Appeal Update

• any directions or orders made by Justice Sackville on 30 October 2002 (including any orders for the filing of outlines of submissions and lists of authorities, made in accordance with Part B of Practice Note No.1):

• Practice Note No.1 dated 9 February 2001 (a copy of which is enclosed); and

• any directions or orders made by the Registrar for the preparation, filing and serving of the appeal or application book.

Please note that pursuant to Practice Note No. 1 an appeal fixed for hearing may only be removed from the list on the direction of a Judge of the Court.

Appellants are reminded that setting down fees are payable now. In some cases daily hearing fees will also be payable in due course. You will receive notification of fees shortly. If you have any queries in relation to hearing fees please contact the Team Leader Listings on (02) 9230 8567.

If this matter involves an application Leave to Appeal and/or Extension of Time and your application is successful, you are required to attend the registry and pay the requisite filing, hearing and/or setting down fees, in respect of the appeal.

If you have any queries in relation to the listing of this matter please contact Shanthini Rathanthas of the Full Court Unit on (02) 9230 8127.

Jacinta Connery

(for National Appeals Manager)

This is it, the test-case that pits Common Law principles against Talmudic dialectics, where truth is no defence, the principle of natural justice ceases to exist and the concept of balance becomes irrelevant.

The foregoing make up parts of the legal structure that guarantees us free speech, as opposed to dogmatic and life-denying principles that enslave our minds and souls.

If the appeal is not allowed, then the skeptics are possibly correct in claiming that the Australian Legal Culture has been successfully Talmudicised, and where our cultural values of Truth, Honour and Justice have been enslaved to oppressive and immoral dialectic legalese.

Common Law demands of us that we, as mature citizens, perform our moral, social and legal duties. This we cannot do if we fear to speak the truth, if we are silenced and legally persecuted for telling the truth.

It is our moral duty to speak out and oppose those who tell lies. We need to oppose those individuals who tell lies about what happened during World War Two, for example, at the concentration camp at Auschwitz, in particular about the alleged homicidal gassings. It is our moral duty to inform society how the alleged murder weapon functioned - or question its very existence.

Anyone who claims that the Germans gassed Jews at Auschwitz is levelling a terrible allegation at the Germans. Such an allegation needs to be empirically tested, and not be legally protected from open scrutiny. Such assertions cannot remain unchallenged and legally excised from open debate. If they are, then truth will be suppressed - and that cannot be good for our moral wellbeing.

Truth-telling is a moral virtue; telling lies is an immoral act. A Judge who imposes a gag order on an individual for telling the truth about historical events, is behaving immorally.

Further, a judge who uses the following shut-up words on individuals who wish to initiate an open debate on any contentious historical matter, isbeing oppressive and unjust: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi, xenophobic, etc.

It is morally and intellectually dishonest to label dissenters with the current shut-up words with the aim of stifling open debate: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi, xenophobic, etc.

An individual who has conducted research at the former concentration camp at Auschwitz, then concludes that there were no homicidal gassings because there is no evidence of a murder weapon ever having existed, has a right to state the results of such empirical testing of evidence.

Punishing and silencing individuals who speak out about such matters is antithetical to what an open and democratic society is all about.

A legal system should not impose a legally state-sanctioned historical dogma on society. If it does, then this is a renewal of the state of affairs that prevailed in the former communist countries where courts labelled individuals REVISIONISTS and declared them to be a threat to state security, then banished such dissenters to the Gulags - the Gulags where Talmudic justice ruled.

Such state of affairs is a regression to the witch-hunt mentality that swept Europe and other parts of the world some time ago.

Do we in Australia want a Gulag Australiana Talmudistan to which our dissenting thinkers are sent all because they dare to disagree with prevailing politically correct views and opinions? A vigorous democracy demands that dissenting views be expressed freely in open forum.

If freedom of speech is taken from us on some spurious ground that someone feels hurt, then surely the subject matter ought to be discussed in open court.

To date this has not been done because the subject has been deemed to be beyond open debate.

The so-called 'Holocaust' has been declared to be beyond open debate while at the same time it is being discussed and offered as a dogma within an MA course at, for example Sydney University.

If the Appeal is not allowed, then free speech and free and open enquiry ceases to exist within our universities, and our democratic right to dissent and to be wrong about things is at an end. Talmudic law will shroud our society's fabric, dividing it into Jews and Goyim-cattle.

Still, fear not, the battle of the wills should prove to be interesting and colourful. A common expression within legal circles is: win some, lose some!

And so, whichever way the matter is decided, our legal team is the best we could have had!

Fredrick Töben