Der Gejagte wird zum Jäger
The Hunted Becomes the Hunter

The Holocaust Front is heating up again as Kevin Käther
continues the struggle for German liberation.

Written by Kevin Käther

Translated from the German by J M Damon
The original is posted at  <>

The appeal of my conviction of December 2009 will take place on 6th - 10th August 2010.
In my first self-accusation trial for expressing doubts about “Holocaust” I received a sentence of 20 months (suspended for three years) as punishment for exercising my right to defend myself with evidentiary motions.
The NATIONAL JOURNAL reported extensively on my evidentiary motions, which were based on empirical evidence, historical events and natural law.
The motions incurred the displeasure of Chief Prosecutor Michael von Hagen, head of the department for STAATSSCHUTZDELIKTE (crimes against state security) in District 11 of the Berlin District Attorney’s Office, who brought four new counts of of VOLKSVERHETZUNG (Incitement of the Masses) against me.
He chose to charge me with four counts of Incitement because I dared to submit evidentiary motions on four trial days.
This revealed the “Holocaust” laws for just what they are: pure arbitrary pretension; and we are grateful for this self-revelation on the part of the government.

“Holocaust Justice” operates by manufacturing charges of alleged “Holocaust Denial”, thus depriving the political dissident of right to defend himself.
If the dissident still insists on defending himself by referring to the abundant empirical evidence amassed by Revisionist researchers, he can be certain that additional charges will be filed against him.
The only thing missing from this witch-trial scenario is the pyre in front of the courthouse,  then Germany will be back in the days of the Holy Inquisition.

In the course of my two showtrials, I submitted around 240 evidentiary motions that included almost 15,000 pages.
As is usual in such show trials, every one of my evidentiary motions, including the one concerning OFFENKUNDIGKEIT (Manifest Obviousness) was disallowed - on grounds of Manifest Obviousness!
My so-called judge needed just a couple of hours to dispose of my 7,000 pages of evidence, which quite possibly qualifies him for mention in the Guinness Book of Records for rapidity in rejecting evidentiary motions!
[TR: “Manifest Obviousness” is a legalistic concept adopted by the German occupation government from the Moscow and Nuremberg show trials.
By suspending the rules of evidence imposed on courts of law, “Manifest Obviousness” relieves the Prosecution of the burden of proving that alleged crimes took place.]

The legal crisis posed by "Manifest Obviousness" is clearly depicted in the reform movement initiated by revisionist German researchers and investigators.
In the course of this campaign, we strongly urged every chief magistrate and prosecutor  in the OMF–FRG  to explain what “Manifest Obviousness means in ” regard to “Holocaust.”
[NOTE: OMF - ORDNUNGSFORM EINER MODALITÄT DER FREMDHERRSHAFT  (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule) is the description and explanation provided in 1948 by Prof. Carlo Schmidt, the “Father of the FRG,” when he preented the Basic Law of the BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND or Federal Republic of Germany.
The term clearly expresses the reality that the FRG is not sovereign,  while avoiding the expression “puppet government.”]

There should have been a great flood of responses to our request since the “unique and inexpiable atrocity of Holocaust” is as “obvious” to the German courts as is the fact that the day has 24 hours.
Alas, the expected flood of postal responses was not forthcoming.
The judges all wrapped themselves in judicious silence or else referred us to “politically correct” historians or district attorneys, while the attorneys general all responded with thunderous silence.

This gives an idea of just how “obvious” Manifest Obviousness is in our “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.”
[For more on OMF-FRG visit:]

The responses (or rather lack thereof) show that the so-called “Manifest Obviousness of Holocaust” is just another swindle.
Our judiciary is not and has never been able to demonstrate anything “obvious” about “Holocaust.”
Either our German jurists are completely lacking in professional knowledge or else they are afraid of exposing themselves as the willing tools of foreign masters.
We are reminded of the confessions of Judge Fahsel of Stuttgart, who wrote the following in a candid letter to SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG on 9 April 2008:
 “I have unfortunately known countless judges and prosecutors who can truly be called ‘criminal...’
I have experienced countless violations and manipulations of the law that were simply unbelievable, but against which nothing could be done because they conformed to our System...
When I think back on my career - I am now retired - I am overcome with revulsion at the likes of myself.”

But now let us return to my first show trial.
After having accused myself of doubting “Holocaust” I was sentenced to eight months incarceration in spite of my massive submission of evidentiary motions.
We appealed that verdict with the result that Berlin Superior Court overturned the verdict and ordered District Court to conduct a new trial.
Unfortunately this new trial, which we were eagerly anticipating, languished in cold storage for almost a year.
(To anyone who is interested in additional information, I recommend the National Journal / Global Fire reports:

As it now stands, my 2009 conviction on four counts of “Incitement of the Masses” (specifically submission of evidentiary motions) will enter its second round in August.
We are looking forward to this new trial with real anticipation since the Federal Constitutional Court and former judges, as well as high ranking Jewish personalities, have created a new situation.
With its decision of 4 November 2009 on the constitutional complaint of recently deceased Attorney Jürgen Rieger against the prohibition of the memorial march for Rudolf Hess, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court demolished the legal proscription against denying or minimizing “Holocaust” (Section 130 of the Penal Code.)
The Karlsruhe judges clearly stated in their ruling that Section 130 is an exceptional and illegal law that violates the civil protections guaranteed by Section 5 Paragraph 1 of Basic Law.
In the German courtrooms, we Germans who want to be German will now clear away the ruins of Section 130, piece by piece.

We Germans have the duty to re-establish the freedom of our nation and secure it for all time.
Only through freedom gained through struggle can a nation flower and flourish anew and ultimately survive.
As long as the lies of our enemies prevail, as long as we are subjugated, robbed and cheated, we will continue to be menials in our own fatherland.
We have obligations toward our women, children, families and fellow Germans.
Let’s get to work!

Wenn Lüge, Haß und Rache wüten,
When lies, hatred and vengeance hold sway,
könnt Ihr die Wahrheit zwar verbieten,
You may be able to forbid the truth,
doch, dass wir fest an Deutschland glauben,
But not even our most powerful enemy can do away with
kann uns der stärkste Feind nicht rauben,
(The fact) that we are steadfast in our faith in Germany.

Ihr mögt uns fesseln, foltern, töten,
You may bind us, torture, kill us,
wir stehen auf aus tiefsten Nöten,
Yet we will rise from deepest degradation,  
so, wie die Sterne sich nicht biegen,
And, just as the stars cannot be dislodged,
lässt sich die Treue nicht besiegen!
Our loyalty cannot be vanquished!
(Alexander Hoyer)


The translator is a “Germanophilic Germanist” who attempts to make noteworthy articles accessible to those who do not read German.

Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)



©-free 2010 Adelaide Institute