From: ArtButz@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2005 11:03 AM
Subject: Germar report of 10/26



26 October 2005

Friends:

A short while ago I spoke to Germar on the phone and here is his report of the situation. Again, he wants this report widely circulated and posted. In this connection, it will be helpful for you to recall my report of Oct. 22 on his arrest and general situation. What are definitely my views, not part of what Germar told me, are enclosed in square brackets [].

The government had until today, Oct. 26, to file with the court its arguments as to why it should be allowed to take over Germar's case and deport him, and Germar had until Nov. 2 to respond. The government filed two days early, Oct. 24, and Germar's lawyers replied today. The court will probably rule in early November. The government has two arguments.

1. When Germar filed his application for an adjustment of status, based on his marriage to a US citizen, he did not anticipate that the government would invoke the 1999 administratively created policy of ignoring the 1960 law; the latter would give Germar the right to the adjustment. He did not challenge the policy then, so he has no right to challenge it now.

[Since there had been no ruling on this question in the 11th circuit, why would it occur to Germar, or his lawyers, to challenge it?]

2. [Since Germar did not file a "frivolous" application for political asylum], his deportation at this time would not exclude his return in the future. [I suppose the reasoning here is that, since everything going on in the German legal system is irrelevant, the fact that he would be imprisoned on return to Germany is also irrelevant.]

[I take this opportunity to correct a small contradiction that somebody spotted in my report of Oct. 22. I wrote

"the highest levels of the executive branch in Washington, in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, have now intervened and taken over the case from the INS. . . . . In view of developments this past week the court has, apparently only verbally, given the INS until Oct. 26 to file its arguments"

A correspondent wondered why, if the case had been taken from the INS, it was the INS that was to file.

What happened here is that I wrote a preliminary version of this report on Oct. 21 and then checked it with Germar on Oct. 22. He told me, essentially, that his case had moved to Washington. I should have changed that phrase to "given the government until Oct. 26".

In the future it would be best to say that Germar's adversary is the "government", and some fairly high levels of the government at that. Actually, the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) no longer exists, it having been transformed into an agency with another name within the Department of Homeland Security. However there is still a tendency to refer loosely to the "INS".]

On the matter of adjustments in the operations of his publishing business, Germar believes that, since the time frame is now so short, it would be pointless to implement changes that would have to be rescinded less than a month later.

Best regards,
Arthur R. Butz
 

======================================

 

From: PAPUREC
Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2005 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Germar report of 10/26


"1. When Germar filed his application for an adjustment of status, based on his marriage to a US citizen, he did not anticipate that the government would invoke the 1999 administratively created policy of ignoring the 1960 law; the latter would give Germar the right to the adjustment. He did not challenge the policy then, so he has no right to challenge it now."

I do not believe that the highest court would agree that " ... he has no right to challenge it now". I think it is just "lawyer talk". ALL LAWS would be in jeopardy if administrations were to be allowed policies of ignoring laws.

Dana

============

From: Gerry Frederics
Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2005 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: What can I do?


I hope the Professor is right. Years ago I sat in my attorneys office in LA while he was speaking to a Federal attorney in Washington on the speakerphone. The matter had to do with the son in law of my wife. I will never forget when my attorney said to the Federal blood hound --- But you can't do that! That's illegal! and the answer that came back was --- I know it's illegal, but I have all he time, money and legal resources in the world to drag this out until no one cares whether it's legal or not.

As Mahatma Gandhi said; Where there's law, there's injustice; and don't forget he was an attorney! I hope fervently that our reindeer will come out on top. The way I see it is, he will if he meets a decent federal prosecutor, which unfortunately is highly unlikely.

One of the things his legal team must do is to investigate the opposition. Are the prosecutors Jewish?, are the INS legal hounds Jewish? and if so, they must be challenged on THAT basis, Kol Nidre, conflict of interest and all that.

Maybe you can convey the latter part of my missive to our Professor.

 

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute