Outline/Overview
Judgement version 1
Judgement version 2
Amnesty International - 08/05/2006
David Davis MP
German Justice Ministry - 28/11/2000
Law on Legal Advice, Germany, 1935
Linke - 28/10/2008
Linke - 02/06/2008
Linke - 11/09/2008
Michael Howard MP
Statewatch -21/11/2006
Letter to and from David Cameron 13/07/2009 regarding coverup of corruption on British Bases in Germany

Forward by Alex Weir 10 August 2009

It seems to me that Michael Smith has a good and sound moral case at least against the British Government (which is his government and also my government) – it seems that the UK MOD (Ministry of Defence) short changed him and a number of other security guards of overtime payments to which they were due. When Smith tried to fight them, they crucified him in the way which Governments do to individuals who oppose them. This case will enter the annals of yet another instance where the British Government does a disservice to innocent persons who get in the way of the Government Machine.

I don’t see any chance that Michael will ever get justice from the British, the German or even the European legal systems or government machines. But I hope that he will at least get some satisfaction from the fact that his case is visible to the global public.

There are many like Michael (and myself) who suffer and/or who have suffered injustice at the hands of their own government, in this supposedly enlightened age where Western Governments supposedly administer justice and peace to their own citizens while administering punishment, cruelty, plunder, death and poverty on foreigners in foreign lands in the name of ‘War on Terror’, National Security, Corporate Profitability, Political Stability, Resource Realpolitik and other misnomers.

The best we can do is to get on with our lives and where possible make a positive difference for mankind. The idea that individuals can or could extract revenge or retribution against any Government, especially their own government, is wildly optimistic. Better to get on with life, expose the bad things which our government has done and will try to continue doing, and help others to avoid the pitfalls into which we ourselves fell (and from which we have hopefully economically and psychologically extracted ourselves).

I wish good luck to Michael and to all those nameless and faceless others who have been, are being, and will be wronged by my Government (which is sometimes also their government). Let us hope for some future golden age when all this injustice, petty stupidity and unaccountability will stop.

We must hope that God will judge (and where necessary punish) those who behave badly on earth, regardless of whether they were active instigators or whether they were only following orders.

Mr Alex Weir, Harare, Zimbabwe, Africa

A Summary of the Case by Michael Smith May/June 2009

Evidence to prove the MoD (UK) & German Government used Nazi Law to Rig Employment Courts.

I was a civilian employed by the Ministry of Defence UK in Germany, doing shift work. My employment was on the German net and regulated by their laws.

Civilians in other trades were paid shift allowances, but no one in our department was. We were persistently lied to by the Works Council on the subject. Our line manager had made it clear to us that we should have been paid these allowances, during a meeting in late 1997; he did not insist we were paid them, although the law entitled us to these payments. We were employed to a contract that dated from late 1966, which had nothing to do with the work we were employed to undertake.

I was always denied access to a copy of the contract of employment in English, even though one did exist. In due time, I managed to get hold of a copy and, after some study of it, I confronted the Works Council. Previously, they had always said they were standing on our side in matters against the employer. This changed totally, when I asked question with the copy of the contract in English. They refused point blank to speak to me, about perfectly legitimate questions.

Because of their utter refusal to answer my questions, I had no other choice but to take seek legal advice.

It clearly states in German employment law, (see bold type below) that shift allowances have to be paid, or time off has to be given in lieu. The latter was not allowed in the contract of employment, it had to be paid in money. The Federal Employment Court had decided in a case of an employee in the private sector, that the law below had to apply because of the health grounds related with shift work, obviously our health was irrelevant:

According to § 6 sub 5 of the ArbZG (Work Allowances Law) the employer is to give the night shift worker, in those cases where no contractual tariff compensation ruling exists, for the duration of the hours worked at night, an appropriate number of days in paid leave or an appropriate allowance on top of the gross final pay to which he was entitled.

I took the case to court; the verdict that resulted was most unbelievable. The hearing was not open to the public, because they had designated it a SPECIAL SITTING, which I had seen on the side of the entrance to the chamber, but did not realize its significance at the time. I was not expecting to be set up in a court, convened under Nazi rules. Below is the reason given by the judge as to why I had no right to shift allowances:

To be precise, the Chamber is of the opinion, that the plaintiff's activity took place within the immediate living area of the unit's accommodation. A distance between place of work and accommodation of 300 metres does not invalidate "immediate vicinity" because this is an integrated site, and the distance can be covered in a few minutes.

