Germany, Truth & Reality

Mr Zikeli:
Welcome you, Mr Görlitz!

You agreed to an interview today concerning the subject of present day politics and present day public law in Germany. You are one of the initiators and the chairman of the Union for Human Rights, Democracy and Constitutional State. Would you be so kind and explain to us what the Union for Human Rights, Democracy and Constitutional State is, which goals it pursues and how its foundation came about?

Mr Görlitz:
With pleasure Mr. Zikeli, but first let me thank you very much for your invitation. If one must talk about human rights, democracy and constitutional state in Germany, at first it sounds strange. But the legal position in Germany makes it quite necessary, to be concerned about the state of the democratic and constitutional situation, as well as the compliance and translation into action of the general declaration of human rights.
The Union for Democracy, Constitutional State and Human Rights is an organisation which wants to give people who are searching, a political home. Among us there are people with different views who come together, such as former Christian Democrats as well as former social democrats or liberals, and many people who in the past kept distance from political parties out of political peevishness.
The Union for Democracy, Constitutional State and Human Rights was founded in December 2007, in response to the increasingly critical legal situation in Germany.
There are more and more illegal infringements, where the rights and the basic rights guaranteed by the Basic Law are being stomped on.
We made it our business to assist people in their situation and give them political and legal support.

Mr Zikeli:
Would you be so kind and put in concrete terms the point of unlawful infringements which can be observed repeatedly or even increasingly in Germany?

Mr Görlitz:
Gladly. It is obvious and understandable to every one, even for a laymen in legal things that, when we talk about a constitutional state, we can refer to written law.
Every laymen must be able to verify through law books, whatever happens in a courtroom or in written proceedings, before a hearing. If we look today, at a normal average proceeding for a violation against order - we can go to any district court in Germany - we will see, that the most basic and simple rules of a constitutional state are no longer followed. That means a judge does not reveal his name at the summons. But how can I, as a laymen, verify my legal judge? The Basic Law states, that a legal judge can not be withheld from anybody. But when I don’t know who my legal judge is, I cannot check, whether the person that summons me to come to court, is listed in the plan for allotment of work in a court and can be verified as my legal judge.

Point two is, that as a principle, documents are no longer signed in courts. As a rule you will not get a signature from a judge. Instead so called duplicates are drawn up. But if we talk about the form of judgements, the form of drawings, and the form of attests, again we have legal regulations. That means every layman can look up what a duplicate has to look like. Or how, from a formal point of view, a judgement has to look like. And within the past 5 to 6 years of my legal work, I have not received one judgement that was signed. I did not find one duplicate of a judgement or a decree, that was issued in accordance to legal procedures. Now you must know, there is a rule, that when a judgement or decree is not issued in accordance with the legal rules, it has no legal force. If it has no legal force it is not legally binding. Neither can it become legal by default of term nor by decree.
As you can see, we are in the middle of legal discussion. But these are basics. Today people are sentenced based on invalid dummy documents which are sent to them. Behind this, the fact is hidden, that there is no one at court, that wants to stand up for what he does in the courtroom.

Mr Zikeli:
To what do you attribute the rise of this situation. To the spectator this sounds, I would say, like a chaotic situation in the background of so called German courts.

Mr Görlitz:
I don’t want to talk about chaos. I want to talk about a setup. That is a setup in which we, the citizens, are the unknown supernumeraries. This setup started already in the year 1945 and continues to the year 2009.
The basic cause is, that in our legal system we have a state of distress which is based on the fact, that the Basic Law, which is the highest standard law in occupied Germany, right after occupation law and right after the Hague Convention Respecting the Rules of War on Land, that this Basic Law was abolished by the Allies in 1990, during the negotiations of the 4-plus-2-Treaty.

Mr Zikeli:
May I take this subject up?

Mr Görlitz:
Yes, please.

Mr Zikeli:
First of all, I believe, that to many spectators it is not necessarily clear, what a Basic Law is. Mr Köhler once said that we don’t need a new constitution, because we have a Basic Law, but many of the spectators read in the newspapers, that Mr. Müntefehring of the SPD demanded a constitution for Germany, as it was also requested in article 146 of the Basic Law, since it was written down.

What is the difference between a Basic Law and a constitution?

