Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Man arrested on plane for internet writings FREE

Expand Messages
  • World View
    A VICTORY FOR EXACTITUDE! Michele, Lady Renouf RePortersNoteBook@yahoogroups.com A vital legal precedent has been dispelled! On Wednesday 29th October at 2pm,
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      A VICTORY FOR EXACTITUDE!
      Michele, Lady Renouf
      RePortersNoteBook@yahoogroups.com


      A vital legal precedent has been dispelled! On Wednesday 29th
      October at 2pm, within ten minutes, a victory for exactitude was
      declared! The German onslaught, charging with a stick and balloon
      on a trojan horse to breach the bastion of British jurisprudence fell
      at the first professional lance, to the British empirical tradition.
      Defeat for what the Deputy Senior District Judge at the City of
      Westminster Magistrates' Court on London's famous Horseferry Road
      called "vague and imprecise" concepts which "muddy the waters" of the
      judicial process.

      A European Arrest Warrant was executed against a peaceful Australian
      academic, Dr. Fredrick Toeben whilst he sat on an American Airlines aircraft in transit at Heathrow airport. Since October 1st, he has been sitting in a Wandsworth prison cell, facing extradition and five years in Mannheim prison, Germany's dungeon for political prisoners of conscience. The case has prompted concern that European laws restricting academic freedoms might be extended to Britain via the back door of the European Arrest Warrant.

      However Dr. Toeben and his defence team succeeded in having the
      extradition process discharged under Section 2 of the Extradition
      Act, because the warrant was not particularised and the conduct
      alleged was vague.


      See the British press report of Dr. Toeben's victory:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081579/Suspected-Holocaust-
      denier-wins-legal-fight-extradition.html


      Dr. Toeben's victory clearly wrong footed the Daily Mail's
      journalists. First described by the Mail at 5pm in their story "Toeben wins his case!" as "a prominent Australian academic", just over two hours later it had been amended to "controversial Australian academic".

      Then, within another hour the Mail backtracked again to describe Dr
      Toeben as just plain "Australian academic", the qualifying adjectives having proved too problematic...

      The court now awaits an appeal by the German prosecuting authorities,
      who are represented in the U.K. by the Crown even though Dr. Toeben's
      alleged conduct does not constitute an offence in the U.K. In the
      meantime, Dr. Toeben has been granted bail but with stringent bail
      conditions, the most challenging being a cash security of £100,000.

      Eight journalists were present in court to hear the judgment; first
      to arrive was Daily Telegraph legal columnist Joshua Rozenberg, who
      had already written two informed articles on earlier stages of Dr.
      Toeben's case. And in his latest:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/
      3279956/Alleged-Holocaust-denier-allowed-bail.html


      Mr Rosenberg did well in clarifying that:

      "The sum of money is described as "security" rather than a surety
      because it must be lodged with the court and not merely pledged.
      Other bail conditions imposed by [Deputy Senior] District Judge
      Daphne Wickham are residence at an approved address, daily reporting
      to the police, surrender of all passports, no participation in public
      meetings, no media interviews and no use of the internet — even to
      receive information. It is difficult to see how this last condition
      could be enforced."

      The Daily Mail did well to acknowledge the argument over bail,
      writing: "Ms Cumberland opposed bail today but Ben Watson, defending,
      successfully argued it would be 'abhorrent' to keep him behind bars
      any longer."

      The prosecution will appeal to the High Court, which must be within
      seven days, including the day of the hearing, and our defence team
      will challenge that appeal.

      During the brief chance one had to exchange a few words through the
      glass slit of his secure dock, Dr Toeben reassured me, that as his
      proposed bail addressee, he would not let me down. Needlessly, for I
      know that we both wish this law to reach due free and open public
      attention and if necessary to take the battle for normal debate up to
      the House of Lords. A veteran who has long challenged the seemingly
      invincible debate-deniers, this St. George is in good spirits. Dr.
      Toeben realises the challenge ahead, but is confident that his case
      will be presented forcefully and professionally so that every expert
      opportunity will be advanced on his behalf.

      The challenge ahead is as pointed out by Liberal Democrat Home
      Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne MP, who wrote In last Friday's (24th
      October) Independent an article entitled 'Holocaust denial and a case
      that shows flaws in the EU - It is important to reopen the debate on
      arrest warrants'. Mr. Huhne observed:

      "The warrant was principally designed to ensure swift extradition
      between member states for offences such as murder, human trafficking,
      money laundering, organised or armed robbery, rape and terrorism.
      When the legislation was considered, the Commons committee warned
      about the inclusion of racisim and xenophobia in the list of offences
      where it was unnecessary to prove it was against the host and issuing
      country's law, precisely because of the differences in the
      interpretation from one EU country to another. The cleanest solution
      would be to exclude racism and xenophobia. ...In Britain we value
      freedom of speech too highly to see it sacrificed... Strength of
      argument ... will defeat the Holocaust deniers."

      ===

      Made possible under a European Arrest Warrant brought by a German
      court for what that country, and not this country, deems an opinion
      crime on the Internet, namely, peaceful academic historical source-
      criticism of the "Holocaust", we seemed (and may still be) on the
      brink of losing that most precious treasure of our Classical culture,
      respect for civil debate. Via this EAW abuse, a backdoor was being
      forced open. How well is our parliament standing guard?

      Baroness Scotland QC was the Home Office minister who introduced an
      amendment to the Extradition Bill on 1st July 2003. She assured
      Parliament that this amendment "put it beyond any doubt that where
      any part of the conduct has occurred in the UK, we can extradite only
      if the dual criminality requirement has been satisfied." To clarify
      the matter further she made special reference to the very offence
      with which Dr. Toeben is now charged.

      Baroness Scotland told Parliament:

      "Holocaust denial ...is a very particular offence. We would say that
      those engaging in that endeavour in part in this country would not be
      capable of being extradited as the offence would in part have
      allegedly been committed in this country, and in this country it is
      not an offence. So we would not extradite those involved in it."

      Yet five years later Baroness Scotland is now the Attorney General,
      ultimately in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service, whose staff
      have liaised with the German authorities to expedite the very
      extradition which Baroness Scotland specifically promised could not
      take place. Gareth Julian, head of extradition at the CPS and
      ultimately answerable to Baroness Scotland, has been in court
      throughout the proceedings against Dr. Töben.

      If Dr. Toeben is extradited, it will be clear that Baroness Scotland
      misled Parliament as to the effect of the Extradition Bill which she
      piloted and the amendment which she introduced. Her position as
      Attorney General will be untenable, as British citizens and overseas
      visitors could have no confidence in the Crown's senior law officer.
      If she has any sense of personal honour or constitutional propriety,
      Baroness Scotland will surely be considering her position.

      ===

      So much for ministerial responsibility, but today's decision by
      District Judge Wickham is a serious indictment not only of the German
      prosecuting authorities who issued the European Arrest Warrant in
      2004, but of the UK's Serious and Organised Crime Agency, which
      certified the warrant nine months ago and has now seen it thrown out
      of court.

      When the UK first incorporated the European Arrest Warrant into UK
      law at the end of 2003, it designated the National Criminal
      Intelligence Service (NCIS) as the "central authority" for processing
      such warrants. When in 2006 NCIS was amalgamated with the National
      Crime Squad and relevant sections of the Immigration and Customs
      services to create the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, this SOCA
      took over the role of UK central authority for European Arrest
      Warrants.

      The legal work involved in extraditing suspects under an EAW is
      handled by the Special Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution
      Service whose members, according to the attached (partially
      declassified) report for the EU Council of Ministers, act together
      with a team of four barristers from private practice as agents and
      advocates for the issuing (in this case German) authorities.

      According to the 2007 EU Council of Ministers report:

      "Following an arrest a Special Crime Division prosecutor will examine
      the EAW to seek to pre-empt any possible legal challenges and to
      confirm that it complies with section 2 of the domestic law. Should
      any discrepancies come to light the prosecutor will e-mail a written
      advice via SOCA to the issuing Member State specifying the remedial
      steps considered necessary. The purpose of this examination is to
      advise the issuing JA as to the case's prospect of success and to
      identify at the earliest possible stage any further information which
      may be considered prudent to obtain to afford the best possible
      chance of winning at court."

      In other words the EAW must first be certified by SOCA, then examined
      by the Special Crime Division of the CPS. A colossal waste of public
      money and court time (not to mention the unfair detention of Dr
      Toeben) has resulted from SOCA wrongly certifying this warrant and the CPS then failing to resolve what the district judge has since found to be serious failings in the warrant.

      Gareth Julian, head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service,
      has been closely involved in the Toben case at every stage and has
      attended every court hearing. He was one of the key officials
      interviewed for the EU Council of Ministers report attached and
      quoted above.

      Despite the SOCA certification of the report, and despite all of the
      CPS liaison with the German authorities, Deputy Senior District Judge
      Wickham dismissed the warrant with rigorous exactitude befitting her
      quizzical Miss Marple-esque demeanour:

      'I find that the particulars are vague and imprecise, I find the
      warrant invalid and therefore discharge the defendant.'

      ===

      Another political prisoner with a similar story...


      The Mahler Trial in Potsdam --
      Day 3 (17 Oct 2008)
      Translated by J M Damon


      [Translator's Remark: When Frederick Töben visited me in September he asked me to translate Horst Mahler's reports of his present trial, which he wanted to post on the Adelaide Institute website. Five days later, he was arrested in Heathrow Airport. Frederick considered this trial particularly important in view of the developing world financial crisis, which is similar in many respects to that described by Gottfried Feder 80 years ago in his book Kampf gegen die Hochfinanz (The Struggle Against Globalism) – especially the chapter entitled Das Manifest zur Brechung der Zinsknechtschaft (Manifest for the Abolition of Interest Slavery)]

      ****************

      Horst Mahler
      horst-mahler@...

      In my Potsdam show trial, the Vierte Große Strafkammer des
      Landgerichts Potsdam (Fourth Superior Criminal Chamber of Potsdam
      District Court) has reached its first peak of self-revelation by
      dropping its mask of legality.

      When Herr Dielitz, the presiding judge, showed an obsessive interest
      in my article Jüdische Spiegelungen (Jewish Reflections), and
      repeatedly goaded me in an effort to make me "confess," I decided to
      humor his impetuosity.

      I "confessed" and explained in detail that I had written and
      distributed it on the Internet.

      However, I also demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that such an act
      cannot be a punishable offense under the law.

      In order to present my case in detail, it was necessary for me to
      familiarize the Court, especially the lay judges, with the contents
      of "Spiegelungen."

      This was too much for both Attorney Schell, the head prosecutor, and
      Judge Dielitz.

      A spirited exchange developed between the prosecutor and me, and Herr
      Dielitz promptly intervened in order to establish that it is he who
      is directing the trial.

      In view of the bellicosity of Prosecutor Schell, the question of who
      is in charge had not been as evident as it could be.

      In the course of a longish lecture, Judge Dielitz made a slip and
      accused me of presenting a "demonic lecture" by reading aloud from
      Spiegelungen.

      This remark prompted my first motion to disqualify Judge Dieletz on
      account of bias, and his official response to my motion was a
      real "Hammer" (doozie.)

      The judge openly stated his intent to hinder my defense.
      I promptly filed a second motion of objection for bias, which
      presents the issue as follows:

      In the show trial being conducted against me before Potsdam District
      Court, Case No. 24 KLs 42/05, I hereby move that the errant presiding
      judge Dielitz be rejected and dismissed on account of bias.

      Basis for the Dismissal of Judge Dielitz:

      The errant judge has clearly stated his bias in his official response
      to my motion for disqualification dated 17 October 2008.

      I had made that motion because of the remark the errant judge made
      during the trial on 17 Oct, to the effect that I was presenting
      a "demonic lecture," namely Jüdische Spiegelungen (Jewish
      Reflections), as part of my defense.

      In his official response to my objection, Judge Dielitz offered the
      following explanation:

      Judge Dielitz's Response to My Motion to Reject:

      a) "I interrupted the defendant during his Einlassung (opening
      presentation) in order to maintain order during the trial, since he
      was quoting sentence after sentence of his 'Jüdischen Spiegelungen.'
      I interrupted him in order to hinder his committing criminal acts
      during the trial."

      By interrupting me, Herr Dieletz was forestalling and avoiding the
      question of whether distribution of the Spiegelungen, the subject and
      cause of my present indictment, is a criminal act on account of its
      contents.

      He interrupted me before the hearing of my statement, before the
      submission of evidence, and before final argumentation.

      Furthermore he interrupted and hindered my presentation without
      consulting other judges of the Court.

      The purpose of the main hearing is to give the accused the
      opportunity to present his views regarding specific counts or points
      of his indictment.

      If these points concern utterances of opinion concerning his
      philosophy or worldview, then they obviously provide a basis, reason
      and point of reference for relevant presentation of the incriminating
      text.

      The judge's and court reporter's knowledge of the facts of the case
      that they gain solely from reading court documents is inadequate.
      The attending lay judges, who might have no knowledge of these
      documents, must be made familiar with the proscribed opinions that
      are the objects of the trial.

      This familiarization is accomplished during the oral part of the
      trial.

      How could it be accomplished except through oral presentation?
      During this presentation, the accused must be allowed to formulate
      his statement as he sees fit.

      The only limitation to this presentation exists at the point where
      factual connection is lost and an indication of intent to misuse the
      statement clearly becomes apparent.

      Such a limitation is clearly inapplicable when, as in the present
      case, the defendant's presentation is accomplished by
      reading "sentence for sentence" the very text that is referenced in
      the Anklageschrift (written indictment) but not in the Anklagesatz
      (oral indictment).

      The judge's characterization of my presentation as "demonic" is a
      powerful utterance, a crass violation of due process.

      If this unlawful evaluation is meant to deny me the fundamental right
      to a legal hearing guaranteed by Section 103, Paragraph 1 of the
      Basic Law, then this trial has clearly been removed from the judicial
      framework of a nation of laws and relegated to the realm of arbitrary
      law.

      There can be no doubt about this among informed observers of this
      trial.

      In this and similar cases the defense consists of demonstrating,
      through oral argument and on the basis of published text, that the
      allegedly unlawful act, opinion or utterance is not Incitement of the
      Masses in the sense of Section 130 Paragraph 1 of the Federal
      Republic's Penal Code.

      This demonstration is supported by the fact that the allegedly
      unlawful act expresses avowal of a worldview and therefore cannot be
      unlawful, in view of the superior stipulation of Section 4 Paragraph
      1 of Basic Law.

      The answers pertaining to questions of culpability that arise from
      the indictment are tentatively given, following hearings and
      consultations, in the Court of First Instance.

      In case of appeal they are given by the Bundesgerichtshof (Appeals
      Court), and finally by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Supreme Court).
      It cannot be assumed that, in the conduct of his defense, a defendant
      will defer to the tentative opinion of a presiding judge or his
      subordinates; and it cannot be assumed he will defer to their
      attempts to hinder the exercise of his legal rights.

      The path prescribed by law is to allow the accused to proceed with
      his presentation and, where appropriate, to introduce sanctions in a
      separate criminal trial in case the defense's presentation has
      constituted an unlawful act.

      The general principle prescribed in Section 193 of Criminal Procedure
      must be considered in deciding this question.

      According to Section 193, potentially criminal behavior is not
      unlawful when it occurs in the context of a lawful act or interest,
      particularly the exercising of a subjective right.

      The constitutionally assured right to a defense (Article 103
      Paragraph 1 of Basic Law) guarantees this right.

      The errant judge is not allowed to insert his private opinion as a
      standard and then enforce his opinion by prohibiting the defense.
      Surely, under quiet consideration this must become clear to him.
      The illegality of the errant judge's procedure makes clear that he
      has already decided on my conviction, independent of my trial and
      without knowledge of its outcome.

      Such procedure causes the informed defendant to suspect that the
      errant judge is not considering his case with the required
      impartiality.

      In this connection, it is also significant that before the prosecutor
      and errant judge interrupted me, I had not given utterance to a
      single opinion that was not included in the bare text itself,
      precisely as contained in the indictment.

      The prosecutor and judge made their disruptive intervention as soon
      as I had read "word for word" exactly thirteen lines of Spiegelungen.

      Imminent Anticipation With Unlawful Opinions

      b) Without his actually saying so, Judge Dielitz's opinion that
      reading the Spiegelungen in the main hearing is a punishable act (in
      view of Section 130 Paragraph 1 of Penal Code) implies not only that
      the Spiegelungen article represents a disparagement of the Jews, but
      also that reading it in the main hearing "is intended to disturb the
      public peace."

      When it comes to Germans who wish to remain German, this Court has
      apparently forgotten how to read.

      How else can we account for the fact that in trials of
      accused "Holocaust Deniers" and "Inciters of the Masses," the courts
      are suppressing the arguments of the defendants and their attorneys
      as punishable acts without devoting a single syllable to the subject
      of whether such utterances in the trial are capable of "disturbing
      the peace?"

      The "Holocaust" courts take great pains to overlook and ignore the
      fact that in expressing unlawful opinions, the modality or condition
      of "likely to disturb the peace" must be present in order to
      establish a basis for sanction.

      They ignore and overlook this fact even though the framework of the
      law "bumps the noses" of the judges in order to make sure they
      observe the stipulation about disturbing the peace.

      Section 130 Paragraph 1 of Penal Code begins as follows:
      "Whoever, in a manner designed to disturb the public peace..."

      It is impossible to ignore this!

      How is it possible, in a nation of laws, for a court to ignore the
      question of whether a criminal trial, with its principles of
      directness, oral proceedings and public openness, has taken into
      consideration whether the accused has disturbed the peace?

      Have not the courts considered that public trials, thanks to the
      legal thought that arose from the Enlightenment, aim for the
      establishment and protection of public peace above all else?

      Is it not preserving and protecting public peace when the
      authorities publicly investigate an alleged "inciter of the masses"
      in the only appropriate way, that is by providing him a "fair trial"
      with a defense that is worthy of the name?

      The defendant is not the only one allowed to speak in a trial!
      He has a vocal opponent in the district attorney, who is in a
      powerful position to contradict and neutralize incorrect or inciteful
      statements.

      He can use his inherent authority to make his estimation of the
      defendant's unlawful or heretical defense clear to the Court.
      The court's professed fear that a disturbance of the public peace
      might emanate from the Defense is pretenseful, illogical and unlawful.
      What image of mankind lies behind the Court's alleged concerns for
      the public peace?

      The Court obviously does not have the image of reflective and
      responsible citizens in mind.

      It has the image of a bloodthirsty mob eager for a word of criticism
      of the Jews, which will immediately throw it into a homicidal frenzy.
      That is not a true image of mankind or us Germans, however.
      That is the image of Germans that our enemies have projected for
      generations.

      Whoever wants to declare as punishable the reading of the very points
      in the indictment that are enumerated in the indictment, is trying to
      introduce (or re-introduce) secret trials!

      That person wants to deny the accused the possibility of a defense at
      the very point where the allegedly unlawful act is depicted and
      described.

      That person is avoiding the judicial light of day, the monitoring
      that is achieved by public scrutiny.

      "Holocaust" justice has good reason for avoiding such public
      monitoring, since it is itself profoundly unlawful.

      Whoever says that it is an additional crime to discuss the act
      specified in the indictment is saying that any and every defense is
      disallowed.

      That person is no longer standing on legal ground.

      If he is exercising the power of a judge, he is exercising it
      unlawfully.