It is made all the more ridiculous, by the fact that my colleagues lived up to 91kms from work and, they also did not receive shift supplements. They also did not live in the unit accommodation. My original lawyer had written to the court and my employer, making it clear that where I live had nothing to do with my right to shift allowances. I was not sent a copy of this letter at the time; I came by it later, in a file, after the case was blocked from appeal. I later discovered that my original lawyer Gillessen had betrayed a group of my colleagues, a couple of years prior to my case.

The court hearing that produced this verdict was totally rigged; I had a lawyer planted on me who I had never met before. During the whole of this hearing, he did not say one single word to put my case. When I decided to ask a question, because he was saying nothing, the judge who was also new to the case, stopped the recording device and wound it back, taping over what I had said. She totally ignored me and, it was clear to see she was furious that I had spoken. She looked at me as though I was someone who was accused of an offence against Adolph Hitler. The court refused totally to hand over a copy of the recording of the hearing, or the relevant documents.

I was blocked from appealing the case by a lawyer who I later discovered worked in co-operation with the firm of solicitors contracted to the MoD (UK) in Germany. The MoD (UK) was asked to name its lawyers and they refused to name them because they knew I would establish a connection in my investigations.

I was abused, threatened and issued an illegal, (by their own admission), written warning by a Major Mark Gore. He told me that I had absolutely no right to take the German government to court, which ties in with the use of a Nazi law, which I will explain later in this document. Incidentally, Gore was shaking almost uncontrollably during the whole of this meeting, which suggests that he was trying to scare me into giving up my case. His immediate superior Lt.Col. Langford also lied persistently in correspondence I had with him. He also lied about having withdrawn the written warning that Gore had issued, even though it was he who admitted that it was not correct. All other employees had the right to take the German government to court. I was not allowed because I knew they had RIGGED the court. He also claimed in writing, that because the contract was so old and, no one knew what it meant, he had the right to interpret it as he felt.

The court decision had totally changed German employment law, so much as to cause chaos, because this verdict had to apply to all shift workers, as it had nothing to do with the contract of employment. The verdict for this reason was never made public; it was kept secret because of its implications to the economy, had all shift workers lost their shift allowances on such a verdict. There is no mention of the relevant law being disputed in the verdict.

I wrote to the MoD (UK) in London, asking them to explain this verdict and, to give a maximum distance that an employee could walk to work. Dr. Lewis Moonie duly replied, in writing, that it did not matter where we live; I had no right to shift allowances. This proved that they had lied in court and fully justified my right to appeal, which was blocked as I described earlier.

Moonie also sent us a copy of the contract of employment which was later said to be not valid because it was out of date by a Captain Crawshaw, who admitted that he had not got a clue about the contract.

In another letter Moonie said the contract was a statement of German employment law which means it should have obeyed the law. This is obviously a lie, because the law above clearly states that I should have been paid shift allowances.

As a result of my investigations, I discovered that the German government was using a piece of legislation from the Nazi era, the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935.

This evidence was a letter on the internet, from the German Ministry of Justice dated 28th November 2000, which I had professionally translated. It admitted that this law was still in use and, it gave reasons why it was. These were totally unbelievable, as you can see below in bold type:

Although the Act originates from 1935, it has been subject to several post-war amendments and no longer contains discriminatory regulations.

The regulations of this Act are aimed at pursuing justified common interests. The Act serves to protect the general public. The individual seeking justice is to be protected against the danger of leaving the settlement of his legal interests to a person not having the required expertise. On the other hand, legal action should not be impeded by the employment of unsuitable i.e. unreliable persons.

Such regulations are necessary to prevent third parties from suffering damage due to malpractice. Consequently, the Act serves to protect the user. The person seeking justice and tasking another person with the representation of his legal interests is consequently facing a “user situation”. Often he cannot even properly assess the quality of the legal advice. Consequently, the person seeking justice does not only run the risk of receiving poor advice. He also risks suffering from legal disadvantages and losing his legal position. That is why there are restrictions for people providing legal advice.

This is nothing but lies, there was no lawyer involved in my case, who had acted according to this description. They admit that the law originally contained discriminatory regulations. It stated that Nazi Officials were allowed to give legal advice, unrestrained by this law. It is not possible to imagine they would have given advice against Hitler; however, this proves the original intention of the legislation.

Who could ever imagine being told that their right to the best legal advice was guaranteed by a Nazi law?

The truth of this law, is that it was used in my case and, others involving colleagues, exactly as it was originally intended. It made sure that lawyers did the will of the Nazi regime, which meant they betrayed their clients, if the other party was the Hitler government. The law also guarantees lawyers payment for their services, even if they are caught lying by their client. This law allows the regime to totally override any law, even the Constitution if necessary. My case proves it controls employment law and renders it worthless.

This case totally abused my rights within the Constitution in Germany. I was not treated equally before the law at all; the verdict can only apply to me, because most of my colleagues could not possibly walk to work.

A Constitution should protect citizens from abuse by authority; this proves that they have laws to make sure the government can never be found to have overthrown its own Basic Law.

To vindicate my case further, the MoD (UK) has now removed all the points they won on from the contract, which proves yet again, they were lying about them.

Die Linke, a so called German left wing party, with seats in the Bundestag, who accept the use of Nazi legislation, said they were informed of my special case, in an e-mail reply from their spokesperson on legal matters, a qualified lawyer herself. They went on to say, they as a party in parliament RESPECT my case, but unfortunately, they do not have the time to do anything about it. This was an excuse to do nothing about a case of pure Democracy; they did not say I had no case. Their allegiance is not as they maintain, to ordinary Germans, but to the system that represses them.

All the evidence to prove this case is in writing, in replies from government and legal sources.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Smith

An earlier Summary of the Case by Michael Smith April 2009

The following is an outline of this case. It refers to a lot of the main points as a starter which could be expanded with more evidence which is available in abundance.

The best part about this case is that they wrote it all down, because they knew I would never get fair legal advice to challenge their blatant lies. They would not answer questions at the time, because they knew that I was aware of their lies, the contract and the law proved this.

It also includes some threats in writing because they were desparately trying to frighten me off and stop me from telling other people about their activities. This also contravened the Constitution in Germany, I am allowed to speak to anyone in defence of Democracy. This will also help people understand the value of that EU drivel, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is part of this EU Treaty, also has an Article 53 which totally negates all of the Charter.

The EU has been trying to harmonise civil law and, you can guess that this Nazi legislation is what it is all based on, because it ensures total protection to the crooks at the top.

BACKGROUND NOTE ON THE CASE OF MICHAEL 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 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 13th December 1935.

Work related problems escalated when in July 2000 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 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' defence, which the employers had to uphold in Court, was "because I could walk to work some 300mtrs, I did not qualify for shift payments."

My colleagues, incidentally, lived up to 91kms from work, which did not help their defence either.

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 decided to fix the final hearing, as they saw I had attended on my own.

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

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

The employer won the case on the defence mentioned previously, 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. He made it clear amongst other points, that where I lived had nothing to do with the right to shift payments.

I tried to lodge an appeal immediately with another solicitor, even before the judgment had been published. This solicitor was a Mr. Huppertz, who 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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 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.

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. There were many millions of unpaid shift allowances at stake.

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 challenge this direct allegation, therefore, it must be deemed to be correct.

The judgment is full of mistakes and contradictions and, does not once mention the relevant law being contested. The MoD (UK) also saw fit to contradict the judgment, by replying that security guards did not qualify for shift allowances, no matter where they live. The judgment makes it clear that my being able to walk to work some 300mtrs barred me from the right to shift allowances.

The authorities do not want this matter to go back into a court at all because of the consequences of their illegal actions at all times throughout the affair

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 next instance, because Mr. Gilleßen was working against him, to make sure he would lose anyhow.

All the evidence to support my case is in documentary form if you require seeing it.

As a result of the authorities deliberate obstruction of justice; I lost my employment when I made it clear it was my right to defend democracy.

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.

Time-line 2000 - 2004

July -2000 I obtained a copy of the contract of employment in English, which the employer and Works Council had refused to supply, even though it does exist.

Aug-Sept -2000 ask the Works Council questions concerning the contract, they refused to answer sensibly. One reply was “Oh perhaps they put that bit there because they could not think of anywhere else to put it.” This was not the best answer to a question about a contract, especially as the section in question was printed three times in the space of one page..

November- 2000 after further study of the contract I was recommended by my legal insurers to use the services of a solicitor, Herr Gilleßen to represent me. I obviously thought that Herr Gilleßen would be a reliable solicitor, this turned out to be a false assumption.

13-11-2000 Herr Gilleßen writes to the employer asking for a breakdown of the Flat Rate Pay Agreement. He withdrew from the proceedings without getting the information he had gone to court to obtain. This can be proved with just one letter of the alphabet.

18-01-2001 Herr Gilleßen writes to me saying he is going to contact the Works Council. I made it clear to Herr Gilleßen that he should not talk to the Works Council because they were on the employers’ side.

06-03-2001 Court hearing to get the employer to explain the details of the Flat Rate Pay Agreement because the explanation which had been given was clearly not correct. The hearing lasted between 1 & 2 minutes. The employer handed over a copy of the current pay scale, which clearly did not have the information Herr Gilleßen required. Herr Gilleßen then withdrew without even reading the pay scale and incurred the costs to my side.

21-03-2001 Frau Rocholl representing the employer writes to Herr Gilleßen

stating that I was not entitled to shift payments because I

lived 300mtrs from work within the territory of the base.

29-05-2001 Preliminary court hearing for both parties to put their case and see if an agreed settlement can be reached in a period of one month. Herr Gilleßen did not say very much again to put forward my case, when he could easily have made sure there was no need for a full hearing. All parties agreed the next court date should be the 27th July 2001.

06-07-2001 Herr Gilleßen wrote saying he had spoken to Schmitz of the Works Council, even though I had previously told Herr Gilleßen not to speak to them. Schmitz lied to Herr Gilleßen on matters within the contract; the letters are available to prove this.

17-07-2001 Herr Gilleßen writes to the court and employer making it clear that their defence will not stand up in court on numerous points. I did not receive a copy of this letter at the time. The copy I have has the court stamp to prove they received it. I discovered it in the file he sent to Dr. Huppertz.

27-07-2001 full court hearing which started much later than planned because the players were changed in order to FIX the court so the employer would win. This is described in the letter above. I lost the case because Herr Krapohl representing me said precisely nothing during the whole proceedings besides announce his name. Herr Gilleßen had apparently decided to go on holiday.

14-08-2001 I went to see a Dr. Huppertz at Krefeld to get him to appeal the case because Herr Gilleßen had let him down by not turning up in court. Dr. Huppertz immediately took me on as a client even though the judgment had not yet been published.

17-08-2001 Dr. Huppertz writes confirming me as his client.

25-09-2001 Dr. Huppertz writes after having read the judgment that he is withdrawing from the case because he can see no way that I could win. However, he did agree to lodge the appeal on the grounds that I found another solicitor to represent him.

13-10- 2001 I received a reply from another lawyer Herr Eßer, within the period of appeal, who advised me that the case was not winnable, he confirmed the judgment.. This contradicted Herr Gilleßens’ letter before the court hearing. I was charged DM 200 for this false information because my legal insurance company would not pay for the first appointment with a lawyer.

16-11-2001 the period of appeal ended. I tried other lawyers after the appeal period expired they all gave conflicting replies. X. There was no point wasting more money when I realised that no lawyer would represent me.

07-03-2002 called to a meeting with Major Gore the employer. Major Gore was visibly shaking in an almost uncontrollable manner. He was aggressive from the start, telling me that I had no right to take the German Government to court and, that I was to receive a written warning for this. Major Gore never issued this written warning on these grounds. He then tried another line, accusing me of having spoken to a Colonel, he called him by a false name. I admitted having spoken to Colonel Harrison about this case. Major Gore said that Col. Harrison was “fed up to the back teeth with me speaking to him” I had good reason to think Major Gore was lying, but said nothing, because I knew Gore was after sacking me. Major Gore orally abused me trying to make me do something for which I could be dismissed. Major Gore said I would receive a written warning for speaking to Col. Harrison.

