Man arrested on plane for internet writings FREE
- A VICTORY FOR EXACTITUDE!
Michele, Lady Renouf
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
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
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)]
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
This was too much for both Attorney Schell, the head prosecutor, and
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
There can be no doubt about this among informed observers of this
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
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
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 "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
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
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
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
That person is no longer standing on legal ground.
If he is exercising the power of a judge, he is exercising it
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
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
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
This clearly shows that the errant judge considers expression of the
thesis that the Jewish people strive for supremacy to be a criminal
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
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: