Received Landgericht, Mannheim

2 June 2004

Dear Dr Töben

On 7 October 2004 I collected the above Summons from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Adelaide Headquarters. The Summons had been sent on behalf of Mannheim Judge Adam by the German Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to the Australian DPP in Canberra, from where it was passed on by an AFP Federal Agent to me.

The Question asked of me was: "Will you be attending this court hearing?"

I replied that I would have to give my reply some consideration because I had made a public statement to the effect that the world is too small in which to hide, and I had stated publicly that I would certainly return for the 2000 Appeal. For this court appearance Iw as advised that I did not need to be present, and the Karlsruhe court ordered counsels to run my defence.

The 1999 Mannheim Judgment  adopted the legal principle that German law does not extend to overseas operated websites. The push-pull argument was thereby adopted, something German academics had been advocating, i.e. I was not pushing the material into German society because an Internet user is actively searching for things, then cannot claim the material thus found is offensive. Australia's Jewish spokesperson, Jeremy Jones, claims he receives complaints from those individuals who accidentally stumble upon Adelaide Institute's website, and who are hurt and offended by what they find thereon about the 'Holocaust'.

Defence counsel Mr Ludwig Bock did not mount a defence during the two days, 8 and 10 November 1999, because by doing so he would have found himself liable to a charge.  Anything said in court is not privileged, as it is in Common law countries, and the recent Horst Mahler case in Berlin revealed the absurdity of it when prosecuting counsel Krüger would, after a day in court, present Mahler with another Summons for having committed an offence, on the following day that had been committed the day before while making his submissions to the court.

The 2000 Appeal found that because I had not been defended, I should be given a re-trial; prosecutor Hans-Heiko Klein's appeal grounds had also been granted because he wished me to receive a longer prison sentence and German law should extend to the Internet where Paragraph 130 should become active..

The Appeal Judges granted me a re-trial, and that German law in this matter has world-wide reach, that is, anyone who has a website and offends against Paragraph 130 of the German Penal Code - inciting people to hatred - can be prosecuted in Germany. This is like Australia arresting all German tourists who come to Australia for driving on the wrong side of the road in Germany, or anyone who travels to countries where alcohol is banned, for example Iran, is arrested while visiting in Iran.

Meanwhile some email correspondence with Justice Adam and legal counsel, Michael Rosenthal, sheds more light on how a fair trial is not possible in Germany.

Dove-tailing with the German legal moves by the 'Holocaust 'lobby' into my legal battle in Australia: Truth is no defence!

My non-contested trial in the Federal Court of Australia became a 'Summary Judgment' matter because I could not get any legal representation. I had canvassed over twenty of Australia's legal firms seeking their help. Even before financial matters were raised, representatives shied away from getting involved in this legal battle because of the subject matter. The actual Appeal was conducted by the President of Civil Liberties Victoria - again the focus was on pure law and not on the matters of fact, something that should have been done by a competent legal counsel. Although I have conducted two appeals myself in the Victorian Supreme Court - won one and lost one - I would have been a fool attempting to represent myself in this matter because it is a political matter.

Not getting any legal defence at the first stage of the legal battle is what RA Michael Rosenthal addressed in my German case when Justice Adam of Mannheim ordered Rosenthal be my defence counsel at the forthcoming trial. Rosenthal stated that he would follow RA Bock's behaviour in November 1999 and remain silent. Why?  Because it is not possible to mount a vigorous defence at this first stage of the legal process because Rosenthal would face the danger of committing an offence, of incriminating himself.

Bock had remained silent during my 1999 trial because he was at that time facing a charge that his mindset was too close to that of the Revisionist Mindset, i.e. Prosecutor H-H Klein charged Bock during the Günter Deckert defence with offending against Paragraph 130, et al. Unlike Australian court procedure, in Germany anything aired during a court case is not privileged and can give rise to further charges.

Further, court proceedings are not objectively transcribed as is the case in Australia where an independent court transcription service takes down everything that is said in court, thereby providing an objective record of what transpires. In the German proceedings a judge makes personal notes and a secretary writes down what the judge instructs her to write down. The procedures thus contrast the adversarial and the inquisitorial systems of law.

I advised Justice Adam that my defence counsel of choice is RA Horst Mahler, who was brilliantly and fearlessly defending himself against similar charges in a Berlin court.

Soon after, the Berlin DPP moved against Horst Mahler and stripped him of his right to exercise his profession - and so Horst Mahler, my counsel of choice, has been taken from me. There is no defence counsel in Germany who would have the courage to take on the matter in the way Mahler did in his on case.

Witch-trial and witch-hunting mentality - the same mentality prevails at Mannheim Court

Anyone who is brought before the courts in Germany is automatically guilty, as was the case during witch trials. The trial is a charade and a travesty of justice because it does not matter what is aired during the trial - truth is no defence.

The judge decides whether the accused shows remorse. If the accused is contrite, then the death sentence will be swift. However, if the accused relies on any form of justification, i.e. claims to be innocent, and not a witch, that indicates there is no remorse and thus compounds the guilt of the accused.

There is also no right of a trial by jury in this instance in Germany.

This is the prevailing legal climate, much like that which prevailed in the former Soviet Union - and is now saturating the so-called western democracies -  where two matters could not be contested and where individuals were sent to the GUlags or shot as a matter of course: if the accused was labelled an 'antisemite'  and/or a 'revisionist'.

I seek protection from the Australian government against such mindset that attempts legally to stifle our civilized discourse on vital matters of our human existence.

Dr Fredrick Töben

Adelaide Institute

6 October 2004

Adelaide - Australia