Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
The Rule of Law Consists Solely of Legal Tricks – The Case of Julia Neigel vs. the Free State of SaxonyDo you still believe in the rule of law? In an independent judiciary that protects citizens from state overreach? Forget it. The case of musician Julia Neigel against the Free State of Saxony mercilessly exposes how the supposed rule of law actually works: with pre-written judgments, biased judges, and brazen legal tricks that recall darker chapters of Saxon judicial history. 
The Corona Intervention: When the State Ruins ArtistsIn 2021, during a tour, Julia Neigel was hit by a suddenly tightened 2G regulation issued by the Free State of Saxony. Concerts were massively disrupted, and revenues collapsed. Neigel filed a lawsuit—not only against the measure itself, but against a state that had massively interfered with fundamental rights. The central question: Was this emergency regulation even legally valid? As things stand, very likely not. But instead of an objective review, Neigel experienced proceedings that mock any notion of fairness.Scandal 1: The Judgment Before the HearingThe absolute peak of this judicial farce: In November 2023, Neigel’s lawyers discovered a draft judgment in the court’s paper files. Date stamp: April 2023. That was months before the first actual oral hearing. This draft already contained the dismissal of the claim—including reference to a hearing that had not yet taken place at that time and had in fact been aborted after only three minutes.Over 60 percent of the final 2026 judgment is word-for-word identical to this early draft. The lawyers had the document notarized—the court could no longer deny it later. A press spokesperson casually referred to it as a “working draft.” For the legal experts reviewing the criminal complaint, it was clear: this was a finished draft judgment. Minority Report justice: The court apparently already knew before any taking of evidence how the case would end. The oral hearing? Pure theater to fulfill the formal requirement of being heard. Scandal 2: The Revolving Door – Judges as Regulation AuthorsEven more explosive are the personal entanglements. A judge who had previously co-authored exactly those 2G and lockdown regulations in the Ministry of Justice appeared as the court’s press spokesperson. He sat in the courtroom while his own work was being dissected and communicated a one-sided version of the Saxon state government’s position to the press—until a supervisory complaint forced him to correct himself.Four out of five judges on the panel later admitted they had known about these connections. Motions for bias? Rejected. The judges saw “no problem” in eating daily in the cafeteria with the colleague who had written the disputed regulations. Classic Saxon crony networks—“Sachsumpf 2.0” sends its regards. Judges rotate between state chanceries, government positions, law firms working on behalf of the government, and judicial offices. In this state, which supposedly has a separation of powers, this appears to be entirely normal. That judges are expected to review laws they themselves helped shape as politicians or government employees is apparently considered unproblematic. The interview should definitely be watched. Scandal 3: Systematic Formal Error – 101 out of 102 Regulations Without Verification StampParticularly serious is the systematic violation of the state’s own formal rules. Every regulation must be reviewed by the Ministry of Justice and provided with a verification stamp according to administrative regulations. This stamp confirms compliance with federal and European law as well as adherence to all formal requirements.In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Saxon Minister of Health had to admit: Of 102 corona regulations, only a single one had this required verification stamp. This means 101 regulations were formally never properly enacted and should never have come into force, assuming they can even be considered as having come into force at all. The court consistently ignored this blatant deficiency. The 2G regulation challenged by Julia Neigel also lacked the stamp. Motions for evidence on this point were not even seriously considered. Instead, the court constructed exceptions by referring to the “special urgency of the pandemic”—thereby adopting old narratives that had long since been refuted, without addressing the extensive counter-evidence presented by the plaintiff. Scandal 4: Evidence? Not Heard. Constitutional Law? Ignored.
Scandal 5: The “Postal Van Regulation” – Entering into Force on the HighwayIn order to formally dismiss Julia Neigel’s lawsuit while simultaneously preserving the entire four-month Saxon lockdown, the court resorted to a particularly audacious construct:The decisive lockdown regulation was allegedly placed in the mail on November 23, 2021. The court claimed it came into force at midnight—somewhere “in the postal van,” “in the branch,” or “on the highway.” This would mean it was already effective at midnight on November 24. Julia Neigel’s filing of the lawsuit on the morning of November 24, 2021 would thus have been “too late.” At that time, the regulation was not accessible to citizens anywhere. Only a draft existed online. The official law and regulation gazette had not been published. Normal publication rules were ignored. The consequence of this absurd construct: citizens would have had to break into post offices at night or hijack postal vans to find out whether and when a new regulation came into force. Only then could they have filed a timely lawsuit. An almost Orwellian scenario that contradicts any logic of the rule of law. With this trick, the court attempts to kill two birds with one stone: Neigel’s lawsuit would be inadmissible—and the entire lockdown would remain (at least formally) valid. Millions in potential compensation claims would be neatly fended off. Background: On November 25, 2021, the German Bundestag ended the epidemic situation of national significance. From that date, no new regulations restricting fundamental rights could be issued. Existing regulations, however, could continue temporarily. Saxony reacted in panic and attempted at the last minute to enact a new lockdown regulation to preserve the strict measures over the winter. If the regulation had formally come into force correctly on November 24, 2021, it could at least have been considered formally valid. However, if it only came into force correctly on November 25, 2021 or later, it was fundamentally invalid and unlawful, and all measures based on it were likewise unlawful. The State Protects Itself – By All Means NecessaryThis case shows the system in its pure form: if a single lawsuit carries the risk of retroactively declaring all Saxon corona lockdown measures unlawful (with corresponding liability claims in the millions), then raison d’état takes over. Proceedings are steered in such a way that the desired outcome is achieved. Separation of powers? Not a trace. Instead, a seamless interlocking of politics, ministerial bureaucracy, and the judiciary.Julia Neigel and her supporters have filed criminal complaints for perversion of justice, obstruction of justice in office, document forgery, and other offenses. The Bitter Core: This Is the Rule of LawAttorney Ralf Ludwig summed it up: the rule of law consists of legal tricks and, in case of doubt, raison d’état. What Neigel experiences as an outraged citizen is everyday reality for many lawyers. The façade of the “free democratic basic order” is crumbling. Behind it emerges a system that prioritizes outcomes over law and fends off unwelcome plaintiffs with formalistic maneuvers—even when 101 out of 102 regulations were never formally valid.The Julia Neigel case is not an isolated incident. It is a lesson in how the state immunizes itself—against citizens, against truth, and against fundamental rights. The documents related to the case can be found at julianeigel.com/kulturlockdown/. It is worth studying them. Because they show how thin the veneer of the rule of law really is. Author: AI-Translation - АИИ | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Initiative to Found a Free Rural School Invites YouEducation Initiative: The founding of a Free Rural School. Committed individuals and interested parties are invited to participate in the founding process and help shape innovative... zum Artikel |
 | Why Does the City of Merseburg Forgo Revenue from Noise Pollution Fines?The city of Merseburg could increase its fine revenues from noise disturbances but chooses not to.... zum Artikel |
 | Why Are People Taking to the Streets?Reasons why people are taking to the streets. Recorded on April 9, 2022 in Hohenmölsen on the occasion of the traveling exhibition of the Citizens' Voice and a demonstration.... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |