Horst Mahler has his Passport confiscated
- to prevent his attending the Iranian Revisionist Conference
Translated by James Damon
- in German
Letter from German Authority a b c
Fernruf 033203 20460
Fernkopie 033203 21059
Kleinmachnow, den 29.01.06
29 January 2006
The Honorable Mr. Dehne
City of Kleinmachnow
Bureau of Internal Security
Reference number: 30.010/06
Dear Mr. Dehne:
I hereby request that you immediately rescind your "passport limiting measure" of 26 January 2006 and return my passport to me without delay. It is obvious from the press reports you are acting on instructions from your superiors rather than your own initiative -- others want to receive from the Central Jewish Council of Germany the laurels that you gained for restricting my freedom of movement by confiscating my passport. And yet, obedience to your superiors can neither justify nor excuse you. In carrying out your assignment, you have committed several serious errors. You simply took the “Factual basis” for the “passport limiting measures” from press reports. You did not consider it necessary to hold a legal hearing. Since that was still not enough, you simply invented the facts that you considered necessary.
In your notification you write: “In particular, it would be incompatible with Germany’s responsibility toward the nation of Israel resulting from Germany’s history, for you as a German citizen abroad to deny the Holocaust and again commit a felony for which you have already been convicted.” Apparently you are not aware that questioning the Holocaust in Iran is not a punishable offense. Dear Mr. Dehne, the criminal law of the OMF/BRD (Organizational Form of A Modality of Foreign Rule, the Federal Republic of Germany) applies to acts committed inside Germany (§ 3 StGB).
Furthermore I have never been convicted of “denying the Holocaust.” I disputed the matter before the so called Constitutional Court during a trial to suppress the National Democratic Party, in explaining why the Jews have been hated at all times by all the nations that have hosted them, and why they continue to be hated today. For this the 22nd Circuit Court of Berlin convicted me of "Incitement of the Masses" and sentenced me to nine months in prison. I appealed that verdict to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided the matter. If it should become clear that you released your statement of 26 January 2006 to third parties such as the press, you would be liable to charges of malicious slander. However, that is a minor issue.
With your "passport limiting” measure, you are deliberately obstructing clarification of the question whether the “Holocaust” took place as claimed by world Jewry. Perhaps it still has not gotten through to you that the leaders of world Jewry – especially the brothers Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson, the “King of Diaspora Jews;" Nahum Goldmann, the "Emperor of America;" Sam Rosenman, the "Right Hand of President Roosevelt;" Felix Frankfurter and Rabbi Wise did in fact meet together and conspire in order to lend credence to the historical lies of the “International Military Tribunal” for the so called “Nuremberg Trials” conducted against the leaders of the Reich, which the Jewish leaders planned in detail.
The Holocaust laws of the OMF/ Federal Republic of Germany are continuing the judicial tradition of Stalinist show trials introduced into Germany by the victorious Allies with the International Military Tribunal. Far from being guided by a quest for reality and justice, they are a "continuation of the war effort of the allied nations" in the words of US Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson. The OMF/ Federal Republic courts which impose the Holocaust laws are nothing but a cover for despotic rule by the enemies of the Reich. Following unconditional capitulation by the Wehrmacht at the end of World War II, the victorious Allies had the power to write the history of the period as they saw fit. Not surprisingly, they labeled the Germans as "criminal," just as they had attempted to do during the First World War. They then established their postwar order of global Mammonism, based on the historical lies they fabricated. There is no possibility that our enemies could ever be inclined to give up the fruits of their victory over the Reich. They have always been determined and are still determined to hold onto them and protect the source of their wealth.
He who builds his house on lies fears nothing more that the truth, which can tear it down at any time. This is the reason why, where historiography is concerned, the courts of the OMF/ Federal Republic are bound to uphold the lies of the victorious powers in complete disregard for German public opinion. These courts are forced to uphold the Allies’ lies against the Reich leadership exactly as they were proclaimed in the Nuremberg show trials.
With its transparent intent of again deceiving the German nation concerning its impotence, the government of the OMF/ Federal Republic has placed the following manipulation in motion. In the “Two Plus Four” treaty signed on 12 September 1990, the supremacy of the OMF/ Federal Republic was announced as follows:
(1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result, the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements, decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved.
(2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs.
Fifteen days later, over 27 and 28 September, the sovereignty clause of the agreement was “rephrased” in a separate “agreement.” The newer agreement states the following:
1. (Suspension of the so called “Treaty with Germany As a Whole)”
2. (Partial Suspension of the so called Transition agreement)
3. The following provisions of the Transition Agreement however remain in
Part One: (individual paragraphs from Articles 1 through 5)
Article 7 Paragraph 1.
Source: Bundesgesetzblatt Teil II (Federal Law Gazette II Page 1386
Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the "Treaty for the Regulation of Questions of War Arising from War and Occupation” dated 26 May 1952 (the so called “Transition Treaty”) reads as follows:
(1) All verdicts and decisions in criminal matters that have been pronounced in Germany by any court or judicial department of the Three Powers, or by any one of them individually up to the present or later (!!) shall continue to be legal and effective in every regard under German law, and they shall be administered accordingly by the German courts (!!) and administrative entities.
See also: Bundesgesetzblatt Teil II, Internationale Verträge (Federal Law Gazette Part II, International Treaties) 1955, Number 8, Bonn, 31 March 1955, "Treaty for the Regulation of Questions Arising from War and Occupation,” Part One, and also Article 7 (page 413.)
The historian General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof elucidates this provision as follows: 
The verdicts of the victorious powers delivered in the so called Nuremberg Trials by the International Military Tribunal are verdicts and decisions in the sense of the abovementioned Article 7 (1). German culture ministries and subordinate positions are agencies in the sense of the above mentioned Article 7 (1). They issue guidelines for instruction at universities and schools and approve teaching materials, including history books used in the public schools.
According to Article 19 of its statute dated 8 August 1945, the International Military Tribunal was not bound by rules of evidence. According to the Article 20 of the same statute, the court could admit or reject evidence as it desired. Thus, rebuttal evidence that the defense could have used to counter the prosecutors’ charges was frequently not taken into consideration.
The basis of verdicts formulated by the Nuremberg court contain recitals of facts relating to the causes of the Second World War and the actions of German armed forces. According to Article 7 (1), they may not be questioned by German courts and authorities, even in the light of new historical evidence. Regarding content of school books, the ministries for education and the arts are also bound by these recitals of fact.
Mr. Dehne, you know very well what is expected of you. By enforcing the Holocaust lies against historical truth you are acting as a direct agent of the destructive will of our enemies. Enforcement of the "laws" of the OMF/ Federal Republic assures that no actions can ever impair the interests of the Jews.
Where Holocaust law is concerned, it is stated very openly. This situation necessitates a brief discussion of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which is a disgrace to Western civilization.
The credit for inventing the Tribunal goes to two Lithuanian Jews, the brothers Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson, while credit for actual implementation belongs to the Jewish World Congress. World Congress President Nahum Goldmann, the "King of the Diaspora Jews", praised its creation as "one of the greatest acts in the history of international justice and morals."[4 ] Nahum also gives us an idea of how Jewish circles were employed to introduce this idea to the US government.
He writes: "Under the leadership of the two brothers Robinson, the Jewish World Congress devoted a great deal of energy to the mental and moral preparation of these trials. To the great credit of the Roosevelt Administration, it unerringly adopted their principles and was able to put them through against the doubts of many among the Allies, especially in England.” Goldmann’s account informs us just how this came about:
"In the war years 1941 and 1942 we received information from Geneva concerning the destruction of Jews in the Nazi camps. This prompted Wise to decide that we had to visit the President and insist that the Allies warn the Germans about the consequences of their brutal policy and their certain punishment after the War… We arranged a weekend meeting with Rosenman  in his summer villa near Roosevelt’s “Hide Park” in order to discuss what he should recommend to the President in Washington on Monday.
It was a hot morning and we sitting on Rosenman’s veranda without jackets and ties when we suddenly heard the signal that the President’s car always gave. We suddenly realized that Roosevelt was coming to see Rosenman. We began putting on our coats and ties, but Rosenman said this was not necessary since Roosevelt attached no importance to formalities. Very soon the President’s car stopped in front of the veranda, and before we could greet him, Roosevelt humorously remarked: "Well now, this is interesting -- Sam Rosenman, Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann sitting here discussing what orders they want to give the President of the United States! Just imagine what the Nazis would give for a picture of this little scene.” We began stuttering that we were discussing an urgent message from Europe that Rosenman wanted to show him on Monday. But Roosevelt just winked and said: “That's fine. Sam can come to see me on Monday and tell me what I’m supposed to do." Then he drove off.
In another place Goldmann expresses the pleasures of exercising power even more intimately: "Seduction can turn into passion… The sensation of seducing a woman might be more intense momentarily, but winning a statesman is something very similar."  "During the time I lived in America nearly all presidents -- Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon -- had their ‘Court Jews,’ wealthy people who helped finance their election campaigns and influential leaders of the Jewish community.” Another prominent “Court Jew” was Felix Frankfurt, to whom Roosevelt was always “very personally attached.” For many years Frankfurter was "one of the most influential personalities in Washington," which made him a competitor for the sobriquet "Emperor of America” among some Jews. Many of Frankfurter’s students were appointed to high positions in the Roosevelt administration. Goldman remarked that "Frankfurter had no desire to perform on stage, but he derived all the more pleasure from pulling strings behind the scenes.”
While the British government argued in favor of summarily executing captured German leaders -- at least 50,000 of them – Stalin favored the show trials that were dear to his heart. The US were also interested in such trials. Under international law, however, it was not possible to punish military personnel for carrying out orders. When Jacob Robinson suggested placing captured Germans before a tribunal anyway, American judges on the Supreme Court said he was crazy. “What was unusual about the wartime actions of the Nazi officers?” they asked. It might have been possible to place Hitler and even Göring before a court, but certainly not ordinary military men who conducted themselves as loyal soldiers and carried out orders. Finally Robinson succeeded in persuading Supreme Court Judge Robert Jackson to accept his point of view.
Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), a close friend and trusted adviser of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had served as Assistant Attorney General from 1936 to 1939 and as Attorney General in 1940 and 1941. He was of the opinion that an Allied military tribunal would be "a continuation of the war efforts of the allied nations.” At war’s end Jackson was sent to Europe with instructions to juridically brand Germany for all time as the aggressor nation solely responsible for World War II.
On Roosevelt’s orders, Judge Samuel Rosenman had gone to London at the beginning of April 1945 in order to develop plans for a collective trial of "German War Criminals." On 5 April Lord Chancellor Sir John Simon, head of the British juridical system, had argued for summary execution of Hitler and his cohorts without any kind of trial. British Attorney General Sir David Maxwell Fyfe informed Rosenman that he also was “personally in favor of the method of summary execution."[12 ] On the next day, however, Simon announced that Washington needed “judicial proceedings before executions." Obviously, those who thought up the tribunal idea had persuaded the “head of the British legal system" of the advantage of having a high ranking international "Judiciary" create the “manifest obviousness" necessary to support the historical lies about German criminality and war guilt. But would any judge accept the idea that the victorious Allies’ shooting of 50,000 captured National Socialists proved the 50,000 victims had committed the cruel deeds of which they were accused by their enemies? That was most unlikely. Any "judge" who accepted the notion that being a victim of murder proves that the victim of murder had committed a capital offense and therefore makes his guilt obvious, would presumably land in an insane asylum.
After Roosevelt's death, and with the acquiescence of the President Truman, Rosenman officially offered Jackson the post of chief prosecutor at the victors' tribunal. The offer came with this stipulation: The captured Nazis should first receive a “fair trial” -- and then be hanged! "Extraordinarily happy about the offer," Jackson accepted immediately. He had long defended the thesis that in the 20th Century, 19th Century concepts about war no longer applied. He also believed that the USA, on account of its "leadership role in the world," was entitled to intervene in any military conflict and act as it saw fit. Jackson announced that in order to “secure the moral leadership of the USA" he was authorized to “prove,” with the help of a military tribunal, that "these damned Germans were solely responsible for the war… We need a scapegoat on which to foist the world’s evils for a long time to come."
In consultations preparatory to the tribunal, Jackson ignored the objections advanced by the European allies that the accused could prove, based on documents seized in France, that the Reich was not responsible for the outbreak of World War II; rather, the War had been forced on Germany. They pointed out that the documents would prove that England, France, and the USA had all backed Poland in its stubborn and aggressive attitude toward Germany. After all, Poland had mobilized twice before Germany mobilized. In July 1939, Polish Marshall Rydz-Smigly publicly stated before officers in Thorn that "Poland wants war and Germany will not be able to prevent it, even if it wants to." Furthermore, Roosevelt had for all practical purposes declared war against Germany in 1941. The German Declaration of War was completely legitimate, given the provocative American aggressions against German ships and its violation of neutrality by delivering weapons to the British.
None of that could be mentioned during the trial, of course. Germany must be branded and condemned as the sole guilty party, and the European war had to be presented as German aggression from the very beginning. Brigadier General Telford Taylor, later the chief American advisor for the prosecution, objected that it would not be possible in a fair trial "to push through the absurd notion of Germany's sole guilt – rather, the opposite will come out." Finally the USA had driven Hitler into a Polish trap from which he was unable to extricate himself: Churchill and Roosevelt had agreed on the complete annihilation of the German Reich from the very beginning.
To this Jackson retorted: "Who’s talking about a fair trial? Of course the Germans will try to accuse the Allies of pursuing a policy that forced them into war. I expect that, since I know about the documents seized from the German Foreign Office. They all come to the same conclusion: ‘We have no way out. We must fight; we are encircled; we are being strangled:’ Well, it would be a catastrophe if this trial got into a discussion about the political and economic causes of the war. That could cause an unending disaster in America and Europe both. Out of that would come an unending disaster in Europe as well as in America." Taylor concluded, "That means the question of who is guilty of starting the war must be avoided at all costs… it must not be allowed to come up." That however would be possible only if Jackson could succeed as lawmaker, in setting up the rules of the game for a perfect trial by simply forbidding all discussion of the causes of the war before the tribunal. Jackson took Taylor's remarks as his guidelines and remarked: "If all documents and statements to this effect are rejected by the court as irrelevant or unimportant, the war policies of the Western Powers, Poland and the USSR cannot be discussed."
Taylor expressed the idea in a metaphor, saying "The shark pool of European politics between the wars must appear as a carp pond with one single evil pike swimming around." Jackson added "And this pike, Hitler naturally, must by the end of the trial have mutated into a monstrous killer shark, threatening to devour all the little fish and striving for world domination." On 6 June 1945 Jackson reassured Truman with a report setting out the new "legal concepts" along with his plans for the course of the trial, which included a London conference with jurists from all the other allies. This conference took place in London between June 26 and August 8. The French Professor of international law, Dr. Gros, began by pointing out that “wars of aggression” did not represent a criminal violation of international law… If the war were thought of as a “criminal act of individuals," however, the law could be bent. The latest book by Trainin [the Soviet expert on international law who took part in the conference] states that "A war of aggression is to be regarded as an international crime in the sense of the discussions held at the League of Nations." Compensation can be demanded, but criminal penalties do not ensue. For this reason, he said, one may not invent a punishment. Trainin would have liked to come to a different conclusion; but, as he stated, a “war of aggression” entails no criminal liability. Furthermore the Joint Declaration made at the Yalta Conference in February, 1945 made no mention of the crime of aggressive war.
Jackson reacted to these objections with indignation. He said that the US had conducted total war and paid no attention to international law, unless it had reason to fear retaliation by the enemy. Furthermore, since the US was the most powerful victor, no one was in a position to hinder it from introducing new guidelines in the interest of the Allies. With this in mind he had worked out his own proposal for the prosecution. It contained the following main points: “Offensive war, invasion, attack in violation of international laws and treaties, along with war as an instrument of national policy.” He stated that he considered charges of war atrocities as being of “secondary importance.” In the course of further discussions he explained: “As far as specific charges are concerned, the United States are particularly interested in developing the (new) criminal charge of waging aggressive war, in order to depict Germany’s entire conduct of the war as illegal. This is because during the War I suggested certain measures to President Roosevelt that under international law could be justified only with the theory that Germany’s conduct was illegal. In order to justify these measures, the United States have a particular interest in judicially establishing the illegality of the German war.”
The French appeals court judge Robert Falco gave Jackson something to consider by pointing out that “If we go through with this, the court will be punishing the Germans for crimes with which the Allies can also be charged.” Thus the problem was, how could the victors conduct in international court, an international trial for violation of international law, in which Germany’s violations of international law would be pilloried and punished, but theirs would not? It had to be anticipated that the world would hurl the response “But you did the same thing!” back in the victors’ faces, and the judges from neutral countries would throw out the whole trial. “At the end, the whole thing would turn into an international tribunal,” Falco lamented. At this point Jackson dropped his mask. His response was, “You must understand that it is not going to be just an international tribunal, but an international military tribunal! And nobody will have a say about its composition except we and we alone. All the judges will be picked from countries that took part in the War. We will be the ones who frame the court charter, determine the composition of the court, and write the legal code for the court. We will be the court prosecutors and the court judges. In this trial neither the accused nor the witnesses will have a right to testify freely, except perhaps Hermann Göring.”
Here Prof. Gros interjected that “If lawmakers, prosecutors and judges are all the same persons, this fact alone will constitute a decisive objection.
In every legal system with which I am familiar, such a composition would be illegal and impossible.” Again he raised the question: “Besides, how can men who have committed no criminal acts still be accused and sentenced? We French may think that such a thing would be politically desirable, but it is not possible under international law.” Jackson had no response to that except a cynical rejection of legal procedure by stating “I must admit that international law is weak and unclear in support of our position… We simply have to explain that the Germans are personally responsible.” Prof. Gros still could not follow his thought. He objected: “The acts of which the German leaders can be accused is an old familiar story, but the fact remains that no one has ever declared such deeds to be criminal violations of international law. If we do this now, it will be a case of ex post facto lawmaking.”
Prof. Gros’s objection did not impress Jackson in the least: “You may be right,” he replied. “Precisely for that reason, explanations and discussions of the principles of international law must be restricted to the minimum in the courtroom.” At this point British Attorney General Maxwell-Fyfe interjected:
“What we want to avoid in this trial is a discussion about whether or not the proceedings are violations of international law. We shall simply state what international law is and then not allow any discussion of whether it is international law or not.” Jackson reiterated the quintessence of the discussion in these words: “You are entirely right. After all, the Allies are still technically at war with Germany, even though its military and political institutions have collapsed. Our military court represents a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations… As the victors, we see it as our undisputed right to keep secret from the court every document and every witness that could prove damaging to us.” Prof. Gros again objected, “But that is turning the entire European legal tradition upside down. So we are not interested in establishing the truth here, we are just interested in winning a judicial victory?” Jackson: “That’s right. And since all the advantages are on our side, our victory before the court is assured.”
Thus the Nuremberg Tribunal was and remains to this day a triumph of power over the law, committed by criminals who wrapped themselves in judges’ robes.
On 8 August 1945 the London conference ended with the “Agreement on the Prosecution and Punishment of the Principal War Criminals of the European Axis Powers” including the court statute for this court that was appended to the agreement. The protocols of the London sessions were illegally published four years later as the “Report of Robert H. Jackson.” If they had been made public in 1945, in any trial conducted according to English Common Law, they would have caused a mistrial. As soon as they knew of these discussions, the judges would have had no choice except to discontinue the trial or begin anew. Those present at the London conference understood this perfectly well: any verdict that was reached before the trial would have to be overruled. The judges who participated in the London discussions were clearly compromised. They were obligated to recuse themselves, but they failed to do this. The precise index of sources for this matter may be found in Hans Meiser’s book Das Tribunal, a computerized copy of which is appended hereto.
When one realizes that the International Military Tribunal was nothing except a victors’ consortium for murder, it becomes clear that the Agreement of 27/28 September 1990, along with Article 7 (1), Überleitungsvertrag (transmission treaty), is a pinnacle of infamy directed against the German people. With their death sentences, the so-called “judges” at Nuremberg accomplished nothing more than rationalizing the murder of the Reich leadership. The agreements signed on 27 and 28 September 1990, however, have mercilessly delivered the entire German nation for all time to the “Auschwitz Cudgel,” with which our enemy is annihilating the soul of the German nation.
The “manifest obviousness of the Holocaust” alleged by the courts of OMF/BRD, (our Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule, the Federal Republic of Germany) is but an empty phrase. There is no evidence for the event conjured by this battle cry, as is clearly demonstrated in the appended book by Germar Rudolf: Vorlesungen über den Holocaus -- Strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör (Lectures on the Holocaust), Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 118, Hastings, TN34 3ZQ, UK, April 2005,
Mr. Dehne, perhaps you now understand the panic with which world Jewry is reacting to President Ahmadineschad’s announcement that Iran will sponsor a scientific commission and conference to investigate the authenticity of the Holocaust. If, as you state, my participation in the conference planned by the Iranian government would threaten “serious consequences” for the Bundesrepublik, then you have said everything about the Federal Republic that needs to be said. The Bundesrepublik, along with the Basic Law, is doomed to vanish on the day when “a constitution goes into effect that has been created by the German nation in a free election.” (Article 146 of the Basic Law.) This will be the day when the German nation through its Reichsordnende Versammlung (Constitutional Convention) officially reject the historical falsifications sponsored by the enemies of the Reich and reclaim its sovereignty. That day is coming sooner than you think. The Teheran conference will greatly facilitate the dissolution of the Federal Republic, since it is constructed on a great lie that will be demolished in Teheran: the Holocaust Lie.
In conclusion, I would like to remind you that the German Reich continues to exist. Its laws are still in effect. They can not at present be carried out, for the reason that foreign domination, in clear violation of international law, is hindering the Reich by force from doing so,. When the Reich’s ability to function is again secured, actions such as yours will be punishable as treason.
Very truly yours,
 Protokolle des Nürnberger Prozesses Bd. XIX S. 440)
 Gerd Schultze‑Rhonhof, DER KRIEG, DER VIELE VÄTER HATTE Der lange Anlauf zum Zweiten Weltkrieg, OLZOG‑Verlag, München 2003 (Seiten 12f)
 Stefan Huster in der Neuen Juristischen Wochenschrift (Heft 8/1996 S. 487 ff.) und Winfried Brugger im Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, Band 128 (2003) S. 372 .
 Nahum Goldmann, Staatsmann ohne Staat, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 1970, S. 271 und 273
 Nahum Goldmann a.a.O. S. 273
 Nahum Goldmann, Mein Leben USA-Europa-Israel, Verlag Langen Müller, München 1981, ISBN 3-7844-1920-8, S. 116
 der Jude Sam Rosenman war der von dem Jüdischen Prof. Felix Frankfurter (genannt „Kaiser von Amerika“) dem US-Präsidenten ins Nest gesetzte Chefberater
 Nahum Goldmann, Das Jüdische Paradox, Köln 1978, S. 151
 Nahum Goldmann, Mein Leben - USA, Europa, Israel“, Langen Müller Verlag, München 1981, S. 93
 a.a.O. S. 95
 Protokolle des Nürnberger Prozesses, Band XIX, S. 440.
 Memorandum über ein britisch-amerikanisches Treffen am 5. April 1945 (PROfile LCO.2/2980).
 Simon an Rosenman, 6. 4. 1945 (PRO file LCO. 2/2981).
 Jacksons Tagebuch vom 27. 4. 1945 (Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, R. H. Jackson papers, box 95).
 Meiser, Hans, Das Tribunal, Grabert Verlag, Tübingen 2005, ISBN 3-87847-218-8 S. 18
 Meiser S. 19
 Meiser S. 21
 Meiser S. 21
 Meiser S. 31
 Meiser S. 35 f.
 Meiser S. 36
 Meiser 35 ff.S.
Top | Home
©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute