The Circumstances 3
I. Legal
Circumstances 3
1. The German Reich
did not founder, it continues to exist 3
2. The Hakeburg is
the property of the German Reich. 3
3. The Hakeburg as a special asset of the
German Reich continues to be sequestered by the USA 4
4. Nobody may dispose
of the sequestered special assets of the German Reich without the consent of
the USA. 5
5. The Commissary
Government of the German Reich was established in 1985 by the Plenipotentiary
on orders from the SHAEF legislator USA. Since then the German Reich is again capable of acting. 5
II. Lease Agreement 5
6. In 1999, the
Hakeburg at Kleinmachnow near Berlin has been leased by the Principality of
Sealand for 99 years. 5
7. For 99 years, the
Property Hakeburg is the State Territory of the Principality of Sealand 5
8. The leasing of the
Hakeburg to the Principality of Sealand is legal both according to the law of
the German Reich and to occupational law. 5
III. Deals by the
Federal Republic of Germany and the Deutsche Telekom Void by Law. 6
9. All actions undertaken concerning assets
of the German Reich without the consent or authorisation by the Allied
Authorities are null and void. 6
10. This applies also
when the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany state or foresee different
scenarios 6
IV. Repudiation of
Invalid Assumptions 7
11. The Hakeburg was
never transferred from the assets of the SED to the special assets of the FDR 7
12. The entry in the
land register of August 2, 1974, was invalid. 8
Result of Points 10
to 12: 9
13. The stated
regulations, laws and by-laws are valid also for the time after October 3, 1990 9
14. The complete
SHAEF legislation under the leadership of the USA are the basis for the
four-power status as well as the so-called 2-plus-4 agreement based upon the
former and for the Federal Republic of Germany remains in force. 9
15. The entry of the
Deutsche Telekom AG as owner of the Hakeburg is invalid and contravenes the agreements
between the Federal Republic of Germany with the three powers as well as with
the four powers 10
V. Conclusion. 10
1. The German Reich did not founder, it continues to exist
Reasons:
This has been recognised by the Federal
Constitutional Court as well as in other national and international
jurisdictions. The Federal Republic of Germany is not the legal successor of
the German Reich: Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 31,
1973, concerning the foundation contract between the FRG and the GDR excerpt
pertinent section:
It is recorded (see BVerfGE, 1956-08-17, 1 BvB
2/51, BVerfGE 5, 85 [126]), that the German Reich has survived the collapse of
1945 and did not founder, neither with the capitulation, nor through the
exercise of foreign powers in Germany by the Allied Forces, nor at a later
date; it continues to maintain legal capability, but due to the lack of
organisation is not able to act as a sovereign state. The FRG is not the legal
successor of the German Reich, but identical to the German Reich as a state,
however, in respect to its territory only partially identical.
2. The Hakeburg is the property of the German Reich
Reasons:
The German Reich has acquired the Hakeburg
legally and in accord with procedural law from private ownership.
Dokuments 0106
01 Letter by the owner D. von Hake to the
Potsdam local court:
Announcement of the sale to the German Reichspost, dated January 15, 1937.
02 Letter by the Ministery of the Reichspost of January 16, 1937, to the local
court at Postdam: Intention to buy, query whether according to the land
settlement law of the Reich [#1, #2] an authorisation was necessary.
Hand-written by the local court within the document: no authorisation necessary
[#2] dated January 19, 1937.
03 Local Court Potsdam: Certification that the
property Kleinmachnow, Volume 6, Page 126 (file number 56), lots 1, 2, 3,
changed hands from D. von Hake to the German Reichspost, represented by the
President of the Reichspostdirektion Berlin. [#1, #2, #3] of January 22, 1937.
04 Transcript from the land registry of the
Spandauer Weg (lot 6656/33) and the land register Volume 6, Page 126: Owner D.
von Hake [#1, #2] of January 29, 1937.
05 District board Teltow-Flming:
Confirmation that there are no objections to the changing of hands.
