on Legal Advice 13^th December 1935, I would not have tried to invoke it to defend myself?

To prove my case was justified, the employer has since rewritten Appendix ‘Z’ removing all the points that were contested in numerous court hearings because they knew they had been breaking the law with their abuse of the contract.