News on the case of Dr. Nittmann

Now, after more than two years of moaning and groaning, after a draining succession of court cases and delaying tactics, after an interim round of lie admissions from the government, which saw itself confronted with considerable international pressure in the form of numerous protest letters sent to the Chancellor, the highest German court, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVG) in Karlsruhe (Postfach 1771, D-76006 Karlsruhe; don't forget the file number: 1BvR 952/04) is dealing with the case of Dr. Nittmann. The legal procedure is highly complicated and is almost incomprehensible even to the interested layman; the lawyer, Niemietz, has, under great pressure – the four-week deadline included Easter – prepared a many-sided »non-admission complaint«, which the legal apparatus requires to decide on a matter that's as clear as day – the unconstitutional enforcement of unemployed non-church members to pay church tax from their already overstretched accounts. This case is so clear that anyone with common sense and a sense of state justice would hardly need ten minutes to determine its facts. In other words: once again, protest letters will be necessary in order to help these highly-paid ladies and gentlemen (highly-paid out of these very taxes) along in their sudorific work. We sent the following letter to all those interested, both at home and abroad (and have already received a pleasing response, from the USA to India; please always send us a copy!):

And some additional information – which is important because it is characteristic. Once one has boldly ventured forth into the thin air of proceedings before the highest courts, one then encounters many subtleties and monstrosities whose existence any normal thinking person – i.e. thinking in terms of state justice – cannot even imagine. The plaintiff, or rather his lawyer, receives an »instruction leaflet on the constitutional complaint« from the BVG containing general information about this procedure. The first sentence is so clear and unequivocal, so beautiful in its simplicity, that one could never believe it was written in these times of routine violations of the constitution, occurring as they do in their thousands. For this reason it is worth quoting: »Anyone can bring a constitutional complaint to the BVG who considers himself to have had his basic rights violated by the state authority [...]« (words highlighted by the BVG). Brilliant – this is exactly the case with Dr. Nittmann and millions of unemployed who are not members of the major Christian churches and yet still have to pay church tax. But then the tenor changes distinctly – and just like when you're dealing with the double-glazing salesman at the door, you should also read the small print before signing the contract.
     In addition to sensible and justified preventative measures in regard to querulousness and trial-hunters – i.e. the abuse of the important right of constitutional complaint – it also says, for example: »An individual citizen principally has no claim pursuable by means of constitutional complaint to any particular action on behalf of the legislator.« And why not? Must it not be the most urgent matter for a state of law and order, in the case of violation of its most valuable possession – the constitution – to push for a remedy as urgently and quickly as possible, i.e. to get on the cases of those consuming money in the Reichstag ? (And please leave the Montesquieu-esque shelf-warmer about »separation of powers« to continue gathering dust: who can the ruling, i.e. American, classes actually separate the »power« among? Not with us, that's for sure, and not with you either, dear reader, unless you just happen to be the Pope, the Chancellor or the owner of a newspaper.) What use is it to the plaintiff if he is formally adjudged to be in the right – but then nothing happens because compensation and the filing of charges are explicitly forbidden if he – and that is the only possible »success« – is referred back to the courts that have just spent the last half – or entire – year messing him about? What is the victim of a constitutional violation supposed to get out of that? Is he supposed to have this verdict put in a black, red and gold frame and hang it up in his living-room – or would it not perhaps be better to throw it straight into the bin? A propos verdict: two pages later it says, succinctly, but the crack around the ears of this arbitrary decision still can't be overheard: »The rejection of the lodging of a constitutional complaint can be decided by a unanimous decision by the chamber, which comprises three judges. The verdict requires no substantiation and cannot be appealed against.« The slap in the face has already been prepared in advance, according to the »Why? Because.« method. So, letters of protest are urgently required, even if only to ensure that any planned act of injustice will at least have to be »substantiated« (sudorific work too, isn't it?!), or, which would be considerably better since it would save time, effort and money: so that the violated constitution becomes valid again.
     One second, and no less important point. Recently we have been receiving more and more letters from unemployed who have filed charges in the same matter as Dr. Nittmann and, encouraged by this determination to take this charge to the European Court if necessary, provide us with valuable information. For instance, we have discovered that the Sozialgerichte at state level are now already refusing to grant the claims of unemployed non-church members, declaring themselves to have »no jurisdiction« – a clear intensification of unlawfulness by the legal system, which is aiming at discouragement at the lower court level. It is essential that this concept does not work, that the modest possibilities of defending oneself (i.e. the »non-admission complaint«!) are exhausted. The German Church State as blessed by Hitler, which knows how to conduct an extremely effective »class struggle from above«, must not be allowed one millimetre of space to expand into – it's enough of a state outside the law as it is!
     This is also how we learned of the scandalous ruling passed by the state Sozialgericht (LSG) in Stuttgart half a year after the negative ruling against Dr. Nittmann (16 December 2003). Not only did the Stuttgart LSG refer to the ruling against Dr. Nittmann – which is how the state outside the law establishes itself, from ruling to ruling, and that is why it is so important to break this chain at a decisive link – but one of the most important discoveries we have made with great effort during the trials, and, to the extreme displeasure of the state authorities and the aligned mass media, also made public, is being talked to death and impudently denied: the unshakable fact that in 1999 already, 43% of those in employment no longer belonged to a major Christian church, and that with an annually increasing tendency to leave the church estimated at up to 3%.
     With the malicious and calculated intention to obfuscate matters, the scandalous ruling passed by the Stuttgart LSG (File No. L9AL 670/03) now includes, in addition to those in employment, the entire population (i.e. including children that have been forcibly baptised and pensioners), thus achieving, of course, »according to information from the Federal Ministry of Employment and Social Order from 6 November 2001« (oh, how official, how serious!) – »a 65.6% share of church members among the population as a whole« (S. 8 of the opinion of the court).
     What a windy and base manoeuvre! It continues: »The proportion of church members among the population as a whole has not decreased significantly since that time.« Half a year previously, the same court had to admit in the ruling against Dr. Nittmann: »The Federal Statistical Office assumes, in the explanation of its survey, that should the development of the figures up to 2001 have continued since 2001 the percentage of those in employment who must pay church tax as related to the employed population who have to pay social insurance could have decreased to 53.9. However, this prognosis is based on several premises that do not necessarily support its accuracy« (i.e. the LSG simply does not want to take any notice of the figure). Half a year later, the same court states the following: »The conclusion to be drawn from a continued development of the figures obtained by the Federal Sozialgericht for the end of 1999 is that at the end of 2000, about 57.06% of the employed population who have to pay social insurance and at the end of 2001 56.54% of this group were members of the three major religious groups entitled to church tax« (S.9). How precise, all of a sudden – and what a lie! Not only have the Jews, who have nothing to do with this and who, unfortunately, hardly carry any statistical weight any more thanks to Hitler, suddenly been included (that's why we now have three »major« religious groups – is this all the Jews' fault again? What an absolute abomination, fitting perfectly to the latest Jesus film!); but there is, in the worst sense of Kant, no »conclusion« to »be drawn« from this »continuation«, let alone figures that are correct to two decimal places, because only a few lines further down nothing is certain for 2003 »in all probability«, and one therefore must wait for »more than three years«. This is not error, it's lies, coldly presented in the calculated intention that the victims will not exchange information with each other but will resign themselves in anonymity and isolation. And let's wait another three years as well – people can die in that time, even sovereign states can fall, and the memory of a criminal act, which the LSG has in so many words named as such by admitting that »the legislator [is] currently pursuing its duty to act« and will be abolishing the enforced church tax on unemployed non-church members from 1 January 2005, can fade. Ketzerbriefe readers know more and therefore how this ruling was achieved (KETZERBRIEFE 116). And not one unemployed person has seen a single cent of the money taken from him since this hogwash. But that is exactly what we are demanding of the German Church State: the immediate repayment of the unconstitutionally imposed church tax to all the unemployed that have had it stolen from them!
     This by no means completed trip to the bleak zone of church state injustice – odours that stink to high heaven – proves one thing above all: that attention must not be allowed to fade and determined action is necessary. Laws don't fall from heaven but are cease-fire lines drawn up in the class struggle (yes, precisely that – whether someone can become unemployed or – on account of possessions – cannot, is dependent on class: there's nothing we can do about this), and these lines can be moved: both forwards and backwards.