Recorded buying price: 2'400'000 Reichsmark
Date: February 16, 1937
05a Letter by the Reichspostdirektion Berlin to
the Local Court Potsdam of February 18, 1937:
Request for soonest registration
06 Official transcript of the contract of
purchase between D. von Hake and the German Reich (Reichspost) of November 2,
1939.
3. The Hakeburg as a special asset
of the German Reich continues to be sequestered by the USA
Reasons:
A.
Law
No. 52 of the Military Government Germany, American Zone (hereafter called
SHAEF Law No. 52)
Amended
Blocking and Control of Property
ARTICLE I
Categories of Property
1.
All
property within the occupied territory owned or controlled, directly or
indirectly, in whole or in part, by any of the following is hereby declared to
be subject to seizure of possession or title, direction, management,
supervision or, otherwise being taken into Control by Military Government:
(a) The German Reich, or any of the
Lnder, Gaue or Provinces, or other similar political subdivisions or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, including all utilities, undertakings,
public corporations or monopolies under the control of any of the above;
2. Property which has been the subject of transfer under duress, wrongful acts
of confiscation, dispossession or spoliation, whether pursuant to legislation
or by procedures purporting to follow forms of law or otherwise, is hereby
declared to be equally subject to seizure of possession or title, direction,
management, supervision or otherwise being taken into control by Military
Government.
ARTICLE II
Prohibited Transactions
3. Except as hereinafter provided,
or when licensed or otherwise authorized or directed by Military Government, no
person shall import, acquire or receive, deal in, sell, lease, transfer,
export, hypothecate or otherwise dispose of, destroy or surrender possession,
custody or control of any property.
B.
Convention
about the regulation of certain questions in relation to Berlin of September
25, 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt 1990, Part II, Page 1274, Article 2:
All rights and obligations that are based on
and recognised by legislative, judicial or administrative measures of the
Allied Administration in or in respect of Berlin or based on and recognised by
such measures are and will remain in all respects in force according to German
law, even if they have been based on or recognised in accordance with other
legal requirements. These rights and obligations are subject without
discrimination to the same legal, judicial and administrative measures as do
similar rights and obligations based on and recognised under German law.
Further
evidence can be supplied anytime.
4. Nobody may dispose of the sequestered special assets of the German
Reich without the consent of the USA
Reasons:
SHAEF Law No. 52
ARTICLE III
Responsibilities for Property
4. All custodians, curators, officials, or
other persons having possession, custody or control of property enumerated in
Articles 1 or II hereof are required.
(a)
(I) To hold the same subject to the
directions of the Military Government and, pending such direction, not to
transfer, deliver or otherwise dispose of the Same;
5. No person shall do, cause or permit to be
done any act of commission or omission which results in damage to or
concealment of any of the properties covered by this law.
5. The Commissary Government of the German Reich was established in 1985
by the Plenipotentiary on orders from the SHAEF legislator USA. Since
then the German Reich is again capable of acting.
Reasons:
The legal basis for the Plenipotentiary is the
SHAEF legislation of the USA for Germany. The Commissary Government of the
German Reich (SHAEF Legislator USA) is bound within the The Hague Land War
Convention to follow the directives of the victorious power USA in respect to
the protection of its interests towards Germany until [the advent of] a future
peace treaty.
6. In 1999, the Hakeburg at Kleinmachnow near Berlin has been leased by
the Principality of Sealand for 99 years.
Reasons:
Lease
Agreement between the Principality of Sealand and the Commissary Government of
the German Reich (SHAEF Legislator USA)
7. For 99 years, the Property Hakeburg is the State Territory of the
Principality of Sealand
According to public international law this
lease agreement is comparable to the treaty between Great Britain and China
concerning to Hongkong.
8. The leasing of the Hakeburg to the Principality of Sealand is legal
both according to the law of the German Reich and to occupational law.
Reasons:
The application to obtain a lease of the
Hakeburg by the Commissary Government of the German Reich (SHAEF Legislator
USA) to the Principality of Sealand sanctioned by the US State Department
according to article 43 of the The Hague Land War Convention.
Further information at:
Reichskanzler Wolfgang Gerhard Gnter Ebel
Provisorischer Amtssitz
Knigsweg 1 (nicht 4)
1000 Berlin-Zehlendorf (14163 Berlin)
Telephone: +49 (0) 30 802 91 66
Telefax: +49 (0) 30 802 91 66
9. All actions undertaken
concerning assets of the German Reich without the consent or authorisation by
the Allied Authorities are null and void
Reason:
SHAEF Law No. 52
ARTICLE
V
Void Transactions
7. Any prohibited transaction effected without
a duly issued license or authorization from Military Government, and any
transfer, contract or other arrangement made, whether before or after the
effective date of this law, with the intent to defeat or evade this law or the
powers or objects of Military Government or the restitution of any property to its rightful owner, is null and
void.
10. This applies also when the laws
of the Federal Republic of Germany state or foresee different scenarios
In the Grundgesetz (constitutional law) for the Federal Republic of Germany it is
stated in Article 143b
(1)
The
special assets Deutsche Bundespost (German Federal Postoffice) are according to
Federal Law transmuted to enterprises of private legal form. The Federation
retains the exclusive legislation over all resulting matters.
(2)
The exclusive federal rights
existing before the transmutation may be transferred by federal law for a transitional
period to the enterprises that emerged from the Deutsche Bundespost POSTDIENST
(postal services) and the Deutsche Bundespost TELEKOM (telecommunication).
This article of the Grundgesetz (constitutional
law) for the Federal Republic of
Germany is according to effective private international law invalid.
Reasons:
A. Bundesgesetzblatt (Federal Law Publication),
1990, Part II, Page 1274
Announcement of the agreement of September
27/28, 1990, to the treaty concerning the relations between the Federal
Republic of Germany and the Three Powers (in the altered version)
as well as the agreement about the regulation
of questions arising from war and occupation (in the altered version) of
October 8, 1990
3. The following dispositions of the transition
agreement will remain effective:
Part One: Article 1, Paragraoh 1, Sentence 1
until lift or change legal prescriptions
as well as Article 2, Paragraph 1 (see below under B)
Art. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
Third Part, Addendum:
Article 3, 6
Sixth Part, Article 3
Seventh Part, Article 1
Ninth Part, Article 1
Tenth Part, Article 4
B. Transition Agreement
Agreement for the Regulation of Questions
Arising from War and Occupation
(in the version changed according to List IV
accompanying the protocol about the ending of the occupation regime in the
Federal Republic of Germany signed at Paris on October 23, 1954)
Article 2 (1) All rights and obligations based
on or recognised in legislative, judicial or administrative measures by the
occupational authorities are and remain effective in all aspects according to
German law. irrespective whether they are based on or recognised in with other
rules of law. These rights and obligations are subject without discrimination
to the same future legislative, judicial and administrative measures as similar
rights and obligations based on or recognised in intrastate German law. (see
3. B above)
C. Grundgesetz (constitutional law) for the Federal Republic of Germany, Art.
139
The rules of law decreed for the liberation
of the German people from national socialism and militarism are without
prejudice to the regulations of this constitutional law.
D. SHAEF Law No. 52, Article VI
Conflicting Laws
8. In case of any inconsistency between this
law or any order made under it and any German law the former prevail. All German laws, decrees and
regulations providing for the seizure, confiscation or forced purchase of
property enumerated in Articles I or II hereof, are hereby suspended.
E. Military Government Germany:
General Directive No. 2 according to Law No. 52 and SHAEF Law No. 55:
IG Farbenindustrie AG: Ban of legal
transactions in stocks and obligations and other financial interests of the IG
Farbenindustrie AG.
This general disposition is the actual and
generally recognised legal practice.
Reasons to E:
Documentation of the actual situation in the
matter IG Farben in the press; cross-examination of members of the board of IG
Farben, and more
11. The Hakeburg was never transferred from the assets of the SED to the
special assets of the FDR
From 1945 to 1990, too, the Hakeburg was the
property of the German Reich and was never added to the assets of the SED. A
transfer of ownership to the Federal Republic of Germany in this way never
happened, it also would be legally impossible.
Reasons:
In the former GDR the Hakeburg had been
declared Public Property. By this, the Soviet occupational forces did not grant
the German authorities any competence in respect to the ownership and the use
of the Hakeburg. Rather, the property was handed in trust to an administrative company.
Document 07 [transcript]
Transfer of Property of September 5, 1946
[rsum of the text: Transfer of ownership of the property of the former German
Reichspost at Kleinmachnow (park, castle and research institute) in the land
registry at the district court Teltow of Kleinmachnow Volume 194, Page 4537 and
Volume 6, Page 126, to the Fundament Gesellschaft fr Grundbesitz mbH at
Berlin. Fundament administers in trust
the real estate rights of the SED.] (Confirmed) According to order of May 25,
1946, No. 170 of the (Soviet) Military Commander of the district Teltow (Major
Kusniezow). [#1, #2, #3]
Document 08 [transcript]
Land registry Kleinmachnow, old version, of November 19, 1948
Owner:
Entry (1), Nos. 19: Public Property
Basis for the entry:
Was transferred on page 126 to Public Property, according to the by-law of
August 5, 1946 by the decisions passed by the Commission for Sequestration and
Confiscation. On request by the Teltow District Council at Machnow from October
4, 1948, here entered on November 19, 1948. Signed Lockhoff Schmidt
[#1] of May 9, 1949
First Section, Nos. 19
Entry (2) Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 (without 2 and 8)
Owner:
Fundament Gesellschaft fr Grundbesitz mbH at Berlin
Basis for the entry:
Entered here on May 9, 1949, based on the decision by the State Government
Brandenburg, Minister of the Interior, Office for the Protection of Public
Property, of April 14, 1949, owner Fundament Gesellschaft fr Grundbesitz mbH,
Berlin.
And:
August 2, 1974, entry (3), name change, now:
Organisationseigener Betrieb Fundament in Berlin
Basis for the entry:
Following Instruction No. 158/74 by the
Minister of the Interior and Chief of the German Peoples Police Force on May
24, 1974, entered on August 2, 1974.
12. The entry in the land register of August 2, 1974, was invalid
Reasons:
A. The legal chain of entries was interrupted
at this junction because the entries would have needed the consent by the SHAEF
Legislator, and an authorised agent of the Soviet occupational forces was
neither able nor allowed to give his legally effective approval.
The directive by the Soviet Commandant
contravened the SHAEF Law No. 76 (of January 29, 1945), published in the US
Amtsblatt fr Deutschland, Edition A, Page 42.
B. The entry of August 2, 1974,
was again ineffective, because the putative buyer, the Fundament GmbH, had its
seat in Berlin, the ongoing ambit of the special status of Berlin. Thus, this
company was subject to the special regulations effective for Berlin.
C. Official ascertainment of the
Special Status of Berlin under constitutional law:
With Order No. 1 by the Interallied Military
Commandant of the City of Berlin of July 11, 1945 (VOBl. d. Stadt Berlin, Nr.
4, S. 45) the administration of the city of Berlin was taken over by the Four
Powers and ordered that all orders and directives given by the chief of the
garrison and military commandant of the Red Army of the city of Berlin remain
in force until further orders. According to Cipher 2, Sentence 2, of the
ascertainment by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of
America and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics as well as the
Provisionally Government of the French Republic about the occupation zones in
Germany of June 5, 1945 (Source: Amtsblatt All. Kontrollrat
Deutschland ErgBl. Nr.
1, S. 11) and Cipher 7 of the ascertainment by the governments of the United
Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Socialist Soviet
Republics as well as the Provisionally Government of the French Republic about
the control procedure in Germany of June 5, 1945 (Source: Amtsblatt All. Kontrollrat Deutschland ErgBl. Nr. 1, S. 10) the whole city area of the
territorial administrative body of Gross-Berlin (Greater Berlin) was put under
the collective administration by the Four Powers, represented by an Interallied
Military Command of the City of Berlin under the supervision of the [Allied]
Control Council.
D. Declarations of Consent by the Military
Governors for the Constitutional Law of May 12, 1949, in the VOBlatt der brit.
