The world from a different perspective
just another Court?
The Kininigen Free Arbitration Court.
But why? Because if you look around, there are enough dishes in this world. Or not?
They may, according to official statements, be allegedly overloaded when people try to claim their rights, but they are numerous.
Does the world seriously need more courts?
We at Kininigen have researched and searched and say yes!
The world clearly needs another court. And one of the kind that the Kininigen Free Arbitration Court is.
An independent court competent and effective for the concerns of living, spiritually moral beings of reason.
In the following article we will explain why, how and how we have come to this conclusion.
"No man is free who is not master of himself."
The Free SChiedsgericht
Let's talk about the world of courts in this world.
We, as free sovereigns, who perceive ourselves as living, spiritually moral beings of reason [popularly called man], have searched for a court which is competent for us and which fulfils the high standards which, in our opinion, an effective court should fulfil. Unfortunately, despite intensive efforts, we were not able to find an institution that is active in this area.
We have inquired at various government offices, at Amnesty International, the UN, at cities directly, at courts, etc.
Our question has always been, "Who is the Commissioner of the Inalienable Rights of Man here?"
On the spot, we only ever received big, questioning eyes and the answer "We're sorry, unfortunately we can't help you any further" and the subsequent referral to another office, which meant we kept going round and round in circles. The last office, the district court of a German city, finally provided a clear answer: "We are here solely for the business interests.„
Nowhere was there to be found a post or commissioner for the inalienable rights of living, spiritually moral beings of reason - not even one for [human beings] as understood by the system today (The term human being in the system does NOT mean what is understood in common usage, that term has been reinterpreted and codified in the statutes as: "Man is the natural PERSON" - Which is not the same thing). But only institutions and bodies concerned with business interests.
Thus we were forced, due to this non-existence, to call this Kininigen Free Arbitration Court into being, in order to fill this gap for our members, the living, spiritually moral rational beings [human beings] who have clearly declared themselves to be so by denouncing the contract, and also for all other creatures of this planet who perceive themselves as human beings in accordance with the Definitions of terms of Kininigen and to the exclusion of the legal understanding, to close.
However, if we are mistaken and such a body exists and is active and meets and lives the high standards applied by the Kininigen Free Arbitration Court, we ask the reader of these lines who has this information to inform us.
To do right safely, you need to know very little about law.
Just to do wrong for sure, you have to have studied the law.
Thus, on the day of 1874819, the opening and convening of this free and independent arbitration court for arbitration in free accordance with theNew York Convention, was decided by the Sovereigns. The Free Arbitration Court Kininigen - For the preservation of inalienable rights of the living rational being, decides at all times according to the principle:
"Let the lowly follow the highest, but not the highest follow the lowly."
Thus, the referees of the Kininigen Free Arbitration CourtThe arbitration is therefore carried out by five to seven free individuals, even twelve in special cases, who are committed to the highest moral, character and ethical values and principles at all times, always striving to dispense justice impartially and justly when the rights of [people] are violated, and indeed are competent to do so in the first place. Arbitration is therefore carried out by five to seven free individuals, in special cases even twelve, who are committed to the very highest values in their inner orientation, with the aim of impartially finding justice in the court of arbitration.
In this regard, the adjudication is not based on presumptions, but on facts, in order to enable the fair arbitration and to avoid possible Overreaching of people by lawyers and to ensure free and independent jurisdiction without interference or entanglement with other conflicting interests.
In order to exclude arbitrariness, vigilante justice or abuse in the administration of justice, only the highest moral and ethical values and principles are adhered to, which is ensured by a judicial oath previously taken by each arbitrator. Thus, the arbitrators of the Kininigen Free Arbitration Court are at all times subject to the highest moral, character and ethical values and principles, always striving for impartial, impartial and just justice and to arbitrate when rights of [people] are violated, indeed, are competent to do so at all. Arbitration is therefore carried out by five to seven free individuals, in special cases even twelve, who are committed to the very highest values in their inner orientation, with the aim of impartially finding justice in the arbitration court. A separate, new arbitration tribunal is formed for each arbitration. This is a particularly important part of arbitration by a free court.
The arbitral award is as legally binding as the judgment in state court proceedings and can therefore be legally enforced (enforcement). Only in a few exceptional cases, e.g. serious procedural errors, can an arbitral award be set aside. The arbitral award therefore corresponds to the judgment of the last instance in state court proceedings (final judgment) - unlike in state courts, there is no appeal procedure. In contrast to state court proceedings before a court, the parties can jointly determine elementary terms of their arbitration. Thus, the parties and the arbitral tribunal can flexibly structure the arbitral proceedings to meet the individual needs of the case being adjudicated. A party submits a written request for arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration and the respondent may then comment on the request for arbitration in the statement of defence and may file a counterclaim. With the subsequent commencement of the proceedings, the limitation periods are generally interrupted. The parties shall be treated neutrally and equally and each party shall be granted a fair hearing. The arbitral tribunal shall determine the procedure at its discretion after hearing the parties.
This Court, in free imitation of the New York Convention on Arbitration, was established to provide a free jurisdiction, without entanglements with other organizations, for all living rational beings [popularly known as human beings]. The objective is to protect the inalienable rights to which they are entitled. This is done on application and without long aggravation and procedure or compulsion of representation. Thus it is a free court, a court of arbitration which stands in the service of all spiritual, moral, living beings [human beings] and does not serve the pursuit of economic purposes.
Professor at Ehrfurt 1803:
John Christian Lossius
Whether God is the fountainhead of all law? As far as this question is concerned, God is the direct source of all that is right, inasmuch as he is also the author of human nature. Man has received from him the possibility of knowing what is right or wrong through his reason, which is a gift of the Godhead.
God is said to have written it in man's heart, that is, to have made it known to him through his reason, but this means nothing else than that he has made it possible for him to recognize what is right or wrong through reason. All men would admit that it is the desire of nature to act according to the laws of right and justice, because this is the only useful means of maintaining peace among men. Where is there a civilized nation in which this truth has not always been known?
Highest moral Values
How is it ensured that the judges working for the Kininigen Free Arbitration Court are subject to the highest moral values and principles?
What about customary courts?
Let's take a look at the common law courts. With an oath, we make sure that, in this case, a judge really does what he is supposed to do. We expect him to act on truth and honor, for the greater good. Free from prejudice or influence. After all, he has a tough job. Lives depend on him and his decisions. Lives. He can dispense justice or destroy it.
The judicial oath for Austria shall be as follows § 29 RStDG Oath of office of the judge
The judge shall take the following oath of service on taking up his first appointment:
I swear that I will observe the legal system in force in the Republic of Austria without exception and that I will devote all my strength to the service of the Republic.
He thus commits himself exclusively to the Republic of Austria. There it does not say "for the good of all people" or "for the good of the people" or at least for the "good of justice".
It doesn't even matter what it says as much as what it does NOT say.
In Germany the judicial oath very similar:
"the office of judge faithful to the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany " and "to serve only truth and justice".
But since the obligation here was first promised to the FRG, it also means that it is to serve your truth and its justice. There it does not say "for the good of all people" or "for the good of the people".
Not a word about the rights and welfare of the people. In no oath, the judge commits himself to act for the good of the people, that is to exercise justice. It's there for a reason. Courts are instructed, and are subject to the obligation, to pursue business interests. This statement we received directly at an acting court, the evidence of the Sound recording is available to us.
All dishes are Private courts. Thus, our Kininigen Free Arbitration Court is no different from others, except in the form of applied, high moral values and principles and commitment to truth and justice and fairness.
Because as with any arbitration court - which requires prior consent, the consent to the common courts such as district court, regional court, higher regional court, etc.. by prior implied consent, which is done by accepting the contracts - identity card, passport.
See Judicature Act § 1
"Judicial power is exercised by independent, only the law subordinate courts exercised."
But only to the law. It does not say WHICH law he is subject to. As an ignorant "citizen", one assumes of course, it is the law of the Federal Republic of Germany. What is the highest oath that Lawyers swear? What is the law for them?
It is the law of the BAR and its 12 presumptions.
Moreover, private institutions are also subject to the "law".
Because the paragraph where the statehood was regulated in former times, GVG §15 was omitted in the year 1950.
Excerpt from the book
Civilprozessordnung für das Deutsche Reich nebst Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz und Einführungsgesetze 1877:
Judicature Act § 15
"The courts are state courts.
Private jurisdiction is abolished; in its place is the Jurisdiction of the state in which it was exercised. Presentations for employment in the courts do not take place.
The exercise of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction in secular matters is without civil effect. This applies in particular to matters of marriage and betrothal."
That very paragraph has just been dropped. For good reason.
Is it then perhaps the European Court of Human Rights responsible?
Now, one could say, well, then I'll just turn to the European Court of Human Rights. Let's take a look at the whole thing for Austria, and specifically for 2017, because this Report is currently online on their site. 217 complaints have been filed against Austria and 24 judgments have been issued.
Among particularly noteworthy cases you will find then here for example:
S. H. and others v Austria(57813/00) 03.11.2011 The case concerned a complaint by two Austrian couples about the ban on artificial insemination techniques, which they wanted to resort to.
Mute against Austria 07.07.2011 The case concerned a complaint by a former prisoner about his non-membership in the pension scheme for work done in prison and his consequent ineligibility to receive relevant benefits.
"287 complaints are filed and 260 are declared inadmissible or struck off its register" ? This corresponds to a Rejection of complaints from just under 91%.
Germany is even more conspicuous in this respect. Here was in the year designated by the European Court of Human Rights In 2017, the declaration of inadmissibility in over 97% of all cases filed. It received 638 complaints against Germany and 621 were declared inadmissible or removed from its register.
Among the "cases worthy of mention" declared valid and admissible by the Court of Justice, one then finds, for example, these cases:
Axel Springer AG v. Germany 07.02.2012 The case concerns the publication ban of two newspaper articles on the Arrest and criminal conviction of a well-known television actor by German courts.
From Hanover against Germany 07.02.2012 Complaint about the refusal of German courts to prohibit the publication of holiday pictures of the complainants (Princess Caroline of Hanover - Daughter of the late Prince Rainier III of Monaco - and her husband Prince Ernst August of Hanover) taken without her consent.
Gäfgen v. Germany 01.06.2010 Convicted of kidnapping and killing a child, the complainant alleged that the police had threatened him with torture to make him reveal the child's whereabouts
Herrmann v Germany 26.06.2012 The complaint concerned a landowner's grievance about being forced to accept hunting on his land despite being opposed to it on moral grounds
In the face of the decisions and judgments of the permanent courts experienced by himself, in the family and environment, the author comes to the conclusion, in view of these and by the example of the Police violenceOne cannot help but wonder how these figures and judgments of the European Court of (alleged) Human Rights come about. The explanation is provided by this court itself:
So a complaint can only be filed by persons for persons. But wait a minute, isn't this court actually called the European Court of Justice for PEOPLE-rights and not European Court of Justice for PERSONAL rights?
So we fill out a complaint under the NAME we are used to using in daily life and complain.
But what do we read in Germany, for example?
Whoever is now somewhat confused and says, "but I am a person" or "that is the same thing" is advised to do more research in this area. A [person] has a person, comparable to a company, which he uses in daily life in order to be able to participate in the system in a businesslike manner. It is exactly what the term person says and means. Persona - Mask. Since wikipedia has removed and changed this etymological meaning, which was originally there, another page is recommended here.
About the general reason of all this stuff, we have already discussed in this Post written.
It doesn't say the name of the person. But the name of the person, which belongs to the state. Thus, the person, inadmissibly, files a complaint under the name of the person belonging to the state.
Moreover, in these 50 questions to the ECtHR, the term "person" appears 13 times. The term "person" only appears in the name of the Court or in the name of the Convention and is otherwise not mentioned once in connection with human beings.
Visually you could put it like this, I call a business cake bakery but sell plates of fermented herbs for Agni Hotra. It is misleading but permissible and not my fault if someone is fooled by it.
Professor at Ehrfurt 1803
John christian Lossius
"The faculty of judgment is called power of judgment.
The lack of the same is stupidity, a fault which nothing can replace."
Well, what are the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights for an appeal to be recognised as admissible?
So you have to have gone through all the state instances beforehand. What costs very, very much time and especially money, which the ordinary Human as is well known, does not have. Thus incredibly high hurdles are put, which make it impossible for humans to find at all a judicial hearing. These financial means have now times then such companies like the Axel Springer AG, the house of Hanover or evenly state-financed associations for the protection of homosexuals or asylum seekers, which explains the high portion of this group, under the designated "worth mentioning judgements".
The ordinary person is left by the wayside without a lobby and without assistance. Which, in our view, is discrimination. Thus, we, the sovereigns of Kininigen, through our commitment to the high moral and character values and principles, are to close this gap for the benefit of the people and thus to open access to justice to EVERY human being.
Update of the post from 08.04.21
The well-known and controversial US billionaire George Soros, with his Open Society Foundation, and Microsoft, the company founded by Bill Gates, are two of the biggest donors to the European Court of Human Rights.
This according to the research of Grégor Puppinck, lawyer and director of the European Center for Law and Justice. Based on the annual financial reports of the institution 2020 proved. The Frenchman reveals how enmeshed Soros and Gates are in organizations such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the UN and the WHO.
"If you read the Council of Europe's annual financial reports, you will find that George Soros' Open Society and Bill Gates' Microsoft are the organization's two largest private donors. These two organizations donated nearly 1,400,000 euros each to the Council of Europe between 2004 and 2013, and nearly 690,000 euros between 2006 and 2014. The Open Society also supports Council of Europe initiatives, including the European Institute for Roma Arts and Culture," said Grégor Puppinck in an interview with the French newspaper "Valeurs Actuelles.
22 out of 100 of the permanent judges of the European Court of Justice, are members of 7 NGOs.
"Puppinck's research proves that in the last ten years, 22 of the Court's 100 permanent judges have come from seven NGOs. 18 of them had to deal with cases involving the very NGOs for which they themselves worked. This, Puppinck said, is a violation of the basic rules of judicial ethics. "Among these seven NGOs, the Open Society network stands out for the number of judges associated with it (12) and for the fact that it funds the six other organizations mentioned in the report."
