The EU Treaty Opt-Out - Why Tony Needs It


The Independent lists some of the rights that Tony is desperate not to afford us. These include:
No one should be subject to torture
No one can be removed to a state where there is a serious risk of torture - I think we can work out why Tony is soft on torture, soft on the causes of torture. Oh Tony, how you've changed the political landscape. I remember the good old days when being against torture was uncontroversial.

Trafficking in human beings is prohibited.
It is beyond shameful that the UK is refusing to ratify the Council of Europe's Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. In the good old days, slavery was considered to be a terrible wrong. Thanks to Tony this is no longer the case.

Yes, why IS the UK

Yes, why IS the UK government so against giving the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force throughout the UK? Against the right to strike, for example? The right to associate? HOW on earth can any decent government simply say it is against giving fundamental rights legal force? You have to be suspicious, don't you.

It's just unbelievable.  I

It's just unbelievable.  I remember history classes in primary school where torture was always presented as a medievil abberation.  An example of how our society has evolved beyond barbarity.  London dungeon style.

How a government violates

How a government violates its own Constitution and covers it up.
All the talk of the EU Treaty (former Constitution) infringing on National Legislation is nothing but hype. There is most certainly no requirement for Opt Outs. The German government would not be trying to resurrect something that interfered with its wilful abuse of its own Constitution and, they have not applied for Opt Outs. They are fully aware that no German citizen can circumvent their own legal system, (which by their own admission is based on a Hitler Decree), to get as far as the fudged EU Treaty, in discussion at present. The EU at its highest level, is also aware of this set-up, because I have informed them of it, they refused to act.
The worthlessness of a Constitution, to the citizen at least, can be seen in the following Articles from the German Basic Law. The following evidence proves how it is converted from a Bill of Rights, to a Bill of Oppression, at will, by the authorities. This proves that a Constitutional Court has only one purpose, in cases where the government is involved as the defendant at least, under no circumstances is it there to protect the individual. This evidence proves that the government can violate its Constitution, and the person who the violation is against, has precisely ONE month to lodge a complaint to the Constitutional Court, even though that person is denied the right to fair legal advice, as I can prove happened in my case.
Article 93 (Federal Constitutional Court, jurisdiction)
(1) The Federal Constitutional Court decides:
4a. on complaints of unconstitutionality, which may be entered by any person who claims that one of his basic rights or one of his rights under paragraph (4) of Article 20or under Article 33, 38, 101,103, or 104 has been violated by public authority;
Article 103.
(1) In the courts everyone is entitled to a hearing in accordance with the law.
Article 20 (Basic principles of state order, right to resist).
(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible. (Inserted 24 June 1968)
 It clearly states in Article 93 (4a) that it is the duty of the Constitutional Court to investigate the complaint of a citizen, if that person claims to be the victim of a hearing that was not in accordance with the law under Article 103 (1).
  I received a letter from the German Constitutional Court in reply to my complaint of the way the court was convened, which most certainly fell outside the internationally accepted standards of, a fair hearing in accordance with the law. Their whole reply was designed to make sure that they never had to discuss the devastating evidence.
 The following in italics is a part of that reply:
As can be seen from the information leaflet, an appeal against legal decisions can, on principle, only be lodged by means of a constitutional complaint once all legal means have been tried in front of the competent courts and even then only within a laid down period of one month.
  1. How is this possible if I was trying to get a lawyer, without success, to take it to the court of the 2nd Instance? This period of appeal was extended from the initial 1 month, for an extra month; by a lawyer who I later found out had also betrayed me.
  2. If I had known of this route to the Constitutional Court, it would have been rather ridiculous to have pursued it, whilst the appeal to the court of the 2nd Instance was still valid.
The following in italics is another paragraph from the Constitutional Court reply:
Outside the scope of a constitutional complaint procedure, the Federal Constitutional Court does not have the possibility to become actively engaged in the appeal of individual persons. In particular, it cannot get involved in the procedures of other authorities or courts and instruct them or provide recommendations or even take decisions of its own in their name. Nor is the Court, on principle, entitled to carry out a general check and comment on a case presented to it or provide legal information.
This makes it clear that no matter how overpowering the evidence is, they refuse to investigate, if the complaint is not lodged within the specified period of one month.
 This confirms that it is totally impossible for a citizen to contest abuse, by the authorities, and legal profession combined. Therefore, there is no right to RESIST under Article 20 (4) of the Constitution. It would have been pointless to lodge a complaint within the month, even if I knew of this restriction, because of the time to compile all the evidence, to prove without doubt, the guilt of the parties arraigned against me.
   The use of such short time limits makes it rather convenient to escape an investigation, regardless of the facts, solely on this excuse. I was not aware that an infringement of a Constitution could be covered up, by the use of such an excuse. In a Democracy, a Constitution that is infringed MUST be investigated, to make sure that its standing cannot be violated by such a method in the future, it cannot be left breached because of such a ridiculous time limit.
   This proves without doubt that the authorities must use something to override the Constitution, which is most certainly Hitler’s Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935, which fits in with how this law would have been used when first written, to resist was, and is today also futile, because this legislation means a citizen would not get legal support.

  For God's sake can't


For God's sake can't someone keep Doubleplusungood off this website?  He is obviously a one-issue, sad obsessional. I, for one, find that repeated,detailed expositions of his "case" - insofar as I am able to understand it - extremely boring and even irritating.

So Anonymous, a sad

So Anonymous, a sad obsessional is someone who stands up for Democracy is he? Perhaps you are not aware of what equality before the law is and, you obviously consider that certain people do not have the right to be treated fairly.

 It is obvious that you do not have a clue about what I wrote. Perhaps then you could give me a practical demonstration as to how a court verdict can decide that it is possible to walk 91kms to work and, the same distance home again, inbetween these two not inconsiderable feats of endurance, which there is no one on the planet could do, there is the minor matter of carrying out a 12 1/2 hr shift. 

  If it is not possible to understand that, I will be only to glad to see you walk over 2 marathons in each direction, to and from work, over 200 times per year of course.

 I have personal experience of abuse of my democratic rights, as you can read. If you would accept being denied even the right to speak in court, then why would you take a case?  Therefore, it is a right under the freedom of speech to expose any breach of Democracy and, this is what Blairwatch is in existence for. 

you have been infesting this

you have been infesting this site for a good year now and still nobody knows, concretely and in detail,what the f..k your problem is (was) !!