Zone Nr. 50, of September 7, 1949:
4. A third caveat concerns the participation
of Berlin in the Federation. We interpret the articles 23 and 144 such, that
they constitute the acceptance of our earlier request, according to which
Berlin will not receive a voting membership in the Bundesrat (Federal Council)
or the Bundestag (Federal Diet) and will also not be governed by the Federation
Result of Points 10 to 12:
This establishes clearly that the Hakeburg has
always been and still is subject to the legislation of the Allied Occupational
Forces. The view that the Soviet Occupational Forces had rescinded the
sequestration according to SHAEF Law No. 52 cannot be sustained.
13. The stated regulations, laws and by-laws are valid also for the time
after October 3, 1990
There never was a note of rescindment by the
SHAEF Legislator for Germany concerning the sequestration of the assets of the
German Reich and thus of the Reichspost. On the contrary, the continued
effectiveness of it has been legally attested several times.
Reasons:
Agreement about the resolution of certain
questions concerning Berlin, of September 15, 1990, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl]
1990, Part II, Page 1274 [see above No. 3 B]
14. The complete SHAEF legislation under the leadership of the USA are
the basis for the four-power status as well as the so-called 2-plus-4 agreement
based upon the former and for the Federal Republic of Germany remains in force
Reasons:
C.
BGBl.
1990 II, Page 1274, Agreement about the resolution of certain questions
concerning Berlin, [see above No. 4 B]
- idem,
Article 4:
All judgements and decisions made by a court
of law or a judicial body instated by the allied authorities or by one of them
before the invalidation of the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers
in or inrespect of Berlon had been decreed, will in any case remain valid and
effective according to German law and will be treated by the German courts of
law and authorities like judgements and decisions from German courts of law.
15. The entry of the Deutsche Telekom AG as owner of the Hakeburg is
invalid and contravenes the agreements between the Federal Republic of Germany
with the three powers as well as with the four powers
The contracts with the Three Powers are the
unrescindable basis for the contracts with the Four Powers (Two-plus-Four
Treaty etc,)
Reasons:
Entries in the Land Registry of Kleinmachnow
Entry of August 15, 1995:
Document 09 [transcript]
Entry (4) Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9
Owner: Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn
Basis for the entry:
(request by the Bundesanstalt fr
vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben [Federal institution for special tasks
following reunification] of August 2, 1995, [PZ/M25V-94/40739]), entered on
August 15, 1995
Entry of February 3, 1998 [transcription]
Document 09a
Land register page 145 (deleted: 4905)
Real estate of the Fundament GmbH (deleted)
Deutsche Telekom AG: Newly written on
February 3, 1998:
Remarks: Reverted back!
(Zurckgefhrt)
Entry of February 3,
1998
Document 09b, no date,
Land registry Kleinmachnow Page 145 [transcription]
Owner Nos. 1 to 6: Deutsche Telekom AG
Reason for the entry:
Without Change of Ownership
new version here noted on February 2, 1998 [#1]
List of areas [#2]
Inventory [#3]
Remarks: The text of the entry: Without Change of Ownership is also
according to the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court of July 31,
1073, File No. 2 BvF 1/73 factually and legally invalid.
The Deutsche Telekom AG refuses the
Principality of Sealand in the German Reich the use of its State Territory
Hakeburg according to the contracts.
Thus the Deutsche Telekom AG which acts
according to the Fundamental Law (Grundgesetz) 143 as proxy of the Federal
Republic of Germany knowingly and intentionally contravenes effective
national, international and occupational law.
A complaint has been lodged.
The Principality of Sealand has assigned its
claim for indemnity to the state-owned company Sealand Trade Corporation for
legal and financial assertion.
A legally effective claim for indemnity has
been submitted and will be upheld until a conciliation or a judicial judgement
has been reached.
An extensive legal opinion is being prepared.
Note:
According to Government Resolution 080203 by
the Principality of Sealand, fifty percent of the indemnity payments will be
handed to the victims of the disastrous floods of August 2002 in Germany,
Austria and the Czech Republic as humanitarian aid.
Principality of Sealand, November
2002
RGB