The article also compares the logo of the European Court of Human Rights with that of George Soros' Open Society Foundation. Both are very similar.
A flipped six.
End of update.
What about the United Nations Human Rights Council?
Also on the page Deutsche Gesellschaft für die Vereinten Nationen e.V. we find under the point Complaints procedure the following statement:
On the basis of the information provided, the Working Group on Situations, consisting of five members of the Human Rights Council, decides whether the complaint should continue to be discussed in confidence, be dropped or whether the procedure should be referred to the Council for consideration and thus made public. Over the past ten years, an average of 20,000 complaints per year have been received under the 1503 procedure. Only a very small number of these are actually admitted.
One can also find on the International page, among the many colorful articles and reports on the numerous meetings and sessions, this form for a complaint to the International Court of Justice.
This form is then to be filled in the quote:
six official languages of the UN: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
German is not represented here. One of the conditions for the complaint to be accepted is again:
It is submitted by a person or a group of persons claiming to be the victims of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, or by any person or group of persons, including non-governmental organizations, acting in good faith in accordance with the principles of human rights, not resorting to politically motivated stands contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and claiming to have direct and reliable knowledge of the violations concerned. Nonetheless, reliably attested communications shall not be inadmissible solely because the knowledge of the individual authors is second-hand, provided that they are accompanied by clear evidence;
So you have to submit it again as the person.
Amnesty International, then?
For example, the inalienable rights of every living, spiritually moral being are enshrined.
Very commendable. And how does Amnesty International act when these are violated?
When people are threatened with human rights violations, Amnesty alerts its Urgent Action network. Within a very short time, people around the world send letters, faxes and emails to the relevant governments and authorities. The attention generated in this way is often decisive in saving a human life: around 35 percent of all Urgent Actions are successful!
So let's summarize. If someone's life is ACTUALLY threatened, a few members will (possibly) send a few letters and faxes.... (maybe...)
Here you can join this certainly immensely effective and probably highly effective action "Urgent Action" participate. (At this point I ask for your indulgence for my sarcasm).
But back to the beginning - the judge's oath.
Here in the example of a judge's oath in the excerpt of the chamber court order (before again complaints come because of the "funny German" - this is the original wording from the year 1471:
No. 170. Chamber Court Order. - 1471, Oct. 24.
"I N. globe and swear that I will judge and pronounce justice according to all my best understanding and senses, in matters which are acted upon and taken before me in the chamber court, and that I will not let this be done for the sake of favour, love or promises of any party or otherwise. not to let this be done for fear, favour, love, gift or promise of any gift or otherwise; not to restrain or delay my judgement, nor to have any argument with any party who has to deal with the court, nor to help or support any party against the others, nor to take me from you or to advise you in your matters, but to do it all for good".
Also here one sees that also already at that time "in things" one negotiated, however high moral requirement and the Verplfichtung were demanded of the judge to it.
We at Kininigen, aspire to the highest, and even there, the sovereigns of Kininigen, acting as judges, take this oath.
The JudgeOath at the Free
Ich, das geistig sittliche, moralische und lebendige, nach den Höchsten Richtlinien der Höchsten Quelle Allen Seins, lebende und immerwährend danach strebende, freie und souveräne Wesen hinter dem Namen …, verkünde hiermit feierlich:
Bei der hiermit angenommenen Berufung, zum Richter vor und am Freien Schiedsgericht Kininigen gelobe ich solenne, bei der Erfüllung dieser Tätigkeit immerzu den höchsten moralischen Grundsätzen und Maximen von Wahrheit, Ehre, Würde, den allerhöchsten moralischen, ethischen Werten und Prinzipien und Vorgaben der Höchsten Quelle Allen Seins und den Grundsätzen von Ama-gi koru-É Kininigen in meinen Handlungen zu entsprechen und diese einzuhalten und mich ausschließlich von diesen leiten zu lassen. Ich gelobe, die Entscheidungen nach diesen Leitsätzen, in Unparteilichkeit und Unvoreingenommenheit, vorurteilsfrei und nach eingehender Prüfung vorzunehmen, um die unveräußerlichen Rechte eines jeden lebendigen und freien Vernunftwesens in der Verkörperung als Mensch, zu wahren und zu beschützen und der Gerechtigkeit, in meinem Tun zu dienen.
Incidentally, the original Term "Man reinterpreted by the system. With this term is not meant what the Ottonormalverbraucher should understand under it - the living, spiritually moral reason being, but the term became the Natural Person - what the just mentioned Ottonormalverbraucher feels now also as normal. He feels as a person, because he was never taught that man is not equal to person. The human being is not a person, but he has one. This not knowing, is the big problem of our time.