Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand: Sag mir, wer ist hier der Kriminelle im Land?
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Who's the Greatest Crook of All?
My "Holocaust" Inquisition Tribunal met again on 6th and 10th August 2010.
It consisted of two professional and two lay judges, making it an expanded appeals court (such courts normally have one professional and two lay judges.)
As expected, it devolved into another show trial.
Sixty-five years after the end of World War II our so-called Federal Republic is still acting as an occupation government, applying SONDERGESETZE (special anti German laws) against Germans who want to be German.
Since my verdict was pronounced "in the name of the people," the people should know the names of those who are responsible for the verdict.
The presiding judge was a Mr. Steitzer, who was assisted by a young female professional judge named Wolters.
The lay judges were a pedagogical consultant, Jaqueline Didszun, and a retiree, Rainer Buchholz.
As already reported in my National Journal article dated 4 July 2010, this trial was an appeal of the verdict of my original self-accusation trial, which took place in December 2009.
[See <http://globalfire.tv/nj/10en/persecution/kevins_new_holotrial>]
In the original trial the RECHTSBEUGERN (law-twisters) sentenced me to 20 months, probated for three years, for no other reason than that I attempted to defend myself through submission of evidentiary motions concerning the "Holocaust" complex.
The appeal court reduced my sentence to 15 months.
However, it increased my probation to four years, since I am obviously an ÜBERZEUGUNGSTÄTER (culprit who acts out of conviction), which I freely admit.
As the verdict states, my "...social prognosis gives grave cause for concern."
Since I did not fall to my knees and abjure my convictions before this unholy "Holy Inquisition," I am a true heretic!
In my trials I have now submitted some 240 evidentiary motions with a total of around 15,000 pages.
As expected, the Court disallowed each and every motion under the pretense of the fraudulent "Manifest Obviousness of Holocaust."
I say "fraudulent" because it is obvious to everyone that the only truly obvious thing about "Holocaust" is the fact that it is not obvious.
For example, several months ago a nationwide campaign of independent historians and truth-seekers petitioned all the court presidents in Germany to explain what can be considered "obvious" about "Holocaust."
The result was that not a single court was able to give a binding legal response.
They either cloaked themselves in silence or else referred the question to state prosecutors.
We asked the same question of the prosecutors and again got nothing but silence.
The reason why the courts and prosecutors are unable to establish legal criteria for the "Manifest Obviousness of Holocaust" becomes clear when we consider the multiplicity of official numbers of victims for Auschwitz.
They range from 66,000 to 8,000,000!
[Cyrus Cox, DIE OFFIZIELLEN AUSCHWITZ-OPFERZAHLEN (Auschwitz Forensically Examined), Concept Veritas, 2010, p. 60).
Even the works of the officially acknowledged "Holocaust" historians provide ample evidence of the lack of "obviousness:"
"Holocaust" Specialist Raul Hilberg, who is frequently quoted by official historians, was compelled to admit shortly before his death in August 2007 that a great deal of research remains to be done in "Holocaust" historiography.
Hilberg, author of the three-volume "The Destruction of European Jews," admitted: "...At most, we know around 20 percent of the story of Holocaust."
Jürgen Heynsel of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw supports him in this, saying "The decisive event in writing the history of Holocaust still remains to be done."
(NEUES DEUTSCHLAND, 13 Oct 2009, "Kein Schindler.")
This suggests to every thinking person that the courts' application of "Manifest Obviousness" is based on a falsehood.
The great "Catch-22" that makes these trials a legalistic joke is the fact that the only way a person accused of "Denying Holocaust" can defend himself is by submitting evidentiary motions relating to "Holocaust."
This is precisely what I did, as Horst Mahler, Silvia Stolz, Ernst Zündel, Dirk Zimmermann and many others have done before me.
All these show trials ended in a complete farce since the absurd doctrine of "Manifest Obviousness" takes away the accuser's right to defend himself.
The legalities contrived to suppress dissident opinion in Germany that expose the "Federal Republic" as a totalitarian system.
Our government applies special laws against dissidents that withhold basic human rights from the unconventional thinker, deny the accused all defense against the indictment, and overwhelm him with still more charges if he resists being gagged.
Paradoxically (but completely typical of our System), the Federal Constitutional Court has issued the following admonition concerning its colleagues who prosecute opinion criminals (2 BvR 2560/95):
A judge who imposes a long prison sentence for a sole crime of opinion is committing an intolerable act of WILLKÜR (arbitrariness) and RECHTSBEUGING (perverting the law.)
Perverting the law is a great injustice and, when it leads to incarceration, a serious crime...
Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the greatest criminal of all?
As Orwell explained in "Nineteen Eighty-Four", the prevailing official schizophrenia can exist only among persons accustomed to "Doublethink."
[Orwell described Doublethink as follows:
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."]
Because of my pleadings and objections concerning "Holocaust", the courts have a legal obligation to consider my evidentiary motions.
It is genuinely obvious that "Manifest Obviousness" can be valid only until new evidence comes to light that challenges the assumptions that were heretofore considered obvious.
According to Raul Hilberg 80% of authentic "Holocaust" research remains to be done -- will the German courts refuse to consider new knowledge forever under their doctrine of "Manifest Obviousness?"
Now let's consider the main event - the actual course of my trial, which took very little time.
I dispensed with reading my evidentiary motions; since I had already said everything I had to say about "Holocaust."
The evidence I presented is all part of the official record, and so the Establishment cannot claim that it has no knowledge of it.
Except for my plea of guilty in conducting my defense, my opening statement concerned the incompatibility of Section 130 of the Penal Code with our so-called Constitution, which guarantees freedom of opinion.
In support of this I read an expert opinion on the significance of the court ruling of the First Senate of BUNDESFASSUNGSGERICHT (Constitutional Court) dated 4 Nov 2009 as it relates to Section 130 Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code (1BvR2150-08).
In the legal basis for its decision, this expert opinion explains the threefold erroneousness of Section 130 of the Penal Code as follows:
1 It is a Special Law limiting and restricting opinion.
As such it is proscribed by Article 5 Paragraph 1 of Basic Law because it relates to acts that occurred under National Socialism rather than punishment of the denial of genocide in general. (Grounds for Decision 48-, especially Tz61).
2. The determination of "ÖFFENTLICHER FRIEDE" ("Public Peace") as something that must be protected by law requires that "FRIEDLICHKEIT" ("peaceableness") be assured in accordance with WECHSELWIRKUNGSLEHRE (interaction principle) of the measure: it must be compatible with the Constitution.
Thus the purpose is "... protection against expressions that are identifiable through their content as threats in the legal domain, that is, acts that indicate a transition to aggression or violation of law.
The preservation of public peace concerns the perception of expressions of opinions such as emotionally laden appeals that incite a readiness to act, reduce hesitation levels or directly intimidate third parties among the persons addressed." (Item 78)
3. The stated offense in "...a manner that might disturb the public peace" is too vague.
In relation to the constitutional principle of definiteness (ARTIKEL 103 ABS. 2 GG), it has no significance other that that of a "corrective" in considering the deletion of cases that do not appear to be punishable." (Item 94)
I then went on to quote prominent individuals who have spoken out publicly against the "muzzling paragraphs" of Section 130 and demanded its abolition.
Among these are former Federal Constitutional Judges Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem and Winfried Hassemer as well as prominent Jewish advocates of free speech Henryk M. Broder, Gilad Atzmon, Yehuda Elkana, Oliver Stone, Hajo G Meyer und Geoffrey Alderman of the Jewish Chronicle.
I join these enlightened activists in decrying the fact that accused persons in German courts are not allowed to defend themselves – a legal right that is
indispensable in any nation of laws!
My witch trial clearly illustrates this crisis, which Judge Steitzer acknowledges on page 12 of my verdict:
"In the opinion of the Court, the defendant's numerous arguments do not override the prescribed punishment for Incitement under Section 130 Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code.
In our present legal system, defense is not allowed."
This "confession" is acknowledgement of the Federal Republic's violation of the internationally guaranteed human rights of defendants.
It completely takes away their ability to defend themselves.
In any case, the law's formulation is itself VERKLAUSULIERTER SCHWACHSINN (legalistic imbecility): what in the world is "OFFIZIELL BESTIMMTES VERTEIGUNGSVERHALTEN" (officially ascertained defense conduct)?
Who defines or decides it?
My self-determined defense consisted of explanations, motions to submit evidence and motions to call expert witnesses for a specific historical event.
I read and submitted motions that present historical events differently from the way they are depicted by the victors of the World Wars.
The statement of grounds for the verdict ignored the fact that before reading my evidentiary motions, I submitted a motion to exclude the public.
I did this in order to avoid "inciting" anyone and to enable a defense against the charge of "Denying Holocaust" without incurring new criminal charges in view of Section 130 of the Penal Register.
This motion too was disallowed, which compelled me to commit an additional "Incitement of the Masses" felony merely by submitting evidence!
In his pleading, my attorney again pointed out that the corpus delicti of "Holocaust Denial" cannot possibly be fulfilled since one must have been present at the scene of the crime in order to deny the issue.
Then he went on to depict the defense attorney's difficulties in defending his client in "Holocaust" trials.
Then he emphasized the danger of the Court's disregarding its fiduciary or caretaking obligation and made a motion for my acquittal.
There is not much to be said regarding Prosecutor Pritzel's pleading, which consisted of a recitation of the same memorized "building blocks" of text that are repeated in all "Holocaust" trials.
He admitted that there are widespread and growing expressions of dissatisfaction with Section 130.
In his opinion these are irrelevant, since Section 130 is compatible with the "constitution" of the Federal Republic.
So far, the legislative branch of government has done nothing to change it.
Then it was my turn to speak and I addressed the pleading of the prosecutor.
I emphasized that the courts and state attorneys are all organs for the administration of justice.
They have an obligation not only to enforce existing laws, but also to strive to change them when they conflict with universal norms of justice.
Then I stressed the pressing need for remedial action on account of official violations of dissidents' rights.
These crass violations of basic human rights must no longer be tolerated!
I concluded by demanding the abolition of "Holocaust" show trials such as mine, in which "the truth is no defense" and both the defendant and his counsel are prosecuted for submitting exculpatory evidence.
On the next trial day, the Establishment's complete irresponsibility and lack of interest in legislative reform were reflected in my new sentence of fifteen months' incarceration probated over four years.
I have already filed an appeal of this verdict.
In case that appeal is not successful, there still remains the possibility of an appeal on "constitutional" grounds.
It is also interesting that just a week after my conviction, I received a new summons for the 25th of October and 1st of November 2010 at 9:00 am in Room 621 of Berlin District Court.
This time I will be retried on my self-accusation charge.
As I explained earlier, the Superior Court vacated and overturned my conviction on account of inadequate publicity.
In the coming trial / Lea Rosh, Ernst Nolte and the "Professor of Anti Semitism" Wolfgang Benz / have been summoned as witnesses.
It will be very helpful / if there is a large turnout for this trial.
It will be interesting!
In closing I would like to thank everyone who has supported me.
I salute friend and foe alike and sincerely hope that those who are still blind and duped will finally wake up!
Only Lies need the protection of the State,
the Truth can stand alone.
Benjamin Franklin
He who does not know the truth is merely ignorant.
He who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal!
Bertholt Brecht
Kevin Käther
Berlin, 8th September 2010
****************
The translator is a "Germanophilic Germanist" who makes German articles about the German plight accessible to those who do not read German.
Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment