Naturally that Mr. professor Filippo Ranieri recommended to me to be made naturalize, as a small son of German, according to paragraph 8 of the laws concerning German
nationality, but it occurs something here very strange.
A proposal was presented at the time of the audience of the 22.04.2002-NR: 5 K 765/01.NW in front of the administrative court of the town of
This means that given residence permit would be firstly delivered to me, and I will be able to be made naturalize six months afterwards, if I manage to remain and ensure my
family as a practitioner my own occupation.
This decision was made the 22.04.2002-NR: 5 K765/01.NW per Mrs. judge Cambeis-Glenz, president of the fifth room of this court.
During this lawsuit my
lawyer had immediately made a request for a new audience near this court, if this proposal would be disallowed by the territorial administrative government of Trier.
This proposal was actually
disallowed the 16.05.2002 by this government, while justifying which I do not have a valid residence permit and which I touch the social assistance, and I have had to still wait three years before making me naturalize,
if I work by all my needs of my family, then I live here in Pirmasens for eleven years.
According to letters' of the 03.06.2002 and the 07.06.2002 my lawyer asked again in writing, a new
audience relating to the aforementioned procedure in front of this same court.
This one was refused by the decision of the 01.07.2002-NR. 5 K 765/01.NW by Mrs. judge Idelberger through another fifth
room by confirming that, I must pay the expenses of this lawsuit.
This decision of this fifth room of this court was deliberated without our assent and it was as confirmed in the aforementioned
decision as, the implied people gave up with this new audience, whereas my lawyer had indeed lodged the request for this famous news goes down for hearing.
My lawyer never gave up this new audience.
I believe that, my lawyer has this right to ask for a new audience again, when the two parts are not agreed on this proposal.
I noticed on the Nr. 2 page of the decision of the
01.07.2002-NR: 5 K 765/01.NW of the fifth room of this court that, the names of Mrs. judge Cambeis-Glenz and two other assessors are not reproduced on this decision, whereas it is Mrs. judge
Cambeis-Glenz who had chaired and confirmed this proposal by the decision taken the 22.04.2002 from where the latter was made up: the president Mrs judge Cambeis-Glenz , accompanied by four assessors, including
judges Idelberger and Reitnauer.
This decision of the 01.07.2002 was deliberated by a minority room.
The file NR: 5 K 2095/97.NW relate to only my request for German nationality, but this one
was not evoked during the lawsuit of the 22.04.2002 front this court, because Mrs. judge Cambeis-Glenz assure me that, this business is not included in the aforementioned lawsuit and that I will be able to again ask for
the reopening of this business afterwards, when I asked him the question relating to the aforementioned business.
This court must absolutely accept and take again the new audience which was noted
in the official report of the 22.04.2002 per Mrs. judge Cambeis-Glenz, because my lawyer had insisted it.
It is not mentioned at all on the form of the request for naturalization that, one must absolutely
give up his first nationality, if one wants to obtain German nationality. It is for that that, formerly I notched on this form which I would like to also keep my nationality of Togo and any time I will be able to
give up the latter, if the German law does not authorize to keep two nationalities, and I already confirmed it.
I worked since 1991 until 1994 at several companies with the delivery of an
unspecified work permit, at the end, my employer of the Reno company to thaleischweiler (Pfalz) laid off me, because the municipality of the town of Pirmasens required of him to return me, so that it can expel me in
Lome. The Labour Exchange of Pirmasens refused several times all my applications of work permit, when I found other jobs.
How would it be possible here, that I will not be able to be made
naturalize, because I currently profit the social assistance, from where I have only one provisional permit residence and any work permit, whereas I had legally paid my taxes between 1991 and 1994 ?
How will I be able to remain and ensure my family as a practitioner my own occupation, if I this famous did not work permit, whereas I am a jeweller of trade?
I have the impression here, that one asks me to
make an omelette, whereas I do not have eggs?
With through the deliberation of the 01.07.2002 of the fifth room of this court, I have the impression that one would like to boycott this significant history of
the old racist German laws concerning the protectorate of Togo. I believe that the expertise is very significant in a legal procedure, when it is about Justice, but those which are delivered to me, are not
seriously examined by this court.
I am very impatient of knowing, how the higher administrative court of the town of Koblenz will decide, when my call would be introduced, because all my last businesses were
always rejected by this court.