(Order 19, rule 2)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. N327 of 2001
NOTICE OF MOTION
The above named Respondent will at 9:30 am on the 28th day of February 2008 at Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney, NSW move the Court for Orders that:
1. The operation and effect of some or all of paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the FCA Order made by Moore J on 27 November 2007 be wholly suspended.
2. The operation and effect of some or all of Paragraph 3 of said Order be wholly suspended.
3. The Respondent be relieved from the compliance with the undertaking contained in Paragraph 6 of said Order.
4. The Consent Orders made on 27 November 2007 be set aside.
5. There be such further or other Order as the Court may consider appropriate.
02 January 2008
Dr Fredrick Töben
To: Jeremy Jones
Slater & Gordon
11/51 Druitt Street
Filed by Dr F Töben Tel: 08.83310808
PO Box 3300 Mob: 0417088217
Adelaide Norwood 5067 Email: email@example.com
(Order 14, rule 2)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. N327 of 2001
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDRICK TÖBEN
On 02 January 2008 I, Fredrick Töben, of Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, retired teacher, say on oath:
1. I am the Respondent in these proceedings.
2. That on 21 December 2007 I sent an email to Applicant’s solicitor – annexed hereto and marked “A” is a copy of the email and response.
3. It is, among other things, in the light of the difficulties mentioned within the email that the Notice of Motion becomes relevant to these proceedings.
Dear Mr Lewis
Further to the above, please be advised that it is aimed by 4.00pm, 21 December 2007, to complete the deletion of all material as required by Consent Order from the website of www.adelaideinstitute.org
Kindly advise thereafter if any items have been inadvertently missed.
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDRICK TÖBEN, dated February 2008
On 31 January 2008 I, Fredrick Töben, of Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, retired teacher, say on oath:
1. I am the Respondent and have filed a Notice of Motion that is listed for directions at the hearing set down for 28 February 2008.
2. I make reference to my Affidavit dated 2 January 2008 – and to any of the other Affidavits filed in this matter since January 2007.
3. Since I and a group of individuals in 1994 began this non-profitable enterprise, Adelaide Institute, I have always been ready to augment, correct and delete material and offer an apology, especially if any of it in tone is jarring, rude and crude. But if material is factually correct, then there is no reason for being apologetic because this would compromise my moral and intellectual integrity. This view-point I conveyed to barrister Mr Paul Charman. As a non-Jew I do not subscribe to the Jewish habit of reciting the annual Kol Nidre, an oath that relieves me of any future obligations when making oaths or apologies.
4. It is my God-given duty to pursue the truth of a matter and if someone claims that material posted on our website is hurtful, then a reasonable argument needs to be offered, together with substantial medical evidence, how and why the material is causing an individual hurt. Any normally framed legal compensation claim for some mental or physical hurt suffered requires documented proof that a hurt has been suffered. That this is not the case when an individual makes claims before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-HREOC is proof that HREOC is a political tool used by some to further a political agenda. In the current matter it is Australia’s organized Jewry that is using these proceedings to further the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah narrative with the aim of establishing it as a dogma, if not as a new religion for the 21st Century.
5. When on 26 November 2007 at around 7 pm I received per email the draft of the Consent Orders, my focus on the actual Apology - as discussed with my barrister - rested on C of the Branson J Orders of 27 September 2002. I agreed that an article, under Order C, requested to be removed was indeed somewhat rude and crude, but I had prepared myself to defend the Allegation that I was in breach of Order A, B and D, which the barrister had accepted. The next morning at the FCA Adelaide, before signing the Consent Orders, my barrister and I again canvassed the matter and I understood that a blanket general apology would settle the matter, and at a later stage in future proceedings the specific orders could be challenged and varied. Hence my initial hesitation, as indicated at Line 30 of the Transcript of Proceedings, when offering the Apology to His Honour, Justice Michael Moore, who then demanded I give an unqualified apology to the court. I refer to Annexure “A” as being a copy of the 27 November 2007 Transcript of proceedings.
6. On 21 December 2007 I completed the deletion of all the material complained of, except for that mentioned in 1. of the Consent Orders of 27 November 2007.
7. While deleting the material I realized that under 1. of the Consent Orders the Applicant was granted leave to rely on the Second Further Amendment Statement of Charge filed on 3 November 2007. Therein the material listed for deletion is a LINK on our Internet website. I consider the removal of links from Adelaide Institute’s website not part of the Consent Order, and hence I have not deleted the link and through the Notice of Motion now seek protection from the Court that this matter be clarified and not be enforced.
7.1 The request to remove the link from the Internet website is in breach of fundamental human rights that guarantee a free flow of information/ free expression. The link that has been requested to be deleted is to the WayBackMachine, an Internet web crawl engine that archives all globally-generated material, some 85 billion web pages archived from 1996 onwards in over 60 countries.
I refer to Annexure “B” as being a copy of two pages detailing some information about the WayBackMachine – http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
7.2 Material that Branson. J in her Order of 17 September 2002 requested be removed was removed from Adelaide Institute’s Internet website but still remains archived on the WayBackMachine.
I refer to Annexure “C” as being a copy of two pages of the WayBackMachine wherein is listed the Adelaide Institute material as stored in the archives of the WayBackMachine –
7.3 The deletion request further highlights the world/global political nature of these proceedings – and of Mr Jeremy Jones’ efforts, on behalf of the world’s Zionist organisations, to impose what has already been imposed in a number of European countries through specific legislation, and in Canada through its Human Rights Commission. It is specifically Jewish organisations in Canada, as in Australia and elsewhere, that have pursued individuals for refusing to believe in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah dogma and those who dare criticise racist Israel for its program of gradually exterminating the Palestinian people.
The matter before the Canadian Human Rights Organisation specifically focuses on a link placed on a website. I refer to Annexure “D” as being a copy of Adelaide Institute Newsletter Online No 366 2008 where is written up the matter of Mr Arthur Topham and his Radical Press who is subject of a Canadian Human Rights Commission enquiry as initiated by the well-known Zionist organisation of Canada - B’nai B’rith.
7.4 If it is recalled that Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-HREOC was established by former Federal Court of Australia Judge, Mr Marcus Einfeld, and of his subsequent well-known incessant proclamation of human rights and Holocaust propaganda both within the Federal Court of Australia environment and without in the wider Australian society, then it is self-evident that here we have a politically-motivated individual who, on behalf of his Jewish community, at every possible opportunity propagated to colleagues and media alike his views on the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah. Not for a moment would he entertain the idea that such propaganda is hurtful to all those who are the object of such propaganda – Germans and anyone who cherishes his German heritage. Their history has, in effect, been stolen by those who propagate the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah. The defamation is compounded when individuals are not given a Right-of-Reply to any of the allegations contained in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah propaganda that saturates our society. The Jewish Holocaust-Shoah lies are poisoning our society. French Revisionist, Catholic Vincent Reynouard’s comment on the claims made about the Jewish Holocaust Shoah is: “spitting in the face of Christ”.
7.5 If it is recalled that Australia’s organised Jewish community was behind the drafting of the amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act, then the political nature of any proceedings under such an act becomes apparent – and should be treated as such, and not be perverted into a hunt to criminalize dissident minds that refuse to believe in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah propaganda.
7.6 The fact that Federal Court of Australia judges, Justice Alan Goldberg and Justice Stephen Rothman, both have been heavily involved in propagating the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah gives rise for concern that any kind of justice can emerge from proceedings that directly impact on a contentious interpretation of an historical event. Hence, if the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah is an historical event, then like any other historical event it should be subjected to open enquiry and not be locked up legally and made the subject of proceedings that through the imposition of Court Orders criminalizes an individual who refuses to believe and refuses to remain silent and refuses passively to absorb the tsunami of information on the official version of the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah to which the world media subjects our society.
8. The matter of giving an apology for placing a link on an Internet website is an extension of offering an apology for placing alleged offensive material on a website. At the 19 December 2007 hearing His Honour, Michael Moore, stated that the Respondent’s belief/world view was not in question, but that the apology focused on specific material deemed to be offensive and published on the Respondent’s website was the issue.
8.1 Here we see how basic Common Law principles assert themselves against the Civil Law principles, the latter outright criminalizing thoughts, as evidenced in the recent trial of German solicitor/barrister, Sylvia Stolz.
8.2 I refer to Annexure “E” as being a copy of Adelaide Institute Newsletter Online No 367-A, B and C, 2008 wherein is written up the matter of Sylvia Stolz’s legal persecution for refusing to believe in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah without being able to subject that belief to a rational enquiry.
8.3 In recent developments there is now a Jewish-Australian human rights lawyer and Labor candidate at the 24 November 2007 Federal election, Mr George Newhouse, who stated publicly that Adelaide resident and former Guantanamo prisoner, Mr David Hicks, should be made to apologize for alleged comments he made about Jews. Among other things, Mr Newhouse commenting on the Hicks matter is quoted as saying that “His actions were violent and his philosophy offensive …”.
8.4 Here we have the bridging thought structure that attempts to bring British Common law in line with European Civil Law where thoughts are criminalized and where individual liberty, as guaranteed by British Common Law, is reduced to the vagary of a hurt feeling. Ordinarily such an action would be the subject of a defamation action but under the Racial Discrimination Act it has erroneously become a “racial” issue. Terms and concepts such as “anti-Semitism”, “race hatred”, “Holocaust denial”, etc. have never been clearly defined because they are subject to political interpretations.
8.5 I refer to Annexure “D” as being a copy of Adelaide Institute Newsletter Online No 366 2008 wherein is quoted from the Australian Jewish News of 7 January 2008 the matter of Mr George Newhouse and his comment on Mr David Hicks.
9. Bearing in mind the comments made by His Honour at the 19 December 2007 hearing as regards my beliefs/world view not being subject of the Consent Orders, I am still having considerable difficulties deciding what is permitted and what is not permitted to be published on Adelaide Institute’s Internet website. If my belief, which His Honour labelled ‘Holocaust denial’, is not in contention then surely I am able to state: “I would rather be a Holocaust denier than a Holocaust liar!” My whole belief system is rather inadequately defined in the deeply flawed Branson J Orders of 17 September 2002. I therefore request that His Honour assist me by deciding whether the enclosed Newsletters in Annexure “D” and “E” in any way contravene the Branson, J Orders of 17 September 2002.
10. In view of the fact that Jeremy Jones, from the outset of these proceedings - first before HREOC in 1996 and subsequently in the FCA, until to date - has never shown any compromise in this matter towards me, which is a basic breach of Natural Justice, giving someone a right of reply. The matter immediately went into legal litigation – and the legal persecution process began – following a well recognized pattern of persecution adopted by Jewish organisations world-wide where non-Jewish individuals do the legal persecution and deliver the pound of flesh.
10.1 Even now Jones claims that he is not anymore involved in the matter because the subject matter of my beliefs has been subsumed under a Court Order, which it is then my duty to follow. In other words, I am now the author of my own ‘punishment’.
11. The conceptual confusion flowing from Branson J’s Orders and from the Consent Orders is designed to neutralize my mind and “to stop it from functioning”. I do not wish to be in breach of any Court Orders but I resist such an act of mental rape, and submit for His Honour’s consideration as an example of my attempt to escape this act of mental rape the following newsletters wherein the essence of my belief system/world view is clearly articulated and vigorously canvassed by experts in the field of historical research: No 368 as Annexure “F”, No 369 as Annexure “G”, No 370 as Annexure “H”, No 371 as Annexure “I”, and DVD - The Holocaust and the Iran Conference - as Annexure "J".
12. This matter before the FCA is a Jewish conspiratorial matter designed to protect an historical lie, a gigantic hoax that defames any German and anyone who values his German heritage, and to deflect any crititicism away from the perpetrators of a real extermination program, that of the Jews exterminating the Palestinians.
From the following, below, it is clear that it is organized Jewry that is behind the push to enshrine in law and to criminalize anyone who refuses to believe in the orthodox version of the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah, which has almost become a religion. The Common Law principle of Natural Justice is thereby eliminated, and it is almost impossible to escape the process of criminalization.
I make reference to Newsletter No 376-D where Judge Glenz justifies Sylvia Stolz’s custodial sentence while awaiting appeal results on grounds that she has contacts overseas and there is a possibility of her fleeing Germany. Fredrick Töben of the Adelaide Institute is mentioned as one person who lives in a country where German law on Holocaust-Shoah prohibition does not exist.
Further, the 27 January 2008 Holocaust Memorial Day in Britain has given rise to the following news item:
The Holocaust must never be forgotten - PM , 22 January 2008
Gordon Brown has made an impassioned plea for the Holocaust never to be forgotten. Ahead of the Memorial Day on Sunday, Mr Brown met Holocaust survivor Zigi Shipper, 78, at Downing Street and signed the Holocaust Day 'Book of Commitment'. The book sits in the Houses of Parliament in the week up to the Memorial Day and serves as a reminder to future generations of the atrocities which occurred.
The PM, who said it was "a privilege" to meet Mr Shipper, wrote in the book: "As the philosopher George Santayana wisely said, 'those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it'.
"That is why we must remember the Holocaust - not just as a defining tragedy but as a warning and so we rededicate ourselves to doing all we can to never allowing this to happen again. "The best tribute we can pay to those who perished is to educate our children to take a stand against hatred, intolerance and persecution wherever and whenever it is found."
Mr Shipper, of Bushey, Herts, spent time in Auschwitz in 1944 and was liberated from a camp in Germany the following year. He settled in Britain after the war and now, as part of a programme run by the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET), Mr Shipper visits schools and talks about his experience to help educate people about the Holocaust. Mr Shipper told the Prime Minister he was "proud to be here and proud to be British". He said afterwards: "I feel that when I talk about the Holocaust, I owe it to the people that did not survive, because there is nobody to speak for them."
Also at the meeting was Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the HET, and the Trust's Chairman, Lord Janner, who said: "We are grateful to the Prime Minister, who when Chancellor, started a programme giving us funds to send youngsters to Auschwitz so they can learn about what happened and pass on the word when they come home." The Prime Minister continues his support to the Trust, which was established in 1988, with a yearly grant £1.5 million. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page14349.asp
That Revisionists are dismantling a multi-billion industry is a fact, which needs to be emphasised because such an act will cause pain to those in the industry. The justification for dismantling the Holocaust-Shoah industry rests on a basic moral and intellectual imperative – an historical lie distorts our understanding of significant historical events, thereby perverting our understanding of current events.
The immediate example that comes to mind is the Anglo-American-Zionist destruction and rape of Iraq in March 2003. Other significant examples of such perversions flowing directly from the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah belief can be seen in the extermination policy followed by Jews in Palestine. As well, there is the matter how Dissenters – those who refuse to believe in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah story – are criminalized in, for example, Austria, France, Germany, where Dissenters such as Wolfgang Fröhlich, Gerd Honsik , Robert Faurisson, Georges Theil, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel, and many others, are imprisoned for up to five years.
12.1 Adam Internet, Adelaide-based Internet service provider, has since 1 May 1996 hosted Adelaide Institute’s website – without complaint. The provider has received death threats for refusing to disconnect Adelaide Institute’s website, and management continues to host the website because it considers the material on Adelaide Institute’s website to be covered by the democratic principles of free expression. Were Adelaide Institute to dabble in pornography, the site would have been pulled a long time ago.
12.2 South Australia Police – has not complained and does not regard Adelaide Institute’s activities as being detrimental to the community.
12.3 Australian Federal Police – has not complained and does not regard Adelaide Institute’s activities to be a national community threat – had there been weapons and drug involvement, then criminal proceedings would have been initiated a long time ago.
12.4 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation-ASIO – has not complained and does not regard Adelaide Institute’s activities to be an Australian national security threat.
12.5 Australia’s education institutions – Töben opposed the introduction of ideological concepts such as ‘value-free’ and ‘non-judgmental’ because they signified intellectual fraud. These concepts, among others, were then coupled to the anti-discrimination industry’s attempt to neutralise thinking processes, thereby suppressing within individuals a healthy development of a normative value system. Truth, honour, justice – are concepts that have no home within the discrimination industry’s value system.
12.6 The Australian Print Media – initially the local, state and national print media outlets supported Töben's educational endeavours, but not the substantive issue surrounding the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah. In fact, the media hate incitement against Fredrick Töben and Adelaide Institute was not absolute and there were instances of fair reporting. The Murdoch press unashamedly used one or more of the following concepts to whip up hatred against Adelaide Institute or Fredrick Töben: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi, etc. A ban imposed on Töben to a right-of-reply exists to this day at The Australian and The Advertiser newspapers. The Internet, however, offers Töben Natural Justice by enabling him to respond to any such attacks by placing material on Adelaide Institute’s website. It would be an injustice were this avenue of a right-of-reply taken from Töben.
13. The legal system - The initiating complaint came from Australia’s organized Jewry, and then only after being prompted into action by the highly immoral witch-hunting organisation, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, in Los Angeles, USA, which has a ready line to the world media outlets. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry’s then president, Jeremy Jones, had the audacity to inform the HREOC and the FCA that the material “hurt” his feelings. That this man at the time of making the complaint in 1996 was then considered to be the Australian Jewish community’s foreign minister highlights the corrupt nature of this whole process. It has nothing to do with justice but all to do with politics. That the HREOC commissioner and the FCA judge accepted Jones’ word – without any medical confirmation of the quantum of his hurt – is indicative of the non Jews bending to Jewish pressure. Both Commissioner McEvoy and Justice Branson claim they were merely interpreting statute law as found in the Racial Discrimination Act!
14. Why is there one Goyim among nine Jews? The AJN needs Fredrick Töben – why?
15. The following is material from a website http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=109 that substantially deals with specifically Jewish crimes committed against non-Jews, something Adelaide Institute does not do. The Internet has become a weapon of mass instruction for enlightened individuals who refuse to bow to Jewish pressure, who refuse to adopt a Jewish world view.
Jewish Murderers Of The Russian Royal Family – http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=109
By Brother Nathanael Kapner - Copyright © 2008
All Articles May Be Reproduced Only With Authorship of Brother Nathanael Kapner & Link To Real Jew News - http://www.realjewnews.com/
JEWS MURDERED THE RUSSIAN ROYAL FAMILY.
This was the greatest travesty beside the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the history of mankind. The Russian Royal Family of Tzar Nicholas II were pious Orthodox Christians. They exemplified all that is precious in a family, namely, Christian piety and love for one’s neighbor.
But the Anti-Christ Jews murdered this preciousness! From then on the world has witnessed and felt the effects of the decline of the family - the staple of an ethical, Christian society. But Anti-Christian Jews, like Jacob Schiff, Chairman of Kuhn & Loeb Bank, who financed the Bolshevik Revolution, have wreaked their destruction on Christian civilization.
It was this Jew, Jacob Schiff, who brought Leon Trotsky (born “Lev Bronstein”) to New York in February 1916. Trotsky recruited Russian Jews from New York’s Russian Jewish immigrant population in the Lower East Side of Manhattan and trained them as revolutionaries.
On March 27 1917, Trotsky and his 300 well-trained Jewish communists from Manhattan’s Lower East Side, boarded the Norwegian steamer “Kristianiafjord” for a journey that brought them to St. Petersburg in Russia. Their purpose was to establish a Marxist government under the leadership of Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. Before departing, Jacob Schiff gave this group $20 million in gold.
THE ROYAL FAMILY FLEES & PURSUED BY JEWISH COMMUNISTS
With support from inside the Social Democratic party and many of the Jewish-run soviets, Lenin, joined by Trotsky from New York, gained the upper hand over the Kerensky government.
In August of 1917, the Russian Royal Family fled to Tobolsk in Siberia. They stayed at the Governors House until April 1918. They hoped to escape to England where King George V, a Romanov cousin, would hopefully grant them refuge. But he refused due to pressure from Jewish groups.
On April 22 1918, the Jew, Jacob Sverdlov, first President of the Soviet Union, sent his aide, the Jew, Yankel Yakovlev, to Tobolsk to persuade Tzar Nicholas II to agree to sanction the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. Tzar Nicholas refused for he considered the treaty an ‘eternal disgrace to Russia.’ He did though agree to return to Moscow as he was told that the Germans were willing to grant him asylum.
They got as far as Ekaterinburg in the Urals where the train was halted by the Regional Soviets dominated by four Jews, Goloshchekin, Safarov, Voikov and Syromolotov. These four communist Jews appointed the Jew, Jacob Yurovsky, son of a local Jewish ex-convict, as the head the local Cheka (Soviet Secret Police) in Ekaterinburg. Yurovsky was given the assignment to imprison, plan, and carry out, the assassination of the Russian Royal Family.
The Jew Yurovsky brought the Russian Royal Family to a former house of a wealthy Jewish merchant named Ipatiev, now made into a prison for the Tzar and his family. It should be noted that Ekaterinburg, named after named after St Catherine the Great, was renamed “Sverdlovsk” in 1924 in honor of Jacob Sverdlov who gave the final order to execute the Russian Royal Family.
On July 4 1918, the Jew Yurovsky dismissed all the Russian soldiers who were guarding the Tzar except for a Pavel Medvedev, a Cheka Jewish spy. Yurovsky replaced the loyal-to-the-Tzar Russian soldiers with Jewish communist assassins from Hungary. That they were Jewish communists from Hungary, their scribbling on the walls indicated.
On July 15 1918, two representatives from the Soviet Extraordinary Commission, one of them being the Jew, Philip Golochtchekine, came to the Ipatiev house with an order from the Jew Jacob Yurovsky to execute the Russian Royal Family.
On July 17 1918, about midnight, the Jew Yurovsky brought Tzar & Tzarina Nicholas and Alexandra, and their four daughters, the maid, the doctor, the cook, and the waiter to the basement. The Tzar carried the heir Alexei in his arms. They were told that they were to pose for a group picture. The Jewish assassins, Medvedev, Nikulin, Yermakov, Vaganov, were waiting. Medvedev claimed that he was outside at the time of the execution as his guilty conscience shamed his tongue into lying.
The Jew Yurovsky then pulled out his revolver and pointed it directly at the Tsar’s head and fired. Tzar Nicholas II died instantly. Next, he shot Tzarina Alexandra as she made the sign of the Cross. Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia, were shot next. Demidova, the maid, survived the first volley, so the Jewish Cheka assassins decided to bayonet her 30 times.
As the room became silent there was a low groan. Alexei was still in the arms of the Tsar and alive. The Jew Yurovsky stepped up and fired two shots into the boy’s ear. All the members of the Tsar’s family were lying on the floor with many wounds in their bodies. The blood was running in streams.
THE JEWISH COVER UP
As Robert Wilton, a correspondent in Moscow of the Times of London from 1902 through 1919, wrote in his book, The Last Days Of The Romanovs, the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association in Britain published an interview with Starynkevich, a Jewish lawyer, who was then Minister of Justice in the Urals region. Starynkevich had appointed another Jew, Sergeiev, to carry out an investigation of the murders.
The Jew lawyer, Starynkevich lied saying that his team of investigators (all Jews) had found no trace of any Jewish involvement in the killings. This was a brazen falsehood and no support was proffered to support his claims. His lie was evidently intended to give Jewish organizations abroad a means of confusing and obscuring the whole issue.
But as Jesus Christ Himself said: “There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed,” the truth about this Jewish crime of all crimes is now being shouted from the rooftops. The Jews, every single one of them, are culpable of “collective guilt.” They all better repent before the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ falls upon their wicked heads!
For More See: “Jewish Murderers Of The Russian Revolution” - http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=62
Sources: Judical Inc Web Site @ http://judicial-inc.biz/Romanoffs.htm; A Lifelong Passion - Nicholas And Alexandra Their Own Story, Doubleday Publishing; The Last Days of the Romanovs, Robert Wilton.
Sworn by Deponent
on the 31st day of January 2008
Top | Home
©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute