From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: Memo from Fredrick Töben concerning Legal persecution of Ernst Zündel at Mannheim, Germany


Memo from Fredrick Töben concerning Legal persecution of Ernst Zündel at Mannheim, Germany, in November 2005.

When the 1917 Russian Bolshevik Revolution settled down, the first thing that lawmakers put on the books was to criminalize two concepts: Antisemitism and Revisionism, the former was punishable by death, while the latter earned you a long stretch in the Gulags. That’s how the Marxists punished dissenting minds because the fact that the extermination of the European Royal Tsarist family was almost totally Jewish-inspired had to be legally protected against those who knew the score – and against those who still opposed a foreign non-Russian mindset taking control of the Russian Empire.

Today we are well on the way to a repeat performance of this very phenomenon in the USA and its European allies, except that this time the terms to be criminalized have multiplied to ‘hater’, ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘ antisemite’, ‘racist’, ‘neo-Nazi’.

30 years ago eastern European countries were pacified and mentally enslaved to the Marxist doctrine. Security was everywhere to be seen – a great contrast to the open and generous mindset prevailing in the western democratic countries.

Today, the social fabric of our western democracies resembles that prevailing in the former Soviet Union/Eastern European countries – a fearful obsession with security that intensified since the internal job/scam of 911, which enabled the USA-Neocons-Jewish administration to re-focus all USA-Allies energy on the saving of Israel from extinction. The official reason given is that we are in a war against terrorism and we are fighting for freedom and democracy. It sound hollow when we witness the horrible carnage that is still being inflicted upon the Iraqis and the Palestinians – all for the sake of securing world freedom and democracy.

The ‘Holocaust’ in this venture is a critical building block – without the Holocaust the Zionist, racist state of Israel loses its rationale to exist as a European colonial outpost in the Middle East.

Almost two years ago, on 9 November 2003, at Vloto, Germany, a number of Revisionists formed an organisation to support those individuals who have been legally persecuted/victimised for refusing to believe in the Holocaust. The driving force behind the formation of this organisation has been Horst Mahler, who has valiantly battled in a Berlin court, defending himself against the allegation of having denied the Holocaust. As expected, all his work in attempting to contextualise his 'offending statements' by extensively drawing on numerous sources and drawing on the latest research results on Auschwitz, still resulted in a guilty finding, which is still subject to an appeal.

In November 2005 at Mannheim Ernst Zündel's trial will begin. It has been set down for five days: 8, 9, 15, 16, 24 November 2005.

Evidence given at a trial that deals with the historical topic 'Holocaust' is not privileged, and if evidence is tendered, such an act of defence is used by the prosecution ruthlessly to initiate new charges against the defendant. Privilege does not attach to anything said in court, as it does in Common Law courts.

However, in Common Law countries, such as the United Kingdom, USA, Canada and Australia, the upholders of the ‘Holocaust’ myth/religion use the term ‘hate crimes’ with which to overcome free speech principles. Truth is not a defence anymore, and a hurt feeling – without evidence from doctors and psychiatrists – will gain a conviction.

The dilemma facing Ernst Zündel is thus whether to remain silent and offer no defence and thereby escape a severe sentence on account of his silence being interpreted as his showing remorse for having challenged the Holocaust industry’s stifling grip on his personal value system.

When I faced the Mannheim court, also on 8 November, but in 1999, I remained silent on the first day because my defence lawyer, Ludwig Bock, decided he could not defend me properly on account of a pending court decision against him. He had defended Günter Deckert too vigorously, something state prosecutor Hans-Heiko Klein considered clear evidence that Ludwig Bock’s mind was closely aligning, perhaps identifying itself with the Revisionist mindset. That decision was handed down after my case had concluded, and Bock was fined around DM10.000.

The signal this Bock judgment sent throughout the world was that mounting an effective defence in Germany was impossible.

In my case, after the first day’s hearing, I conferred with a supporter who convinced me that I should not remain silent, and that I should dismiss Bock as my defence counsel.

I formulated a statement that I then read out before proceedings began on the second day. On 10 November 1999, I read out the following:



1. It is painful for me if I let myself be forced to be silent, especially if it concerns seeking clarification or solving problems.

2. I regard this trial as state-sanctioned mental rape of my person.

3. Through a lifetime of philosophical studies I have liberated myself from my own ignorance thereby not shying away from becoming a citizen who voices his concerns and takes a moral-ethical stand against injustices.

4. After I left the court Monday afternoon, I reflected a lot on what was happening in court. I also saw the RNF television news, how reporter Volker Hurrle insulted me and incited hatred against me. Yesterday morning I read the article written by Ulrich Willenberg in the Frankfurter Rundschau and the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, that also offered an ideologically distorted picture of my endeavours, and thereby defamed and incited hatred against me.

5. Every thinking human being is a revisionist – revisionism is nothing but a method, an heuristic principle, with which to construct one’s world view. Opinions are constantly revised through a free flow of information. Only encrusted minds cannot absorb new information and so moral responsibility does not come to the fore. Then citizens like I are arrested in a private discussion and thrown into prison.

6. I revised my plans last night when I heard German President Raus’s address given on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Rau said no one is expelled from Germany for disagreeing with the government’s opinions. He also talked about freedom and how justice requires such. I now add to that, in Germany there is a basic law that protects my human rights. I therefore request that I may defend myself in this court with a new lawyer – Dr Dr Thor von Waldstein.

7. I am now in my eighth month in Mannheim Prison and I have gained many impressions about the German judiciary. I was also elected spokesperson for the 250 prisoners on remand, and I hear how many prisoners insult prosecutors and judges as ‘ racists’ and ‘ Nazis’. State public prosecutor Klein – that is the irony – also defames me with these words. He even decorates his office wall with a swastika!

8. I see how prosecutors and judges order that prisoners on remand be placed in their cells for 23 hours a day – they are treated like convicted prisoners and not as innocent persons. Convicted prisoners are better off than prisoners on remand. They are not even allowed to participate in the church service and in the Bible Study Group. This is human rights abuse – the prevention of exercising one’s religious belief. Why do Messrs Volker Hurrle and Ulrich Willenberg not focus on such injustices?

9. I have no criticism to make of the Mannheim remand personnel. The staff there attempt to do their best in coping with a difficult situation, but they can only do so much and they are often just overburdened.



My application to have my defence counsel removed was rejected by both judges Kern and Schmetzer. The judges ordered that Bock continue to defend me – and so the proceedings continued with my remaining silent and not mounting any kind of defence

I recall how in his summing up prosecutor Klein retells a sob story from Auschwitz-Birkenau, but mentions only two gas insertion holes. He refers to the 1964-65 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. Klein then bemoans the fact that it is quite obvious the seven months in prison have had no effect on me, and so he seeks at least 2 years and 4 months.

I receive a ten month sentence, with immediate release upon posting DM6000 bail.

After the court rises I walk over to the judges and shake their hands – no hard feelings from my side because these men are prisoners in that conceptual prison called the ‘ Holocaust’.

That I was not able to defend myself was taken by the Karlsruhe appeal court to be a ground on which to allow my appeal; prosecutor Klein’s appeal ground was also granted – that German law reached outside of Germany into any computer that carried material deemed to be offending against Para. 130.

I was prepared to attend the re-trial set down for 8 November 2004, but I had been placed on a list carried by the BKA, Wiesbaden, that prevented me from entering any European country. And so I was faced with a dilemma: If I entered Germany to attend the court hearing, I would upon entering Germany face immediate arrest; if I did not attend, then I would forego my defence. If I defended myself in court, then I would merely aggravate my offence and receive a more severe sentence.

German Justice in matters Holocaust is still victors’ justice because Germany still has not signed a peace treaty, that’s 60 years after the end of World War II. It will be interesting to observe How Ernst Zündel will present his case – and it is hoped that he will follow the only avenue open to him, that of adopting the Mahler strategy of attacking the ‘Offenkundigkeit’ of the Holocaust, i.e. courts have taken judicial notice of the official version of the ‘Holocaust’. But this version of events is totally superseded with what Fritjof Meyer claims in his version of the ‘Holocaust’, and he escaped prosecution, though it was not for lack of trying by interested parties to get a prosecution off the ground. Gunter Deckert attempted to submit a complaint against Meyer but the public prosecutors rejected it, claiming Meyer had not committed an offence. Meyer remains a PC person and so legal protection extends to his utterances about Auschwitz-Birkeanu’s Krema II never having been a homicidal gas chamber!

Sensational news you would think, but Judge Faust conducting the Horst Mahler trial did not accept this as new evidence.

We shall now watch with interest how defence counsel Rieger will handle the third Zündel trial.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Verein zur Rehabilitierung der wegen Bestreitens des Holocausts Verfolgten

Wer jetzig Zeiten leben will,
Muß haben ein tapfers Herze,
Es sein der argen Feind so viel,
Bereiten ihm groß Schmerze.
Da heißt es stehn ganz unverzagt
In seiner blanken Wehre,
Daß sich der Feind nicht an uns wagt,
Es geht um Gut und Ehre.

Geld nur regiert die ganze Welt,
Dazu verhilft Betrügen;
Wer sich sonst noch so redlich hält,
Muß doch bald unterliegen,
Rechtschaffen hin, rechtschaffen her,
Das sind nur alte Geigen;
Betrug, Gewalt und List vielmehr,
Klag du, man wird dir’s zeigen.

Doch wie’s auch kommt, das arge Spiel,
Behalt ein tapfers Herze,
Und sind der Feind auch noch so viel,
Verzage nicht im Schmerze.

Steh gottgetreulich, unverzagt,
In deiner blanken Wehre;
Wenn sich der Feind auch an uns wagt,
Es geht um Gut und Ehre!

Nichts kann uns rauben
Liebe und Glauben
Zu unserm Land;
Es zu erhalten
Und zu Gestalten,
Sind wir gesandt.

Mögen wir sterben,
Unseren Erben
Gilt dann die Pflicht:
Es zu erhalten
Und zu gestalten:
Deutschland stirbt nicht!

Vlotho, 9 November 2003

 

 

Fredrick

This is unbelievable, the Jews are turning the entire West into updated versions of the USSR. I was in Berlin when the wall came down. I never dreamed the contagion which enslaved Germans and others behind the Iron Curtain would spread. I thought it was finished and I was looking at a despised, rotting corpse. And to think back in 1939, all Germany wanted was that the German people of Danzig should return to the Reich. What a small problem that was in light of what has gone on ever since.

B