Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

Do you care to know about how the people you have trusted all your lives have lied to you?

If anything were to ever convince you of the terrible Jewish lies about World War II, this would be that document. You can’t possibly read this compilation of sources by hundreds of serious minded examiners and still believe the lies that mainstream accounts have forced upon you as “the truth” of World War II.

Many thanks to my friend “pdk” in France.
Please read as much as your mind can tolerate. You will never find as many courageous truth tellers represented in one place.
Best wishes,
John Kaminski

Report on week two of  Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham    by  Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the news concerning this important trial further afield.

To date only the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, and CBC Prince George have given coverage to the story so it’s now firmly established that Canada’s major news networks (all of which are either controlled or heavily influenced by the foreign Zionist lobby) have no intention of informing the general public on this matter.

As I previously stated in the first report it’s up to the alternative news media to do its best to cover this important historic event in Canadian jurisprudence and bring it to the attention of internet readers around the world.

The original time period allotted for the trial indicated that it would conclude by Friday, November 6th but such is not the case. It will now carry on into week three and likely conclude on Tuesday, November 10th one day prior to Canada’s federal holiday known as Remembrance Day.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

To Alternative Media Sources
Report on week two of
Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham

by
Arthur Topham

The second week of Canada’s Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial R v Roy Arthur Topham got underway Monday morning, November 2nd, 2015.

Witness #1 former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team

During the fourth day of the first week of testimony (October 29, 2015) Defence attorney Barclay Johnson had cross examined former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the lead investigator involved in the current Sec. 319(2) charge, arrest and incarceration of Mr. Topham back in May of 2012. Throughout his questioning of Wilson it was clearly shown that the former detective was not an “expert” on what constituted “hate” and that Wilson was solely relying upon only one definition of “hatred” which appeared in the Keegstra case from back in the 1980’s. It was also evident from the former Hate Crime Unit investigator’s statements that after the second complainant had filed his complaint to the BC Hate Crime Team back in May of 2011 Wilson traveled over to Victoria, B.C. to interview the complainant who, during the course of the taped conversation, told Wilson that he’d also been involved in laying an earlier complaint against Topham back in 2007 as a representative of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. That earlier Sec. 13(1) complaint on the part of B’nai Brith Canada, fortunately for Topham, was stayed in 2010 pending the outcome of a Constitutional challenge to the Canadian Human Rights Act (where the legislation existed); one that ultimately resulted in the repeal of Sec. 13(1) in June of 2012.

In the course of their interview the complainant told Wilson that his organization, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, didn’t think they had any evidence strong enough to gain a conviction under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada until Topham published his “book” Israel Must Perish! on his website May 28th, 2011. The complainant, upon reading what was in actuality a satire that Topham had written of the actual book Germany Must Perish! concluded that he now had sufficient evidence to prove to a court of law that Topham was proposing the total annihilation of the Jewish population and would therefore qualify as a candidate for a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team.

Under cross examination Defence attorney Johnson suggested to Wilson that it wasn’t until the complainant had told him about the “book” that he made his decision to charge Topham.

Topham’s attorney also brought forth evidence clearly showing Wilson to have abused his police powers during the course of his investigation when he wrote a personal letter to Topham’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) Netfirms.ca back on November 21, 2012 informing them that Topham had been charged on November 5, 2012 with a Sec. 319(2) CCC offence of “Wilfully Promoting Hatred”. Defence pointed out to the court that Wilson had taken it upon himself to go to Netfirms.ca, read through their policy and then suggested to the company that Topham’s Sec. 319(2) criminal charge “may in fact contravene” said policy under section 4(b)(i). The result of Wilson’s letter to Netfirms.ca was that the ISP wrote to Topham the same day issuing what was basically an ultimatum stating, “We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.

Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.” It was signed by “Zach P Corporate Support”.

Given such short notice and not having the technical expertise to shift his website to a new (and more secure) server in the USA Topham had to rely upon an associate of his who also wasn’t fully proficient in downloading and uploading websites. The end result was that all the content on Topham’s website prior to November 21, 2012 ended up infected with computer code script that required hundreds of hours of labour to correct and to this day still hasn’t been fully repaired.

Defence also pointed out to the court that when Wilson wrote to Netfirms.ca on November 21, 2012 there had already been one attempt on the part of Crown to have Topham’s bail conditions changed so that he wouldn’t be able to carry on publishing until after the trial (should he be found not guilty). That attempt had failed and Crown was attempting a second time to change his conditions and a hearing on Crown’s application had already been set for January 2, 2013 but Wilson disregarded the court and proceeded on his own to try and remove RadicalPress.com before that date. Because of these independent actions on the part of former Det. Wilson, Defence suggested to the court that Wilson had acted in an extra-judicial manner and in doing so had attempted to circumvent whatever decision the court may have come to regarding Topham’s bail conditions (Crown’s application was unsuccessful). In other words Wilson had acted as judge and jury and concluded, prior to Crown’s application being heard, that Topham was guilty of the crime before having been tried. In other words, according to Defence counsel Johnson, Wilson’s testimony could not be taken seriously and ought to be disregarded by the jury.

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

The first week’s proceedings concluded Friday, October 30th, 2015 with Crown’s Expert Witness, Mr. Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, completing his testimony. Week two commenced with Defence attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross examination of Mr. Rudner testimony.

Len Rudner copy

As noted in the first report the focus of Crown’s evidence was contained in four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books posted on RadicalPress.com:

1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann
2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)
3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
4. The Biological Jew by Eustice Mullins
5. The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Binder #2 was the complete text (580 pages) of Douglas Reed’s historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion. Binders #3 and #4 were basically screen shots of all of Topham’s monthly postings on his website which Wilson had “captured” during the course of the Hate Crime Team’s investigation once the initial complaint was laid against Topham and his website on April 28th, 2011. As well, a number of Topham’s personal writings contained in the sidebar on the home page under the heading Arthur’s Court were also included.

Over the course of Len Rudner’s testimony Crown’s Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Johnston led Rudner through all of the above online books and portions of the articles, most of which contained Topham’s “Editor’s Note” prefaces. It was mainly these prefaces to other writer’s work that Crown zeroed in on as they apparently were having great difficulty in finding anything in Topham’s own personal articles on the site that they felt would meet the stringent standards that the law required in order to prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Topham was “wilfully” promoting hatred toward “people of Jewish ethnicity or religion”.

Fortunately, for the defence, Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner provided the court with some extremely revealing evidence while under cross examination which, ultimately, led to some damning conclusions.

Given that Rudner had told the court that during the period of his tenure as a Director for the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), which spanned the years in which Mr. Topham had been harassed and dragged through the whole of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Sec. 13(1) complaint process from 2007 until 2012, Defence counsel Johnson began questioning Rudner on statements he’d made under oath regarding his personal involvement in the laying of these Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” charges against Canadian citizens. What Rudner told the court, was most revealing and in some instances totally unexpected. As it turned out, in his capacity as a director of this foreign Israeli lobbyist organization, Rudner stated that as far back as 2007 he had been personally involved in an attempt on the part of the CJC to file a Sec. 319(2) “hate” complaint against Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com with the British Columbia Hate Crimes Team (BCHCT). This was the very same RCMP unit that on May 16th, 2012 arrested Topham and charged him under the same Sec. 319(2) criminal code section. Rudner’s statements were corroborated by the evident from Crown’s disclosure which contained the following document shown below.

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

While the document itself hadn’t indicated who, in particular, was responsible for filing the complaint, Rudner having sworn that he was personally involved in drafting a number of such complaints, admitted to having signed off on that one as well.

During the course of his testimony before the court Rudner also admitted to having had contact with Topham’s former Internet Service Provider (ISP) MagNet.com (now defunct) back as far as 2005 wherein he had complained to said company that Topham was publishing “anti-Semitic” materials on his website RadicalPress.com. He admitted under oath that at the time he complained to the ISP he realized that it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that Topham’s site would be removed from the Internet but that it would at least be an “inconvenience” for Topham! What Rudner and the court, including Defence attorney Barclay Johnson, didn’t realize was that the complaint by the CJC to Topham’s then ISP resulted in Topham losing all of the contents of his website, including a long and lively forum, that dated back to and included the period from 1999 to 2005 and constituted a valuable historic record of a section of history that has since dominated much of the narrative concerning the nascent period of the 21st Century and its reaction to the defining event now known as 911. At the time of the loss Topham had a strong suspicion that the person or persons responsible for filing the complaint to his ISP were most likely connected to either the Canadian Jewish Congress or B’nai Brith Canada (both of whom are admitted lobbyists for the foreign state of Israel), but his then server refused to divulge who had registered the complaint and had only given Topham 48 hours to find a new server. Now the truth regarding that premeditated event finally came to light ten years after the fact.

Given Rudner’s direct testimony that he had personally been involved in two previous attempts to have Topham’s website taken down, Defence attorney Barclay Johnson then questioned Rudner regarding the credentials used in determining his suitability to appear as an “Expert Witness” on behalf of the Crown. Johnson pointed out to the court that in order to qualify for such an esteemed position within the Canadian court system one had to be seen as impartial and unbiased and neutral in order for their “Expert” testimony to be considered credible. He then punctuated this scathing indictment of Rudner’s disingenuousness and confession of complicity by stating that Rudner had, in fact, “a horse in the race” all along and that his admission of these facts could only serve to discredit the worth of all of his testimony in the case before the court.

When Rudner attempted to justify his clandestine attempts to take down Topham’s website Johnson’s response was to suggest that it was nothing but “pure sophistry”.

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born writer, musician, and political commentator who has written extensively about global politics, and specifically the geopolitical role of the State of Israel. Atzmon is critical of the Israeli government and its approach to other countries in the Middle East. He moved to England in 1994 and became a British citizen in 2002.

Mr. Atzmon had agreed to take the stand on behalf of Arthur Topham and testify as to why he felt that the charge of “hatred toward the Jews” was inappropriate and his decision to do so was based upon his strongly held conviction that the vast majority of criticism being directed toward the Jews was in fact political in nature rather than personal or aimed specifically at Jews based upon either their religion or their ethnicity.

While the Crown had made a big display before the court of the fact that their Expert Witness Len Rudner was being paid $195.00 an hour to appear to testify when Mr. Atzmon appeared on the morning of November 3, 2015 Defence Barclay Johnson pointed out to the jury that Atzmon had volunteered his expertise without pay and that only his airfare and hotel accommodations and food were being covered by Topham’s defence fund.

After much to do about having his status as an Expert Witness accepted by Justice Bruce Butler when Gilad Atzmon stepped up to the podium and began to speak it immediately became apparent to the court that here was an Expert Witness to be reckoned with. Being an internationally recognized lecturer and in possession of the academic credentials to back up his philosophical approach to the issues being discussed in the courtroom, Mr. Atzmon’s quickly took control of the narrative and over the remainder of his testimony spoke with an unabashed air of certainty and conviction. Unlike Rudner whose quiet, monotone presentation lacked any overt sense of passion in what he was saying, Gilad’s outspoken oratory coupled with his obvious depth of knowledge concerning what he talked about left little doubt in the minds of anyone in the courtroom that here was a man of scholarly quality who unquestionably knew his subject.

Defence counsel Barclay Johnson then led Atzmon through the various online publications that were the subject of Crown’s evidence and Atzmon framed each book and quotation cited within his own analysis of the overall question concerning the Jewish Question and what Atzmon referred to as “Jewish Identity” politics. He went on to explain by means of visual aids (a graphic of a triangle with the three points headed by “Religion”, “Ethnicity” and “Identity or Jewish-ness”), all of which formed the basis of his thesis as contained in his internationally renowned book, The Wandering Who? which has been a best seller since it first came out in 2011.

Of particular note were Atzmon’s comments on the controversial satire which Topham had written in response to his reading of the actual book titled Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann which Topham then satirically titled  Israel Must Perish! This was the already noted article on Topham’s website that the complainant in the case told former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team was sufficient evidence that Topham was promoting the total genocide of the whole of the Jewish population. When Gilad Atzmon addressed the issue he was adamant in his appraisal of the satire stating that it was an exceptionally important contribution to the overall discussion of Jewish identity in that it basically represented a mirror image of what Kaufmann’s book had said and that this mirror was now being held up before the Jewish people and in particular the Zionist state of Israel as a reminder for them to reflect upon their own actions and behaviour in todays political setting. He made reference to the plight of the Palestinians in his comments but Crown was quick to object (and Justice Butler was also quick to agree with Crown) that Atzmon wasn’t an expert on the Palestinian issue and therefore his testimony in that regard should be disregarded.

As Atzmon stated in his book, “As far as self-perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

1. Those who follow Judaism.
2. Those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.
3. Those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson commenced her cross examination of Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4th and it resumed the next morning of November 5th. It was basically on the second day of cross examination that the Prosecutor began her laborious efforts to try and get Atzmon to agree to the Crown’s position with respect to the term “Hatred” and also to many of the quotations cited throughout the trial that Crown felt showed evidence of Topham’s wilful promotion of hatred toward the Jews in general. Suffice it to say that every attempt at twisting Gilad’s words to conform to Crown’s preconceived mould of what “hatred” meant was met with not only dismissal but further testimony on Atzmon’s part as to what he actually was saying. This process continued on throughout his cross examination and it would not be unfair to say that the following exchange was typical of Crown’s approach and Gilad’s reaction:

Crown: Mr. Atzmon, I’m sure that you would agree that ….

Gilad Atzmon: No.

The jury and members of the public sitting in the gallery witnessed this scenario occurring over and over and the end result was that Crown was unable to refute any of Atzmon’s testimony nor discredit his presentation in any way.

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

Friday, November 6, 2015 was originally the final day scheduled for R v Roy Arthur Topham. But like most things the numerous delays throughout the past two week due to Crown’s own actions (which will be touched on at the end of this report) the only thing that happened on this day was that Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson was able to (after numerous interruptions by Crown and Justice Butler) finally sum up before the jury his arguments as to why they should find the defendant not guilty. That summation, in itself, was prolonged by the presiding Justice so that it wasn’t until 2:30 p.m. that Johnson finally was able to speak to the jurors. He ended at precisely 4:00 p.m.

The main thrust by defence was to speak to the jury about Crown’s two witnesses, former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner. Johnson outlined for the jury the many instances of bias displayed by both these two individuals while testifying. In addition to that he also (after much wrangling with Justice Butler) presented to the jury some of Arthur Topham’s writings taken from an article which had been included in Crown’s disclosure. That article, titled KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada was originally posted on the website back in 2008 and dealt with issues related to the first complaint laid against Topham by B’nai Brith Canada under the former Sec. 13(1) Canadian Human Rights Act in the article were references made to the character of Topham which the defence wanted the jury to hear.

Defence then read out the following to the jury: [please note that the defendant is restricted by his current bail conditions from naming his accuser online and therefore the individual in question is simply referred to as “Mr. Z”]

“I have lived, uninterruptedly, in the province of British Columbia since December of 1956. After leaving high school I attended university (SFU) in 1965 and there obtained a Professional Teaching Certificate. I worked for a short number of years in this capacity both in the public school system and for First Nations school districts, all of which were located in the province of B.C., and taught grades ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 5. I left the profession in 1978 and worked for the Provincial Parks Branch for 8 years where I was a Supervisor and Park Ranger in the Quesnel District of the Cariboo region of the province. After losing that profession to government restructuring in the late 1980’s I returned to teaching for a couple of years and worked for the Nuxalk Education Authority out of Bella Coola, B.C. in 1991 – 1992 where I taught on reserve Grades 2 and 3. From there I returned to Quesnel and worked in a substitute capacity for the local School District (#28) until I resigned in September of 1998. It was also during the year 1998 that I established my publishing business known as The Radical Press. From June of 1998 until June of 2002 I published a monthly, 24-page tabloid called The Radical which sold in retail outlets throughout B.C. and across Canada and by subscription around the world. Due to financial challenges the hard copy edition of the newspaper ceased in June of 2002 and from that date I carried on publishing online with my website known as http://www.radicalpress.com . In 2005, using my lifetime of personal experience in the log building trades and construction industry which I had developed in conjunction with my tenure as a school teacher I formed a carpentry business and have been operating said business up to this point in time. I have lived out in the country for the vast majority of my life, have build my own home, grown my own garden, and maintained a philosophy of independence both in thought and deed. Throughout the course of my life I have fathered four children and now, along with my dear wife of thirty years, also have been blessed with seven grandchildren.

In many respects my life has been an open book to the community in which I have resided since 1970. I began writing letters to the local Quesnel newspaper known as The Cariboo Observer, newsroom@quesnelobserver.com beginning in 1976 and have steadily contributed to that publication over the ensuing years both as a regular columnist and an inveterate contributor on matters of public concern. While I would describe myself as a very controversial writer (and most, if not all of my readers would agree) I nonetheless need to stress the fact that throughout all the years of presenting my ideas to the general public on a number of issues ranging from politics to religion to social justice and environmental issues, I have never made any racist, hate-filled remarks against any person of Jewish or any other religious or ethic grouping. All this I state with respect to the present allegations made against me by Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada; charges that they would fain convey to the public that insinuate I am a person who promotes hatred toward others, in this case Jews. The records of my writings would not, I suggest, indicate this to be the case….

There is one last, missing factor in this “hate” equation which Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have accused me of which needs to be mentioned. I feel it poignantly illustrates the absurdity of what is going on with respect to the danger of abuse inherent in such laws as Sec. 13(1) when exploited for partisan purposes by people and organizations such as Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. It also epitomizes the spuriousness of all the allegations and contentions which they have used in their attempt to harass and intimidate me by falsely and publicly accusing me of the crime of promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” I now present this final factor to you Ms. Kozak and to the CHRC Tribunal as the culmination of my testimony to the frivolous and vexatious nature of these charges. For me to either admit to or accept that I am promoting hatred toward Jews would be tantamount to saying that I hate, rather than love and cherish beyond description, the one person in my life who has been wife and friend and companion to me over the last thirty years. For she too is Jewish.”

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

Given that the total cost to Canadian taxpayers to proceed with this trial is likely over one million dollars throughout the duration of this two week trial the court has been witness to endless problems dealing with Crown’s disclosure materials. Given the fact that Crown has now had over three and half years to put together the evidence in a format that would easily facilitate the normal reading habits of the jurors and Defence counsel what we have witnessed throughout the trial is a disgrace to the supreme court system in British Columbia.

From the onset of the case (beginning in May of 20120), defence had to fight tooth and nail to get disclosure from Crown and to try and have Crown particularize the evidence so it was clearly evident what would be used in the actual trial. Instead Crown insisted that the case was an “ongoing investigation” and therefore they couldn’t provide the full disclosure until final weeks preceding trial. When they did send Defence counsel their Disclosure much of it was unreadable. Defence had to redo pages and pages of Crown evidence in order that it could be read in court, not only by defence but also by the jurors who would be expected to follow along in their own Binders. This aspect of the trial consumed hours of time and even after the trial was well underway it became blatantly obvious that the last two binders would have to be republished so the jury might have a readable copy to refer to. Those final two binders didn’t enter into the court until the morning of Friday, November 6, 2015!

Typical of the quality of the documents is the image below taken from one page of KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada It would not be a stretch of the imagination to conceive of the jurors being each given a magnifying glass in order to try and read the evidence. Given that it cost the taxpayers an additional $2000.00 to have them reprinted twelve magnifying glasses might have been a more cost effective measure.

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

Monday, November 9, 2015 will see Crown present its summation to the jury. On Friday Justice Butler asked the jury if they would be ready to have him charge them on Tuesday morning the 10th of November. He told them that if he charged them on Tuesday that in the event they couldn’t come to a decision by the end of the day that they would have to remain sequestered through to November 11th which is Canada’s Remembrance Day federal holiday. The jury went out and discussed this and returned to tell Justice Butler that they would prefer to be charged on the 10th. That meant they didn’t think it would take more than one day to make their minds up.

As it now stands Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 will conclude the trial and a verdict will be handed down on that day. Stay tuned folks!

•••0•••
 
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

GuenterDeckerHeader copy

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

By Sylvia Stolz

Translated from the German language
by Christine Miller

“A prison sentence will not force me into believing.”
~ Guenter Deckert

“When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition.  … The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason.”

Guenter Deckert1 copy

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for him starting at nine o’clock.
Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be there and greet him is cordially invited.

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.18.38 PM
The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.03 PM

A prison sentence for doubting the “Holocaust.”

No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged “right wing terror.”

In these times of the “resurfacing” of right wing extremism which, without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged “NSU”,  Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for public peace.

Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012  was sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. As well, because of the “radical” law and in spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and was denied his pension.

He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz – the First Gassings, Rumors and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)

 

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.27 PM

CarloM300

On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189 STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 – AK 579/09).

The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation. Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js 14219/08)

Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic genocide.  At times very high prison sentences have been handed down. For example  the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.45 PM

The Holocaust is not defined

During his appeal Guenter Deckert  wanted to know the concrete facts which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the truth he contested. He received no answer.

It is especially telling that the so-called “Holocaust” is not legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly  presented in the findings of other trials, were presented.

Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6 section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to &130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or intent of the German Reichsregierung,  a Jew, by someone or another   (even by a none German), had been killed with the intent to partially destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.

“Known to the court” to be challenged”

Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following motion:

“I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on which the court rests its “known to the court” facts which, since the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go under the notation “Holocaust.”

The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called to judge have knowledge of these “facts” or only base their judgment on hearsay or secondary literature.”

Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 Deutscher Bundestag  12. election period – print 12/2849.

An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has to be acknowledged that “known to the court” does need to exist in perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the “known to the court” can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the possibility to counter “it is known to the court.”

The decision concerning “it is “known to the court” & 244 lies therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the result.”

Judgment based on the media

Concerning “it is known to the court”  the following decisions have been made: (…)

The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh rejected the motion to discuss the principles of  “known to the court,” stating that the facts and the legal situation were the same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers located in the concentration camps happened.

The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion concerning “the Holocaust is a  fact, known to the court” with the pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II – 27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the senate based its certainty of “known to the court” was denied citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books (decision 2/8/2011).

The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word justice. It does not deserve its name.

No actual facts

It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to convict “Holocaust deniers” the so-called Holocaust is not defined. It is not even mentioned.

The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of “Holocaust denial”. In other words there is no determination of the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews. There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.

In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.

As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not possible. The same is the case for “it is known to the court.”
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not valid.

Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against his better knowledge is void.

If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.

A defense is not possible

The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle of “it is known to the court that the holocaust happened” makes any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence an accused without the defense being able to challenge “it is known to the court” defeats the ends of the law.

“The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.” Which facts however the court knows are not stated.

For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: “Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates gassed.” (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary, “…known to the court?” Is it “known to the court” that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it “… known to the court” that nobody was gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be “… known to the court.”

An entire event such as the so-called “Holocaust” can only be undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are undisputed (facts known to the court).

The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following expert opinion: “Substantial doubts about the trials in question have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using “ facts known to the court,” namely that the Jews were killed by gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to be founded on justice and right.” (letter to the state court Vienna, 1/10/l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)

The Ruhr –Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (11/29/2005) printed a citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: “The historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.”

Is the Holocaust indisputably “a fact known to the court” or is it indisputably “a fact known to the court” that the Holocaust is frequently challenged and therefore can not be “a fact known to the court?”

It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event which is frequently contested as “a fact known to the court”, a concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the “deniers.”

Abuse of procedural rights

After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to accept as “facts known to the court.” The prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann replied (11/14). “That you will find out during sentencing.” During the sentencing however nothing was said.

The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the motion. He said: first  principles have to be established. Prosecutor Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when (January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the “facts are known to the court” must be fully discussed he described in detail   circumstances and facts which made him doubt the “Holocaust.” For example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt  Kautzky who, for seven years, was in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and who wrote  that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.

The chamber denied the motion to discuss “facts are known to the court“ (chairman – Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using, among other arguments, the reason, “the Holocaust defined as mass killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during WWII is “a fact known to the court” (January 13, 2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence beyond discussion.”

“The facts are known to the court” is not to be discussed because “the facts are known to the court” is a circular argument incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of justice.

The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert’s demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is obvious from his presentation in which he declared that “facts known to the court” needs to be discussed.

According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine the facts of which he is accused.  

The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as “court research” to which the accused is not entitled.

The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.

On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, as a motion to obtain “court research”. The motion however implies neither one nor the other.

Historical facts are deliberately ignored

The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.

Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved (February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:

According to the court’s knowledge “the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact” in which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.

According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional killings take place?

According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?

According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?

Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly ignore.

I made the motion to discuss the principles of the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court” in order to be able to defend myself against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court.”

In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of the so-called Holocaust.

Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could have had.

In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not contain any determination to the circumstances and “it is known to the court,” nor are there any references.

Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not possible.

Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the so called “Holocaust”, or could have had, an accusation to have acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing for denying the truth is not possible.

What is “fact known to the court”

During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need for a discussion about “fact known to the court.”

“Known to the court” are historical facts which by means of historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books, encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983, p.539.

The acceptance of “the fact is known to the court” rests on the preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged (vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.

If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).

In my motion to discuss “the Holocaust happened is known to the court”  I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as “a fact known to the court.”

A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of “the Holocaust is known to the court” is therefore not possible. I made the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.

To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with “the Holocaust is known to the court” is arbitrary. Before sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal with the underlying facts.

It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to bring clarity in regard to “a fact known to the court.”

“Fact known to the court” is in need of discussion

When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16 and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again proves that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Historian Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of “fact known to the court. “The testimony of witnesses rests to a large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to their veracity.”

The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): “Most of the 20,000 witnesses’ testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable, falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.”

On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30) the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: “You would be surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.” But judges have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In addition “facts known to the court” in order to be useable have to be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants the opportunity to take a position.

It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict him on the basis of this knowledge.

If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial on account of  the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)

Permanent misjudgment

The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for proof which is obvious from their choice of words. “The chamber is supposed to furnish proof,” “makes proof unnecessary.” “proof is also inadmissible,” “a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of the resolution).”

But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for proof.

The motion to discuss the principle of “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2 of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which “fact known to the court” are based.

The chamber maintains that I contested “facts known to the court.” The chamber is mistaken.  I did not contest facts, but demanded the discussion of facts.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the principle of “fact known to the court” with the argument that a discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is “a fact known to the court.” (p.2 of the resolution.)

The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a “circular argument,” but also the concept of “an established fact known to the court.” What is frequently contested can’t be “an established fact known to the court” since “an established fact known to the court” is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see above).

It is a circular argument if I would say “the holocaust is not “a fact known to the court” because “it is not known to the court.” It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: “the Holocaust is not fact known to the court” because “known to the court” is equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged.  The resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.

It is inconsequential if it happened or not 

My motion of  January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically correct.  I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.

It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court who convicted Ernst Zuendel. “It does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place.” The “tageszeitung (February 9, 2007, p.6)” writes about the Zuendel trial: “At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.”

[Read more…]