Arbitration

An arbitration court is not a state court with a state judge, but a court in which both parties agree on one or more judges. Any responsible citizen can be a judge. In the U.S., it is mandatory for everyone to serve as a jury member and thus as a judge.

The basis for arbitration is the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards. This agreement has been signed by 168 states, which have thus committed themselves to the enforcement of such arbitral awards.

The Swiss Confederation has precisely regulated arbitration proceedings in its Swiss Private International Law Act 12th Chapter.

Private law takes precedence over public law. Example: In a boxing match, rules are established under private law. If this privately regulated law did not take precedence over state law, the boxers would be considered notorious assaulters and would be arrested.

Thus, arbitration always takes precedence over a state court and brings any state proceedings to a halt.

a. Domestic, i.e. both parties have the same nationality: since state courts are available to both parties for hearing, with state laws applicable to both parties, the right to arbitration must be expressly agreed to by both parties by contract = arbitration agreement.

b. International, i.e. each party belongs to a different nationality:
Neither party can in principle claim here that its state judge has jurisdiction, because there is a suspicion of bias from the outset, on the grounds that its state judge will in principle rule in favor of its own national.

Therefore, no arbitration agreement is necessary.

The Swiss Confederation has therefore expressly stated in its Code of Civil Procedure that if a party is not domiciled in Switzerland when the contract is concluded, an arbitral tribunal shall in principle have jurisdiction (CCP, 12th Chapter, Art. 178).

The constitution provides for a separation of powers. The abolition of civil servants means that this separation of powers no longer exists.
The fact that, for example, employed police officers/bailiffs/judges/prosecutors act according to instructions means that these "civil servants" or now employees no longer represent national law. They act as hostile agents of a foreign power.

Thus, if, for example, a policeman/judicial officer carries out orders that violate treaties and laws of the state and the constitution, he acts as a foreigner.
With the accession to the UN, the Charter of Human Rights was ratified. There, for example, the right to property is stipulated.
The termination of contracts cannot be done unilaterally. If the banks terminate the loan contracts prematurely, then there must be a consideration from the banks (compensation for damages), etc. Can this still be enforced in state courts if only employees sit there?

The abolition of civil servants creates a dictatorship. It is the abolition of democracy, it is a coup d'état, a putsch.
The difference from an employee to a civil servant is that a civil servant takes an oath to uphold the law of the state. The law of the state includes treaties that the state has entered into with other states.

In order for the civil servant to comply with his oath, he has the right of remonstration. This means that if the official receives an order that he considers illegal, he must refuse the "order" without any negative consequences for him.
An employee, on the other hand, must follow the illegal order, otherwise he may be summarily dismissed.

The official is personally liable for his actions! The employee is not, because he follows only an "order". Thus a joint and several liability arises, by the entire tax paying population (see under taxes)!
Instead of the official the taxpayer is liable.

By officials at all only the separation of powers in the state takes place. A civil servant controls the instruction, which he receives, because he is personally liable.
Example: In the courtroom, the public prosecutor, as a civil servant, controls the judge. If the judge makes protocol falsification, then the public prosecutor must intervene as a civil servant and bring the judge before the court because of law bending (in FRG at least 5 years imprisonment!). If he does not do this, the public prosecutor is liable as an accomplice just like the judge.
But if the public prosecutor is an employee, then he follows the instructions and will not intervene in the case of protocol falsification. The door is opened to arbitrariness! The accused can no longer exercise his rights and ends up innocently in prison or is dispossessed. These are the consequences of the abolition of civil servants!
The judges are no longer independent. But this independence was guaranteed to the citizen several times - see abolition of the independence of judges.
Who controls the judiciary, controls the state!

It is certain for us that the civil servants were abolished in the Netherlands, in Sweden, in Switzerland and unnoticed in Germany over a change of the Civil Service Law in connection with the Nationality Act of 1913.

With the taxes, the citizen pays first of all for being able to sue for his national rights (the rights to the integrity of the body or property as well as the rights to education, decent roads, etc.).
So he pays for a judiciary where he can sue for his rights before an independent judge, which is guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
If the taxes are no longer used for this, but for the opposite, then this is fraud, embezzlement....

The abolition of civil servants also abolished the independence of judges.

But this independence was guaranteed to the citizens several times. In all agreements and treaties it was explicitly stated, because of its absolute importance, that a judge must be:

independent

impartial

by law

In the first place this is the constitution of the individual states, in which the separation of powers is specified and the domestic laws for the appointment of the judges.

EU-Charter of Fundamental Rights

Article 47 (2)

Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.

Legal aid shall be...

European Convention on Human Rights

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

No one needs judges who do not themselves guarantee the right to independence guaranteed to citizens. They have thereby abolished themselves!

No one needs judges or "civil servants" or state employees financed through taxpayers' money if they do not guarantee the right to independent, legal and impartial courts and do not ensure that the constitutions are observed.
They work as foreign agents for a foreign power and are not entitled to payment from taxpayers' money.

Since the FRG did not implement the 2+4 Treaty, war is still going on (see our lawsuit in Washington DC.  World War II began with the shelling of the Free City of Danzig.  The Free City of Danzig made it possible for 620,000 Jewish citizens to enter Danzig visa-free and thereby escape the Holocaust.

The same can be done by all those who were deprived of their rights to independent judges. This is what happened to the Jews at that time (for more details see the lawsuit against the Dutch king).

The nationality of the Free State of Danzig continues to exist after 1945 - confirmed by the government of Lower Franconia/Bavaria/FRG and in the publication in the digital archive of the UN. Everyone can, like the Jews at that time, come under the protection of the Free City of Danzig, as long as the 2nd World War was not ended by a peace treaty and reparations were paid to the Free City of Danzig.

For this purpose it is not necessary to give up one's nationality, but one applies for residence, so to speak. Danzig is everywhere as long as the territory is occupied.

An international legal relationship is established with the Free State of Danzig. This means that only arbitration courts are admissible.

Letter to the mayors/municipal councils/tax offices, etc. asking them to ensure that the independence of the judges is restored.
If this is not confirmed, they no longer have the right to be financed by tax money.
Tax payments are not stopped, but reduced to the amount necessary for social benefits. Sample letter Communication on better use of taxes

Only police officers who guarantee the enforcement of arbitration awards may be paid. That is, international police officers must be funded to enforce your rights. Everyone who wants the rule of law back must participate in funding them.

International law is above national law, and that is why it is imperative that citizens start paying for international police.

Please get in touch via the contact form to do so.