Danzig Logo

Free State of Danzig    

 

Power of Attorney

This is to certify that we attach herewith the legal power of Attorney to the:

…………………………………..................…

………………………………………………..

………………………………………………..

He is to represent the legal international position and territorial integrity of the

Free City of Danzig,

on behalf and in the name of all still living citizen of the Free City of Danzig, and all of their descendents and their offspring, represented by the legitimate and democratically elected Government-in-Exile of the Free City of Danzig,

in our action for restitution to the legal State territory of the Free City of Danzig,

against the Republic of Poland, at present still violating the integrity of the Free City of Danzig and illegally annexing this territory to her own territory

in flagrant violation of General International Law. 

To the International Court of Justice

The Hague, Netherlands

Action

Against:

The Defendant: Republic of Poland, represented by her State Government, Warsaw, State Capital of Poland,

By the Plaintiff: the Free City of Danzig;

Concerning delivery of the State territory of the Free City of Danzig, the Plaintiff;

By the Defendant, in order to enable the Plaintiff to resume normal and peaceful social, commercial, economical and all other State activities to which the Free City of Danzig

is entitled to, on and within her own legal territory, in accordance with international law.

This action is initiated on behalf of the Free City of Danzig, in the name of all of her citizens, descendents and their offspring, all of whom have suffered and are still suffering, at the hand of the brutal Polish Regime, being illegally expelled at gun-point, and banished by the then, People’s Republic of Poland, using brutal force and terror to achieve the pre-meditated aim of the ‘ Provisional Polish Administration in Danzig ‘: to ‘ ethnically cleanse, starve, expel, evict and exile, the entire ethnic Danzig population, to the point of genocide ‘, to destroy their ethnic identity, and to scatter the remnants of the Danzig population to all corners of the Globe, where they still live in abstract poverty, never to be allowed to return to their rightful homeland, and prevented to lay claim to State territory, private belongings, or any other private, common good or communal properties.

The Plaintiff, represented by the legitimate Government-in-Exile of the Free City of Danzig, has mandated and given Power of Attorney to:

……………………………………………………………………………………………

On behalf of and by virtue of the mandate given to me, I hereby attach my Power of Attorney, take up and submit this Action to the International Court of Justice in

The Hague, the Netherlands, against

The Defendant, concerning delivery of the State territory of the Plaintiff.

The Free City of Danzig ‘ is’ established by treaty, by the Treaty of Versailles,

an instrument of International Law which cannot ever be repudiated, renounced or cast-off in any shape or form.

Accordingly the Plaintiff is asking for introduction of procedures in accordance to Art. 43, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice,

and is further asking for a decision in this case, as follows:

  1. That the Defendant be summoned to immediately deliver the State territory of

the Free City of Danzig, still illegally war-occupied, in violation of international law, by Republic of Poland, to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff clearly wishes, and is entitled to, to resume all and every State activities in the same style and manner in which the Plaintiff had already carried out, demonstrated and executed between November 11. 1919 and September 9, 1939, respectively, and further wishes to take care of the ‘territory and sovereignty of the Free City of Danzig, as established by treaty, before 1939.

  1. All war damages caused on the territory of the Free City of Danzig on account

of war during WW II, until Provisional Polish Administration over Danzig was established must be charged to former German Reich and their successors on the principle of first liability. The Defendant however must return all illegally confiscated State property.

Likewise, Defendant must return all private and personal property, taken away from the citizens of the Free City of Danzig forthwith, and must atone and compensate Danzig citizens for all personal hurt and suffering they had to endure.

2. Furthermore, the Defendant must be held responsible for the horrendous

Environmental degradation, he has caused on the territory of the

Free City of Danzig during the period of his ‘Provisional Administration. The Plaintiff will produce evidence for the full amount of damages in detail to the

Defendant, as soon as a decision is delivered by the International Court of Justice.

 

3. The execution by the Plaintiff, of the legally still in force, never extinguished, ‘Sovereignty the Free City of Danzig’, as well as the territorial integrity of Danzig would in future require protection and guarantees, in much the same way as it is customary and common practice among Member’ of the Family of Nation, by the UNO.

 

 

Legal Justification of this Action.

 

  1. State Quality of the Plaintiff.
  1. Legal Basis of this State Quality.

The Plaintiff is a State in the legal sense as the Free City of Danzig has never ceased to exist according to law and therefore comes well within the definition of Art. 34. par. 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. This fact is based on State and International Law, as follows:

 

The State Quality of the Plaintiff is established by solemn Treaty, by Section XI " The Free City of Danzig" of the Peace Treaty of Versailles

of June 28, 1919, according to State Law and International Law, the Treaty of Versailles being an instrument of International Law, a Law which is still valid to this very day.

In their capacity as signatories to the Peace Treaty of Versailles, Allied and Associated Powers. Referring to Art. 120, the Treaty of Versailles, established the

Free City of Danzig, including her territories, as nominated under Art. 100.

 

Thus, the Free City of Danzig came into being. Accordingly the necessary document pertaining to Statehood, was signed, sealed, delivered and fully ratified by the Allies, and the sovereignty of the Free City of Danzig was recognized existing, according to time honored principles of International Laws on November 11, 1920. In their capacity as signatories to the Versailles Peace Treaty and settlement, The Allied and Associated Powers gave full credence to the establishment of the Free City of Danzig.

Among the notable signatories: Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States of America.

Consequently, the Free City of Danzig was then placed under the direct protection and trusteeship of the Geneva League of Nations.

Therefore, there cannot be any doubt:

The Free City of Danzig belongs to those international trust territories referred to in Chapter XII, Charter of the United Nations, Art. 75 to 85.

In the case of the Free City of Danzig, under conditions of protection and other guarantees as was given to the people of Danzig and affirmed by Allied Powers in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles, and based also on Art. 77, in particular, Chapter XII of the UN Charter;

 

 

 

 

2. All of the above mentioned Nations now Members of the United Nations Organization, have the power, responsibility and inherent moral obligation, to make good and exercise " diplomatic protection commitments due to the Free City of Danzig and the citizens of that State". Obligations of the Geneva League Nations did not just vanish into thin air, but are still with countries like Great Britain for instance, once a prominent Member of the League of Nations. Said commitments, obligations and responsibilities also have been passed onto the UNO.

3. The Free City of Danzig had been placed under the protective supervision of the Geneva League o Nations, guaranteeing the Danzig Constitution,

The Constitutional Law of the people of Danzig, and stationed a permanent League of Nations High Commissioner in Danzig.

The last one, Swiss national, Prof. Dr. Carl Burghardt remained in his Office right up to September 1, 1939.

4. Relations between the Free City of Danzig and the Republic of Poland were normal, if not cordial, regulated, mutually accepted, and agreed to by both, and firmly finalized at the Paris Convention of 1920.

5. At the very beginning, and throughout WW II, the ‘ none belligerent, neutral Free City of Danzig’ did not declare war on anyone, nor did anyone declare war to the Free City of Danzig.

Furthermore, and although it is in all instances assumed and taken for granted, "the neutral, Free City of Danzig" was Not a territory of the German Reich since 1918, and certainly not within Germany’s boundaries of December 31, 1937.

Due to the terms of the Versailles Peace treaty and settlement Germany was obliged to relinquish, all and every claim on Danzig.

6. This means that the legal status of the Plaintiff as a State is still legally valid and has been continuously in force and is effective, since November 11, 1920, and continues to be legally in force to this present time.

Indeed, the legal status of the Plaintiff, the status of the Free City of Danzig, has never been lost, is in force and effective, in accordance with State and International Law. And therefore can be described ‘de iure’ existing. Notwithstanding the fact, that at present due to illegal action and unlawfulness, Plaintiff’s legal territory is War-occupied by the Defendant, the Republic of Poland. Plaintiff, therefore, is prevented ‘ de facto’ by threat of force, from making use of his lawful territory and sovereignty, in the same way as it was possible between 1919 and 1939.

 

7. Art. 34, par. 1, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice is therefore very much applicable to the Plaintiff, the Free City of Danzig.

 

 

  1. Annexation of the Free City of Danzig by Germany’s Third Reich

and the State Quality of the Plaintiff.

  1. September 1, 1939 Germany’s Third Reich attacked Poland.

World War II had started. In Blitzkrieg fashion Germany also occupied the territory of the ‘non-belligerent’ Free City of Danzig. This war-occupation of a small, neutral country was carried out in blatant

violation and mockery of State and International Laws.

2. In the indictment of the Nazi War criminals, the military Tribunal at the

Nuremberg War Crime trials, an instrument of International law,

"The Indictment" speaks of Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, and in part reads as follows:

" Aggression against Poland, Danzig, England and France.

3. Treaties breached:

In addition to General Treaties, Treaties involved are;

The Hague Convention in respect of the Pacific Settlement of International

Disputes;

All other Convention of 1907; and the Versailles Treaty in particular, and in respect of the Free City of Danzig; also the Kellogg-Briand Pact;

as well as two more specific agreement were violated by the German attack on Poland and the forceful annexation of the Free City of Danzig.

 

4. The German-Polish Arbitration Treaty established the following principles:

Declaring that respect for the rights established by treaty or resulting from,

or resulting from the law of nations, is obligatory for international tribunals;

 

"Agreeing to recognize that the rights of a State cannot be modified save by its own consent!"

5. Thus, the occupation of the Free City of Danzig was illegal, from the beginning it was a most flagrant violation of international law.

Already, according to German State law; the occupation and annexation

of the Free City of Danzig was illegal because it was in contempt and violation of German law, even;

 

 

6. According to Art. 2, par. 2 of the Weimar Constitution of the German Reich of August 11, 1919, which is in force to this very day in the Federal Republic

of Germany; the incorporation of the Free City of Danzig needed to conform to a peculiar German Reich law.

Additionally, the same Reich Law required as basis for any incorporation execution of a plebiscite for all eligible voters of the Free City of Danzig. This, in order to comply with requirements of "Self-determination of Peoples," which, at that time was already part and parcel of German, as well as International Law.

7. Also, the consent of the Free City of Danzig Senate was necessary. It was necessary to get approval of a ‘Special Admittance Agreement’ between the Free City of Danzig and the German Reich, as was laid down and provided by Art. 78, par. 3, subsection 1 & 2, by the Weimar Constitution of the German Reich.

8. Even though, such an incorporation of the Free City of Danzig by the German Reich would have only been possible by following the ‘ Generally Accepted Principles of International Law’ as laid down by Art. 4, of the same Constitution.

According to this Article, the ‘Generally Acknowledged Principles of International Law’, were in any case obligatory principles and part of General Law by the German Reich.

9. Hitler did not comply with any international legal conditions and requirement, in the case of the Free City of Danzig he broke all and every International, and every German convention.

In addition, there was no Reich’s Law declaring the Free City of Danzig, beginning from September 1, 1939, a legal part of the German Reich.

After the ‘ fait accompli’, the Blitzkrieg occupation of the Free City of Danzig by the Wehrmacht, Hitler’s Henchman, Albert Forster, ‘self-appointed Head of State’, declared the dissolution of the Free City of Danzig.

  1. This ‘de facto’ incorporation, however, was not followed up by lawful action as required by the very Laws of the German Reich.

Likewise, not at any time or stage was the Danzig population asked to decide on their own fate by way of Self-determination, whether they wanted their Territory and City to be officially incorporated into the German Reich, or not.

The ‘self-appointed Head of State’ did not seek either permission or concurrence from the Danzig Senate, nor did the Danzig Senate ever consented to the its own disintegration, and oblivion of the Free City of Danzig, as a State.

Herr Forster, therefore, did not act legally in any way, especially not according to the Laws of the Free City of Danzig, to which any Head of State was bound too.

 

 

 

11. It is clear therefore that the forced annexation of Plaintiff’s territory by Germany’s Third Reich constituted a blatant violation of the ‘Generally Accepted Principles of International Law’, against the Peace Treaty of Versailles of 1919. The Paris Agreement between the German Reich and the Allied and Associated Powers, concerning Danzig was signed on January 9, 1920. On that date, the German Reich made legal the existence of the Free City of Danzig and waived all and every territorial claim in regard to Danzig.

12. Therefore, the annexation of the Free City of Danzig the Third Reich and the ‘self-appointed Head of State’, acting illegally, was not in accordance with any principles, least of all within, and in accordance with ‘ Generally Accepted Principles of International Law’. Therefore, the annexation of Danzig is not valid, nor was it ever permissible under any terms of Danzig, German or International Law.

  1. Consequently, the incorporation of the Free City of Danzig into the territory
  2. of the German Reich was illegal under any Law.

    And since (by the Geneva League of Nations approved) the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig did not recognize or know of, any such ‘self styled Head of State’; such incorporation carried out on Hitler’s orders, was null and void.

    14. The highest Authority of the Free City of Danzig was always the Danzig Senate, led by the Senate President.

    And the Senate of the Free City of Danzig was never inclined to sign its own Death warrant, and did not contribute to the certain demise and death of Danzig as a sovereign State.

  3. Thus the (unlawful) incorporation of the Free City of Danzig was a farce,

was legally an impossibility, not justified under any law, and therefore was not legal. Not legal by the Laws of the German Third Reich, not legal by the Laws of the Free City of Danzig, and certainly not legal as to any principles of International Law.

15. In other words, this farcical incorporation of the Free City of Danzig by the

German Third Reich is and remains an illegal annexation, is a violation of International Law as it is offensive to any principles and corresponding rule.

Such international principles were also reaffirmed by Resolution of # 242 of the United Nations Security Council November 22, 1967 in regard to the Palestine Problem.

 

 

 

16. Diplomatically, the annexation of the Free City of Danzig by Herr Hitler

was condemned world-wide. And protest was made against it by many countries, notable by the Defendant, the Republic of Poland was very vocal. Followed by France, the United States of America, by the Geneva League of Nations, by its High Commissioner, the Swiss national, Prof. Dr. Carl Burghardt, and by the Government of His Majesty King George VI, Great Britain.

17. Indeed in her grave decision to enter the war on September 3, 1939. Great-Britain even reasoned that the parallel invasion of the Free City of Danzig was justifiable reason enough to raise her arms against Nazi evil, in defense of democracy, and in support of ‘Self-determination of Peoples’, against Fascist aggression.

Other countries, like Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Holy See, explicitly made a point by reaffirming their diplomatic recognition of the Free City of Danzig as a sovereign and still existing State, and continued to do so well afterwards.

  1. Thus, it can be clearly stated and demonstrated that the Plaintiff never lost his

legal status and remains a subject of International law.

 

This, notwithstanding Hitler’s annexation of the Free City of Danzig for that was unlawful and illegal, and must be considered a blatant and violent offense against all

and every norm of International Law.

And thus, the ancient truth is still valid in regard to the legal status of the Free City of Danzig as a Subject of present International Law:

‘Ex iniuria ius non orietur’

  1. In case the Defendant should still refer to total loss of Danzig’s State

Quality, or attach much legality to Hitler’s action, or call his annexation of the Free City of Danzig a ‘ fait accompli’, and therefore legal and lawful;

or wishes to point to now established Polish decrees and national laws, in existence since March of 1945: That such Polish Laws must take precedent over International Law as far as the Free City of Danzig is concerned;

And that therefore, the Free City of Danzig as a State has been obliterated, wiped off the maps of the World, has come to an end, does not exist any longer, and thus has lost all and every State Quality;

This will be countered at once by Defendant’s own acceptance of continuation of the Free City of Danzig and her State Quality, which Poland kept on recognizing, even well after Hitler did accomplish his conjuring tricks, the annexation of Danzig. As to the exception: " venire contra factum proprium’ to which the Defendant may well like specifically refer to:

This exception is not only part of General Law in any legal system, but belongs to the ‘Generally Acknowledged Principles of International Law’.

Therefore, when making use of this exception, any reference to an alleged loss of Plaintiff’s State Quality, by the Defendant; such would result immediately in the legal annihilation of such a reference.

 

 

 

  1. The Soviet Russian military occupation of the Free City of

Danzig, and the State Quality of the Plaintiff.

  1. In spite of the fact that the Defendant had never, in any shape or form either

acknowledged, sanctioned, or in any other way, recognized Hitler’s legal capacity, and legal right to incorporate the territory of the Free City of Danzig into the realm of the German Third Reich, neither before, or after September 1, 1939;

And had kept on vigorously protesting well afterwards about this very fact;

thereby, bearing out the fact that such non-recognition and protest, is identical with full Acceptance of the continuity of the Plaintiff’s State Quality.

2. The Defendant immediately, and in indecent haste, right after the military Occupation of the Free City of Danzig by the Red Army annexed Danzig. This was carried out by a provisional, undemocratic Polish Committee*, which had

immediately followed the victorious Soviets on their heels; (* exiled Poles from the Soviet Union, not to be confused with the real and only legitimate, Polish Government-in-Exile, which existed in London)

This Lublin Committee, which stood under Stalin’s Order and Directives, started immediate proceedings in regard to the wholesale annexation of the Free City of Danzig, into the Defendant’s (Poland) own territory.

Thus, the Defendant had dropped all pretences as to his desire and predatory intention in regard to the most valuable "Piece of Prime Real Estate" the territory of the Free City of Danzig and private wealth of Danzig citizens.

3. This unilateral action by the Defendant was in direct contradiction of Allied and Associated Powers wishes at the Yalta and Potsdam Conference. There no firm decision as to border regulation of defeated Germany was made. A final decision was left to a future date, at a Peace Conference to be determined. Finality also rested on a truly democratically elected Government in Poland. This did not happen.

  1. The very basis, then, why an ‘ Interim Polish Committee ‘ moved fast and
  2. furious, to annex the territory of the Free City of Danzig into Defendant’s own territory; seems to be the ‘Top Secret Agreement’ Joseph Stalin made with the Lublin Group of Polish Patriots on July 27, 1944. So secret was Stalin’s Orders, the other Allies at the Potsdam Conference ( July 17-20, 1945) had absolutely no knowledge of any westward Polish border arrangements Stalin had promised and worked out with Poland.

    Due to ever growing political tension between the western Allies and the Communist Block, any ultimate decision in regard to Polish western borders and in particular to any Peace Treaty with Germany did not eventuate, was therefore postponed, indefinitely. Furthermore, the new Polish Government delayed and confused the issue further by staying firmly within the Communist Block, and failed to install a democratic Government.

     

  3. The claims, then, by the Defendant that Stalin’s secret directives carries

legal weight in International Law, or that regulations arrived at the Potsdam Conference ( July 17 – 20, 1945 ) concerning Germany’s Eastern Provinces, as made by the President of the United States, Harry S. Truman, the British Prime Minster of the Day, Winston S. Churchill, and by Joseph Stalin of the Union of Soviet Republics, have explicitly adjudicated and allotted permanent possession of the territory of the Free City of Danzig, to the Defendant as his own ‘new territory’, cannot ever be true, and are without any justification.

6. Defendant’s legal claim on the territory of Danzig is also contrary to ‘General Principles of International Law in as much that any illegal annexation of a territories belonging to a subdued enemy, is always and generally regarded as a most serious offense of International Law.

In other words; any acquisition of territories by conquest can never be the legal basis for validity in International Law. The Briand-Kellogg Act had outlawed wars as legal means and source for acquisition of goods and territories.

7. This rule was further strengthened and affirmed by Resolution # 242, of the UNO Security Council, November 22, 1967.

Therefore, in accordance with International Law and among others, the Briand-Kellogg Treaty, acquisition by conquest, are no longer allowed or justifiable.

  1. After the conquest and consequent occupation of the territory of the Free City

of Danzig by the Soviet Red Army on March 27, 1945, the Soviet

Union transferred Administration of Plaintiff’s territory to the Defendant. For Provisional Administrative purposes only, with proviso, reservations and condition, pending a Peace Conference and pending future Border regulation as was agreed upon and envisaged by the Allies at Potsdam.

9. Therefore, such administrative transfer does not give the Defendant any rights and powers over Life and Death, and cannot be considered as a legal basis for a final annexation of Danzig. International Law must also take precedent over Polish Laws as far as questions of

State Sovereignty, and of Plaintiff’s legal territory is concerned.

 

 

Furthermore, and up to the present Days, there has not been a proper Peace

Conference for Germany, and as of now and always; acquisition of territories by conquest is still illegal in General International Law.

9. Nevertheless, and in reckless defiance of all provision of International Law,

The Defendant went ahead just the same, with the annexation and incorporation of Plaintiff’s legal and lawful Territory. This was done, in indecent haste, by Decree, by Power of the Polish Council of Ministers, on March 30, 1945, with the War still raging in Europe. It was done in full knowledge of breach of International Law, in full consciousness of any consequence. Defendant was fully aware that the Free City of Danzig ‘is’ established by Treaty, by the Treaty of Versailles, which is an instrument of International Law. And that therefore, the territorial integrity of the Free City of Danzig cannot be violated.

Nevertheless, the Defendant went ahead just the same, he felt safe and was aided by the ‘ Iron Curtain’, annexed and incorporated Plaintiff’s territory into his own by means of his own nationalistic legislation and with the help of Stalin’s protection.

10. As already pointed out, Defendant went ahead with Plaintiff’s territory annexation and incorporation by means of force and violence, illegal as it was, as is any war-annexation cannot be justified, whatever the method and means.

And this cannot be justified by any standard of State or International Law.

11. The illegal incorporation then of the Free City of Danzig by the Defendant

thus, suspended the original, the Geneva League of Nations, approved Constitution of the Plaintiff, ‘de facto’, it became dormant and invalid for the time being. In Law, however, Plaintiff status (de iure) is still very much in force, is the same as was before, before September 1, 1939.

 

12. The Defendant then substituted the Danzig Constitution by use of his own

Laws, Legislation and Decrees, which is still in force today throughout

Plaintiff’s territory, but, as is pointed out, Polish legislation on Danzig is plainly an offense of General International Law.

This Action by the Defendant "is the more striking as the actual transfer of Plaintiff’s territory by the Soviet military to the Defendant, came much later, came well after the Defendant had already introduced his Legislation and Decrees, proclaiming the annexation and incorporation of Plaintiff’s territory into the realm of a People’s Republic of Poland."

In comparison to the indecent haste the Defendant displayed in annexing

Danzig, which he had always considered a most valuable piece of ‘Prime Real Estate’; and in total contrast thereof; formal incorporation of German territory, took place much, much later, years later.

 

  1. Defendant, in carrying out his intention of annexing the Free City of Danzig,
  2. at a time when the rest of the world was still fighting a bitter war, against Germany and Japan; the Defendant then engaged in a ruthless campaign of ‘Ethnic cleansing‘. This terror campaign of "ethnic cleansing" was carried out against the entire indigenous civilian population of Danzig, mainly consisting of women, children, the elderly and disabled. The totalitarian, Stalinist regime of the Defendant, caused immeasurable human sufferings, and loss of life to the Danzig populace, degrading not only every conceivable human right, but also the human spirit itself.

  3. The villainy of Stalinism was dedicated, well organized, in particular was

meant to willfully and systematically eradicate indigenous people, resulting in what is now known as ‘Ethnic cleansing’ but was in fact much worse, was; ‘genocide of the highest order’; such villainy was also extended to destruction of private property ownership, including ownership of real, personal, business, and financial properties, by individuals, collectively, as a whole community, and as a legitimate and sovereign country.

The brutal eviction of the entire indigenous, defenseless, civilian Danzig

population followed, and consequently wholesale confiscation of property took place, without compensation by the totalitarian regime of the Defendant. This was designed not only to victimize all people from Danzig; because of religion, ethnicity, national and social origin, or opposition to his regime and to Stalinism, "but to prove to the World, that now, the territory of the Plaintiff had no ethnic, German speaking population any more, and that therefore, the territory of Danzig was settled by pure Polish elements, and is, and was, historically a Polish possession".

 

15. By means of the foregoing, extermination of the indigenous, German speaking Danzig population was achieved, deliberately wiping out the memory of historical existence of an ethnic Danzig population in the process. And the Free City of Danzig itself was wiped off all maps of the World. By this, the Defendant wanted to stress and demonstrate, not only his: ‘ ethnic superiority, his colonial mentality, but also that his irrational brand of ardent nationalism, a nationalism which had to come first, at all cost, irregardless, come what may, whatever the consequences.’

16. Likewise, and for no other reason than greed, greed for other people’s property.

Greed for every piece of possession belonging to the German speaking Danzig population, every house and property, every estate, every landholding, in deed Everything belonging to any person of Danzig culture and language; was either confiscated by the State of Poland or declared open for the Polish Mob, there to be pillaged, there to be taken at will, in systematic manner.

 

After all that was done, after being stripped of all their earthly goods and possessions, after the defenseless Danzig population had been robbed, beaten, forced to slave labor, and raped; Defendant brutally expelled and evicted anyone who would not voluntary take on Polish nationality.

Evicted and driven out, by force, at the point of guns, cleared from their own homeland, and banished, the hapless Danzig citizens were again never to return to their own homeland and territory, as free people and proud people.

 

17. Ever since the conclusion of the Potsdam Agreement, the Free City of

Danzig, as such, was never again mentioned in Polish legislation.

This clearly means that the Defendant considered the territory of the Plaintiff a fixed part of Polish territory already. The Defendant therefore cannot point to any reason of justification for the annexation of Danzig, because and again, the ancient rule is still valid:

‘ Ex iniuria ius non orientur’

18. The Potsdam Agreements did not in any way make the territory of the Plaintiff a Polish property, it merely created a peculiar Polish Zone of Occupation.

Just as there was a British, American, French and Russian Zone of defeated Germany, there was a Polish Zone of defeated Germany.

And the Americans, British, French and the Soviets, did not hold onto their Zone of Occupation for all time, nor did the ever consider annexation.

That was because of any future and final German Border solution, which was pigeonholed and to be left to a future Peace Conference. Such a Conference however never took place, and although Germany later made an Agreement with Poland in regard to her own Borders, she was not in any legal position to make binding decisions as to the fate of Danzig’s territory.

  1. The Potsdam Agreement by the victorious Allies clarified the question of State

Borders of the German Third Reich as of December 31, 1937, and proceeded on that basis.

That means that Danzig was not part of Germany.

20. Therefore a special and legal international regulation for the Free City of Danzig should have taken place, as it was required and necessary.

A special regulation, then, however, was not in the interest of the Allies. Nor was such the intention of the Allies, not at that stage, to deal with such a tricky questions. That was of the future, and a permanent border regulation was clearly to be left for a later date.

The case of the Free City of Danzig in particular was more than tricky since Danzig was never a member of the German Alliance against the Allies of WW II.

 

 

 

 

Indeed, the Plaintiff, the Free City of Danzig, was itself a victim of Hitler aggression and annexation of his territory on September 1, 1939.

In other words, no Country ever declared War onto the, demilitarized and therefore defenseless, Free City of Danzig, nor did the Free City of Danzig ever declare War onto any Country.

 

  1. Fate of the State Quality of the Plaintiff, since 1945.

1. Up to this very day, no international legal proceeding or preconditions in any shape or form, for either the legal destruction or succession of the Free City of Danzig are visible, are existing or are even contemplated.

Therefore; The State Quality of the Plaintiff, remains in force, is valid, and is the same as ‘is’ established under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which is an Instrument of International Law.

And remains the same, notwithstanding the fact of war-occupation on March 27, 1945, by the Soviet Union;

And notwithstanding the illegal annexation by the German Reich, and the consequent illegal annexation that followed, and was carried out by the Defendant, which is illegal, illegal even in the face of Polish legislation. Both are illegal acts; Germany’s annexation of the Free City of Danzig in particular, was condemned, as illegal by the Nuremberg Tribunal. It therefore follows that a similar war-annexation of Danzig as carried out by the People’s Republic of Poland, has equally no legitimacy, no legality, therefore is, and remains, a violation of International Law.

2. Such serious offenses against International Law, then, cannot ever abolish or

do away with any legal status and existence of such a State. Nor can such offenses against international Law be used to create and to set new and acceptable conditions for the legal dissolution of such a State, such is impossible in law.

3. On the contrary: The status ante is the status which still does define the legal and international position of the Plaintiff, the Free City of Danzig, now, and as always. From the day of being establish by International Treaty. A Treaty, which cannot be repudiated, nor can it be replaced, least of all by simple means of unilateral declaration by the Defendant.

4. And as the legal status of the Plaintiff has not in any way, - up to this very day,- been changed by any legal act of International Law; there cannot be any doubt about the legal position and international status of the Free City of Danzig.

Neither the annexation of the Free City of Danzig by Hitler, nor the subsequent and following annexation of Danzig by the People’s Republic of Poland, can alter the fact: The Free City of Danzig is establish by Treaty and remains a legal State. Remains a State in every sense of legislation, and as such has not lost legal status or identity to this very Day, by virtue, and as a consequence of International Law.

Furthermore: The ancient rule and legal wisdom still exist, even nowadays;

 

‘ Ex iniuria ius non oritur’

  1. Therefore: according to International Law it can be clearly stated that the

Plaintiff is a State in the legal sense of Art. 34, par. 1, of the Statutes of the International Court of Justice.

 

 

D. Justification as to the position of a Representative of the

Plaintiff before the International Court of Justice.

  1. Having stated that this action is admissible and since Plaintiff has firmly
  2. demonstrated, that Plaintiff is a State in every sense of the legal word, to this very Day, in every sense of present International Law; there still is to be investigated whether any more and additional legal problem do exist in regard to Plaintiff’s representation in this procedure.

    Plaintiff still being a State in the legal sense of General International Law;

    Plaintiff is supposed to dispose of a special instrument by mean of which Plaintiff is then authorized to act in public.

    This generally is the legal problem of representation to any person awaiting administration of law.

  3. During the period between 1920 and 1939, the Plaintiff was always in a
  4. position to be represented, in all and every matter, by his Senate, by the Senate of the Free City of Danzig.

    This Senate of the Free City of Danzig, was never dissolved ‘de iure’ as a legal body. The Danzig Senate was never dissolved, even though and considering the annexation of the Free City of Danzig by Hitler, such a legal dissolution did not happen, did not happen under, and in regard to any Law. In any case was Hitler’s annexation of Danzig was illegal, declared as such illegal by the Nuremberg Tribunal, illegal in every respect, and as such it offended International Law.

    Nor was there any dissolution of Plaintiff legislative body by means of International Law, including the proviso of Self-determination of Peoples which still is an integral and continuous part of International Law; there, even manifested, as formal ‘ius cogens’.

     

     

     

    3. It is clear therefore; only surviving citizen of the Free City of Danzig are legally empowered, by right of Birth, to inherent and defend their rights, as they ought to according to International Law, not having lost their Birthright to rightful Land, Property, Home and State. Only they, are entitled to create an Instrument to continue with the tradition of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig.

    Such setting of such an Instrument by the citizen of the Free City of Danzig is perfectly justified, is in agreement and complies with General International Law, and has been made evident in this action already.

     

  5. The surviving citizen of the Free City of Danzig, having been forced to live

in Exile, and are now scattered to all corners of the world, all over the Globe, where they have to live a life of constant struggle, and of hardship.

6.000 Danziger had their first meeting on June 6, 1945 in the Church of Mary, in the German City of Luebeck.

As a result of that meeting they formed a body of representation and submitted a Petition to the Government of Great Britain, on July 13, 1945.

By means of his Petition the Danzig citizenry protested in sharpest form against Defendants inhumanity, brutality, rape, robbery and terror. Protested against the horrendous loss of life inflicted on the Danzig citizenry by the Defendant. (According to the German Bundesamt for Statistics, the Danzig population suffered loss of live up to 27%, some 115,000 souls. ( 115, 000 civilians out of a total Peace-time population of around 408,0000.) And they 6,000 refugees protested in the Church of Mary, for being evicted by force from their rightful Homeland and Soil.

The Danzig citizenry also manifested their resolve and determination to return to their rightful Homeland, to re-build the City of Danzig and territory, and to never give up legitimate claim for the Land of their Birth and private property and possession.

  1. Moreover, in the Petition to the British Government they pointed out that the
  2. Free City of Danzig had stood under protection of the Geneva League of Nations, and was de-militarized, defenseless, and therefore not in any way capable of any hostility, and that the Free City of Danzig had not declared war on anyone. Not to any Country, and that not one Country ever had declared war onto the Free City of Danzig, least of all, the Country of the Defendant.

  3. Over the years, hampered by a multitude of problems, problems of cruel
  4. Family separations, cut off from relatives and friends, being divided by a multitude of military Zones in split up post-war Germany, forced to put their heads down to scrape out a meager existence in order to just survive.

     

    Trying to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives, which was not easy to do in devastated and war-torn Germany, as communication and transportation were either very bad or hardly existed. Nevertheless and being scattered to every corner of the Globe, and war-ravished Germany, a Germany which was divided into a British, American, French and Russian Zone, into a much partitioned Berlin even;

    Danzig citizenry tried their best to organize themselves and vowed never to relinquish their claim for their rightful homeland, the Free City of Danzig, And they expressed their determination, to struggle and fight for human rights and justice.

  5. With permission of the military Authorities in the British Occupation Zone

of Germany, citizens of Danzig living in and around Hamburg and Luebeck organized themselves into " Bund der Danziger" (Union of Danzig citizens) on March 15, 1946.

The Federal Republic of Germany came into existence only in 1949. This too hampered any further development in organizing of Danzig citizens.

In spite of this; an Executive Committee of Representatives of the Free City of Danzig issued a "Green Book under the heading: Free City of Danzig, the Problem of, and Justice for, Danzig, in 1965.

In this the Committee was advised, encouraged and supported with evidence, by Prof. Dr. Carl Jacob Burghardt, Swiss National, last High Commissioner of the Geneva League of Nations.

8. Petition followed Petition, they called upon Politicians, Diplomats, famous people and Statesman, many World Organizations. Danzig citizenry also called upon the United Nations Organization, first in August of 1948.

By then, however, the ‘Iron Curtain’ had firmly come down over Eastern Europe. The Free world then had their own problems with the Communist Block, for a while confrontation between East and West was thought to be imminent. And the Defendant was very much in the Camp of the Eastern Block where he was very much in hiding behind the Iron Curtain. And with WW III a possibility, expected any moment, nothing was done to solve the burning problem of Danzig. The United Nations Organization, although it had paid much importance and much lip-service to the Danzig Question in 1955, apparently dared not to tackle the problem of injustice done to Danzig citizens. Also the UNO did nothing in way of addressing human rights concerns of the ethnic Danzig citizenry, and further failed miserably to look seriously at the outstanding and unresolved case, the international status of the Free City of Danzig.

 

 

 

 

 

9. With Communism totally collapsing in Eastern Europe in 1989, the Danzig Problem was stressed again.

This Problem however did not find any solution, not even in the so called: 2 + 4 Treaty concerning final Boarder regulation between Germany and Poland.

This Treaty was concluded in Moscow between the Foreign Ministers of the two Germany’s on one side, and the victorious Allies of WW II on the other.

  1. Consequently, and as it is quite evident that the Danzig Problem is left under
  2. the proverbial carpet, the Executive Committee of Danzig citizens re-issued a new

    Edition of the 1965 Green Book, as published in 1994.

    This was duly delivered on April 27, 1995 to the political Department of the United Nations Organization in New York, explaining its full meaning.

     

  3. An opinion to this document of the Free City of Danzig had been published
  4. by the Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany, already on April 30, 1985.

    In this, German Secretary of State, Moellermann, pointed to considered opinion as given by Representatives of Great Britain, the United States of America and the Soviet Union in their Berlin Declaration of June 05, 1945.

    Object of that considered opinion was a German Reich Territory within its Boarders of December 31, 1937.

    The German Foreign Office wanted to make it clear, is at pains to stress:

    Danzig was not part of, any part of, the German Reich on December 31, 1937

    Therefore, in the expressed view of the great Three, Great Britain, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, Danzig was not, and cannot be classified as a part of Germany on and before December 31, 1937. And the 2 + 4 Treaty between Germany and Poland has no bearing as to the fate of Danzig as a State and Territory.

    This explicit opinion and view is the official view of the Federal Republic of Germany since 1985, and up to this very date, this view by the German Government has not changed in any way.

    On the contrary: In referring to the German-Poland Boarder Agreement of November 14, 1990; the German Government stated unequivocally and in no uncertain manner: …. "that it has not taken any legal obligation, other legal measures or any commitments concerning the Free City of Danzig, nor is the Federal Republic of Germany in any legal position, or even allowed, to do so."…..

  5. Ordinary Danzig citizens then, much concerned with apparent discrimination,

because of their ethnicity, concerned also for not having a political voice, and therefore being in No-Mans-Land, for not getting any recognition, from the United Nations Organization in particular; as to their entitlements, as to their Birthright, and as to their legitimate existence on this Earth, as human beings; formed a Danzig Committee in 1993.

Out of this Committee, a Government-in-Exile of the Free City of Danzig, was born on September 1, 1995.

It is this Government-in-Exile of the Free City of Danzig that is appearing before the Court as the legal instrument of the juridical person, subject, not just object, of State, and International Law.

This Government is now representing the Plaintiff in this Action and procedure before the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, the Netherlands.

E. Justification for the pleading of this Action, in accordance to Law in general and International Law, in particular.

  1. The Plaintiff pleads admissibility to this action in the sense of formal law,

Plaintiff further pleads justification of this action according to International

Law.

As has been stated: Defendant still holds possession of Plaintiff’s legal territory,

this possession enforced by the Defendant is without any justification.

Defendant therefore is in contempt, and is in flagrant violation, of International

Law.

As according to General International Law; violation of International Law is

apparent, and must be stated in accordance with the following legal principles:

  1. Whereas; International Law is violated in any case where the international rule

of conduct is offended and where the rights of any other subject of International

Law is offended.

  1. Whereas such a violation of International Law is independent of the fact that any such paradox and contradiction may possibly arise from peculiar laws of certain Nations; regardless of such peculiar laws to be just or not, for that particular Nation.
  2. Whereas, such a violation of International Law, then, may result in an action or
  3. otherwise in an omission.

  4. Whereas; such a violation of International Law may still be justified by good and sound reason, such as a justification specifically provided by International Law.
  5. Whereas; such case only does exist if illegal conduct by the acting subject of International Law resulted in peculiar damage for the object that fell victim to such an illegal Act.
  1. The legal consequences of such violations of International Law, then, can be stated as follows:
  1. The legal consequences of such violation of International Law is full liability for any resulting damage created.
  2. Illegal conduct therefore, must be the reason for such damage created.

  3. Any offense of International Law resulting in damages; whether such damage is caused by willful acts, or just has resulted as consequences of neglect, or may have even came about for reason of poor understanding, or any other apparent or non-apparent reason or fault, or even no fault at all, such still bears responsibility before the Law, and must suffer consequences of any such Law violation.
  4. A State which has acted against International Law,

be it collectively, or through its Agents or any other Instrument;

is still responsible, for all and any consequences, resulting out of any such

violations of International Law.

The same does apply to any other Subject of International Law.

  1. Reparation as consequence of International Law violation, stated as follows:
  1. It is a General Rule of International Law, or at least of International
  2. Prescriptive Law, that international legal responsibility resulting out of any

    violation of International Law rests with any subject of International Law.

    The consequence out of this is;

    responsibility for reparation for the damage caused in all, and any such case.

  3. In case of material damage; compensation is in form of restitution, of the situation existing before the violation causing this damage. (Restitutio in integrum)
  4. In case of immaterial damage, the reparation will be executed by granting

diplomatic or any such satisfaction.

  1. Continuing War-Occupation of Plaintiff’s territory,

by the Defendant.

1. Concerning violations of International Law by the Defendant occupying

Plaintiff’s lawful territory illegally to this very day; upon careful examination of all facts, and as to pleadings of this Action in accordance to all propositions as mentioned above; the following legal consequences are apparent:

  1. The conduct of the Defendant blamed here is violation of International Law: In flagrant defiance of International Law the Defendant has occupied, and is still occupying Plaintiff’s lawful territory. This unlawful annexation is continuing to this very day.
  2. Based on the Briand-Kellog Treaty of 1928, and the outlawing of annexations, especially by means of force, (War) any such annexation, is illegal.
  3. This legal basis was strengthened in our present time by Resolution 242, of the United Nations Security Council, on November 22, 1967. In this Resolution the UN Security Council declared: " stressing the non-admissibility of acquisition of territory by means of war". All Member States therefore are more than ever obliged, and have been advised to act strictly in accordance with Art. 2 of this Charter. According to this, territorial integrity of any State is deemed to be inviolable.
  4. Foreign territories may well be occupied by enemy forces, but only on a temporary basis, never for all time.
  5. The Defendant however is occupying Plaintiff’s territory already since March of 1945. He is on Plaintiff’s legal soil as a War-occupant, and this War-occupation is still ongoing. This means that Defendant is a Predator, not ever willing to let go of his Prey, and that Defendant therefore, is in flagrant violation of International Law.
  6. The national legislation of the Defendant, concocted in indecent haste, before the War had even ended, incorporating the territory of the Plaintiff into his Realm, should not be confused with International Law, as such peculiar Polish legislation has no legal basis in International Law, and therefore is invalid from the very beginning outside the Realm of the Defendant national Borders.
  7. National legislation therefore does not entitle the Defendant to annex Plaintiff’s territory. Polish Law simply cannot ever supercede or replace International Law. Nor can Polish Law have precedent over International Law. The annexation of Plaintiff’s territory therefore by the Defendant is a flagrant violation of International Law, and as such, cannot be condoned.
  8. In all the years since 1945, Defendant continuously referred to the Potsdam Agreement of 1945 as the only true and legal basis, and sole reason for his occupation of Danzig. This reasoning however is unsound, for the Potsdam Agreement between the victorious Allies between Harry S. Truman, the American President, the British Prime Minister of the Day, Winston S. Churchill, and Dictator Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, was a political and temporary Arrangement only, an Agreement which carried no weight in International Law.
  9. A legal reason for the annexation of Danzig does not exist. It is not true even as a pure matter of fact to consider the Potsdam Agreement an International valid Treaty, clearly it is not.
  10. The argument then, that the Potsdam Agreement is an International Treaty and thus has legal obligations for Countries and to their respective Statesmen and Representatives, is utterly false. No such legal obligations do exist for any Nation, or for their respective Representatives.
  11. Furthermore, and relating to Germany as the main object of the Potsdam Agreement; Germany’s territory was defined as a Germany within her Borders as of December 31, 1937.
  12. The territory of the Free City of Danzig was certainly not any part of Germany at that particular date, December 31, 1937.
  13. The reference of the Defendant therefore that Plaintiff’s territory has fallen into Defendants hands by way of the Potsdam Agreement is not justified, nor is such justifiable in any way.
  14. That is to say; International Law does not permit acquisition of territory by means of War, by either the conqueror himself or by any other State. The reason of that is simple enough: International legal validity to transfer conquered territory to the conqueror or to any other States "does not exist."
  15. Nevertheless and in full consciousness of breach and flagrant violation of Law, Defendant carried out his outrageous violation of International Law. In this he was aided by hiding behind the Iron Curtain. Undaunted, then, Defendant went ahead with the annexation of Plaintiff’s territory.
  16. This unlawful annexation was even more reprehensible as Defendant had explicitly acknowledged the prior existence of Plaintiff’s territory, and had continued to do so afterwards, had protested against Hitler’s occupation of the Free City of Danzig on September 1, 1939. By vigorously protesting Hitler’s action against Danzig, Defendant wanted to express that he did not then, nor did Defendant afterwards consider the legal status of the Free City of Danzig to be dissolved, by Germany, on September 1, 1939. In regard to the bogus claim of the Defendant that the territory of the Plaintiff is an " age old territory of Poland, a territory which has come rightfully back to Poland in 1945"; this is already directly confronted by Defendants own explicit diplomatic acknowledgement of existence, of the Free City of Danzig, as a sovereign State in 1920. Furthermore, historically and in truth, the territory of Danzig has never, ever been a territory of Poland.
  17. There still is another reason why the (ongoing) occupation of Plaintiff’s territory by the Defendant is an offense of International Law. In this case it is the territory of a "neutral State" being annexed by a belligerent State. This annexation therefore is not only an annexation per se, and as such an offense against International Law, it is also a second, and further flagrant offense of the Law of War; According to Art. 5 of the Free City of Danzig Constitution; Plaintiff was explicitly forbidden to carry out, or even prepare for, any measure of defense at all concerning the integrity and safety of his own territory. In compensation thereof, Plaintiff was then granted and assured of his safety, security and protection, by the Geneva League of Nations.
  18. Furthermore, the Senate of the Free City of Danzig had declared, on August 20, 1920, that the Free City of Danzig would be a "neutral State and territory for all time". This declaration by the Danzig Senate has never been revoked and is valid to this very day. It is true to say therefore that the State of the Plaintiff is a "neutral State" in every sense of International Law since 1920.
  19. Legal basis for this position is the Agreement regarding Rights and Duties of neutral Powers in case of Land War ( fifth Hague Agreement of Oct. 18, 1907) According to Art. 1. of this Agreement, the territories of neutral States are invulnerable. Therefore, as the first annexation of Plaintiff’s territory by the Third Reich on September 1, 1939, was deemed illegal by the Nuremberg War Tribunal, -the Nuremberg Tribunal as an Instrument of International Law, -
  20. so is the second annexation, as carried out by the Defendant, equally, a reprehensible manifestation of the predatory intention of the Defendant, and is therefore a flagrant violation of International Law, including the Law of War. This is even more so as the Defendant had fully and unequivocally subscribed to the Agreement in question, he also had subscribed fully to the Hague Agreement of July 8, 1925.
  21. This Agreement too, is still in force, therefore, Defendant is bound to it, bound to it even nowadays, and it is further clear; Defendant is in breach of International Law again, for he has violated International Law over and over, and again; by his persistence and obstinacy, by his permanent war-occupation (annexation) of Plaintiff’s territory since 1945, up to this very Day.
  1. In regard to the consequences of the illegal annexation of Plaintiff’s rightful territory by the Defendant, the legal situation is as follows:
  1. The Defendant is obliged to recompense the Plaintiff for all the damage caused resulting from the illegal annexation of the "neutral" State of Danzig. At least two violations of International Law by the Defendant, cause of all harm and damages, must be attributed to the Defendant.
  2. Because of his illegal action, Defendant caused great harm and damage to the Plaintiff, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was prevented, by illegal means, and by total exclusion, to make use of any State Administration (neither de iure nor de facto) within his own and rightful territory.
  3. This obligation for damage compensation is resulting out of the annexation of Plaintiff’s territory, which the Defendant has executed intentionally, on purpose, and with much premeditation, yet also with indecent haste. And Defendant is still intent to keep Plaintiff’s rightful territory in his possession for all time. By this continuing illegal action, having violated International Law over and over again, Defendant is making a mockery out of International Laws, as he is setting his own national laws above International Laws, and principles.
  4. Defendant is fully responsible for his illegal actions and for all the consequences arising from the annexation of Plaintiff’s territory, for such Law was carried out and executed by his Agents, Servants, Subjects and other Instruments of the Defendant, and not by any other Subjects of International Law.
  5. It was the Subjects and other Instruments of the Defendant, who knowingly and happily, accepted, "as spoils of war", allotments of the neutral territory of the Plaintiff, and further accepted confiscated private property, property which had been taken, by means of force, from the civilian population of Danzig. Defendant therefore is fully responsible for the illegal annexation of Plaintiff’s territory, this territory, then, was added to the State of Poland in violation of General Principles, and also in violation of International Law, in defiance of it, and therefore lacks any legal basis.
  1. In regard to further consequences concerning compensation due, arising out of the illegal actions by the Defendant, the legal situation is as follows:
  1. As a rule, General International Law demands that any Subject of this Law must render back any item, rights and advantages, gained illegally. And since the offending Subject of International Law cannot refer to any reason of justification for having been granted a right to possess other people’s private property, property which has been unlawfully taken, and which has been gained by means of violating International Law; This general rule and principle must be respected and International Law must prevail.
  2. According to this principle which derives from the ancient Roman Law "restitutio in integrum", long since then being part of present General International Law: Items taken, by illegal means, in this instant by means of violence, and by offending International Law in the process, must be given back to the Person thus affected, must be given back by the Person(s), being the Offender.
  3. Above all, and first of All, this should be done by rendering the Items as such back, just payment of compensation moneys in lieu, will not be sufficient in this case.
  4. Furthermore, the Offender is much obliged to recompense for all the other actions done by him, making him liable for such recompense. Therefore, mere hand back of Plaintiff’s annexed territory is not the end of the story, nor is it the full and entire extent and amount of this claim.
  5. The Plaintiff, therefore, immediately after a verdict has been handed down in regard to this action, will reserve his rights to present and nominate all of his claims, together and present the accumulated claims to the Defendant. Thus asking that he make good in way of restitution all that Plaintiff is entitled to. Already at this stage of the proceedings, and for this purpose, is the International Court of Justice then asked to state separately and to make clear to the Defendant, his grave obligations in this matter.
  1. Plaintiff’s plea in regard to par. 3, of this Action:
  2. Justification of this plea and prayer in regard to par. 3 of this action; This is based on the principles of Art. 2 , Charter of the United Nations Organization. Although Plaintiff has applied for Membership to the appropriate Authorities within the UNO long time ago, Plaintiff has yet to receive a courtesy reply from the United Nations Organization. The silence however, coming out of the corridors of the UNO, must mean that Plaintiff’s UN Membership application is not rejected, therefore is still under consideration. At any rate, pending this apparent delay and indecision by the UNO, Plaintiff, upon and immediately after a decision of this Action shall Plaintiff anew, with renewed vigor, pursue and follow up, on this still outstanding matter of Plaintiff’s Membership application.

  3. Plaintiff is humbly asking that all Court proceedings be conducted in the English language. English being universal is also the very reason why this Action has been submitted in this language in which Plaintiff feels most comfortable.
  4. This action, plea and prayer is submitted to the High Court in the hope that Justice might come to the Plaintiff as a State, and Fairness and Justice might be done to the still suffering people of that State.
  5. Therefore, let the Law prevail. Let Truth, and let International Law prevail. Let Justice be done, Justice must also be seen to be done.

 

Ernst F. Kriesner

Senator/Head of Foreign Affairs

Free City of Danzig

Government-in-Exile

5 Rutherglen St.

Noble Park Vic. 3174

Australia http://www.net2000.com.au/danzig

Tel/Fax: 613 9548 0805