Mr Görlitz:
That is easily explained. There is a state in Germany, a state on German soil, I must correct myself, this state is called German Empire. This state German Empire participated in World War Two and left the battlefield as a looser. As a result the troops of this state surrendered and the state had to hand over his right as sovereign to the victors.
Now one maybe knows from history class in school, that each state has his own constitution. The constitution of a population is the highest standard valid law in this state. It defines the basic rights, the rights and obligations, represents the supreme power, and it defines the national territory in which it is operative. When the Allies in 1945 took over the control, they simply ignored our constitution, and I remind you, the constitution of 11th of Aug. 1919.
They replaced our Reich-constitution of 11th of Aug., 1919 with their own law.
Anyone who deals with this topic knows, that in a war the conventions of war are the highest legal norms on a battlefield, and between the fighting parties. These Conventions of War, these international Conventions of War are called Hague Convention Respecting the Rules of War on Land and our state German Empire acceded 1907 to the Hague Convention Respecting the Rules of War on Land.
That’s why the Hague Convention Respecting the Rules of War on Land, naturally is operative on German territory, too, and that since 8th of May, 1945, uninterrupted. According to the Hague Convention Respecting the Rules of War on Land, the victors would have been obliged to organize and execute the occupation based on our constitution. Unfortunately they didn’t do that.
They agreed among each other, to ignore the German constitution of Aug. 11th, 1919, to put it aside, and created, based on the Hague Convention Respecting the Rules of War on Land, their own allied occupation law. There are the famous SHAEF-Laws, there are the SMAD-orders, there are Control Council Laws, laws of the Allied High Commission, there are all kinds of decrees and orders of the occupying powers. All of this goes by the name of victor’s right and occupation law. When the greatest need after the ruin in May of 1945 was over, the victors made sure that then at first a civic self-administration right for the Germans was created in the civilian administration of the western allied occupation zones.

The aim was to gradually replace the military occupation law on West German territory occupied by the western Allies with a civilian self- administration.
It was then that they at first created the so called United Economic Area. In disregard of international law, our different states of the Reich were liquidated. In other words, the structure of our Reichs-territory was simply eliminated with the stroke of a pen. And by arbitrary orders of the Allied Forces, so called federal states, or Bundesländer, were created in the same form they still have today.
After these territorial administrations were established by orders of the Allied Commanders, a parliamentary council was created, and this parliamentary council was assigned the task of establishing this self-administration law and to compose it according to very strict, tight proceedings given by the western allied victors.

In about 1 ½ years time the parliamentary council completed this task, and then in the year 1949 the so called Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany was submitted to the Allies for their approval.
Roughly that is the course of development of how the Allies have put aside our true constitution, and brought into the world their own civic self-administration law.
By the letter of approval of the western allied commanders in May 1949, based on the Basic Law for the FRG, the execution of national jurisdiction over the German citizens, was transferred to the self-administration organisation Bundesrepublik Deutschland in the western allied occupation zones for a limited time.
Again as a general distinction: by a constitution the people of a nation constitute themselves in their free self-determination, and lay down themselves the highest standards of law on their own territory by their own free decision.

What was imposed on us by allied decree in form of the FRG, is not a constitution, but an organization, and serves only the purpose of self-administration according to military default of the victors.

Mr Zikeli:
You now have pointed out the difference between the Basic Law, and the last constitution of Aug. 11th, 1919, chosen by the German people. In article 146 of the Basic Law there is, I should prefer to say, there was, a request for the Basic Law to be replaced by a constitution.
Why in your opinion has an own constitution of the German people never been put to the vote? Especially after 1990, when there at least has been a partial reunification? Here I briefly want to remind that in article 125 of the Basic Law, there is mention of occupation zones. Is this the case, because we still are an occupied country?

Mr Görlitz:
This is certainly the main reason. But you see, the idle wish expressed in article 146 of the Basic Law, can not be related to the establishment of a new constitution, because we have a constitution, a constitution even in accordance with international law. This has even been ascertained by the so called Federal constitutional court, over and over again. This constitution is still active according to international law. This was the reason, why in 1948 the United Nations had to provide the German Empire a seat at the United Nations. But you see, precisely this fact is hardly known anymore.

The legal situation in Germany is marked by the fact that since 8th of May 1945, that is, since the unconditional surrender of the military forces of our nation, we remain in the situation of an armistice. We live under martial law. To the present day the Hague Convention Respecting the Rules of War on Land is the highest right of war and occupation.

And that is the reason why our constitution of 11th of Aug., 1919 is still not being applied. The political power and domination is exclusively exercised by the allied victors, and has only partially been delegated to the remains of the FRG-organization. If one would now invent a new constitution, one would create a state within a state, and that is not possible. The state German Empire is incessantly in existence since nearly 1000 years. And on its ground exists since 1949 something like a civic self-administration organization of Germans, who live under the superintendence of the allied victors.

But that which international martial law or international law does not permit in any way, and that which no victor, no matter of what origin he may be, is able to do, is to wipe out a state. The capitulation that took place in 1945 refers to the surrender of armed forces. The state does not perish hereby. And this fact has been confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court in more than 90 judgments.

This means, thus, that when we talk at all about the establishment of constitutional order, or if you want, the restoration of the constitutional order, than this can only happen purely on the basis of the constitution of 11th of August, 1919. Nobody else in Germany or among the allied victors is entitled to ordain a different constitution for us, the German people.

Mr Zikeli:
You do not of course advocate here a continuity of the national-socialist remains,

Mr Görlitz:
For gods’ sake, no!

Mr Zikeli:
… but if I understand correctly, you, of course, want a sovereign German Empire to unfold itself in the international community,
in accordance with democratic principles, and not based upon dictatorial principles.

Mr Görlitz:
You see, Mr. Zikeli, I understand your reasoning. I think it's important to say this once in public. This argument is only understandable, if at all, by keeping in mind a very distorted presentation of history during the last 60 years of the FRG. Our State German Empire is almost a 1000 years old, with short-timely alternating state designations. But there has always existed the state German Empire on German soil. But, I believe, we agree to the fact that there were once 12 years which we would like to remove from our history. But these 12 years can not be the cause for us to forget our identity as a people, and to forget our state. The victors have ensured through their policy of forgetting that our German people, are now homeless. We are a people without a state. They forced us into a construct of occupation. Our state is much larger and has a constitution which seeks its equal in the world.

I can only recommend to anyone interested, to compare the constitution of 11th of August, 1919 to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1949. He will be surprised to find out that our Constitution, which is of course much older than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1949, describes far more extensive rights for the people of Germany. Rights and security.
And precisely that is the issue, namely to withdraw the rights, security and the home of the German people. That is the real background of the fact, that until today, our human rights, international law and civic rights are being disputed.

Mr Zikeli:
It seems, if I may pick up this point, that Mrs. Merkel wants to escape into Europe. I noted down here the keyword nationality, because it seems to me, that this issue can show very clearly, that there must be something wrong in the Federal Republic of Germany, regarding constitutional law.
Especially since, until today, there is not a single citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, despite the fact that we had a so called reunification and are supposedly sovereign. Can you tell us a little more about the issue of our nationality?

Mr Görlitz:
Article 116 of the Basic Law states that the German nationality derives from the Law on Reich-Citizenship and Nationality of 1913. Since the FRG, as pointed out by me before, is a civilian self-administration construct of the western allied powers, it never was and never will be able to create their own laws regarding citizenship.

The self-administration organization of the Federal Republic of Germany exists on the territory of the German Empire. One could say it is partially identical with the German Empire. Thus for all Germans who live in the so called Federal Republic, there is only one nationality, the nationality of the German Empire with immediate Reich-citizenship.
That’s how it is defined by the Law on Reich-Citizenship and Nationality of 1913. In any German court this is undisputed and the courts do not reply when there is a submission of evidence regarding this matter. They prefer to suspend the case or dismiss it.

Fact is, there is only one nationality on German soil and of course that must be the nationality of our state German Empire. In this respect everybody who is born in Germany, and who is born of German parents, is a citizen of the German Empire with immediate Reich-citizenship.
If the FRG were in the position to create its own nationality, it would forcibly have to be able to identify it in their personal documents. But they renounced to issue documents; instead they issue these identification cards as they are issued to every employee of a larger company as personnel identification. These are given to employees. And when you look at such a personal ID card then you see the thick title “Federal Republic of Germany”. And in the section citizenship it says “deutsch” or translated to English “German”
Now I ask you, do you know a state named “German”? When you look at personal documents of France it says “Republique Francaise”, and a British document says “United Kingdom”, an American document says “United States of America” and our documents say “Deutsch”.

Well, in the past I laughed about it. Meanwhile I think it is sad. What would have to be written there if the title Federal Republic of Germany equals State, would be meant seriously. Then, in the section were the nationality is mentioned, it would have to say “Nationality FRG”, at least the abbreviation or written out Federal Republic of Germany. But that is not the case.

And I own a document of the district office of Demin, this is located in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Were in the year 2006, I believe, an applicant was notified that she can not acquire the citizenship of the Federal Republic of Germany, since there is no such thing. It is an official notification that was issued here.
And the arguments were clearly derived from the Reich-Citizenship and Nationality Law of 1913. In addition, this document refers to an important verdict of the Federal Constitutional Court of 1987, which also says that there is no citizenship for the FRG, which in turn proofs, that we are still occupied and that the FRG-rest-organization, as it has to be called today, is only a remnant of a civilian self-administration construct of the allied victors.

Mr Zikeli:
That makes me ask, how, then, can the German Reich function as a state, if for instance, the German Empire is still not territorially reunified? I remember Mr. Otto Schily, who was Minister of Home Affairs in the FRG-rest-organisation in the cabinet of Gerhard Schröder. In 1990 he said in a TV program that a real reunification would have meant the German Empire, and that we did not get a real reunification.

Mr Görlitz:
I think we must say that Mr. Schily was right. The year 1990 did not bring us a reunification. The national integrity of the state German Empire is restored the same day on which our state gets its peace treaty.
I remind you, that we live under martial law. Since 64 years we have no peace on German soil, and only when the state German Empire has received its peace treaty, or if you will, its 46 peace treaties, because that’s how many declarations of war we received, only when this occurs, the second world war will enforceably end according to international law. And not only on German territory, but world wide. And that is the real concern that is hidden behind the fact, that we still have no peace contract. Here we have to consider, how often the victors of 1945 have changed the status quo of 8th of May 1945 breaking international law. Because an armistice is in effect not only for the defeated, but for the victors, too. And if one did not adhere to the armistice, it applies for all the victors. Only when we, as the German people and the State German Empire, hold the peace treaty in our hands, and the ink is dry, do we again have the sovereignty in our hands. Then, at this moment, our Reich-Constitution of 11th of Aug. 1919 comes to force again, and we are in the position to further develop the destiny of our nation by our own efforts. What we know presently as the FRG-rest-organisation, is the sad remnant of a history of occupation, which in the meantime lasted for 64 years.

Mr Zikeli:
At the key word ‘peace treaty’ I would like to pick up a further point I noted down, that is the so called Potsdam agreement. In this Potsdam Agreement it says in one place, that the final regulation of Germany’s border issue can only be ultimately determined by a final peace treaty with the German Empire.


Mr Görlitz:
That’s right. But regarding this issue there are other sources of law, hat can be used as well. I remind you of the SHAEF-Law Nr. 52, which was edicted on Aug. 2nd, 1945 by the allied victors. In this SHAEF-Law Nr. 52 the winners determine that our State German Empire is to be restored after a period of occupation, and after a peace treaty, as a sovereign state in the borders of 31st of December, 1937.


That is to say, the Allies have obligated themselves to do so. This implies, that we have, based on the law of the allied victors, the guideline and, of course, according to international law, as well, the entitlement to sign a peace treaty; and it implies that, of course, the final regulation of Germany's borders has to be and will be part of this peace treaty.
And, yes, your mention of the Potsdam Agreement, that's an issue that goes totally unheeded in Germany's post-war history. But that's a very important point, actually. For, by the Potsdam Agreement of August 1945 the Allies have clearly expressed what they expect us to do, and what our prior concessions have to be, before they will give us back our freedom. That means, they have formulated their requirements, and these were very tough. The Potsdam Agreement regulates the Allies' approach to the administration and the rearrangement of the German Empire very extensively.

If we read the text carefully, it says virtually that the German nation will be kept in bondage and slavery, until it has proven by continued efforts that it is willing and able to organize itself democratically and under a state of law. And that’s the starting point.
I think the last 60 years of the FRG have clearly proven that this experiment has failed and therefore, can be brought to an end. And judging from the circumstances of the year 1990 and from the situation into which the Allies have dismissed us with the various treaties that were signed back then, there is only one conclusion I can draw: the Allies have been waiting and observing since 1990, whether we are ready, willing and able to organize ourselves democratically and under a state of rule of law. We, the people of Germany - and not some FRG-rest-organization.

Mr Zikeli:
Since 1990 it is being suggested by the FRG-rest-organization again and again that we are a sovereign state, that we are independent and self-determined. But this contradicts article 125 of the Basic Law that still talks of occupation zones and article 139 of the Basic Law. Would you like to say a few words about this?



Mr Görlitz:
When we have a look at the German Basic Law, which – as already has been stated – is a self-administration law, in 1990 the Allies, if being serious about German sovereignty, would have had only one thing to do: they would have had to delete all articles related to occupational law, occupied territory and the assumption of occupation costs. And the most important article, article 139, would have had to be deleted first of all. For article 139 ensures the Allies’ supremacy over any FRG administration organization.

Article 139 of the German Basic Law says that the allied provisions, verdicts and laws prevail over any federal law and any decision of a Federal Government. This means that all actions by the FRG self-administration are of secondary importance.
And these things are so easy and simple that everyone who can read can verify them. Please, check how many places in the German Basic Law refer to occupied territory, occupation zones, occupation costs and occupational law, and check what is written in article 139.

Mr Zikeli:
I’d like to add, that it would have been easy for a sovereign Federal Republic of Germany, if it really were sovereign, to cancel these articles from the German Basic Law. But it hasn’t done so since 1990.

Mr Görlitz:
Because it isn’t allowed to. Any law passed by the Bundestag, before being issued by the Federal President, has to be submitted to the Allied High Commission for approval. They have the right to object. This follows simply from the allied occupation statute.

Mr Zikeli:
In this connection it comes to my mind that in recent years laws were passed again that did not require the consent of the Federal Council of Germany. Could you perhaps say a few words about that, too?

Mr Görlitz:
Yes, there are especially two essential bodies of laws and provisions, one being the “Erste Bereinigungsgesetz über Bundesrecht im Zuständigkeitsbereich des Bundesministerium der Justiz” becoming effective April 19th, 2006. This first settlement law, passed without the consent of the Federal Council of Germany, at the behest of the Allies, represents an important interference into our legal system. In particular the respective articles 1 of the introductory laws to the “Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz” or German judicature act, the German code of criminal procedure and the German code of civil procedure are cancelled.
Naturally, every layman says to himself, „So what? Then they are cancelled“. However, it is important to know, that only in an introductory law of a law the territory within which a law is operative is defined and that its declaration of coming into force can be found there only.

In the introductory law it is stated that the German code of civil procedure, as an arbitrary example, becomes effective for the whole German Reich, let’s say, on November 1st, 1875, this way the territory or territorial scope is defined.
Now it contains the declaration of coming into force, with an exact date, and the territory within which the legal norm is operative. Any legal norm, no matter whether it is an administrative offences act, a Basic Law, a code of criminal procedure or a criminal code – must define its territorial scope. If a legal norm is deprived of its comprehendable regional scope it will lose its applicability because no-one can define any more where it applies.

This was done in the ”Ersten Bereinigungsgesetz über Bundesrecht im Zuständigkeitsbereich des Bundesministeriums der Justiz” becoming effective 19th of June 2007,* in particular for the German code of civil procedure, the German code of criminal procedure and the German judicature act. But now some advice for all people who want to deal with the legal situation in more detail, and it is important for me to say that here again: don’t take for granted what is said, but start to check and to investigate yourself. And everyone who is interested in the legal situation in Germany and in what the Basic Law is, or maybe no longer is, can easily check and find out where the German Basic Law applies.

There was namely formerly article 23 of the Basic Law, which said the Basic Law was operative in the Federal states of Hamburg, Bremen, Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, Bavaria etc. If you look up that place nowadays, then you will find something very vague, faded, an allusion to some European integration. But this European integration is pointless, for Europe has not been constituted so far, and if you ask me it cannot be foreseen that a European constitution with a clear territorial scope will ever exist.
But once again: whoever wants to check it, through a simple study of the German Basic Law, can understand and find out that this Basic Law has no territory in which it is operative anymore. For at the end of the negotiations on the 4+2-Treaty there was the Paris conference in July 1990. And at that Paris conference on July 17th, 1990 the FRG foreign minister at that time, Mr. Genscher, was summoned and told by Mr James Baker, who was US Secretary of State at that time, that the preamble to the German Basic Law and article 23 of the Basic Law had been deleted without replacement. Thus the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany as well as the Federal Republic of Germany itself as a self-administration construct had been abolished by the allied victors. The same hour on July 17, 1990 Mr Markus Meckel, GDR Foreign Minister at that time, was summoned and had to attend upon Soviet Foreign Minister at that time, Mr Shewardnadse. And as far as we remember them, the Soviets were not particularly tender and simply enacted the expiration of the GDR constitution on July 18th 1990, at midnight. The Allies gave, and the Allies have taken away, and so it happened.


Mr Zikeli:
I may add that the so called 4-plus-2-treaty which has been signed on 12th of Sept., 1990 in Moscow, that this treaty was actually done away with barely two weeks later by the articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement for the settlement of certain questions with respect to Berlin of Sept. 25th, 1990. De facto this simply means that Germany was neither granted a sovereignty, nor has it ever actually been released into liberty by the occupying forces in any way.

Mr Görlitz:
Yes, that's what I meant before with the situation into which the Allies dismissed us in the year 1990, in the true sense of the word. For, as I have just explained, by the decision at the Paris Conference, that is by the abolition of article 23 of the Basic Law in its old version and by the abolition of the constitution of the GDR, the civilian self-administration systems of justice of the FRG and GDR have been executed with a blow. This means the last, the last legal security which the allied side granted us Germans after 8th of May, 1945, was deleted, simply suspended, done away with through this event at the Paris conference and through the orders given by James Baker and Edward Shevadnadse.


We were dismissed into this situation and in place of that the allied side negotiated a 4-plus-2-treaty, of which the Federal Government claims to this day that it is a 2-plus-4-treaty. But, those who negotiated there, were certainly the victors and not the defeated ones. The two constructs of occupation FRG and GDR were invited to this event as witnesses and as those who had to accept the instruction.
If we take a closer look at this 4-Plus-2-treaty and examine its substance, then we have a product that carries within itself the impossibility of being fulfilled. In it, there is talk that the united Germany is to be re-established, yet, according to the legal position of the Allies, which is valid to the present day, the united Germany, would have to include the FRG, the GDR, West-Berlin, East-Berlin and the eastern territories of Germany.


That would be the united Germany. For, I point out, the allied winners have promised us bindingly by law, by international law, in the SHAEF-Law no. 52 of Aug. 2nd, 1945 that the nation German Empire is to be re-established after a period of occupation and after the granting of a peace treaty as a sovereign nation in the borders of Dec. 31st, 1937.


Mr Zikeli:
Why, if I may ask once again, the borders of 31st of Dec., 1937?

Mr Görlitz:
That is a good question, why not the ones of 1st of April, 1938, or the ones of 1st of Sept., 1939? All of us know - some well, some not so well - the wheelings and dealings of that brown gang, that did its atrocities at German expense for 12 years. We know about the adventurous expansions of territory which have been striven for there. Hardly a month passed in which somebody didn't allegedly plead to be incorporated into the German Empire. And there were aggressive expansions of territory, entirely outside of any warlike disputes. And before the Allies passed the SHAEF-Law no 52, they simply checked until when the borders of the Reich were undisputed borders, in other words, clean by international law. And in case of doubt that applied until December 31st 1937 and therefore the Allies laid down in this SHAEF-Law no. 52 of August the 2nd 1945 that the sovereign state German Empire was to be re-established in the borders of December 31st, 1937.

Mr Zikeli:
What would have to happen in order for Germany to actually get a final peace treaty of the Second World War?

Mr Görlitz:
We only need to look into the Potsdam Agreement here. There it is stated that our German people will be kept in slavery and without freedom until the German people have proven by their steady efforts that they are willing and able to organize themselves democratically and under the rule of law. This means each of us, the common man, you, I, and everybody who is watching and listening to us, is asked to inform himself about the legal position in Germany and to take charge of things. We are asked to call in our liberty and our claims under international law in front of the Allies. And we need to do this in such a way that it becomes reliably clear that it is us, the German people, who are ready, willing and able to organise ourselves of a state under the rule of law and democratically.

Mr Zikeli:
I must say in this regard that within the last years I have got the impression that the so called FRG is making it increasingly difficult to stand up for freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law. I think you will agree that the option to work through the FRG has been made so difficult in the past years that the only open path remains the reactivation of the German Empire.

Mr Görlitz:
At the end of the day only this can be the goal by international law. For, as I have explained before, on German soil we can only have one German state. We are not able, not you, no matter which group tried it, no-body is able to invent a new state on German soil. Our people are the sovereign. Our people have constituted themselves in form of the Reich-constitution of August 11th 1919 and this can't be wiped away. That means that the re-establishment of our German sovereignty can be carried out on the basis of the Reich-constitution of August 11th, 1919, exclusively.

What a National Assembly will do then, regarding the modernization of our constitution is entirely a different issue. But first of all our Reich-constitution is to be reactivated. No matter how you look at it, by international law there is only one constitution on German soil and it is still a subject of international law, our Weimar Constitution of August 11th, 1919.



Mr Zikeli:
What exactly would you now advise a German spectator to do, who is not so well acquainted with this situation, yet, - apart from the fact, of course, that he surely should inform himself about this situation in detail. What would be the next step after he has informed himself? What should he do in your opinion?

Mr Görlitz:
The FRG-Rest-organisation claims to be a democratic self-administering construct organised of a state under the rule of law. This means, therefore, the people have the right to assemble and also to unite freely. One should look where one finds people who, too, are on the path of search for the reestablishment of the constitutional order in Germany. I have described, that this is possible only on the basis of the Reich-constitution and this doesn't work just like that, that one desires this, but one also has to undertake very specific efforts here, by pondering upon the question what the ability to rule means. And, we have a difficult situation here. For, that which calls itself Germany or Federation Republic of Germany, is but a self-administering construct, this means, this partially identical territory - partially identical with the state German Empire - is only being managed since 64 years. There is no governing here, because others are in charge and because only others are giving the guidelines, according to which a so called Federal Government has to turn and move.


Mr Zikeli:
You surely are referring to article 133 of the Basic Law.

Mr Görlitz:
Among other things. The situation for the reestablishment of the constitutional order requires us to prepare for the ability to rule, however. This doesn't have much to do with what we find at the so called seats of government of the FRG-Rest-Organisation. But that is a separate matter.

The people are invited to participate and to organize themselves, that is what the allied victors of the year 1945 stressed very much. And we should do that.

Mr Zikeli:
So, it is correct to say that the FRG was, as it was originally written down in the article 133 of the Basic Law, a continuation of the United Economic Areas, that is of the former western sectors, and that it still ekes out its existence under allied care to this day, without having an area within which the Basic Law is operative, - if I may summarize -, and that we practically have to relay on ourselves now, and as a people, and as humans have to try and show, that we are able to organise ourselves without being able to relay on the help of the Allies or the help of the FRG, but that we have to take things into our own hands to that degree, which the legal bases permit and that is quite far-reaching, if one understands that the FRG has de facto been dissolved in 1990 by the deletion of article 23.

This was also published in the Federal Law Gazette of 1990 part II, pages 885 and 890, if I remember correctly. I only can plead that one doesn't believe the words of Mr Görlitz blindly but that one informs himself well. There are numerous websites on this topic and a number of books, as well, which have been published on this topic. I am thinking of the Deutschlandprotokoll now, which, in the meantime, got its 3rd part published and various other books which were published in appropriate publishing houses.

Well, I thank you very much for the interview and would like to leave the closing remark to you:


Mr Görlitz:
I, too, say thank-you for the conversation. Again, I can only recommend everyone urgently to have a good look at the topic of legal position in Germany in order to gain insights. Namely the insights that are necessary to understand that every one of us is called to duty.

Because, according to the Reich-constitution of Aug. 11th of 1919 we have a far-reaching protection by this constitution - each of us as a citizen of the Reich. But in return this constitution also demands us to protect this constitution as single persons and stand up for it, and only to the degree to which we are aware of this and to the degree to which we get on the way to do this, will we be able to regain our freedom and our self-determination.

I invite you to take part herein and I hope that I will meet as many of you on this way, as possible.

Thank you.

Mr Zikeli:
Thank you.