      Must we not weigh the overriding value of a lawful trial (which
      necessarily includes a Defense) against the necessity of "protecting
      the peace," especially when it is not clear that the peace is
      actually threatened?

      The Court must consider the vital issue that Section 130 of Penal
      Code deals with abstract offenses of potential exposure rather than
      actual crimes of commission.

      Section 130 does not deal with actual violations of the law, whereas
      the suppression of free and unhampered defense immediately inflicts
      profound injury upon the highest and most cherished legal interest,
      namely the dignity of the individual.

      This injury includes the position of the accused as subject rather
      than object.

      The role of the accused as subject rather than object is destroyed if
      the defendant is not allowed to defend himself as he sees fit.

      He is denigrated and reduced to a mere object of official sanctions.
      These considerations are so elementary that they are truly "common
      knowledge" for everyone, not just "learned jurists."

      The discredited opinion of this errant judge lies not in the realm of
      representational concepts of legality, it lies entirely in the realm
      of arbitrary legality.

      According to a ruling by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Supreme
      Court), such a mistaken attitude is based on concerns about bias,
      without regard to the defendant.

      The colossal dysfunction of the courts in the area of "Holocaust"
      justice can be explained solely by metus judeorum (Fear of Jews) as
      described in the Bible (Esther 8: 17 and John 19: 38 and 20: 19.)
      This metus judeorum is destroying the German institution of judgeship
      at its roots.

      The Errant Judge's Position

      c) The errant judge's position of 17 October 2008 also states:
      "The defendant presented the Spiegelungen in order to support the
      theory that the Jewish people strive for supremacy."

      Immediately preceding this was the sentence: "I interrupted the
      accused in order to hinder the commission of criminal acts during the
      trial."

      This clearly shows that the errant judge considers expression of the
      thesis that the Jewish people strive for supremacy to be a criminal
      act.

      Once again his statement shows that the law is not operative here,
      but rather the caprice of an errant judge.

      The question of whether a nation is striving for supremacy (Does
      anyone deny that there are people and nations who strive for
      supremacy?) is not a question of law nor of fact, but rather a
      question of how one interprets the world.

      It is a question that is not subject to legislation or the justice
      system.

      If one says that Russia is striving for world supremacy, a dispute
      might arise as whether such a statement is applicable.

      If one says that the Unites States are striving for supremacy, one
      will probably be told that they gained it after World War II and have
      no need to strive for it now.

      And if someone says that China is striving for supremacy,
      some additional information will most certainly be called for, to the
      effect that at present, an attempt by China to gain supremacy has not
      yet become apparent, but is expected in future.

      Is it really an "affront to dignity" for a people to exercise or
      strive for supremacy?

      Even if one wanted to negatively evaluate the expression "Jewish
      supremacy" consideration of the facts would still have to precede
      conviction for "Incitement of the Masses."

      In case it is true that world Jewry is already exercising supremacy,
      the observation of this fact is as little a denigration of Jewry as
      is the ascertainment that a thief has stolen something.

      Surely no one would think of declaring public consideration and
      discussion of differing points of view a criminal act!

      Presumably, anyone who undertook to treat such public discussion as a
      criminal act would be rebuked with reference to Article 5 of Basic
      Law.

      If someone mentions that the Jewish nation is striving for supremacy,
      it probably not occur to the normal thinking person will that the
      District Attorney should be bothered with a legal complaint.

      However, the errant judge deviates in his opinion from the circle of
      people who think normally.

      What is the reason for this?

      Apparently, his normal thought reflexes have been conditioned to
      always serve the interest of world Jewry, to avoid identification and
      to remain in the background.

      My main task in life is to broadcast the reality of the Jewish
      national spirit as the "negation of the life of nations" as expressed
      by the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber.

      It may be that this displeases the other Jews; I can understand this.
      I can also understand that they are displeased when Goethe identifies
      them as a nation whose religion empowers them to rob strangers (from
      Das Jahrmarktfest zu Plundersweiler.)

