The Catch-22 Trial – truth is no defence

If you defend yourself, you compound your guilt; if you remain silent, you forego your defence.

1. As late as October 2003 Dr Fredrick Töben had a letter from the German authorities wherein it is stated that there is nothing about him on file in Germany, and that he is free to travel within Germany. On 13 April Töben learned at Helsinki Airport that German authorities had on 9 January 2004 imposed a ban on his traveling to Germany and to any EU country.  So, unbeknown to Töben, since 9 January 2004 he has been banned from entering any European Union country because Germany has declared him an undesirable person – on account of the 9 November 1999 Mannheim judgment. Had he been detained by any EU country, for example on 12 April 2004 at Amsterdam, then that would have led to Töben’s deportation, a reason for other countries to hop on the bandwagon and impose a ban on Töben. The New Zealand authorities did this to historian David Irving on account of his framed expulsion from Canada. That so-called democratic countries are criminalizing Revisionists in secret trials is graphically depicted in Ernst Zündel’s almost two year solitary imprisonment in a Toronto detention centre.

2. On 12 December 2000 a Karlsruhe appeal court granted an appeal and ordered that the November 1999 court case be re-heard at Mannheim. Some time during April-May Judge Adam ordered Michael Rosenthal act as Töben’s defence counsel because ZRosenthal had been involved in the appeal. Rosenthal refused because he stated in writing that were he to defend Töben, then he, Rosenthal, would also make himself liable because court proceedings in Germany are not privileged, and that at the first stage of the trial where matters of facts are canvassed, it is not possible to mount an effective defence because that would also criminalize the defence counsel. Rosenthal stated to Judge S Adam that he would adopt the strategy used by defence counsel Ludwig Bock during the November 1999 trial and offer no defence. Bock at that time in another case had been charged with defending Günter Deckert ‘too vigorously’, thereby bringing Bock’s mindset too close to Revisionist thinking – and that is a criminal matter.

3. The fact that Bock did not offer a defence gave rise to the appeal court granting Töben a re-hearing; and the prosecutor was granted the appeal so that he could argue that German law applies to Internet sites anywhere in the world. The Appeal Court had found that the Mannheim Regional Court had erred in not applying German law to the Internet. This ruling has massive world-wide implications on Internet traffic, and the issue will be aired again during 8, 9 and 11 November 2004.

4. Töben asked Judge Adam to appoint well-known defence counsel Horst Mahler as Töben’s counsel because Mahler is defending himself against the same allegations in a Berlin court – to date quite successfully. Soon after Töben’s request had been submitted, a court in Berlin stripped Mahler of his legal practice certificate thereby prohibiting him from acting as a defence counsel for another person. Judge Adam thus rejected Töben’s request to have Mahler as his defence counsel of choice.

5. On 27 May 2004, Judge Adam issued the Summons and activated the office of the German Public Prosecutor that activated the Australian office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which in turn had the Australian Federal Police (AFP) serve the Summons on Töben.

6. When the AFP officer handed Töben the Summons, he asked Töben: “Will you be attending this court hearing?” Töben responded in writing without specifically answering the question.

7. It must be stated that if Töben answers ‘Yes’, then he will be breaking the law that since 9 January 2004 prohibits Töben from traveling to Germany. If Töben answers ‘No’, then he foregoes a defence, a defence that will be conducted not by Töben’s counsel of choice. Add to that the fact that an effective defence merely compounds Töben’s guilt, the need to have someone like fearless Horst Mahler as defence counsel is obvious.

8. What happened to Töben in the Federal Court of Australia case is instructive here. A judge granted the Jewish Zionist’s application for a ‘summary judgment’ on account of Töben not finding a defence counsel to assist in mounting an effective defence. On 19 May 2003, however, Töben had a defence counsel who ran the appeal – unsuccessfully – on similar grounds to that mentioned by Michael Rosenthal, i.e. it is not possible to mount an effective defence at the first stage of the legal process where matters of fact are canvassed because truth is no defence. At the appeal stage it is a matter of law – a safe haven for counsels.