Monday, March 14
For the Record: Töben, Bullinger, Fowler, et al
Personal and public matters arising out of Ernst Zündel imprisoned in Germany.
Is Revisionism in crisis as stimulated by Ernst Zündel’s deportation from Canada to Germany?
1. Should he or should he not contest the impossible in a court of law where his guilt is already established?
1.1 If he argues the case, then he will further incriminate himself because in a German court of law privilege does not attach itself to anything said in court. Hence, any defence mounted by an accused will merely compound the crime.
1.2 If he does contest the matter, then his trial could become a massive propaganda trial that the German and Jewish ‘Holocaust’ believers would not like to see happen in Germany.
2. German justice is capricious.
2.1 In matters of F Töben, 8, 10 November 1999, and appeal 12 December 2000
2.2 In the first week of July 2003 I traveled from Paris to Germany, and on 8 July, while having a wee-wee break at an isolated forest spot, a police patrol spotted me and checked my details, then took me to the Pforzheim Police Station where I was advised that there is a European Arrest Warrant out for me. I advised the officers that had I known, then I would not have entered Germany. Paris Airport did not stop me and I had submitted my passport to them for inspection. After a two hour wait at the police station I was permitted to leave, which I did without breaking the speed limit on a country road that took me France.
2.3 Common law has the concept Legal Ambush - something German law actually practices.
2.4 On my return home, on I wrote a letter to the Bundeskriminal Amt (BKA) Wiesbaden, seeking clarification about my ban from Germany. A reply from the BKA, dated 22 October 2003, from a Mr Alfons Wisser, stated that there was nothing against me and I was free to travel to Germany.
2.4 On 12 April 2004, at Helsinki airport while waiting for my plane to depart for Moscow, I was advised by Finnish border police that I should not have been permitted to enter the European Union, on account of Germany having imposed a travel ban on me that prevents me from entering the EU. It was dated 9 January 2004.
2.5 Upon returning home I again wrote to the BKA Wiesbaden and requested an update of my status. A letter, dated 22 June 2004, from Mr Alfons Wisser confirmed that I had been banned from entering the EU, on account of my having been arrested, which generated the trial at Mannheim on 8 and 10 November 1999.
2.6 Judge Adam of the Landgericht Mannheim advised me – via the Australian Attorney General’s office, Canberra – that on 27 May 2004, he had issued a Summons, setting down a trial date for 8, 9 and 11 November 2004. This was to be the re-trial as ordered by the Karlsruhe Appeals Court on 12 December 2000. Although I had indicated to Judge Adam that I was quite prepared to come to Germany – but only if Horst Mahler could be my defence counsel (Mahler was stripped of practicing law soon after by a Berlin judge) I advise the presiding Judge that I am banned from entering Germany. On 8 November 2004 the judge then abandoned the trial to give himself an opportunity to check up on my claim that I was barred from entering Germany, the European Union – something that I had advertised on Adelaide Institute’s website.
2.7 In the second week of January 2005 I received an undated letter from trial judge Adam that in a judgment of 21 December 2004, of which I knew nothing, I had forfeited my bail money of $6,000 because according to his enquries there was no ban imposed on my coming to Germany.
2.8 This astounded me - and so on 4 February 2005 I wrote to the BKA Wiesbaden to have this matter clarified. On 14 March 2005 I received a reply, dated 2 March 2005 – again from Alfons Wisser – stating that there was nothing outstanding against me in either in the Schengen system nor in the German system, and that I was free to travel to Germany. […Sie weder im Schengener Informationssystem (SIS) noch im (nationalen) Polizeilichen Informationssystem (INPOL) zur Zurückweisung (Einreiseverbot) ausgeschrieben sind.]
3. The BKA, Wiesbaden as an agent of conflicting information.
3.1 I have again written to the BKA requesting information when the ban, operational on 9 January 2004, was lifted. My claim that I could not come to Germany for the re-trial has thereby been negated. I should know when the ban on my entry to Germany was lifted. It was operational on 9 January 2004, as confirmed by the BKA as late as 22 June 2004, after Judge Adam had issued the Summons of 27 May 2004 and set the trial date for November 8, 9, 11 November 2004. Surely the still meticulous German bureaucracy will have a date for me when, after 22 June 2004, the ban on my entry to Germany was lifted - or is a bureaucrat-politician fiddling the books so as to entrap me, set a legal ambush for me? If this is the case, then knowing the exactitude of the German bureaucracy’s mindset, there will be a notation somewhere that will point out where it is fiddling with the books so as to legally entrap me.
3.2 What this chronology indicates is that there is some kind of co-ordination between the judge and the BKA that had the ban lifted so that the Judge could make a judgment about the DM6,000, which should have been returned to me. On 21 December 2004, Judges Adam, Bültmann, Egerer decided to confiscate my bail, and I was given a week in which to lodge an appeal. I received the undated notification of the judgment per mail in the second week in January 2005, and so it was not possible to appeal against this judgment. However, on 25 January 2005 I did send my objection to the matter via the Australian Federal Police who sent the matter per the Australian Attorney General’s office, to Mannheim Court.
3.3 I had been assigned a court appointed defence counsel, RA Wingerter, who to this day has not made contact with me. I rang Judge Adam about it, and he expressed surprise at his not contacting me. Judge Adam thought that the counsel’s motion presented to court on 8 November 2004, originated from me, i.e. that I had a travel ban to the EU and that I was an unwelcome visitor to Germany. I advised Judge Adam that this court-appointed counsel has not spoken with me, and that he must have received the information presented to the judge from our website.
4. The ‘Holocaust’ is the issue.
4.1 After following the procedure used to get Ernst Zündel to Germany – Judge Pierre Blaise literally throwing all Canadian legal precedent overboard, after the positive welcome Horst Mahler, et al, accorded Ernst Zündel as a Prisoner of War in Germany, and after reading Germar Rudolf's Lectures on the Holocaust, I find that this whole matter of the 'Holocaust' needs individuals who outright challenge the legal fabric that is being spun around those who refuse to believe in the 'Holocaust'. There is an evil force that attempts to silence individuals who are now considered Holocaust dissidents - individuals who refuse to recant, who will claim outright - as do Professors Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson - that the 'Holcoaust' is a lie.
4.2 Prof Arthur Butz in his book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, stated at the end:
“In controversies to come the partisans of the received legend will try mightily to confuse and complicate the subject with all the tricks that we can anticipate and perhaps then some. We have the precedent of the Donation of Constantine controversy showing that simple observations that establish the wildly ahistorical nature of a reigning legend can get smothered.
Thus my most important advice to those who enter the controversy is that they not lose sight of the fact that he real bone of contention, the extermination allegation, has been laid to rest beyond peradventure by ordinary historical analysis.
It follows that the basic tactic of the defenders of the legend, in controversies to come, will be to attempt to make claims that cannot be tested by the normal method of placing them as hypotheses in appropriate historical context and seeing if they cohere …
The defenders of the legend are in an impossible position here. They cannot concede Auschwitz without conceding the whole issue, for the reason that there is no sort of evidence they offer for the others that is also not offered for Auschwitz.
If the “confession’ of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß is fanciful, then who will believe the “confession” of Treblinka commandant Franz Stangl? If the Auschwitz accounts of Rudolf Vrba and Miklos Nyiszli are not credible, and their books sick jokes, then who will believe the equally sick Treblinka accounts of Jankiel Wiernik and other obscure people? If the Nuremberg and postwar German trials have not established the truth about Auschwitz, then who will believe that they have established the truth about Treblinka? If the large numbers of Jews admittedly sent to Auschwitz were not killed there, then who will believe that a large number of Jews sent to Treblinka were killed at that camp.
My advice, then, to those who would engage in controversy is to not permit the defenders of the legend to get away with ignoring Auschwitz. The fact is that it is very easy to bring down the legend as it applies to Auschwitz and Auschwitz in turn, on account of the nature of the evidence involved, brings down the rest of the legend with it …
All I can add is that one should keep current with the revisionist literature and the more important pieces of literature in support of the legend and, in controversy, be mindful above all of preserving historical context and perspective and not getting trapped with myopic historical vision.”
4.3 Prof Robert Faurisson stated:
"Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber! Stop giving me words. Stop showing me a building, a door, a wall or, sometimes, only hair or shoes. I need a full picture of one of those fantastic chemical slaughterhouses. I need a physical representation of the extraordinary weapon of an unprecedented crime. If you dare to say that what tourists are shown in some camps is, or was, such a gas chamber, come on and say it."
4.4 Germar Rudolf in his The Rudolf Report and Lectures on the Holocaust stated: - read his books!
5. Remember, Galileo Galilei was vindicated over 300 years after the event - Ernst Zündel now sits in jail and most individuals that would class themselves as not believing in the 'Holocaust' lie, sit comfortably at home grieving for Ernst, but doing nothing about it, except claiming that they are wiser than Ernst, and that they are not prepared to go to prison because it is not worth it. Such individuals will hedonistically feed their own needs with whatever fancies them, but to protest on behalf of Ernst is beneath their dignity – self sacrifice is not worth it because it will not help Ernst in prison.
I am therefore again free to travel to Germany. Would you go if you were me? Would you trust those Germans who are involved in generating this kind of information, and who also defend and protect the ‘Holocaust’ legend from rational scrutiny?
Any comments, please?
14 March 2005
Copy: A-G Dept. Canberra,
Judge Adam, Mannheim,
Herrn Alfons Wisser, BKA, Wiesbaden
From: Dr. BullingerSent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:05 PMSubject: Re: For the Record - Mannheim Matter
Silent leges inter arma
Die strafbewehrte "Offenkundigkeit" eines heiligen Holocaust von 6 Mio ist gleichsam die Legitimation der Existenz Israels. Denn nur dann, wenn diese kabbalistische Interpretation des 25. Kapitels des 3. Buches Mose (Liber Levitici) bzgl. der (von Jahwe versprochenen) Rückkehr ins Heilige Land als offenkundig erfüllt dargestellt werden kann, ist Israel (als der verheißene Judenstaat) theologisch legitimiert. Deshalb mußten (und müssen) die Zionisten diese Konstruktion als historische Wahrheit vortäuschen. Sonst wäre kein gläubiger Jude nach Israel eingewandert, bzw. würden alle wieder (fluchtartig) auswandern und der Zionismus wäre gescheitert.
Und genau deshalb muß diese Offenkundigkeit (unter allen Umständen) auch weiterhin aufrecht erhalten werden. Und wenn die historischen Fakten dem widersprechen, dann darf solche Wahrheit vor Gericht nicht gelten. Das ist die "deutsche" Rechtslage, wie sie im Zusammenhang mit der "Wiedervereinigung" festgeschrieben werden mußte.
6 Mio - 2,5 Mio (wegen der Reduktion der offiziellen Auschwitz Zahl von 4 auf 1,5 Mio) = 6 Mio.
Und damit erscheint die bundesdeutsche Justiz (wie ich meine) als "Hure der Mächtigen", auf deren Integrität, Ethik und Moral niemand vertrauen sollte, der ins Zielfeld der Zionisten geraten ist.
Zur Verteidigung Ernst Zündels schlage ich also vor (evtl. über die Vermittlung der Neturei Charta oder z.B. der Rabbiner Friedman, Schwartz et. al.), einen orthodoxen Juden heranzuziehen. Denn die orthodoxen Juden haben die politischen Zusammenhänge (und den Holy Hoax) längst durchschaut und kein bundesdeutsches Gericht würde es wagen (was sich an dem "Klaren Fall" Fritjof Meyer leicht ablesen läßt), einen Juden wegen Antisemitismus zu verfolgen. Ein jüdischer Verteidiger könnte also verteidigen ohne befürchten zu müssen, wegen seiner Verteidung angeklagt und verurteilt zu werden, wie dies bei Horst Mahler und Jürgen Rieger der Fall war. Ebensowenig müßte er befürchten, wegen einer sachhaltigen und geeigneten Verteidigung seine Zulassung als Rechtsanwalt zu verlieren.
From: Mel Fowler
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:51 AM
Subject: REVISIONISM and ZUNDEL'S DEPORTATION
March 14, 2005
Is Revisionism in a Crisis Brought on by
Zündel's deportation to Germany?
Question : Should Zündel attempt to contest the issue of his guilt in the German court which, before the trial begins, has already assumed guilt as a matter of law ?
Answer : The Court, of course, will see that as a disruption of the proceedings and will not permit it. If he persists, he will be cited for contempt. Zundel's guilt is an issue that will have to be tried in the public forum outside the Court. That, I think, is where the Revisionists should hit the self-appointed authorities with everything they've got. They should try to create nothing less than a public crisis of disbelief. They should hammer away at the fact that German law as it presently exists is an affront to the intelligence of the German people. They should expose the underlying reality that the judicial system under which Zundel is prosecuted does not subsist under the authority of the German Reich and therefore, its Court is not a legitimate Court. It won't get Zundel acquitted, of course, but, to be sure, it has the potential of bringing a great blaze of light into the oppressed and benighted minds of the German people.
Question : Is the "Holocaust" the issue ?
Answer : The "Holocaust," that is to say, the extermination allegation, is not and for a long time has not been the issue. Authority for that assertion is the following quote set forth below from Professor Arthur Butz book, "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century":
". . my most important advice to those who enter the controversy is that they not lose sight of the fact that the real bone of contention, the extermination allegation, has been laid to rest beyond peradventure by ordinary historical analysis."
The issue is the immense complex of oppressive measures built into German life and German law as it exists today, designed to force acceptance of the "Holocaust" upon the German people, and thereby upon the entire world, principally by criminalizing and punishing those who raise questions about the "Holocaust." The extermination allegation, in the words of Professor Butz, having been "laid to rest beyond peradventure," the oppressive measures intended to force acceptance of the "Holocaust" upon the German people have no foundation to rest upon and are a fraud.
The objective, then, must be to expose this fraud for what it is.
Question : Is Revisionism in a crisis brought on by Zundel's deportation to Germany?
Answer : I say as emphatically as I can, NO, IT IS NOT ! Quite the opposite. Zundel's deportation presents revisionists with a dramatically stepped-up opportunity to deal their enemies the heaviest blow yet!
* * *
In Matters Freedom and Democracy and against Terrorism
WHAT WAS HIS NAME?
He Wanted to Take Over the World
In the name of national security and without the consent of the governed, he imposed restrictions on the freedoms of his people and took away their rights.
And so, as he drove through a German town, no one, except the police—uniformed and secret—were allowed out on the streets. Citizens were ordered to keep their windows shut and to stay off balconies "to avoid misunderstandings." Stores and restaurants were closed, driving and parking on the the streets were banned, garages were emptied, mailboxes were taken away, and manhole covers were welded shut. He himself hid behind heavy armor and bullet-proof glass.
Who was this man?
It was none other than the current president of the United States, On a recent trip to Germany, the inhabitants of Mainz were ordered off their own streets, as their city was visited by this famous champion of Freedom and Democracy.
By contrast, that "terrible dictator," Adolf Hitler, was able to move freely and without fear among the citizens of Mainz in an open car, with doors, windows and balconies flung open in celebration and greeting—just as he could in any other German town or village.
So, tell us some more about "Freedom" and "Democracy"!
NEW ORDER http://www.theneworder.org
1 March 2004
Local state news==Victoria, Australia.
Item: Database abused by corrupt, curious cops 12mar05
From: Geoff Muirden
Your article on corrupt cops misuse of data base confirms what police reformer, Raymond Hoser, said years ago, which caused him to be heavily fined, but which is now vindicated. It's about time the truth was revealed and Hoser given credit.
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute