**Introductory remarks: **
Q mentioned in this post that a subgroup of the (particular?)NAZI ideology were important players behind the scene. https://qagg.news/?q=%23%23938
N does not refer to Nazi. The continued Nazi ideology is relevant. Events will clarify. Think subgroup. Q
I have been scratching my head for that one enigmatic reference. A subgroup can mean quite a number of things, especially, where it concerns ideology.
At any rate: I have a hunch and am busy putting a lot of information together, and logically, it has to do with WOII and the legalities surrounding those events.
In this particular case my focus is on researching the legal status of the Dutch "government in exile".
Two things stand juxtaposed: The view the Dutch supreme court held with regards to mandates from the German civil authority (Totally legal), which was handed to them not under Geneva Convention by right of conquest, but as a consequence of the Crown leaving the seat of government unoccupied after allegedly having handed over civil authority to General Winkelman orally.
Former Prime Minister Colijn and several professors of constitutional law called this evacuation/ vacation of the throne: illegal. The Brits call it in a whisper: kidnapping, the dutch generally have no clue. And what is more: the constitutional changes to the Netherlands during the 1940 - 1945 period: have been retained afterwards. That is quite strange. (fucking income tax!) And retaining such, under Geneva Convention would mean still military occupation is going on. (and my BC shows that: nome de guerre: Last Name, First Name)
As you can imagine, under these circumstances, the question becomes in international law: what is the legal government?
My Question:
I came across an article that peaked my interest: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/governments-exile-royalty-relocated-london-world-war-two.html
It says:
The Dutch government had already relocated to London in the spring of 1940, but they had not been officially recognised as representative of the Dutch people. It wasn’t until 1941 that the British courts ruled that they were recognised as Holland’s government-in-exile.
One or more British court cases? International arbitration was done in The Hague. If any court would have jurisdiction to determine that, it would be the International Court of Justice back then, and it was summarily in operation. So why a British court?
Well, for one, there were important legal ramifications. One of which is the St James Palace declaration of June of 1941. But also the events later on as of 14th September 1944 till 3 march of 1946 (end of Military Occupation) and beyond, and the potential illegal occupation of the throne may be in the works, and this is comparable to the 1871 CONSTITUTION and the US INC swindle.
The article is written by a Erik Mustermann. I am not sure who this is, as Mustermann could typically be a fake name.
Is there any one of you who would assist me in making contact with this guy. I am curious on what basis he writes this.
I have no facebook, but I know some of you do. Here is a link to his profile. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008453231938
I would welcome this effort!
And if any of you know of history buffs on Lend-Lease: Cash & Carry, that would be a welcome source as well.