Andries van Hoebeek v. The Keil Workers' Council

[Fremet]

Thank you Advocate Le Roux. I now call on the representative of the Respondent, The Keil Workers' Council, to deliver their opening statement.

Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ

[A Former User]

I am Striasi Tiat, and will represent the Kiel Workers' Council for the duration of this case.

Perhaps one of the most important things that I must say is that this case is predicated on a single falsehood - that Kiel, at the time, was a member of the European Union. I can confidently say that it was not; that because the council was created ex nihilo, it was not an heir to the membership of the former Confederation, and thus did not hold it and does not hold it to this date.

We do not deny what Advocate le Roux has said; however, we must clarify that much of it has to do with our law. The Kiel Workers' Council made the arrest order based upon its own basic law, drafted almost immediately after the revolution, which classifies all crime as one - that is, an 'offence against the people.' Of this we had sufficient evidence, although not enough to truly specify said offence; this was one of the reasons why the People's Court and the Workers' Council were, in Advocate le Roux's words, 'attempting to find a crime,' the other being that punishment in Kiel is based upon rectification and rehabilitation.

This also explains why what Advocate le Roux refers to as an 'arrest without a pretext' was made; because there is only one real offence, there is no real need to state a pretext; it should already be known.

We do not have to be compliant with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights even now, for the Kiel Workers' Council is actually two organizations, albeit both with the same members - one which is a member of the People's Confederation and thus a member of the EU, and one that is not. The organization that Andries van Hoebeek has brought to court is that which is not, and thus cannot be held to EU law.

[Fremet]

We will now move to the oral arguments phase, Advocate Le Roux may begin followed by a rebuttal by Advocate Tias.

Advocate Le Roux, for the benefit of the court, I'd like to specifically ask Advocate Tias to elaborate upon this duality you have described with the organisations named the Kiel Workers' Council. Could Advocate Tias also describe the nature and degree of separation between these two organisations themselves, the Haanian government, and the European Union?

Following Advocate Tias' response, Advocate Le Roux may begin with their rebuttal.

Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ

[A Former User]

The duality of the organizations is quite difficult to define, but it is to do with the Constitution of Eastern Haane, which defines the workers' councils as the foremost vanguard of the revolution. All of their additional functions are based upon this; they are not of terrible consequence.

In contrast, our constitution defines ourselves as a sovereign government. We exist, as such, in a similar situation as the State of Haane-Keste - that is, able to govern entirely separately from the People's Confederation - with the exception that we do not have an agreement involving representation in the European Union, meaning that we are not bound to follow its laws and are completely outside of it.

We actively separate the roles of vanguard and governance; we, in fact, make decisions in both situations in different ways, as proscribed by two different formulas.

The Haanean government, of course, obeys all the legislation of the European Union, and we comply with it when acting as a vanguard.

[Fremet]

Thank you Advocate Tias.

We will now open the oral arguments. Advocate Le Roux, as the appellant in this case, you will start, followed by a statement by Advocate Tias, the respondent.

You may begin when ready.

Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ

[A Former User]

Advocate Tiat's argument makes little sense. No one, even in Kiel, has ever seen or heard of these formulas he speaks of; as such, we cannot be assured that the Kiel Workers' Council acts differently in the two positions in claims to occupy.

At the same time, no other workers' council claims such a duality; the ruling opinion, in fact, is that they were never independen due to the following:

• they were created by Haanean citizens
• initial declarations of their existence showed them to be revolutionary structures that wished to be part of a legitimate successor state to the Confederation
• their joining of the Congress of Workers' Councils placed the authority they had underneath the Congress.
• the joining of the CWC to the main government of Eastern Haane placed the individual councils underneath the government of the People's Confederation.

Advocate Tiat, in my opinion, has created a wonderful story as to allow the Kiel Workers' Council to escape justice.

[Fremet]

Thank you Advocate Le Roux. Advocate Tias, your rebuttal statement if you please.

Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ

[A Former User]

My rebuttal will be very short, as Advocate le Roux's argument is extremely poor.

While other workers' councils do not claim our duality, we do, for our initial declaration was different from theirs in that we renounced our citizenship and wished to, in fact, abolish the state and replace it with something created from nothing.

We have not released the formulas because we see no need to; we ourselves know that we act differently in the two positions, and do not need anyone else, save perhaps the People's Court of Kiel, to confirm it.

Everything that I have said is the truth; I assure you. Advocate le Roux is simply making assumptions based on the little that she knows of us.

[Fremet]

As none of the other justices have posed questions for this case, I will ask some of my own.

Advocate Tias, this court requests you offer present evidence of the creatio ex nihilo you claim occurred with that of the Respondent organisation that demonstrates it as an entity independent from preceding organisations in Eastern Haane and therefore not subject to EU law.

Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ

[A Former User]

I will begin with the initial declaration of the workers' council in Kiel:

"It is as a result of these abuses, these horrors, that we organize ourselves, the united workers of Kiel, into this Workers' Council, accountable to none but the workers, independent of all forces but that of the people, the workers of Kiel, created from nothing and thus dependent on nothing but the workers. We were previous to this under the heel of an oppressive state that viewed us not as people but as objects to be used, to be discarded; it is only through this organization, this workers' council, the highest manifestation of our self-liberation, that we have become human. The past is dead; we have formed ourselves into something entirely new, that has destroyed all the old, purged all the remnants, without exception, of the previous oppressive state; we have birthed ourselves."

Secondly, our declaration of intent to join the Congress of Workers' Council:

"We were alone in a tyrannical sea, fighting against the external forces that we were freeing ourselves from. These have perished, for we all, all the oppressed peoples of Eastern Haane, have risen up in revolt. Now, a new state is birthed, one that will demolish itself as it demolishes the external forces that threaten to bring back that which once subjugated us. In this state are we united in one force; yet we are also independent, each individual having to themselves all their power, all their autonomy; each workers' council, formed of the great expression of this autonomy, having the same through the will of this power. We remain as independent as we were, both as a workers' council and as individuals, independent from all things past, future and present; and yet at the same time we are united in the new force, the new movement, which will bring the full liberation to all the world."

Thirdly, this excerpt from the Constitution of 2020:

"The workers' councils are created through this statement; they shall be federated units in the cantons, capable of passing all laws, so long as they do not contradict with those already passed on higher levels; at the same time, they are entrusted with the caretaking of all that which is held by the nations and the syndicates, as according to set regulations. The workers' councils that exist at this point are not abolished through this statement; they retain all that they had.

These councils, created by this Constitution, are not those that have already been created as expressions of the workers. They exist as a complement; their powers are in place to ensure that the revolution does not falter.

The aim of this giving of powers is not to limit but to ensure the continued freedom of the workers. Their expression is not limited by this statement."

[Spain]

Advocate Tiat, Advocate le Roux said that: "The Kiel Workers' Council, after the first day of this so-called 'trial,' then proceeded to claim that it would open its court to the public. Such a thing never happened; instead the events were conveyed through a series of statements, several of which were outright lies.". I would like to focus my questions on that point:

• First of all, is that true? If yes, why wasn't the court open to the public as the Kiel Workers' Council claimed?
• Could you give us the statements that were released during the trial?

Thank you.

Luis López Guerra
ECoJ Justice

[A Former User]

(Tiat) Yes, this is true, save for the statement that our statements were 'lies.' The Workers' Council initially wished to open the trial to the public. However, we found that it was, in fact, dangerous to do so; the public opinion was against the Petitioner to the point where it was possible that life-threatening harm would be done to him. As such, we opted to simply close the trial to the public and instead release summaries, at the end releasing a transcript, which as of now is still being translated from shorthand.

As for the statements, I do not have access to them. They are currently housed within the offices of Heiko Hahn, the current president of the Workers' Council.

[Fremet]

With that, I hereby close this phase of oral arguments.

I will now allow each party to make their individual closing statements, beginning with the Respondent and concluding with the Appellant.

Advocate Tiat, please deliver your closing statement when ready.

Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ

[A Former User]

This has been no short of a witch hunt, one which has repeatedly attempted to pursue the Kiel Workers' Council for crimes it is completely innocent of. We have acted with complete sincerity; everything that we have done was for justice and justice alone.

There is no evidence for the contrary. The Constitution of Eastern Haane upholds almost all that we have done and what we have; what it does not is justified by the material conditions of Kiel at the time, conditions that prevented us from meeting certain 'rights' that we had agreed to meet.

As for the dual nature of our organization, it should be obvious to everyone. We are perfectly willing to release a formula to prove this obvious fact, although we had previously not thought this necessary.

I cannot say more because there is very little of a case prevented against us.

I ask you to uphold justice. My DEFENDANTS are not guilty in any way.

[Fremet]

Thank you Advocate Tias. We will now hear the closing statement from Advocate Le Roux.

Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ

[A Former User]

The Kiel Workers' Council is responsible for some of the most egregious violations of human rights in European history. The individual I represent; he was taken into custody without warning or warrant by a mob. This by itself is disgusting. He then was imprisoned for a total of three days without being given any sort of explanation of his crime; even without an explanation of the so-called legal system of Kiel. He was then forced to undergo a secret trial, during which a crime quite literally had to be manufactured.

Nothing can excuse these actions.

[Fremet]

Thank you both for your testimony here before this Court. The oral arguments period is now closed. There will be no more questions from the Court. I hereby declare this hearing on RECESS for deliberations pursuant to a final Verdict from this Court. We will return to deliver the the Verdict and Opinion of this Court.

Thank you.

Andreas EKKA
Chief Justice of the ECoJ

[Fremet]

FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
EUROPOLIS
2020-09-16

---

ANDRIES VAN HOEBEEK v. THE KEIL WORKERS’ COUNCIL

---

On the Writ of Certiorari granted to the APPELLANT, Andries van Hoebeek.

---

CONCURRING:

• Andreas EKKA
• Luis López GUERRA

---

DISSENTING:
None

---

RECUSED:
None

---

Chief Justice Ekka delivering the opinion of the court.

The Kiel Workers’ Council, an entity with shared sovereignty with the EU memberstate Eastern Haane. The Appellant presented that the proceedings of their arrest and subsequent trial were in violation of provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the European Union, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As such, this court hereby, in recognition that the entity The Kiel Workers’ Council was created ex nihilo, nevertheless rules in favour of the APPELLANT.

The defence did not deny the testimony made by the appellant and, as such, this court is inclined to wholly accept the testimony of the individual Andreas van Hoebeek and that of the representatives of the person named.

The defence presented that the entity The Kiel Workers’ Council existed in a state of shared sovereignty with that of Eastern Haane, a memberstate of the European Union. As the nationstate Eastern Haane was a duly participating and recognised memberstate within the European Union, any entities contained within thus fall under the jurisdiction of the memberstate Eastern Haane, the European Union, and this court. The rights and protections guaranteed European citizens are universal, and respecting these rights is the duty of every memberstate. The Kiel Workers’ Council violated Section IX: Right to Habeas Corpus and Section X: Right to a Fair Trial of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article V of the Constitution of the European Union) in their failure to inform the accused of their charges, the apparent falsification of evidence, failure to hold a public trial, failure to accurately report court proceedings, and failure to provide a sufficient appeals structure within either government to ensure the rights of the accused are recognised.

The afforded the appellant were not nullified when an entity apparently separate that of the memberstate Eastern Haane’s government presented. The Kiel Workers’ Council has failed to demonstrate sufficient separation from that of the recognised memberstate central government of Eastern Haane. The Kiel Workers’ Council is, in the eyes of this court, a devolved entity of Eastern Haane.

From the Declaration of the Workers’ Council in Kiel:
"It is as a result of these abuses, these horrors, that we organize ourselves, the united workers of Kiel, into this Workers' Council, accountable to none but the workers, independent of all forces but that of the people, the workers of Kiel, created from nothing and thus dependent on nothing but the workers. We were previous to this under the heel of an oppressive state that viewed us not as people but as objects to be used, to be discarded; it is only through this organization, this workers' council, the highest manifestation of our self-liberation, that we have become human. The past is dead; we have formed ourselves into something entirely new, that has destroyed all the old, purged all the remnants, without exception, of the previous oppressive state; we have birthed ourselves."

The statement above defines the creation of the Kiel Workers’ Council ex nihilo.

From the Constitution of 2020:
“The workers' councils are created through this statement; they shall be federated units in the cantons, capable of passing all laws, so long as they do not contradict with those already passed on higher levels; at the same time, they are entrusted with the caretaking of all that which is held by the nations and the syndicates, as according to set regulations. The workers' councils that exist at this point are not abolished through this statement; they retain all that they had.”

The workers councils, including that of the Kiel Workers’ Council are federated units within devolved political units in Eastern Haane, with the ability to pass laws and implement policy as long as the named actions do not contradict with those passed at higher levels. Thus, in the recognition and acceptance of the Constitution of 2020 by the Kiel Workers’ Council, they are thereby subject to the laws of Eastern Haane, subject to the laws of the European Union, and subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Keil Workers’ Council, though it began as an independent entity, forfeited its independence when it joined the larger state of Eastern Haane under the Constitution of 2020, thereby leaving it subject to European law, as the entity Eastern Haane following the Constitution of 2020 was fulfilling its rights, duties, and privileges as a member state of the European Union, confirming its status as a state recognised by the European Union as a memberstate and as a state that asserted its own acceptance of recognition of membership in the European Union, thus leaving it subject to the laws of the European Union and its citizens guaranteed rights defined in the Constitution of the European Union.

Therefore, this Court thereby OVERTURNS the judicial ruling of the Kiel Workers’ Council and hereby orders the entities named to convene a new trial in accordance with the laws of the European Union.

---

REFERENCES:

CONSTITUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:

ARTICLE V. THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
Section I. Preamble

I. This Declaration defines the rights which all member states of the European Union must recognize all people as holding.

II. These rights are inalienable, and any person within the territorial bounds of the European Union may use this Declaration in a court of law against any infringement on these rights that they may face.

III. As the past has taught us many lessons that we cannot avoid, we look to a future where individuality creates the core of human experience. From gender to religion, race to sexuality, and the choices we individually make about our state of being, this document seeks to protect the right to make such choices.

IV. All member states of the European Union are charged with upholding this Declaration.

Section II. Human Dignity

I. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

II. All human beings also carry the responsibility of respecting the human rights of others.

Section III. Right to Life

I. Everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of their life, the right to liberty, and the right to security of person.

Section IV. Freedom from Slavery

I. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

II. Slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Section V. Freedom from Torture

I. Torture is defined as the practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on an individual in order to obtain information, confession etc., but stopping short of terminating their life.

II. No person shall be subjected to torture, both physical and psychological, for the purposes of interrogation, punishment or indeed any other reason.

III. No evidence obtained by torture techniques shall be accepted by a Court of Law.

IV. All persons are to be protected from cruel, unusual and inhumane punishment.

Section VI. Right to Personhood

I. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Section VII. Right to Equal Protection Under the Law

I. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

II. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Section VIII. Right to Legal Remedy

I. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights given to him by this Declaration and/or other relevant legislation.

Section IX. Right to Habeas Corpus

I. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile

Section X. Right to a Fair Trial

I. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal for any legal charges brought against them, and any determination of their rights and obligations.

Section XI. Freedom from Presumed or Retroactive Guilt

I. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which one has had all the guarantees necessary for one’s defence.

II. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense for any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the offense was committed.

Section XII. Right to Privacy

I. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with one’s privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to slanderous attacks upon one’s honour and reputation.

II. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Section XIII. Freedom of Movement

I. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

II. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country.

Section XIV. Right to Seek Asylum

I. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

II. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes, or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the European Union, as presented by European law.

Section XV. Right to Nationality

I. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

II. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality nor denied the right to change their nationality.

Section XVI. Right to Property

I. Everyone has the right to own property alone, as well as in association with others.

II. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property.

Section XVII. Freedom of Conscience

I. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

II. This right includes freedom to change their religion or belief; and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance provided they do not violate the rights of others as mandated by this Declaration.

Section XVIII. Freedom of Expression

I. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

II. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Section XIX. Freedom of Association

I. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

II. No one may be forced to belong to an association against their will.

Section XX. Right to Democratic Governance

I. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

II. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

III. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.

IV. This will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections, conducted under universal and equal suffrage for all of legal voting age, and held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Section XXI. Right to Working Conditions

I. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, in conditions that ensure the health and wellbeing of employees.

II. Everyone has the right not to face discrimination in the workplace on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, or religion.

Section XXII. Right to Education

I. Everyone has the right to a basic Education.

II. This includes, but is not limited to, reading, writing, and numeracy skills

Section XXIII. Right to Marriage

I. Everyone has the right to marry or be in a marriage in accordance with the law without distinction as to their sex or sexual orientation.

Section XXIV. Legal Use of this Declaration

I. This declaration may be used in a legal capacity as reference to prosecute those who contravene the contained Sections within.

Section XXV. Disclaimer

I. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.