This reply was transmitted in the name of the Federal Government by letter of the Federal Ministry of the Interior dated 4 June 2007.
Translation of electronic pre-publication version.

German Bundestag                                 Printed document 16/5548
16th Legislative period      06. 06. 2007

Reply of the Federal Government

Regarding the minor interpellation of parliamentarians Hans-Christian Ströbele, Monika Lazar, Irmingard Schewe-Gerigk, Silke Stokar von Neuforn, and the parliamentary party of BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN

-- Printed document 16/5364 --

Activities of the political cult around "Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität" (Human Rights Movement Solidarity) and Schiller Institute in the Federal Republic of Germany

Inquirers' introductory remarks
On 27 March 2003, the 22-year-old British student J. D. was found dead on a major road near Wiesbaden. He had participated in cadre training at the “Schiller-Institut” in Wiesbaden Erbenheim. Police are convinced that J. D. threw himself in front of a car intending to commit suicide. The mother of the killed person as well as the “Aktion für geistige und Psychische Freiheit Bundesverband Sekten- und Psychomarktberatung” (AGPF e.V.), however, declared considerable doubts about the hypothesis of suicide. Until then, J. D. had not shown any signs of psychological problems, and his friends and his mother considered him a young person full of the joys of life. On the evening of his death, the son had telephoned his mother in a state of excitement and had reported that he had heard anti-Semitic speeches at the Schiller-Institute. After that, he had told the group there that he himself was of Jewish descent, to which the response was one of horror.

Police have ruled out third-party responsibility. The public prosecutor’s office closed the proceedings in June 2003, which was confirmed by the OLG [Court] of Frankfurt. Since then, J. D.’s mother has been trying to force the authorities to take up the investigation again, and has called upon the Federal Constitutional Court. The further solution of that case notwithstanding, it raises fundamental questions, above all about the “Schiller-Institut” of Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche as well as about the “Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität” (BüSo) of his wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who took part in the last Bundestag elections as a political party. AGPF as well as other experts and journalists consider both the “Schiller-Institut” and BüSo to be part of a political cult which aims to totally absorb its members by means of conspiracy theory and partly anti-Semitic content (see, for example, Independent, The cult and the candidate; Washington Post, No Joke, October 24, 2006). The [German] Federal Government, too, in its response to a Small Inquiry dated 15 March 1996, called the previous organisation of the married couple Zepp-LaRouche, the European Workers’ Party (EAP) a political cult (Bundestag printed document 13/4132). In light of the damage which that cult and its associated organisations has caused to younger people, the following questions arise which the parliamentary party of BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN poses to the Federal Government:

1. Which parties, organisations and initiatives, which the Federal Government knows to be managed, caused, or inspired by the married couple Zepp-LaRouche, are active in Germany, or are directing their activities in other countries in terms of agitation towards Germany?

ANSWER GIVEN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
In the past the married couple Zepp-LaRouche have stood out by forming numerous political parties, associations, etc. For example, the „Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität“ (BüSo) of Wiesbaden is their most recent formation of a political party. Earlier formations include the ,,Schiller-Institut – Vereinigung für Staatskunst e.V.“ [„Schiller Institute – Association for Statecraft“] based in Laatzen near Hanover (Lower Saxony), founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the ,,Europäische Arbeiterpartei“ (EAP) [,,European Workers' Party“] of Wiesbaden, and the „Patrioten für Deutschland“ [„Patriots for Germany“] of Mainz. In addition, there are (or were, respectively) numerous other institutions such as „Executive Intelligence Review“ (EIR), „Anti-Drogen-Koalition“ [„Anti-Drug Coalition“] and „Club of Life“, all of Wiesbaden. In terms of publications, the weekly ,,Neue Solidarität“ [,,New Solidarity“], published by „Dr. Böttiger Verlags GmbH“, is the most prominent.
Other than that, the Federal Government is not aware of any findings.

2. What information does the Federal Government have regarding each of the above-mentioned organisations, above all concerning the “Schiller-Institut” and the “Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität” (BüSo),
a) according to which these organisations seek to subjugate above all young people psychologically and make them dependent,
b) according to which their staff directed young people active there to break off contacts to parents and relatives,
c) how they recruit and train new members,
d) about their sources of funding and their financial conduct,
e) about their security-relevant contacts in circles concerned with (nuclear) energy research and energy utility companies,

ANSWER BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The Federal Government is not aware of any findings on those accounts.

f) whether they paid all social security contributions for the staff employed full-time or in other ways requiring social security payments, as required (If not or not completely, what action was taken against that?)

According to social security statutes [§ 28h Abs. 2 SGB IV], the decision regarding eligibility of employed persons for compulsory insurance, and the decision regarding the amount due for social insurance contributions, are in the purview of local collection offices. According to social security statutes [§ 28p SGB IV], employers will be audited by the carriers of pension insurance at least once every four years, for compliance with their duties, in particular including their reporting duties according to social security statutes [§ 28a SGB IV]. Thus, the Federal Government is not aware of whether aparticular employer is complying with his duties according to social security statutes.

g) about their tax status concerning their status as non-profits, reasons for that and occasions for withdrawing that status?

On legal principle, the fiscal authorities are not allowed to disclose information regarding the fiscal treatment of  both individual and legal persons [§ 30 Abgabenordnung (AO) – Steuergeheimnis].
Generally,  I wish to point out that according to Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Fiscal Court] jurisdiction, a corporate body may be treated as a non-profit only under the condition that its activities are located within the framework of constitutional order (decision of 29 August 1984, BStBl II 1985 S. 106). The fiscal administration complies with that jurisdiction. The pertinent general adminstrative directives contained in Anwendungserlass zur Abgabenordnung (AOAE) zu § 52 Nr. 16 are binding upon fiscal authorities of federal states.

3. Does the Federal Government have information calling the status of “BüSo” as a political party into question?
If so, which information?

Click here for the German version of these questions.

Perhaps the Bundestag should read the report sent by the Federal Minister of the Interior. There are now 200 members in Germany. Many full time youth working for the network. Visiting Colleges to recruit. Selling newspapers on the streets. Recruiting young people to give up their studies and work full time for this political network?