      Of course a robber is displeased when he is identified.
      But can a robbery victim legally be prohibited from identifying the
      robber?

      Of course "Holocaust" jurists immediately belch out that I am
      defending myself against charges of "incitement of the masses" by
      resorting to an interpretation of Judaism as an institution that
      strives for supremacy and domination.

      They say that I intend to introduce abstruse and irrelevant evidence
      from the holy books of Jewry as well as generalized religious
      history.

      In order to neutralize this programmed defense of world Jewry -- the
      reflexive idea that Judaism's holy books long ago lost their
      significance for the present -- I will produce expert witnesses from
      the present to prove the opposite.

      The errant judge is already familiar with my evidence concerning the
      Judaic striving for world supremacy, from my "Judaism" trial in
      Berlin.

      In keeping with his firm intent to protect and support Jewry's
      striving for supremacy, he has firmly resolved to disallow any and
      all such considerations in my present trial.

      His position statement makes this deeply held resolution of his
      perfectly clear.

      In his own words, he leaves no doubt of his intention to "hinder" my
      defense with all the powers at his command.

      And yet the errant judge is perfectly aware, from documents I
      submitted in the main hearing, that I do not see a separate and
      purely negative god in world Jewry, but rather servants of the true
      God in bringing salvation and redemption to the world, in the role of
      the enemy of all the nations.

      This foreknowledge of my line of defense makes the presiding judge
      determined to disallow its introduction.

      In a criminal trial, there is no greater judicial tyranny than the
      determination of a judge to hinder the defense of the accused.

      d) In order to justify his arbitrary conduct of the trial, now
      exposed for all to see, the errant judge is presenting his position
      as follows.

      The errant judge used these words: "By reading the Spiegelungen
      sentence by sentence, he (the defendant) is utilizing emotional
      emphasis (!) in addressing the audience and creating the appearance
      (!) of authenticity of the contents of his presentation."

      Once again, he is using Weltanschauungen (world views) to take aim at
      the heart of my defense.

      Where worldviews are concerned, however, nothing can legally be
      considered except their veracity.

      With his choice of words that I "wish to create the appearance of
      veracity of the contents" of my worldview, the errant judge is
      clearly and obviously giving vent to his prejudices, once again.

      He is saying that exposition of the authenticity of my interpretation
      of the mission of world Jewry –- this is the only way the sense of
      his words can be interpreted! – might create an appearance of
      authenticity, and this could be done simply by an "emotionale
      Betonung des Inhaltes der 'Spiegelungen' " (emotional emphasis on the
      contents of Spiegelungen.)

      My actual arguments are not even considered for judicial evaluation;
      they have already bled to death on the barbed wire of the judge's
      prejudice.

      The possibility that I might have wanted not just to bless the
      judges' bench and "audience" with the "appearance of veracity," but
      that I might have been insisting in all seriousness on the truth of
      the supremacy and domination of the Jewish nation with their "Denial
      of Holocaust," clearly exceeds the judge's powers of comprehension.
      He cannot imagine that the suppression of a meaningful defense under
      the auspices of Articles 1 and 103 of Basic Law could pose a legal
      problem.

      Taking the benchmarks of a nation of laws as our basis: is a
      defendant really forced to endure such pig-headedness on the part of
      the presiding judge?

      We are curious to find out.

      Perhaps it really is true that a passage has been written into
      our Basic Law preamble in invisible ink, visible only to judges, that
      reads:

      "This Basic Law is invalid in case it displeases the Jews."

      In order to make presentation of the facts of the case as complete as
      possible, I refer to the official position of the errant judge, the
      document entitled "Official Statement of Position" dated 17 October
      2008.

      This statement, is to be found along with the other documents
      pertaining to my motion to disqualify dated 17 Oct 2008.

      I request that I be notified which judges will rule on my motion to
      disqualify Judge Dielitz and I also request that Attorney Wolfram
      Nahrath be informed of his official response.

      In addition, I request sufficient time to prepare my response.

      Berlin, 20 October 2008

      Horst Mahler

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
      wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.