Letter from Wellington   Fredrick Töben 5 May 2004     I depart on Saturday, 1 May 2004, on a midnight 13-hour flight from Santiago to New Zealand. The LanChile plane lands at Auckland Airport at 4.10am on Monday 3 May 2004 – and so I lose Sunday to the vagaries of the time zone, to time itself.   Traffic between Chile and New Zealand-Australia – Santiago-Auckland-Sydney – is heavy, and the plane is full, literally to the last seat, with quite a few young individuals returning home from time spent in South America.   It is raining at Auckland and the drive to Wellington is a drizzly affair. My intention to visit Professor Dov Bing at Hamilton falls by the wayside. I am certain that 7am is too early for him to receive visitors, let alone such a one as I! In any case, what he has done to get the public focus on Dr Joel Hayward will be solidly evaluated in Hayward’s autobiography when it is released sometime after May. During that month, so I have been informed, the work will be at the printers.   A couple of days spent in Wellington with Kerry Bolton and family enables me to relax and somewhat recover from that trans-Pacific flight. There is lots to talk about.   Departure from Wellington is an early 6am affair. I recall from a previous transit stop at Wellington that the airport closes for a couple of hours, from 2-4am. This is done so that the fire brigade can go through the building unhindered and do its maintenance checks.   Again the trans-Tasman flight to Sydney is full to the brim with passengers spanning all age-ranges – from baby to aged invalid. As usual the infant’s ear drums ache as the pressure changes in the cabin during take-off and landing, and mothers helplessly cuddle their little ones in the hope of easing the pain somehow.   As usual the homecoming is appreciated, if only now with the prospects of the German legal system attempting to get me to Mannheim, there to attend court with a legal counsel not of my choice. Horst Mahler is not permitted to act on my behalf anymore, and so I do not feel safe in having a court-appointed counsel.   Also, my letter to Judge Adam has as yet remained unanswered, and I do insist that he give me honest answers to the questions raised therein.     Original Message ----- From: <Adam@LGMannheim.justiz.bwl.de> To: <toben@adelaideinstitute.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 5:33 PM Subject: Gegen Sie geführtes Strafverfahren in Mannheim, Az. 6 Kls 503 Js 9551/99   Landgericht Mannheim Mannheim, den 21.04.04 Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Töben, Ihrem Schreiben vom 10. März 2004 entnehme ich, dass Sie sich dem weiteren Verfahren gegen Sie in der Bundesrepublik stellen werden. Auch gehe ich davon aus, dass es im Falle einer Hauptverhandlung keiner förmlichen Ladung Ihrer Person auf dem Rechtshilfeweg mit Australien bedarf, sondern dass Sie einer an Sie gerichteten Ladung auf dem Postwege oder per Email Folge leisten werden. Was die Frage Ihrer Verteidigung anbetrifft ist die Sachlage derzeit so, dass die Herren Rechtsanwälte Wingerter und Rosenthal - die der Bundesgerichtshof Ihnen bestellt hat - weiterhin Pflichtverteidiger sind. Herr Rechtsanwalt Rosenthal hat allerdings mit Schreiben vom 20.02.2004 um seine Entpflichtung gebeten, da er während des Revisionsverfahrens durch "eine ungeschickte Äußerung" Ihr Vertrauen verspielt habe. Herr Rechtsanwalt Wingerter hatte zwar angeregt Herrn Rechtsanwalt Bock - auf Ihren Wunsch hin - als Verteidiger zu bestellen. Ihrem Schreiben vom 10.03.04 entnehme ich jedoch, dass Sie nunmehr Herrn Bock nicht mehr als Verteidiger wollen. Die Bestellung des von Ihnen favorisierten Rechtsanwalts Horst Mahler aus Berlin kommt nicht in Betracht. Gemäß § 142 Abs. 1 Strafprozessordnung sind möglichst Rechtsanwälte zu bestellen, die bei dem Gericht, das die Bestellung vornimmt, zugelassen sind. Das ist bei Herrn Rechtsanwalt Horst Mahler, der meiner Kenntnis nach in Berlin seine Kanzlei hat, nicht der Fall. Da aber ohnehin bereits zwei Rechtsanwälte als Verteidiger bestellt sind besteht auch keine Veranlassung, noch einen weiteren Verteidige zu bestellen. Das trifft auch für den Fall zu, dass Sie an Rechtsanwalt Rosenthal als Verteidiger nicht mehr festhalten wollen. Mit Herrn Rechtsanwalt Wingerter habe ich inzwischen Kontakt aufgenommen. Er steht weiterhin zu Ihrer Verteidigung zur Verfügung. Mit ihm habe ich als mögliche Hauptverhandlungstermine abgesprochen Donnerstag, den 1. Juli 2004, Dienstag, den 6. Juli 2004 und Donnerstag, den 8. Juli 2004. Bitte teilen Sie mir mit ob Sie zu diesen Terminen zu der Hauptverhandlung in Mannheim kommen werden und ob Ihre Ladung zu den Terminen in der oben angesprochenen Weise erfolgen kann.  HHe Auch bitte ich um Mitteilung ob das Vertrauensverhältnis zu Rechtsanwalt Rosenthal noch besteht und, sofern Störungen bestehen, worin diese begründet sind. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Adam VRLG   I received an email advising me of an incoming fax, but the email was blank.     ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam@LGMannheim.justiz.bwl.de To: toben@adelaideinstitute.org Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 2:52 AM Subject: Re: Incoming Fax     I then sent the following letter to Judge Adam   ...original message... From: <infoadelaideinstitute@adam.com.au> To: <Adam@LGMannheim.justiz.bwl.de> Cc: <toben@adelaideinstitute.org> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:05 AM Subject: Re: Incoming Fax     Mensaje citado por Adam@LGMannheim.justiz.bwl.de: Santiago, 28 April 2004 Sorry, Richter Adam, we do not have a fax anymore. Would you please send me the matter per email. As you can see from the above, I am still in South America, and I have been advised that you have written a letter to me wherein you state that Horst Mahler is not acceptable to you as my defence counsel of choice. Please be advised that any other defence counsel is a waste of time for me because they will not have the courage to challenge the whole legal structure as Mahler is doing, and something that is important because the judicial notice - Offenkundigkeit - aspect of my case needs to be challenged with new factual information. In fact, the whole Para 130 is to be questioned. Could you also advise me how you visualise my defence can develop a strategy when any vigorous defence as per Common Law is prohibited in Germany? For example, in the Common Law jurisdictions anything said in court as a defence is privileged, something that is not the case in your jurisdiction, and as became glaringly obvious during Mahler´s case in Berlin where the state prosecutor Krueger handed him further writs as the proceedings progressed. Were the Mahler matter not so serious I would consider this to be a comedy of absolute errors played out by misguided individuals who are driven by hatred and envy and certainly by a lack of moral and intellectual integrity. It seems to me to be a pure power game - Machtspiel, and surely a civilized society such as Germany still is cannot condone such miscarriages of justice. Please advise me if your approach in your court at Mannheim will follow that kind of precedent. If so, then obviously you are offending against the Common Law legal principle of Natural Justice, and that makes you then a prisoner of your own immoral system where truth is no defende. Imagine, Judge Adam, the bedrock of our society rests on the truth concept, and in your deliberations you need not focus on the truth-content of what is alleged to be my crime. I was raised to speak the truth and to open my mouth whenever I saw injustices. In Australia as a young boy at school I was ridiculed for being the son of a German who did not speak out against the injustices that the Germans committed against the Jews. As a teacher I made it my life´s job to inculcate students with a sense of truth-telling that liberated them from lies and superstition. And the rest is history. Would you also kindly adjourn the June dates because I shall not be ready by that time. Professionally I have had some unforeseen matters crop up, one being that we had our conference cancelled, and perhaps you may be interested to learn that Adelaide Institute withdrew from the conference. I am also awaiting from you a considered response to the matters I have addressed in this email to you. Sincerely Dr Fredrick Toben Mensaje citado por Adam@LGMannheim.justiz.bwl.de:    I did ask supporters what they thought of my returning to Germany for the trial. In all instances it was made clear to me that if I retained any ounce of sanity, then I would not return to Germany where I could never get any form of justice. The recent Zündel trial in Toronto is testimony to that.   Here are a few interesting deliberations as to what I should do – attend or not attend the July hearing at Mannheim:   1.     “You would be nuts to return voluntarily to Germany. I don't know what the law is in Australia, but in the USA you can't be extradited to face charges for acts that are not felonies in the USA.” 2.     “Then you might ask this nonjudge Adams,on which jurisdiction he is judging you and the whole trial. There is no valid temporary law (the so called " GRUNDGESETZ" ) anymore and you might ask him whether he is a judge on the legal Reichsconstitution from Aug 11th 1919 which is today the legal base for all court decision and so on. I will tell you he is not and that’s it! So your trial is illegal even from the beginning and from that point on and you can put them before a valid court because of the illegal arrest of yourself years before and charge from them smart-money for the pain and deprivation of liberty! But if you need a lawyer, It’s better to take a lawyer who is good in the international law and is subscribed for this. This is your only chance to get your dignity back! This judge and this court was not allowed to do so!” 3.     “Ich würde Dir raten, NICHT zu kommen, es sei denn daß Du es auf eine erneute Verhaftung - dieses Mal im Gerichtssaal -ankommen läßt und erneut das Innenleben eines brddr-deutschen Gefängnisses kennenlernen willst. In Messer zu laufen, die man sieht, lohnt nicht!” 4.     “My opinion is NOT to go to the criminal BRD at all. No need to prove anything anymore; it is likely that Zundel will eventually be returned there for prosecution and that is the trial that is most likely to generate enormous publicity and focus attention on the oppressive and illegal BRD Basic Law that persecutes true advocates of Human Rights.” 5.     “The history of convicting non-German Holocaust Revisionists is dismal. German prosecutors must be mad that they have not thought of a way to convict a major revisionist. They have the laws but have not been able to snare a big player. If you walk into their trap I guarantee you they will use all the resources they have to get a conviction. The history of prior convictions outside Germany from 1995 to 2004 are:  (1) 1995 - Hans Schmidt spent 5 months in a Germanj jail awaiting trial for distributing Neo-Nazis literature; when released on bail he slipped out of the country and has not been apprehended in the U.S., where he lives. (2) 1995, March - Gary Lauck arrested in Denmark and transported to Germany 1996, August - After 17 months in prison, convicted of distributing literature by mail that encouraged racial hatred, and received 4 years in jail.  1999, March - released and shipped to the U.S. (3) 2000 - German citizen and musician Hendrik Mobus arrested in U.S. and almost shipped to Germany for voicing displeasure towards the Jews and giving the Nazi salute at concerts. Even though he is a German citizen, he is still in the U.S. arguing before the courts that the German laws he is charged with do not exist in the U.S.”   And here is Paul Fromm’s update of the Zündel Case in Toronto   ----- Original Message ----- From: "C-FAR" <1315038@primus.ca> To: <cafe@canadafirst.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 6:10 PM Subject: QUASH THAT SUBPOENA   TORONTO. Tuesday, May 4, 2004. In my last CAFEGRAM entitled "Watch for Fireworks in the Zundel Case", I promised you excitement at the Zundel hearings before Mr. Justice Pierre Blais in Toronto. We had plenty of excitement and tension. Indeed, as I approached the courtroom, I learned that the drama and skulduggery had already begun. Judge Lauren Marshall, who had confirmed orally her willingness to testify for Ernst Zundel, was backing out. Her testimony, as Mr. Zundel's lawyer in the mid-1980s is crucial. She can explain the incredible haste with which the usually snail-like immigration department moved to commence deportation proceedings against Mr. Zundel after his "false news" conviction. It was clear then and is should be clear now that Mr. Zundel is the victim of political persecution. He's a political problem for Canada's minority-run Liberal regime, not a threat to national security. In a written statement, Mr. Zundel's lead defence attorney Peter Lindsay, said: "My Lord, there was been a significant change in circumstances in this matter. I had indicated to Your Lordship on Thursday (April 290 that Regional Senior Justice Marhall would testify this morning. I based that on two direct personal discussions between myself and Justice Marshall in which her Honour had specifically and unequivocally agreed to testify in this matter and we had fully discussed the subjects to be covered in her testimony. I had also served a subpoena on Her Honour, but that subpoena was only served after Her Honour had already told me personally that she was willing to testify and would testify in this matter. Yesterday morning I spoke to Her Honour by telephone and confirmed arrangements to meet her this morning at this courthouse prior to her testimony. At about 4:00 p.m. yesterday, I received a telephone call from her new lawyer Mr. Stern who was suddenly acting on behalf of Her Honour. Now, through Mr. Stern, Her Honour has, despite her earlier agreement to testify, brought a motion before Your Lordship, in relation to testifying in this matter and Her Honour is not present in Court this morning." Why had Judge Marshall suddenly developed a case of cold feet and was seeking to quash the subpoena? The idealists suggest that the lady had simply changed her mind. The cynics counter that "the big boys" got to her. In her earlier days as Mr. Zundel's lawyer she'd received terrifying phone calls threatening the lives of her children if she continued to act for Canada's most famous dissident. Judge Marshall was not the only person who'd developed a case of shyness. Just before court opened, Mr. Lindsay informed me of the weird antics of John Farrell, the former thief whom CSIS had employed in the mid-1990s to surreptitiously open the mail of dissidents, including Ernst Zundel. It was Farrell's information