THE GRUDGE INFORMERS AND A LAW STUDENT’S PERSPECTIVE:

A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS

Jose Cristobal C. Liwanag

Juris Doctor 1, Bicol University

As the judge for the case, I will declare the wife guilty of violating the German Criminal
Code, for having willfully, unlawfully and feloniously procuring the false imprisonment of her
husband. There will be some contextualization ahead before I go to the bulk of my
argumentation regarding the decision.

Before the rise of the Nazi and the Nazi ideology, the constitution of Germany, known as
the Weimar Constitution, contains provisions which by far, can be hailed as at par with most
modern democratic countries. Its provisions include the right by citizens to vote its president and
lawmakers, guaranteed freedom of speech and religion, and equality of all its citizens, among
other things. It can be concluded that the previous republic, borne out of the Weimar
constitution, embodies democratic values and guarantees and protects basic human rights.
Ironically, in a sick twist of fate, the democratic values embodied therein gave rise to an
authoritarian regime that sparked the most heinous, systemic murder of millions of people and a
global war of epic proportions.i The Nazi ideology is rooted upon Hitler’s fundamental belief
that the German race is the superior race and thus should lead the world. In his book, Mein
Kampf (My Struggle) he outlined the rejection of democracy, liberalism, rule of law and human
rights. Instead, he stressed the importance of submission to the authorities and strict obedience to
the state. It emphasized the inequality between races and the right of the strong to rule the weak.
It strongly held antisemitic views. In fact, he blamed them greatly for the subsequent famine and
economic depression that Germany experienced after losing the First World War. ii

After a few years of great economic and social turmoil, Hitler became chancellor through
the Nazi Party. By using the Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, he was able to put into
motion most, if not all, of his ideology, including but not limited to total control of the people
through manipulating the existing laws as well as the creating an environment of fear through
brute force and false flag operations; establishing state-sponsored mass murder of people deemed
inferior to the German race such as the Jews, blacks, communists and other minorities;
imprisonment, enslavement or forced military service of people who make unsavory remarks,
oppose or dissent against Hitler, the government and its instrumentalities. Hitler and his Nazi
party also enacted secret laws, that is, laws to which the contents thereof are secret to the public
at large and can be used retroactively to imprison any person that violated or has violated in the
past such secret acts. He also established a state propaganda machine headed by Joseph Goebbels
through which the public at large had been brainwashed. Through various media, the German
people had been fed lies mainly about the Jews and the minorities, the humiliation of the First
World War, total submission to the state and its will. Being able to control media almost totally,
the Nazi party was able to become the only source of information, through which they
manipulated the public and subsequently causing them to be more malleable and less questioning
regarding the laws that promote intolerance against the “inferiors”, as well as subsequent plans to
establish a Nazi German Empire by invading and subjugating the rest of the world. People were
also rewarded when they report others who might have said unsavory remarks about the
government, resulting further in an atmosphere of fear and distrust not only towards the
minorities and “inferiors” but also towards each other. This distrust, alongside the relentless
propaganda, made them more pliable towards the goal of total control of their people.iii In fact,
some people at the time have used the laws enacted by the Nazis as a way to get rid of others
because of a grudge or other selfish reasons, like the present case at bar.

We now come to the arguments for arriving at the judgement. The case at bar presents
some problems: Were the Nazi’s laws themselves a valid law? Did the German Criminal Code,
existing before the Nazi’s rise to power, penalize the acts of the wife, namely her having
procured the false imprisonment of her husband using said laws?
 We shall be tackling these questions using the natural law theory, particularly with
Aquinas’ substantive natural law theory.

Natural law theory, in general, states that our laws should be based upon the morality,
ethics and what is inherently correct that govern our reasoning and behavior. In Aquinas’ natural
law theory, he posits that “Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by one
who has care of the community and promulgated.” With this, Mark Murphy, in his book,
explains that Thomas Aquinas’ idea about the law is that as an ordinance of reason it should
serve as a guide for a rational standard of conduct. It governs the way we act, the way ought not
to act. As a governing set of rules and as rational beings, the laws should be rational standards in
itself, that is it reflects what we can independently know to be rationally moral i.e., good and
right like protecting or helping others or bad, as in killing other people. More importantly, as an
ordinance of reason, it should be for the common good. Such common good, as Murphy explains
is for the governance of group conduct and such conduct is for the common good of the group.
Law as a being made by the one who has care of the community, allows for decisions or laws to
have authoritative ruling. This means that the laws created can induce others into action, a
conduct of behavior, or prevention of an action or set a standard of conduct by virtue of its
promulgation by the authority. Lastly, laws needing promulgation, means that us, as rational
beings, needs to be aware that a law exists so that we can be made aware on how to act or what
we ought not to do based on its content.iv

Do the statutes in question pass as laws using Aquinas’ standard? For the sake of the
argument, let us assume that these laws were made for a common good and was promulgated by
the one in authority, so that people know they are in effect. Let us, instead, analyze them if they
are ordinances of reason. The 1934 statute as summarized, is a statute that punishes public as
well as private speeches and expressions that goes against any act, action or institution of the
National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) as well as leading personalities of the nation,
such leading personalities shall be determined by the National Minister of Justice. The 1938
statute, as summarized, punishes by death the refusal of service to the armed forces of Germany
or whoever otherwise publicly seeks to injure or destroy the will of the German people or
refusing to fight the enemy. An analysis of the summary of the statutes shows that by reason and
logic, there exists a very broad standard for which we cannot clearly judge to what extent actions
or speeches that go against any act, or institution of the Nazis, or what acts can constitute as acts
that seeks to injure or destroy the will of the German people. For a rational being like us, there
are many interpretations of the two laws can arise and thus, can become quite unreasonable to
follow. For instance, if the Nazi party was not following standard machinery specification for
their machines of war, which would make them more effective if followed, and I made an
utterance about it, will my actions be construed as going against “measures taken or institutions
established by the Nazi?” Another example, for instance, as a Nazi soldier, I make a statement
that I am not effective at shooting because I am hungry due to the very little food being provided
by the regime, does that go against the law? More importantly, how can the Nazi party ascertain
the veracity that I have made a spiteful or provocative remark in private? Another question
would be what actions, other than very obvious remarks and sabotage of the Nazi war
machineries, would be merited as destroying the will of the German people? Does one’s inherent
self-preservation instinct need to abandoned in the face of an insurmountable enemy? In
conclusion, if unreasonable ends and confusion can arise from a statute, they must be
unreasonable in itself, lacking logical beginnings or logical ends and such unreasonableness
makes them no ordinance of reason in the corollary and thus invalid as laws.

Arguing further against the validity of the Nazi laws, it can be argued that the laws of the
Nazis were passed under a collective diminution of rationality of the people who are to be
subjected to such laws and thus, was not able to properly consent to the laws that the
authoritative power promulgated. This was done, as stated earlier, by instilling a cloud of fear
and disinformation through coercion and endless propaganda, which in turn diminished the
rational capacity of the German society in large swaths. This led to a society that acted in
diminished rationality and as such would not have been able to reason out clearly against
unreasonable laws. In conclusion, it can’t be argued that since the Nazis were voted in place,
therefore they have the mandate of the people and their laws are valid by the authority vested on
them by the German people.

Now that we have shown invalidity of the statutes in question, let us now look the
criminal liability of the wife. Under the German Criminal Code, having procured the false
imprisonment of a person is punishable. As mentioned earlier in the facts of the case, the wife
was found out to have been having an affair while in the army, and thus was considered to
having procured a false imprisonment of her husband. Using natural law theory, we can deduce
that the goal of the law was one, prevent unlawful imprisonment and that two, its promulgation is
a result of an ordinance of reason pertaining to the importance of freedom of individuals who are
law abiding, or not causing any threat to the society. Since I have shown earlier that the laws on
which the wife have relied upon as defense was invalid, it can be logically followed that first, her
husband was subjected to an unreasonable and invalid law. Following this, it can be deduced that
her husband was invalidly deprived of his liberty and most probably his life through the use of an
invalid law. Since such act is punishable by the German Criminal Code, it shall be followed that
the wife shall be punished. Since the German Criminal Code was not repealed during the Nazi
Regime, it shall be deemed as still in effect even though its enforcement during that Nazi era was
questionable at best and lacking at worst.

However, for the sake of the argument, let us assume that the laws were valid, and in
effect, the imprisonment of the husband was indeed valid. Would the wife still be criminally
liable under the German Criminal Code? First, the wife was aware of the law and his utterances
was reported as a result of the law. However, this was done at the comfort perhaps of the home
during bedtime, and perhaps there was no other way it would reach the public. Furthermore, the
husband was under the impression that the wife loved him, and with this love, he was safe with
her, sharing to her thoughts and feelings about the life of a soldier as one would with a loving
and caring partner. Such love is a universal feeling felt by people, often not bound by law or
laws. As the wife was found to have been having an affair while her husband was away, this puts
doubt on the validity of her claim. First, her motive. Was her motivation to report, to follow the
law, even if she can choose not to, since the utterances will not be known to the public anyway,
as assumed by her husband due to the supposed existence of love that is beyond the laws of men?
Or was it so that she can get rid of her husband by reporting him and presumably, replace her
husband with her paramour? Such doubt alone is enough to question her motives and that in light
of the said laws, she has subjugated it to her own will and not for the common good. Thus, even
if such action of reporting was legal, if not done for the right causes, the common good to which
that law was to be used and was promulgated for, it can be punished under the 1938 Statute. To
which such action injures or destroys the will of the German people or punishable under the first
paragraph of the 1934 Statute, to wit “provocative statements… of such a nature as to undermine
the people's confidence in their political leadership”. As people may be able to use it for personal
reasons, aka “grudge informing”, is it not an action that undermines the law such that it becomes
a mere personal tool? By analyzing further, it becomes an action that undermines political
leadership such that the people lose trust in the laws promulgated by the leadership due to actions
brought about by selfish motives, not by motives in line with the common good. By her own
actions, by subjecting the law to forward a selfish gain, she has violated the intent of why such
laws were promulgated. In an ironic fashion, it can be construed that the law she used was a
double-edged sword that can be used to her conviction.

Wherefore, in the light of the circumstances and arguments stated, I find the accused wife
guilty of violating the German Criminal Code, for having willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
procuring the false imprisonment of her husband.
i
(Germany - The Weimar Constitution, n.d.)
ii
(C-REX - Center for Research on Extremism;, 2021)

iii
(Bauer, n.d.)
iv
(Murphy, 2007)