Adelaide Institute  Title Bar

Adelaide Institute Logo







30 April 2003


Justice and Mercy fly out the window and the pound of flesh is demanded!

Proving that Talmudic vindictiveness is alive and well, and that British Common Law does not protect individuals against such injustices - or?

What doe presiding Federal Court of Australia Justice Hely now think of the consequences of having participated in these farcical proceedings?

A widowed grandmother has to contest a matter against a senior counsel, a woman has to face an expert in legal procedures with nothing but her sincerity and her belief in the power of prayer?

Justice Hely didn't even grant Mrs Olga Scully the defence that she was sincere in her beliefs.

Fredrick Töben


From: Geoffrey Edwards & Co

Solicitors, Attorneys & Conveyancers

ABN 19 918 387 328

11/ 51 Druit St

Sydney 2000


8 April 2003


Mr Jonathan Spencer

Official Receiver's Office

Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia

Victoria and Tasmania Branch

GPO Box 850

Hobart Tasmania 7001


Dear Mr Spencer


We refer to previous correspondence and now enclose by way of service upon Ms (sic) Scully our client's Application for Assessment of Party/Party costs.

You will see that in Federal Court Matter No. N154 of 2001 (relating to the substantive proceedings) the total amount comes to $139,729.79.

[Where is the 6666?]

In relation to Federal Court matter No. N1026 (the Appeal proceedings unsuccessfully prosecuted by Ms (sic) Scully against our client) the amount is $7,017.23. The total therefore comes to $146,745.02

Please let us know whether you have any objections to any of the items to the enclosed bills.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully


Peter Wertheim

[-another good German name: wert = value; heim = home!]





Victoria and Tasmania Branch

4/ANZ Centre, 22-26 Elizabeth St, Hobart Tasmania, 7000

03 - 6221 7777



11 April 2003

Dear Mrs Scully


Please find enclosed a copy of documents relating to the legal action between yourself and Mr Jones.

The matter deals with the taxation of costs awarded to Mr Jones by the court. My view is that the costs claimed are a provable debt in your bankruptcy.

As I was not involved in the action, I am not able to constructively assess any item claimed and I do not intend to object to the bills claimed. I shall rely on the court determination.

You may have different view. If so, please provide precise written details of any matters that you object to my attention as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Spencer

For Official Receiver


Mrs Olga Scully Advises

The Jews are demanding from me $146,745.02 and the Insolvency people are backing them in this demand. They would not be demanding this sum of money unless they knew they had a way of getting it. Why would they demand it and not get it?

I believe there is one very drastic way in which they could get it. My home and the family home belong to my son. Should anything happen to my sen, then I am next-of-kin and then all his property would come to me and then straight to 'them'as they now have a claim against me.


Here is the brief outline of what happened when those opposed to free speech acted against me:

1. In 1996 HREOC (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) took action against me. I lost.

2. In 1999 this matter then progressed to the Federal Court of Australia. I lost.

3. I took libel action against the Bobart Mercury newspaper in 1999. I lost in 2002 and applied for bankruptcy.

4. I became a bankrupt on 23 July 2002 at which time the bills for the HREOC and Federal Court of Australia had not come in.


The Big Question: Does my 2002 bankruptcy absolve me of the debts that were still accumulating at the time of bankruptcy?

Please help!

Olga Scully





Update on Mrs Olga Scully

9 November 2002



Holocaust disputer declared bankrupt

By Nick Clark
9 November 2002

LAUNCESTON woman Olga Scully, who has denied that the Holocaust ever happened, has been declared bankrupt, the Federal Court heard yesterday. Mrs Scully's bankruptcy comes at a time when she owes more than $110,000 in court costs to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and to Davies Brothers Limited, publishers of The Mercury.

Costs were awarded against Mrs Scully in two court cases this year. Justice Kevin Lindgren revealed the bankruptcy when he dismissed an application by Mrs Scully for an extension of time to appeal a September Federal Court decision.

Mrs Scully, 59, of Thelma St, Newstead, had sought to appeal the decision of Justice Peter Hely which banned her from distributing racist material. However, she ran out of time for an appeal and sought leave for an extension. Justice Lindgren said the latest appeal would have been doomed to failure

and that an extension of time to appeal should not be granted. He also awarded the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's costs of the latest application against Mrs Scully.

Justice Lindgren said Mrs Scully had petitioned for bankruptcy on July 23. A spokesman for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry said that 10 days of Federal Court hearings with a solicitor and senior counsel Stephen
Rothman had cost about $110,000.

The Federal Court case arose after Mrs Scully tried to challenge a Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission ruling that her distribution of racist videos and leaflets contravened the Racial Discrimination Act.




Federal Court action initiated by Jewish Zionist Australian, Jeremy Jones, against Olga Scully




Holocaust revisionist Olga Scully may defy Federal Court order

Bernard Freedman, The Australian Jewish News, 13 September 2002


An email bearing Holocaust revisionist Olga Scully’s name suggests she may defy last week’s Federal Court ruling to stop distributing anti-Jewish literature.

  The email, addressed to Holocaust revisionist Fredrick Toben and published on his website, details the Federal Court decision, listing the publications Ms Scully has been ordered not to distribute.

“Although I’m suffering the flu I’m going out letterboxing this afternoon, not to break the judge’s orders but to circumvent them, and to bravely defend my rights,” the email says.

“It would be best if you do not give any one the details of I (sic) have been ordered to cease distributing. It is best if others remain ignorant and can continue doing their bit in ignorance.

“I will not even tell you what is in the leaflets mentioned above. I doubt if you have ever seen my leaflets, Fredrick, so you, too, do not know what is ‘prohibited’.”

But Federal Citizenship and Multicultural Minister Gary Hardgrave hopes Ms Scully will abide by the ruling. These publications were insulting not just to the Jewish community, but to the Australian community in general, the told the Australian Jewish News this week.

Mr Hardgrave said he hoped Ms Scully would respect both the Federal Court’s order to stop distributing of (sic) selling anti-Jewish publications and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s ruling two years ago that she had breached the Racial Discrimination Act.

The Federal Court’s decision was a very good demonstration of the importance and effectiveness of Australia’s law against racial discrimination, he said.

“Most people are reasonable and they cease and desist. Ms Scully took an extreme approach and has been ordered by the court to stop distributing stuff that is un-Australian and offensive. I believe [the court’s decision] will make the next person who takes this approach think otherwise.”



Tassie trial and tribulations

A six-year legal battle ended last week when a Federal Court judge ruled against Holocaust revisionist Olga Scully. Allon Lee talks to the three Tasmanians who took her to trial.

The Australian Jewish News, 13 September 2002

Six years is a long time to wait for justice, but for three Holocaust survivors it has been well worth it. Through human rights tribunals and grueling Court cross-examinations, Tom Schlesinger, 73, Dr Felix Goldschmied, 64, and George Goldstein, 60, never lost hope of the rightness of their cause.

Last week’s Federal Court judgment ordering Tasmanian Olga Scully, 59, to cease selling and distributing anti-Jewish material has been welcomed by the three Tasmanian witnesses who gave evidence.

Mr Schlesinger, the unofficial Tasmanian community spokesperson, praised the landmark ruling because “a precedent has been set”.

Mr Goldschmied, whose father was interred in Theresienstadt and managed to hide with his mother and brother, said the verdict would aid other ethnic communities. “This is the same propaganda that we had to put up with in Europe. That’s why I am pleased.”

Mr Goldsteen, whose father died in Mauthausen, survived the Holocaust with his mother by hiding with non-Jewish relatives.

He is satisfied that Justice Hely understands the hurt Ms Scully had caused. “The fact that she cannot even sell her material is significant. This has implications for a lot of racist publications on the mainland.”

Mr Schlesinger, whose father was killed in Latvia, first learnt of Ms Scully’s activities in 1995 when non-Jews informed him that she was selling and distributing anti-Jewish literature at a market in Launceston. He contacted the manager of the market, a man of Chinese descent, who said he would be pleased to see her leave because he too felt offended.

“We couldn’t evict her because the man who rented her the stall refused and he rented the building from the council. If we had not won I would have had to picket her stall,” Mr Schlesinger said.

Mr Goldschmied’s friends and workplace were targets of Ms Scully’s letterbox campaigns. “I had World War II veterans coming to me and telling me that they had been to the camps and what she had said were lies.”

Mr Schlesinger then informed Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) president Jeremy Jones, who took up the case while Mr Goldschmied collected the incriminating material.

None of the witnesses were able to prepare for the cross-examination by Ms Scully, who represented herself, because they did not know what she would ask.

Ms Scully asked Mr Goldschmied how he knew his family members were dead. “I answered that since I had not heard from them since 1945 I presumed they were not alive.”

Mr Schlesinger was satisfied when the ECAJ’s barrister, Stephen Rothman, cross-examined Ms Scully about the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and her ignorance was shown up.

“I felt better knowing that she had been proven to be a liar and not merely ignorant,” he said.

All three were heartened by the letters and phone calls of encouragement from non-Jewish neighbours.

“I was wished success when I walked down the street. About 100 people have contacted me over the years,” Mr Goldsteen said.

But none of them believe Ms Scully will cease her activities.

“She has clearly indicated she won’t stop and I think she will end up before the courts again. No-one wants to be vindictive, but we have to consider the hurt we feel,” Mr Schlesinger said.

Mr Goldsteen added: “We don’t want an apology or compensation, we just want her to stop.”



Fredrick Töben comments

1. Throughout the proceedings an apology from Mrs Scully was always on the table, and insisted upon by Mr Jeremy Jones before the HREOC and the Federal Court:

i. The HREOC finding demanded that Mrs Scully sign a written apology, something she refused to do.

ii. Justice Hely did not order Mrs Scully sign any written apology:

  “During the course of submissions I suggested to the applicant’s counsel that prima facie, the idea of ordering someone to make an apology is a contradiction in terms. Mr Rothman accepted this. Although an apology has been ordered in proceedings of this type in the past (see, for example, Oberoi v HREOC [2002] FMCA 34), I do not think that an order that the respondent publish an apology is appropriate in these proceedings. Nor do I consider that ordering the publication of a retraction is appropriate. In my opinion, a retraction is only appropriate where it has been established by an applicant that what has been published or disseminated by a respondent is false. The present proceedings were not concerned with the truth or falsity of what was distributed by the respondent; rather, it was concerned with whether her leaflets were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jews in Australia. Although I appreciate that the truth or falsity of what is contended in the respondent’s leaflets is relevant to this question, as I have explained above at [104] -  The fact, if it be a fact, that assertions made in the leaflets may be wrong or inaccurate does not of itself establish a contravention of s 18C:Creek at [6]. A true statement, or one which might be shown in some way to be true, does not mean that the statement is incapable of being offensive: Patrick v Cobain [1993] 1 VR 290 at 294.] - the fact that false assertions are made in a leaflet does not of itself establish a contravention of s 18C. In addition, the applicant’s case was that it was the imputations that arose from the leaflets that were said to cause the requisite offence rather than the leaflets themselves. In those circumstances, it has not been necessary for me to determine whether what is said in the respondent’s leaflets is in fact true or false. In those circumstances, a retraction is not appropriate.”

2. This is a very bad judgment - because the Racial Discrimination Act is bad law! Justice Hely did the possible within the impossible legal constraints placed on him.

i. Mr Jones and his witnesses did not have to prove their hurt feelings. It was enough for them to verbally express this hurt in court. Usually in damages cases some kind of expert medical report - in this case a psychiatric report at the least - is needed to prove damage done to the minds of those who allege to have been hurt by viewing written material.

The fact that this was not required indicates this trial was a political show-trial. It is indicative of what lies ahead for all Australians, especially because Jeremy Jones gloated over the judgment.

ii. Professor Arthur Butz pointed out the flawed nature of the legislation in a letter dated 5 November 1997 when, after I asked him to be a witness for my defence, he wrote to me: "Alas I must say that you are arguably guilty of some of the charges. I looked over Jeremy Jones' stuff and I infer that the 'Radial Discrimination Act' proscribes what might 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people.' Well, revisionism certainly does the first three! It does not however 'intimidate'; at least, I have never noticed such a case ... Heated controversy is a price of open debate, the foundation of a rational society."

Butz continues his reflections in his Foreword to my book, Where Truth Is No Defence, I Want To Break Free:

"Jeremy Jones was the representative of the Jewish organisation that has brought charges against Töben. I commented on Jones' letter by declaring Töben guilty. Some defence witness!

Far from acting betrayed by me, Töben submitted the letter to the HREOC. I believe that he was starting to see my real reason for my reluctance to get involved as a defence witness. Such matters as I had expertise in were irrelevant to the proceedings, which related not to historical truth, but to offending, insulting etc. For the most part I could not understand the notion of culpability as used in the proceedings, but to the extent that I could understand, Töben was guilty. I am at least as guilty, as are many of my revisionist friends. The situation was structured such that nothing I could have said would have helped attain a favourable verdict, as became clear to Töben shortly later."    

3. Mr Schlesinger says that during cross-examination Mrs Scully's ignorance about the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz was shown up: "I feel better knowing that she had been proven to be a liar and not merely ignorant," he said.

Silly and misguided Mr Schlesinger. It is not a matter of feeling 'better because the truth may be quite hurtful to those who have never matured beyond the victim status mentality.

Mr Schlesinger now is the one who is either ignorant of the facts, or he is lying! Surely a survivor and activist would know how Krema I and Krema II have been 'decommissioned' as homicidal gas chambers, and moved to those two silly farm houses outside of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp complex.

It is of interest that the action against Mrs Scully began shortly after her much-respected school principal husband died. She had then been doing her literature distribution for about 25 years. Even as a secondary teacher she was disturbed by what kind of terrible material students were fed in literature and history classes. It offended against her Christian upbringing - and she made a valiant stand against that. She did not, like most teachers, just go along with it. Now as a widow and grandmother, Mrs Scully is even more determined to do her bit, so that no-one can accuse her of having remained silent at a time when the closing of our young minds is well under way. Mrs Scully has done her bit -

4. One final word about bad law. As citizens we all have moral, social and legal duties to perform - our law commands this of us. It is thus axiomatic that if truth cannot protect us from prosecution, then lies will flourish in courts of law - the theatre of the absurd opens its doors!

Where ever lies flourish, trust is lost, and relationships break down, and the control freaks have a field day! That's where ideological terrorism and enslavement begins - with fear in the forefront paving the way to mental and physical enslavement. In our case it is in the form of  the 'Holocaust' lie. Women feel this 'danger' at the earliest through non-verbal signals. That is why Mrs Scully is to be celebrated as a genuine freedom fighter who scoffs at the mind-enslaving tactics employed by Mr Jeremy Jones, et al. When the murderous Jewish-Bolsheviks began to impose their will on the people, the first thing the Soviets did was to formulate laws that forbade criticising anything Jewish. 

Mrs Scully reminded Justice Hely that she, too, is hurt by what the Jewish-Bolsheviks did to her country, Russia. She wishes to bring back some balance in any historical debate because no one group is above criticism, certainly not the Jewish lobby.  Mrs Scully has stood firm against this onslaught of lies - and she has said to Mr Jones and his small but financially strong group: "This far and no further. Here I stand, this is what I believe."  


 Tasmanian truths

Gershon Goldsteen, The Australian Jewish News, 27 September 2002

I took on the Scully case in 1992 when I was first made aware of her activities, thereby making it a 10-year battle not six as reported in the AJN (13/9). I began collecting evidence and together with Dr Goldschmied tried to get some action by the Federal and State Police, but to no avail.

In 1996 the Launceston Examiner interviewed me and informed me of the newly formed HREOC. After reading the legislation, I contacted then ECAJ vice-president Jeremy Jones, who informed me that bthe ECAJ would take on the case; it lodged a complaint with the HREOC a few months later.

Your article gives the wrong impression that Messrs Schlesinger and Godlschmied fulfilled these roles. I should also like to clarify that Mr Schlesinger is not the unofficial spokesman for the Tasmanian community. He may be for the Liberal contingent of Hobart Jewry but I am the spokesman for all Jews in Tasmania.

Furthermore, Ms Scully hasnot been able to sell any of her materials at her market stall, because the market was shut down several years ago.

Meanwhile, Ms Scully is at it again. Dr Goldschmied and two gentiles received pamphlets on Yom Kippur, while one of the latter received a videotape the next day. There were obviously more distributed than this, but most recipients just throw the material out and do not contact anyone.





Landmark ruling against Tasmanian Holocaust denier

By Allon Lee, The Australian Jewish News, 6 September 2002

In a landmark victory for the Australian Jewish community, the Federal Court of Australia has ordered Olga Scully, 59, to stop distributing or selling anti-Jewish literature and leaflets.

After a six-year legal battle, it found that her decade-long campaign of vilification breached the Federal Discrimination Act.

But Mrs Scully, a former teacher, has indicated that she may not cease her activities.

The Ukrainian-born [Counsel S Rothman continues to state that Mrs Scully was born in Ukraine, when in fact she was born in Russia.] Launceston resident distributed pamphlets alleging that the Holocaust was a lie, the Talmud encourages paedophilia, Jews orchestrated the Port Arthur massacre, communism was a Jewish plot and the world banks, media and pornography are under Jewish control.

The verdict enforces a Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Tribunal finding in September 2000 that Scully breached the Federal Racial Discrimination Act.

It was praised by Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) president Jeremy Jones, who initiated the case.

“The suggestion that the world’s evils are attributable to Jewish people is offensive and patently absurd,” he said. “This is a significant victory for the Jewish community, particularly in Launceston, which has had to put up with a shameful campaign that has negatively impacted upon its life.

“Australia prides itself on being tolerant; this judgment reaffirms that. It is also a significant victory for all victims of racism because it shows there is recourse to the law.”

Mr Jones praised the efforts of his barrister, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies president Stephen Rothman, over the past six years, describing it as “beyond the call of duty in seeking justice for the Jewish community”.

Mr Rothman described Justice Peter Hely’s judgment as “total vindication” of the ECAJ’s and the community’s stance, “which was important in the ongoing fight against anti-Semitism.”

Continued distribution of the leaflets could see Ms Scully face contempt of court charges, fines or prison. A report in the Hobart Mercury quoted her as saying she might ignore the verdict. “I am certainly going to go as far as I can within the law, if necessary, if I consider the verdict unjust, I will challenge it,” she was quoted as saying. “I am certainly not going to chicken out completely.”

Mr Jones’ solicitor, Peter Wertheim, said the case had set several important precedents. “It is the first time a complaint against racial hatred has succeeded in the Federal Court.”

If Ms Scully breaches the court’s injunctions, the ECAJ will bring an urgent application to the court asking that she be dealt with for contempt, Mr Wertheim said.

Justice Hely ruled that Ms Scully’s actions were likely to “offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews.” He rejected her arguments that she had never targeted Jews as a group and that she had distributed her leaflets “for genuine academic purpose”.

“A leaflet that conveys an imputation that Jews are fraudulent liars, 'immoral, deceitful and part of a conspiracy to defraud the world is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jews in Australia. The fact that the imputation arises in the context of a debate about the Holocaust makes it even more likely that the leaflet would cause offence,” he said.

Ms Scully was ordered to pay Mr Jones’ costs. She has 28 days to appeal.






Top of Page | Home Page

© 2002 Adelaide Institute