state bullying: no lawyer

Allow me to start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: each individual is entitled to a lawyer and legal support, both in defence and offence.

Switzerland is the proud and undisputed guardian and keeper of the UN UDHR. It is uncontestably regarded and respected as such throughout the world. The supreme example all other states clap to in blind and foolish admiration. Nothing more then pitiful willing suspension of disbelief.

Switzerland violates the most fundamental of rights, as explained below.

Let's try to make it easy to understand to all those who believe in Switzerland being the role model of democracy and the rule of law.

Everyone has seen westerns, movies depicting the USA in the 19th century, whereby in the Wild West the federal laws were to be applied by the local sheriff. This local sheriff usually did not have much regard to federal rule or law, and was often the local organiser of crime, who could handle fearless of repercussions from the federal state.

A better comparison does not exist, I don't think. Switzerland has not evolved from that antique dictatorial model. Democratic state? Rule of law? Switzerland? Think again. Nothing of the sort.

Let's first remind what the UN UDHR tells:

Article 7 : All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11: 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 he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Swiss law is federal. If Switzerland signs an international convention, declaration or bilateral agreement, one expects it to be applied universally throughout the different cantons and levels of authority.

Yet, the opposite is true. Cantons have virtually endless power of interpretation and application. Cantons are nothing more then spoiled little princedoms. Like in the school playground the rich kid versus the poor kid, or if I may be politically incorrect the colored kid versus the native one. How so?

First, the cantons didn't sign anything. They signed no convention or declaration or bilateral agreement. It does not come from their will or belief it is the right thing to do. It is the federal state doing so on behalf of the nation. The federal authorities are supposed to oversee the correct application in the different cantons.

The going concern is: supposed.

Supposed because in Switzerland all levels of authority present their harmonious collegial loyalty to one another. While in fact they despise each others guts, they agree to not disagree or disprove in the name of collegiality and national cohesion. All are remembered of the extremely violent past before the Helvetic nation became a thing.

Supposed because it are the cantonal representatives elected to be “working” the federal parliament or in federal jobs. In reality they are there to oversee the interests of the canton they come from.

Supposed because in Switzerland judges are appointed by the parliament. Politics decides who the federal judges are, who judges the cantons justice.

God forbid in the name of national cohesion and collegiality a finger would dare be pointed to anyone from the system. Switzerland is whiter then white. No (white collar) crime to be found there, god forbid, no, it is simply not possible for the surhumaine Swiss society to dare question itself, let alone do it in a way the public could think about raising a finger.

The judges, which in Switzerland are de facto appointed politicians, obviously represent their canton first and foremost. If they wish to be re-elected, they'd better. So they by definition do not represent the norms and values of the Swiss federal state.

Cantonal rulings are as a general rule “collegially” respected by the federal judges who are there by cantonal political interest. Federal judges are known to have openly confessed it is more important for the national cohesion to judge in favor of cantons then in favor of individuals raising issues.

So, while there are no longer cantonal laws, there is only ancient princedom hard dying praxis. Old habits die hard?

Conclusion: In the name of national cohesion cantons rarely get a finger pointed by the federal judges or federal politicians.

Even Federal Councillors are known to have openly admitted in the press they listen more attentively to issues raised from authorities of their canton.

And when a pitiful civilian dares to raise a finger, dear oh dear, all hens on deck to smother that civilian into oblivion.

You may feel I've written harshly about the Swiss? I've put it mildly, politely. I invite you to read the Swiss press for the more outspoken versions, such as Switzerland being described as a banana republic, which in all likeliness it is if one is to look honestly at the facts. And I am still only listing the polite press.

A few NGO's have endeavored to take the system to court, and to the European Court of Human Rights. I applaud their initiative, it will be years before they might be listened to.

Now, on the backdrop of a system built to have no tolerance of raising questions it should be no surprise the state does not have a pro-deo or pro-bono system.

To have a whiff of a chance at accessing the Swiss system, in most cantons the judge on your case will first have to examine your case and decide on the merits of the case. If the judge thinks your case has a merit, then you could access the system. Pure arbitration and bias opinionated view by the judge who ultimately will judge the case.

Then you and your whole life will be scrutinised. If the state thinks (you read this right, thinks, not fact, thinking) that you may have something, you will be rejected a lawyer by the state.

A few examples:

Should you be lucky enough to have state lawyer funding, here is a surprise for you: It is a loan by the state, which you will have to refund to the state.

And that's not the only caveat. The lawyer will need to ask permission to the judge for each letter, call or activity performed. That justification is not paid for by the state.

Trouble over misery, the lawyer will have to work on your case at the tariff the state decides, which is nothing like the real price Swiss lawyers charge.

Oh, and finally, the lawyer will get paid at the very end of the trial. Err, long after the very end of the trial and after undergoing a fight to justify each and every second of work.

Needless to say, Swiss lawyers refuse counseling to those who are most in need of one. In the next post I will share the writing and verbal stance of no less then 6 Swiss lawyers on the matter.

Pure violation of the UDHR, with Swiss federal tribunal jurisprudence to justify for it.

The Swiss legal system is no more then a mirage, upheld by the willing suspension of disbelief of people, and efficient money-in-pocket from the vested interest making sure no one can take them up in court.

Switzerland blatantly and knowingly violates the pinnacle of a democratic state of law and of the UN UDHR, and uses it particularly against those with few(er) financial and/or intellectual means.

I'll rest my case on this lawless nation with the UN UDHR access to lawyers and legal services:

Access to lawyers and legal services:

1. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings.

2. Governments shall ensure that efficient procedures and responsive mechanisms for effective and equal access to lawyers are provided for all persons within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction, without distinction of any kind, such as discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, economic or other status.

3. Governments shall ensure the provision of sufficient funding and other resources for legal services to the poor and, as necessary, to other disadvantaged persons. Professional associations of lawyers shall cooperate in the organization and provision of services, facilities and other resources.

4. Governments and professional associations of lawyers shall promote programmes to inform the public about their rights and duties under the law and the important role of lawyers in protecting their fundamental freedoms. Special attention should be given to assisting the poor and other disadvantaged persons so as to enable them to assert their rights and where necessary call upon the assistance of lawyers.

Tags: #Rights #accesstojustice

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023