10-03-2002 Whilst at work on this Sunday morning Col. Harrison came by where I was working. He was some 20mtrs from me when he stopped and immediately spoke to asking me how I was and how my problem was getting on. I informed Col. Harrison that I was to receive a written warning for speaking to him, Col. Harrison told me to wait until I had received the written warning.

April 2002 Interviewed by Works Council about the written warning. I told the Works Council to simply call Col. Harrison to prove Major Gore was not telling the truth. They refused to take the action that I recommended, which proved they were protecting management.

02-05-2002 Received written warning from Major Gore, it took so long because Major Gore knew Col: Harrison had in the meanwhile retired. This saved Major Gore from having to explain to Col. Harrison why he had lied about him.

02-07-2002 Received correspondence from Dr. Lewis Moonie at the Ministry of Defence United Kingdom. He denied that where an employee lives has got anything to do with the right to shift payments because he had been asked what the maximum distance was an employee could walk to work. This contradicted the judgment and proved that I was fully justified in trying to appeal the case. Other employees lived in varying distances up to 91kms from their place of work and, also did not receive shift payments

26-08-2002 meeting with Major Walmsley arranged by MoD to have my contract discussed. Major Walmsley had not even studied the contract before the meeting, even though he had almost a month to read it. He in effect used a bluff to escape talking about the contract. because he knew that would lead to problems. The written answers I received were not correct, according to the contract.

November 2002 2 meetings with Lt. Col. Langford the immediate superior of Major Gore. He would not answer questions put to him at the time, because he knew he would lose. He gave written answers which were mostly incorrect. He was forced to concede that the written warning Major Gore gave was incorrect. Lt. Col. Langford wrote saying he had given instructions to Major Gore for it to be removed from my personal file. The Works Council did not investigate the Written Warning being withdrawn. I also requested to meet Herr Holzapfel, face to face, to discuss his version of events in the court and the judgment, which had so many falsehoods. The request was refused, because management knew what Herr Holzapfel had done.

2003 Through further research, writing letters to various people and studying a judgment concerning a case of a colleague, I discovered that he had also been basically set-up in court and betrayed by his lawyer as well, in a case he could not possibly have lost. I also discovered that Dr. Huppertz who I had tried to appeal my case through, worked in co-operation with the firm of lawyers who represent the MoD (UK) in Germany. This proved why Lt.Col. Langford would not name their lawyers when I asked him. The employer knew that I was finding out more and more evidence on their illegal activities. During the late part of 2003 I had been studying the German Constitution. I also put various questions to management in writing, as requested by Lt. Col. Langford. The replies I received were all incorrect, management were even caught lying about clauses of the contract. When confronted with the facts management duly lied yet again to escape their first mistruth.

March 2004 I decided to use the Constitution as a method to gain my right to be treated fairly. This panicked the employer and made them desperate to get rid of me. As a result of a conversation I had at work with a Mr. Somerling who was employed in the same department as Lt.Col. Langford, in which I asked what the right to resist the overthrow of the Constitution meant. Specifically asking when resist becomes violence, so as to remain within the law. This was discussed in the light of my having been treated outside the meaning of the Constitution.

09-03-2004 Called to a meeting with Capt. Crawshaw who had been previously caught out calling a copy of the contract which was sent from MoD in London OUTDATED. At the start of this meeting he read a statement that Mr. Somerling, incidentally, denied ever having written. I countered this by reading Article 20 (4) The Right to Resist Overthrow of the Constitution directly from the Basic Law. Capt. Crawshaw then decided to mention that I had still got a written warning on my file, and he was going to use this against me. This proved that this written warning had not been removed from my personal file. As a result of this meeting I was dismissed a few days later. The Works Council interviewed me and during the meeting crossed out a section of the statement Mr. Somerling had made when I said that Capt. Crawshaw had not read that bit to me. The Works Council were also informed that the written warning was still on my file. They refused to act on this information even though I said I had a letter from Lt.Col. Langford stating the written warning would be removed. I did not seek legal advice because I knew that no lawyer would represent me when they knew the whole facts surrounding the case.

As a result of my determination to seek justice, it has led to me being unemployed since March 2004. Soon I will lose all my unemployment benefit and, therefore, I will be homeless and forced to lose everything I own.

List of people involved

Frau. Barth: Judge at the final hearing of my case. She presided over an illegal hearing. I was ignored when I asked a question Barth stopped the tape recording and wound it back to record over what I had said. She was put in to preside because she was willing to make sure the employer won regardless of the facts.

Capt.. Crawshaw: head of agency, interviewed me on 090304 and signed the contract whereby I was sacked. Capt Crawshaw was promoted to Major shortly after sacking me even though he had lied about the contract. He had only just been commissioned from NCO and was promoted to Major in record time as a reward for dismissing me.

Herr. Gillessen: The lawyer recommended to me by my legal insurance company. He deliberately betrayed me and did not even bother to appear at the final hearing to represent me. I later discovered he had also betrayed a former colleague in 1999. He lost in total 6 hearings for us all together. If he had put the evidence to the employer properly there would have been no need for a court hearing at all as the employer had no defence.

Maj. J.M. Gore: My legal employer at the time of my court proceedings. He was aware that the court had been fixed as Herr Holzapfel’s immediate superior. He used threats and issued an illegal written warning to try to force me to give up my search for justice.

Col. Harrison: The subject of the written warning issued by Major Gore. A very nice approachable man who was always helpful, hence Major Gore trying to stop me from speaking to him

Herr. Holzapfel: The man who did all the talking in court for the employer. He was visibly grinning at the final hearing because he knew the court had been rigged. He actually wrote the judgment and does not deny this.

Herr. Krapohl: Represented me at the final hearing by saying absolutely nothing to put my case. He did not say anything because he had been told not to. His presence denied me the right to ask questions to the court myself. He is not an employment law solicitor. He was planted into the case to force me to later dismiss Mr. Gilleßen, for failing to turn up in court. This was done to make me seek the services of another lawyer, which I discovered was not possible due to the Law on Legal Advice.

Maj. S. Walmsley: As the previous legal employer he had been responsible in writing for deliberately changing documents to suit the needs of the employer in court.

Herr Schmitz: Works Council member who interfered with my lawyer, Herr Gilleßen, misleading him with parts of the contract which were not relevant. He knew the Works Council had illegally operated the contract and entered into illegal agreements, and by his actions he was covering this up.

Frau Timm: Works Council member who I spoke with over the years about matters within the contract. She turned against me when I confronted her with a copy of the contract in English. She refused to investigate the illegal written warning given to me, even though I told her to call Col. Harrison, which would have proved that Major Gore was not telling the truth. This proved she was protecting management against me.

Mr. Froggett: My line manager openly inferred I should have received shift payments. He never did his job as line manager; he only did as management ordered, without ever once protecting our interests within the contract.

Lt.Col. Langford: Head of Locally Employed Civilian Manning. He was proved to be less than truthful on numerous occasions, in writing on specific points within the contract. He was desperate to get me dismissed because he knew I would not give up the quest for justice. He refused to name the firm of lawyers who represent the MoD(UK) when asked directly. This was because they worked in co-operation with Dr. Huppertz who destroyed my chances of appeal.

Herr Schaferbarhtold: Chief Personnel Officer for the British Army in Germany. He stormed out of the meeting I had with Major Walmsley, when he realised he could not answer questions I had put to him. He is responsible for the fixing of court hearings that go to Düsseldorf on appeal. As with Herr Holzapfel he is given licence in court to lie on behalf of MoD(UK) due to the Law on Legal Advice.

I can also prove even when I was a Trade Union member that they deliberately worked together with management and the Works Council against me, entering into illegal changes of contract, which by the German Law on Tariffs clearly states they could not do. They purely rubber stamped management’s changes, no matter how ridiculous. This included allowing management to invent a BASIC PAY when the contract clearly states it is a FLAT RATE PAY AGREEMENT. The changes to the contract that the Trade Union allowed made the whole document almost unreadable. They also did not remove the old parts; this was to make it even harder to understand for employees.