ISSN 1440-9828
No 228


This Is Germany Calling With A Legal Ambush!

Adelaide Institute 18 months ahead of the latest news!


Has Bush A Flea In His Ear? - from a German-American supporter

First published in Newsletter No 188, April 2003


Everyone knows what a bug is: A device for secret service agents to eavesdrop on unsuspecting people. There is an old German saying: To put a flea in someone's ear — einen Floh ins Ohr setzen; i.e. to feed someone with strange thoughts.


By the same token, a FLEA is a device for people who need to be told what to say. It works like a hearing aid, but in place of a microphone it has a tiny wireless receiver. Such gadgets are nothing unusual because that's what modern technology is all about. But who needs such a device?


Most ordinary people receive their messages loud and clear through radio or TV, the smart through the Internet, and it works well. Television professionals, like news readers, etc. read their messages/instructions from a screen near the camera they are looking into. Easy! Even President Ronald Reagan did that when he gave his speeches to the nation from his Oval Office. But such system is unacceptable for distinguished V.I.Ps who have to stand and speak in front of an awed Congress, United Nations diplomats, or, worse of all, press reporters. Everyone knows that.


But that is exactly the problem presently confronting President George W (W stands for Warmonger) Bush. President Dubya has become the butt of all jokes about his intelligence or rather the lack of it. It is said he is run by his Vice and Zionist secretaries. Worse still, Canadians have called him a 'moron', and their press exploits that remark to the hilt. Even an Australian MP said Bush is a 'clown (we do not subscribe to derogatory hype).


Just think, how can a super rich fellow of the Skulls and Bones, elevated to the highest office in the world, next to God — who is watched and listened to daily by hundreds of millions of people — how can he afford to utter the wrong word, a wrong sentence? That would be a disaster, a bloody disaster in its true sense. 


Bush rarely reads his speeches (which refutes rumours he can't read?) Nowadays he speaks freely, and yet how does he prepare and control his words as no other man? The fate of our whole humanity depends on the utterances of President Bush, but not on his intelligence, i.e. if somebody else thinks for him.


Well, understood, problem solved? Of course, if somebody else thinks for him, then there is only a FLEA necessary to prompt George W's speeches, without anyone noticing it. Right? Not quite. We wonder why President Bush speaks one sentence at a time, then always makes a long pause? Of course he listens to his FLEA to give him the next words he has to say in public. 


What seems to be a peculiar habit of Bush junior is a simple human problem: He can't listen while he talks! Watch now our great President of the Jewnited States of America at his next public address.


It isn't amazing: Does a FLEA explain his genius? It's not a miracle that Bush became President because his Jewish assistants keep him on top, so long as he listens to the flea in his ear.


What values will flow from a Middle East War? Lies, lies, lies, and more lies. We are asked to believe that an Arab, Moslem terrorist group attacked the USA on 11 September 2001, one of the greatest conspiracies in recent times. The current US government asks us to believe in this conspiracy. We say, no Mr Bush, you are part of a far larger conspiracy that actually caused the tragedy. Please read Thierry Meyssan's book that claims no plane crashed into the Pentagon.


Mr Bush, go ahead, start the horrible war because NUREMBERG is waiting for you and your accomplices!


And further: Did you know that before the Civil War in Texas, within a number of communities there was a dividing line: east-west. The east supported slavery while the west didn't. Why? The Germans who settled in Texas before the Civil War did not support slavery. Why not? Because Germans would not be satisfied with the quality of slave labour! Germany's legendary drive for meticulousness, for quality, perfection, and general uprightness did not fit into the slave-mentality that pervaded the USA.

The question to ask is: Who was engaged in the slave trade? In order to eliminate German values as a world civilising force, the Holocaust industrial complex propagates the lies that allegedly strip Germans of such civilising influences. Remember though the Jews who migrated to Palestine before the war. They were imbued with German values, such as uprightness, cleanliness, hard work, sense of duty, honesty and integrity, honour. etc. 








This is Germany Calling!


Dr Fredrick Töben’s Matter before presiding Judge SAdam, Regional Court, Mannheim.


Set down for a hearing on 8, 9 and 11 November 2004.



The Catch-22 Trial – truth is no defence

If you defend yourself, you compound your guilt; if you remain silent, you forego your defence.


1. As late as October 2003 Dr Fredrick Töben had a letter from the German authorities wherein it is stated that there is nothing about him on file in Germany, and that he is free to travel within Germany. On 13 April Töben learned at Helsinki Airport that German authorities had on 9 January 2004 imposed a ban on his traveling to Germany and to any EU country.  So, unbeknown to Töben, since 9 January 2004 he has been banned from entering any European Union country because Germany has declared him an undesirable person – on account of the 9 November 1999 Mannheim judgment. Had he been detained by any EU country, for example on 12 April 2004 at Amsterdam, then that would have led to Töben’s deportation, a reason for other countries to hop on the bandwagon and impose a ban on Töben. The New Zealand authorities did this to historian David Irving on account of his framed expulsion from Canada. That so-called democratic countries are criminalizing Revisionists in secret trials is graphically depicted in Ernst Zündel’s almost two year solitary imprisonment in a Toronto detention centre.


2. On 12 December 2000 a Karlsruhe appeal court granted an appeal and ordered that the November 1999 court case be re-heard at Mannheim. Some time during April-May Judge Adam ordered Michael Rosenthal act as Töben’s defence counsel because ZRosenthal had been involved in the appeal. Rosenthal refused because he stated in writing that were he to defend Töben, then he, Rosenthal, would also make himself liable because court proceedings in Germany are not privileged, and that at the first stage of the trial where matters of facts are canvassed, it is not possible to mount an effective defence because that would also criminalize the defence counsel. Rosenthal stated to Judge S Adam that he would adopt the strategy used by defence counsel Ludwig Bock during the November 1999 trial and offer no defence. Bock at that time in another case had been charged with defending Günter Deckert ‘too vigorously’, thereby bringing Bock’s mindset too close to Revisionist thinking – and that is a criminal matter.


3. The fact that Bock did not offer a defence gave rise to the appeal court granting Töben a re-hearing; and the prosecutor was granted the appeal so that he could argue that German law applies to Internet sites anywhere in the world. The Appeal Court had found that the Mannheim Regional Court had erred in not applying German law to the Internet. This ruling has massive world-wide implications on Internet traffic, and the issue will be aired again during 8, 9 and 11 November 2004.


4. Töben asked Judge Adam to appoint well-known defence counsel Horst Mahler as Töben’s counsel because Mahler is defending himself against the same allegations in a Berlin court – to date quite successfully. Soon after Töben’s request had been submitted, a court in Berlin stripped Mahler of his legal practice certificate thereby prohibiting him from acting as a defence counsel for another person. Judge Adam thus rejected Töben’s request to have Mahler as his defence counsel of choice.


5. On 27 May 2004, Judge Adam issued the Summons and activated the office of the German Public Prosecutor that activated the Australian office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which in turn had the Australian Federal Police (AFP) serve the Summons on Töben.


6. When the AFP officer handed Töben the Summons, he asked Töben: “Will you be attending this court hearing?” Töben responded in writing without specifically answering the question.


7. It must be stated that if Töben answers ‘Yes’, then he will be breaking the law that since 9 January 2004 prohibits Töben from traveling to Germany. If Töben answers ‘No’, then he foregoes a defence, a defence that will be conducted not by Töben’s counsel of choice. Add to that the fact that an effective defence merely compounds Töben’s guilt, the need to have someone like fearless Horst Mahler as defence counsel is obvious.

8. What happened to Töben in the Federal Court of Australia case is instructive here. A judge granted the Jewish Zionist’s application for a ‘summary judgment’ on account of Töben not finding a defence counsel to assist in mounting an effective defence. On 19 May 2003, however, Töben had a defence counsel who ran the appeal – unsuccessfully – on similar grounds to that mentioned by Michael Rosenthal, i.e. it is not possible to mount an effective defence at the first stage of the legal process where matters of fact are canvassed because truth is no defence. At the appeal stage it is a matter of law – a safe haven for counsels.





Another Hitler bonanza with the usual suspect opinions of re-educated Germans trotted out. Judge Adam, Mannheim Court, are you listening?


How Germans made Hitler seem decent

By Allan Hall In Berlin

International Express, October 5, 2004



As the shadow of the swastika darkens Germany again, its inventor has re-emerged as an unlikely movie star in the most controversial film for many years. Adolf Hitler is back where he was at the height of his powers — on the front pages of magazines and newspapers, and flickering on the silver screen.


Fifty-nine years and four months after he shot himself in his bunker in Berlin, a movie called The Downfall is exerting a magnetic pull on modern-day Germans. The story of the end of his proclaimed thousand-year Reich and his suicide comes at a time the far Right is making advances in important state elections. Neo-Nazis sit alongside the democrats they despise, while peddling the same old bill of goods as the originals did — jobs for Germans, foreigners out, Deutschland Über Alles.


The appeal of this movie’s Hitler is altogether something different. Germans are only now beginning to come to terms with what was done in their name at such places as Treblinka, Auschwitz and Babi Yar.


It has been a remarkable year. Their leader Gerhard Schröder stood on the Normandy beaches in June at the 60th D-Day landing anniversary and thanked the Allies [All-lies! - FT] for freeing the nation from Hitler. In July, Germany honoured Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, who tried and failed to blow up the Führer at his Eastern Front HQ in July 1944.


And on August 1, Schröder traveled to Poland to beg forgiveness for the terrible crimes Germany committed crushing the Warsaw Uprising, in which 200,000 Poles died and the capital was reduced to dust. But throughout it all Hitler remained a one-dimensional figure who was accessible only through the prism of crusty archives and grainy images. Where The Downfall strays into dangerous waters is its “humanizing” of him.


We see Hitler the man, decent and capable of great charm towards his secretaries and the children of his propaganda minister Josef Goebbels as they sit on his knees. One scene shows a spittle-dribbling kiss between him and his new bride, Eva Braun. As the debate about giving humanity to mankind’s greatest tormentor rages, The Downfall continues to draw in paying customers.

It may be a chilling reminder of the darkest period of their country’s history but Germans are flocking to see it in record numbers. It leapt to the top of the German box-office chart with almost half a million tickets sold in its opening weekend.


The film is told from the point of view of Traudl Junge, one of Hitler’s secretaries in the Berlin bunker, a woman who went to her grave in 2002 with the acknowledgement that she, like millions of other Germans, could have taken a different path during the Nazi years but chose not to. She was one of the willing enablers who became the pit-props of terror.


It’s director, Oliver Hirschbiegel, believes the depiction of Hitler as a lonely man deserted by his once-loyal cronies days before taking his own life will help cinema-goers understand a difficult period of history which “needs to be confronted as much as the more publicized horrors if Germany is truly to move out of the shadow of the Third Reich”.


In an effort to exorcise the demons of the past, it was feared The Downfall would be Hitler Lite, an attempt to paint him in more sympathetic shades. There is also plenty of self-pity ammunition for those Germans who now class themselves as victims of the war they started.


Not one Russian soldier storming Berlin is seen dying. Not one Jew out of six million is mentioned, let alone killed. Germans are mutilated, blown to smithereens, burned and die in huge numbers on the operating tables of overworked doctors.


There are also enough suicides amid his demented cult-of-death followers to keep Al Qaeda in volunteers for years. Hitler’s war consumed 50 million souls but only German soldiers and civilians die in this version of it. The “epic” aspect of this film is that it came to be made at all in a country where the swastika is banned and where it is a crime to praise Nazism. Critics are unanimous in their praise of Bruno Ganz as Hitler — by turns gentle, rational, kind to his dog Blondi and then convulsed by such carpet-chewing rages that he seems about to explode from the effort.


When it comes to dishing out the movie prizes next year he will surely be at the front of the queue. The film has already drawn many chin-stroking essays from the chattering classes, about the rights and wrongs of diving back into a past that is not yet dead.

Last week it was the turn of the generations who supported him and who have to live with his legacy to pass judgment on him. In a cinema at Potsdammer Platz in Berlin, scarcely 1,000 yards from the bunker where Hitler ended it all with a bullet in his mouth on April 30, 1945, 350 people watched the movie’s premiere in utter silence as the madness of those last days was played out before them.


Marie Louise Hellblau, 14, was one of dozens of Berlin school children shipped there by her school for a lesson in history. “It was a bit repulsive, especially the suicide bits,” she said. “it wasn’t great what Hitler did. He was a monster and I think it’s important to see that. We don’t do much about him in school to be honest, so I was glad I saw it. He didn’t make me feel sorry for him.”


Children eating popcorn remained impressively silent through the long film. While there are brief moments of classical music played over some scenes, it is mostly accompanied only by the crump of exploding Russian shells.


“My dad never talked about the war and my uncle died in it,” said Heiko Litz, 41, an accountant. “Sure, we know Hitler was a bastard and he killed all the Jews, but as adults we also know he cannot have just been a one-sided monster to make a country of 80 million people follow him. There was charm and there was charisma, too. I think in the film Ganz was magnificent. The way that his arm shakes uncontrollably from Parkinson’s, the way he dribbles when he is in a rage. He was human but a mad and bad one. We Germans need to be confronted with our past.” [Re-education has done an almost perfect job! – FT]


Suzy Breit, 84, who left Germanu in 1939 for Australia, was in her native Berlin to catch the premiere. She said: “I don’t think it made him too human. I think it showed him up for what he was and what he inflicted on the German people and mankind. Unfortunately a film about the last 12 days in Berlin can only show what he inflicted on Germans and they had been dishing it out for years around the world. I suppose a point of the movie is that we Germans were, after a certain point, victims, too.”


Karl-Heinz Hügel, 78, whose family were arrested by the Gestapo in the war, said: “I found it all a bit antiseptic. What am I supposed to make of a Hitler who pats children on the cheek and is solicitous to his secretaries — feel sorry for the guy? I don’t know what to make of it to be honest. I think it is a disservice to history even though it was well acted and well made.”


Klaus Neubauer, 78, looked at the ground and shook his head after seeing the film. He had been a 19-year-old stenographer in Berlin when the city fell. The son of communists, he had family members who were killed by the Nazi regime. “I needed to see how it would be portrayed,” he said. “There are so many questions I’ve had all these years. The movie will stay with me for a long time. I think it’s important for us, for Germans.”


Not everyone agrees. A 63-year-old man who would identify himself only as Meier said: “It is a small look nat his life and I won’t accept the line on the screen at the end that six million Jews were killed by Germans. It simply isn’t true.” [There we have it, the comment that makes Revisionists so dangerous. Such a comment is naturally spoken anonymously because prison awaits anyone who doubts the ‘Holocaust’.  And then there are intelligent individuals who claim Germans living in Germany are living in a free and democratic country, a country that to this day remains an occupied country! - FT]


The radical Right aside, there is also a sense abroad that the sheer enormity of the Second World War, and the enormous crimes committed during it by the Nazis, are deserving of a rather special place in history, one that warrants a special reverence away from slick scriptwriters and clever special-effects artists.


Doris Encke, whose grandparents died in a concentration camp, told Radio Free Europe: “It is too soon for Hitler and the Nazis to be seen as some sort of historical figures we can examine as if they had had nothing to do with our own lives. We still live with the consequences of his crimes.”


In an open letter, a Bild newspaper columnist questioned the premise of humanizing Hitler by asking: “Was Hitler a human being?” [What a stupid question! – FT]


The director says he was. It’s that fact, he said, that should most disturb Germans — that he did not come from Mars but from a humble household above a pub in Braunau-am-Inn and sought, with some success, to turn the world into flames and ashes.

The film cost nearly 10m to make, the biggest budget since Das Boot painted a sympathetic portrait of a German U-boat crew, but there is a feeling that if one comes away from the cinema with anything at all it is a sense, ultimately, of Hitler being as much a stranger top mankind as he always was. “Showing him in intimate situations does not make us understand him better,” said Jens Jessen of intellectual weekly magazine Die Zeit. “He remains monstrous and incomprehensible.”

[Such a comment is certainly not intellectual but rather stupid because it reveals moral and intellectual bankruptcy and cowardice. – FT]




This is Germany calling with a legal ambush!

Töben invites comment on his

German legal situation


Mel Fowler: 12 October 2004

Truth is no defence: A Fallacy

"German" law and the "German" legal system, borrowing from Talmudic law, has arrogantly imposed a logical fallacy upon itself as an expedient way of suffocating those persons unfortunate enough to come before it as political defendants.  Such "law" is logically sterile and, therefore, illegal in a primary sense.  Eventually, it will die a disgraceful death.  In the meantime, I would characterize your position as a defendant as follows:


If the conceptual structures to which the German Court must conform prevents it from recognizing your reasonable and necessary defenses, then by force of logic, it also fails to recognize you as the defendant in the action in which you are the named defendant.


A "defendant" logically presupposes "defenses."  No defenses, no defendant.  If the Court chooses to bind itself within a logical contradiction, it is not your responsibility to give the Court aid and comfort by sacrificing yourself to this logical contradiction. 



Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2004 Adelaide Institute