that largely formed the basis of Andrew Mitrovica's book about CSIS -- Covert Entry: Spies, Lies and Crimes Inside Canada's Secret Service. Farrell, the former thief and mail snoop, is now a teacher of religion at a West Toronto Catholic High School. [Yes, I know, not since Mary Magdalen ...] Peter Lindsay and his law clerk went to his school to serve the elusive Mr. Farrell with a subpoena. They talked to his principal. The principal advised them that Mr. Farrell was away that day. Out in he parking lot, they encountered a teacher and told them their business. "Oh," he said, "I just saw Mr. Farrell in the library." Using this helpful information, they re-entered the school and, indeed, found Farrell in deep discussion with the less-than-truthful principal of the Catholic High School. The principal charged at Mr. Lindsay and assaulted him, permitting Mr. Farrell to flee the premises. Mr. Lindsay called the police. The principal stoutly denied ever assaulting Mr. Lindsay. As a former teacher who was twice served with legal papers at school, I find this incident extraordinary. Most school administrators have a very acute sense of deference to authority and the law and would usually be only too happy to accommodate a process server. Today, Judge Blais seemed to accept defeat on what appeared to be the plan to rush the case through by tomorrow. Last week, with hearings lasting until after 8:00 p.m. every effort had been made to rush Mr. Zundel to judgement and, likely, deportation. Mr. Blais is now talking of arranging more court dates as far ahead as possibly December of this year. He is also talking of Mr. Zundel's next mandatory detention review in late July. Court proceedings were dominated by submissions from a growing list of people who don't want to testify. The Crown side of the court is becoming over-crowded. It looked like the old days of the Zundel Internet case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, with guest appearances by lawyers Marvin Kurz and Judy Chan, acting for Frank Dimant of the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and Keith Landy of  the Canadian Jewish Congress, respectively. Their normally publicity seeking clients had developed a sudden case of shyness when subpoenaed to testify in the Zundel case. They were also joined by Paul Stern, representing Madam Justice Marshall and, late for the second day in a row, a Mr. Rogers, acting on behalf of author Andrew Mitrovica who also wanted no part of testifying.  Crown Attorney Donald MacIntosh led off arguing that the subpoenas against Dimant, Landy and Mitrovica should be quashed. "Mr. Lindsay advanced the proposition that the security certificate was signed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor-General because of pressure by the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith and others. There isn't a scintilla of evidence. This is a fishing expedition. Evidence of intent or knowledge of the minister is not relevant. It's not what Mr. Dimant said to a minister as to whether the certificate is reasonable." Last week, Mr. Justice Blais was so brutal to lead defence counsel Peter Lindsay that he, at one point, apologized. Today, his mood had changed and he repeatedly challenged the Crown lawyers and the lawyers seeking to quash the subpoenas. "Why can you not go to the question of the information that is provided to the ministers by various sources?" he asked Mr. MacIntosh. "Can we not question the evidence provided to the decision makers?" MacIntosh continued: "My friend supposes because various esteemed members of the Jewish community made representations." "And met with the ministers. I think there were meetings,": Mr. Justice Blais interrupted him. Again, Judge Blais interjected: "The Act is clear. Section 78.j says: 'The judge may receive into evidence anything he thinks may be relevant, even if it is not admissible in a court of law.' The ministers were provided with hearsay evidence. We don't know whether witnesses provided evidence to the ministers." On another occasion, Judge Blais interrupted Mr. MacIntosh who was mocking Mr. Lindsay's concern about actions of ministers of immigration in the 1980s. "People in glass houses," Mr. Justice Blais remarked, reminding him that the Crown and CSIS had brought in newspaper clippings that were 23 years old as part of their case against the German publisher. Mr. MacIntosh, becoming increasingly testy and strident, doggedly pushed the notion that B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress merely exercised their free speech rights to make representations to cabinet ministers, just as anybody else might do. Readers who wait six months to get even an acknowledgement of a letter to a cabinet minister might differ with Mr. MacIntosh. "B'nai Brith has no more special access to the minister than any other organization making urgent representations." He, then, went on to advance the amazing view that having to testify about their lobbying might intimidate groups like the CJC and B'nai Brith. "If individuals who made representations to ministers are subpoenaed, it will inhibit the expression of their views." In July, Mr. Justice Blais had dismissed Covert Entry as a "novel." He now seemed to be taking it and the allegations that CSIS knew the May, 1995 pipebomb was coming to Mr. Zundel very seriously. "We have some pieces that are missing. There is still opportunity for both sides to provide information on these matters, especially the strong allegation that CSIS knew of the pipebomb sent to Mr. Zundel" In the afternoon, both Judy Chan and Marvin Kurz argued that their clients shouldn't be subpoenaed. While the CJC posts pictures of prominent CJC officers grinning in meeting with cabinet ministers, Miss Chan invited the court to conclude that these meetings were nothing special. "His meeting with the minister doesn't prove Mr. Landy has any relevant evidence to give. This is a fishing expedition. It is an inappropriate use of a subpoena and it could be used to embarrass or harass" my clients. The ever voluble Mr. Kurz took the better part of an hour to urge Judge Blais to quash the subpoena as Mr. Dimant's testifying would only aid Mr. Zundel is establishing that there is "an international Jewish conspiracy" against him. "Frank Dimant has no evidence to offer which is relevant in this case, particularly as to whether Mr. Zundel is a security risk. Kurz set up the straw man of an international Jewish conspiracy, which Mr. Lindsay had never mentioned, and then proceeded to flail away at it. "The argument of an international Jewish conspiracy is an abuse of process," he said. "The defence's theory is that the government and Jewish groups worked together to get rid of Mr. Zundel. I didn't hear the word 'international'," Judge Blais interjected. "Whether Jewish groups intervened in the process could be relevant," he added. "There's a great deal of evidence that Mr. Dimant and B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress and Mr. [Bernie] Farber are very opposed to Mr. Zundel and his views. There's nothing secret there," Mr. Kurz persisted. Both organizations have intervened in Mr. Zundel's court cases. Mr. Zundel woulsd have you believe there's something improper about that. Mr. Lindsay would have you believe that Jews exercizing their Charter rights are doing something wrong." If the arguments of MacIntosh, Chan and Kurz limped, the submissions of Mr. Rogers, representing Andrew Mitrovica, were positively lame. "Mr. Mitrovica has been subpoenaed simply because he's the author of a book in pursuit of his craft as an investigative journalist. He's not an expert. He does not want to appear in any sense to be supporting Mr. Zundel. He has no material evidence. The book speaks for itself." An incredulous Judge Blais interrupted: "Even though he made strong allegations in the book? He made all those allegations about CSIS without material evidence? He made strong allegations that CSIS was involved in sending a pipebomb to Mr. Zundel." Mr. Rogers answered: "He is merely a conduit." He pronounced it "con-doo-it." "He is merely reporting what others told him>' Again Judge Blais interrupted: "The kind of allegations he made, how substantiated were they? Rogers responded: "he wrote a book for the world to see. He had no involvement in the pipebomb. He does not have any direct evidence." "So who does know?" Mr. Justice Blais demanded. "Mr. Mitrovica knows is information is corroborated. ... We're talking of allegations of a serious crime -- the issue of someone letting a pipebomb go to Mr. Zundel and did nothing. In the book, Mr. Mitrovica concludes: 'CSIS is riddled by waste, incompetence, nepotism and law breaking.' Mr. Mitrovica seems to be quoting CSIS employees in violation of Sec. 18 of the CSIS Act. Making public that kind of information is against the law. He cares more about selling books." "The book speaks for itself," M. Rogers repeated. Mr. Mitrovica's evidence is not relevant." "We don't know that. We haven't heard from Mr. Mitrovica," Judge Blais retorted. The hearing continues tomorrow. -- Paul Fromm       Now back to the Battlefront in – where? The whole world is a battlefront against those who hate free speech, who hate autarky, who hate independent thinkers, who love to enslave self-contained minds. Individuals who gain a self-identity by playing the victim are immature, child-like and forever crying foul because they are so devoid of basic moral and intellectual integrity that a constant re-assurance of self is needed. The self-reflective intelligence is quite lacking and so it is a groping from one particular to the next, from one perceived ‘victory’ to another, from one parasitic moment to another – sucking the life-blood out of those who stand firm in their concept of who they are and what they believe in is right and true and beautiful.