PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY !
THE JOKE OF THE MILLENNIUMS: 6 million
murdered Jews, ... how can 5,360,710 of them be demanding
compensation from the Germans? Well, in the Age of the
Munchhausens ... everything is possible.
----- Original Message -----
From: James Damon
To: Frederick Toben
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 7:25 PM
Subject: Self-Accusation Trial in Berlin
Mr. Kevin Käther is a representative of the growing
"Self-Accusation" movement, or citizens' demanding that
they be charged and tried for crimes of opinion.
The following trial report reflects the growing courage,
enthusiasm and freshness of vision among patriotic young Germans
as they answer the call for a new kind of civil
disobedience. They are publicly "confessing" the
"crime" of expressing opinions critical of their
government's inquisitorial enforcement of official
historiography, as well as their government's slavish adherence
to the outrageous conditions imposed on Germany by the victors of
World Wars I and II in clear violation of international
law. In the tradition of Henry Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi,
the new activists demand that they be tried and punished for
their crimes. Growing numbers of judges and public officials are
also expressing their opposition to governmental tyranny. How
long will the present regime be able to resist popular pressure
for human rights, a constitution and an end to military
occupation by the USA?
****************
Die Wahrheit kommt in die Reichshauptstadt
Truth Is Coming to the Reich Capitol
Bericht vom 2. Verhandlungstag im Verfahren gegen den
Selbstanzeiger Kevin Käther
Day 2 of the of the Self-Accusation Trial of Kevin Käther
Written By Kevin Käther
< kevinkaether@gmx.de>
Translated by J M Damon
My self-accusation trial continued on 18 November 2008, and let
me begin by saying that it was the best trial day so far!
Court resumed shortly after 1 pm, at which time I continued
submitting my evidentiary motions, namely the body of facts
establishing the scientific validity of Germar Rudolf's analyses
of the so-called "gas chambers" at Auschwitz.
Today I submitted the "Rudolf Expert Report on the
"˜Gas Chambers of Auschwitz,'" making clear to the
Court that Rudolf's critics have been unable to disprove it.
For this reason, it is particularly well suited to disprove the
lies and atrocity propaganda concerning the alleged murders of
millions of Jews and other races.
In order to emphasize the scientific validity of the Report, I
also read the opposing report of the court-appointed expert Prof.
Dr. Henri Ramuz, which he forwarded to the Third District Court
in Châtel-St. Denis on 18 May 1997.
The Ramuz report further establishes the scientific validity of
Rudolf's work.
The Berlin District Attorney has said that he considers Rudolf's
conclusion in his "Lectures on the Holocaust" to be a
criminal act.
It is a quotation from Prof. Norman Finkelstein's book The
Holocaust Industry: "Certain Jews falsify and exaggerate the
Holocaust for financial and political advantage."
[Prof. Finkelstein has familiarity with the subject of Auschwitz
Concentration Camp that is unexcelled among members of his
generation, since both his parents were interned there during
World War II.
He grew up hearing his parents discuss Auschwitz with each other
as well as with numerous friends who had also been interned
there.]
In order to establish that Rudolf is correct in his evaluation,
and that I too am convinced of its validity, I submitted
Finkelstein's book with the legal motion that it be read by the
Court in Selbstleseverfahren (in which members of the Court read
the evidence for themselves.)
My next point was to describe the origins of the Allied legal
doctrine of "Manifest Obviousness" (of
"Holocaust.")
I pointed out that the source and basis of "Manifest
Obviousness" cannot even be mentioned in German courts
today. [The Allies borrowed this infamous propaganda
concept from the Soviet show trials staged in Moscow during the
1930s, in order to avoid the burden of having to prove that the
crimes with which the German defendants were charged had actually
occurred.]
The "Manifest Obviousness" of "Holocaust" was
constructed on the phony "determination of facts"
presented at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg and
the subsequent Auschwitz show trials staged at Frankfurt by the
vassal BRD (Bundesrepublik or Federal Republic of Germany).
I made clear to the Court that the "determinations of
fact" made by the Allied military tribunal could not be used
in a legitimate court of law because, as has been definitively
proven, they were based upon on or obtained through extortion,
falsification of documents, suppression of exonerating evidence,
torture, false testimony and lying under oath.
In a legitimate court, these "determinations of fact"
could not possibly be used to support "Manifest
Obviousness."
As supporting evidence for my presentation of facts I submitted
Carlos Porter's book "Not Guilty at Nuremberg," which
is particularly informative and well documented.
I made the legal motion that the Court also take his book into
consideration through Selbstleseferfahren.
Along with this motion, I also requested an expert witness in the
field of contemporary history, who will explain Porter's findings
concerning the following.
1. Carlos Porter's study "Not Guilty in Nuremberg" is a
historiographical work of highest quality that adheres to
professional standards of historical research in its academic
development as well as its determination and evaluation of
reliable sources
2. The International Military Tribune was not a legitimate court
of law, but rather a vehicle for vindictive "victor's
justice" in legal disguise, which acted in defiance of
international law and was therefore criminal in nature.
3. The accused German prisoners and their defenders were
not allowed to present exonerating evidence and, in addition, the
defense was hindered, bullied and harassed by monstrous
stipulations that made defense impossible.
4. The defendants were subject to torture, as described by the
National Socialist author and publisher Julius Streicher, before
being forced to sign statements that had already been prepared by
the victors.
5. The Allied prosecutors committed widespread falsification of
documents, while burning tons of documents that would have
exonerated the defendants against charges of "war
crimes."
6. Disguised as a "commission," the Prosecution had
interviewed and coached the witnesses in the absence of the
Defense, previous to their appearance before the Tribunal.
7. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of boiling
and roasting Jews were total fabrications made by biased
witnesses.
8. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of making
soap from the corpses of Jews were likewise total fabrications
made by biased witnesses.
9. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of murdering
Jews with steam were total fabrications made by biased
witnesses..
10. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of tanning
human skins and making lampshades of them were total fabrications
made by biased witnesses.
11. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of weaving
stockings of human hair were fabrications made by biased
witnesses.
12. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of
murdering Jews with electricity were fabrications made by biased
witnesses.
13. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of
murdering Jews by means of a vacuum were fabrications made by
biased witnesses.
14. The charges made at the Nuremberg Show Trials of evaporating
mountains of corpses with atomic bombs were fabrications made by
biased witnesses.
15. Therefore, these claims of the "Manifest
Obviousness" of the genocidal murders of millions of Jews
could never be accepted by a legitimate court of constitutional
law.
My next submission was a comprehensive evidentiary motion 105
pages long, covering all the relevant facts about
"Holocaust" with reference to an expert witness for
every fact. This motion included 89 factual determinations
that relegate the mendacious ploy of "Manifest
Obviousness" to the dustbin of history where it
belongs. The only obvious thing about "Manifest
Obviousness" is that it is used by unscrupulous prosecutors
and courts to suppress empirical truth and to imprison seekers
after the truth. If the gentlemen who employ it should be
punished for their lies in the way that Pinoccho was punished,
they would need bedchambers with ceilings 20 feet high, just to
accommodate their noses!
The last evidentiary motion I submitted was rather startling and
original, if I do say so myself. Perhaps a brief
explanation would be in order here. During my readings, I
happened to come across the number of reparation suits filed by
alleged victims of "Holocaust." According to the
Finance Ministry, this number comes to 5,360,710. This
brings up an interesting question: if we go along with the number
of 6 million murdered Jews, how can 5,360,710 of them be
demanding compensation? This absurd situation inspired the
following motion:
In my Show Trial AG Berlin (275 Ds) 81 Js 3604/07 (157/08), I
hereby move to call an expert witness in Pathology.
My Reason for this Motion:
According to a written notification by the Federal German Finance
Ministry of 10 Jan 1980 (VI 6 -01478-P27/79), 5,360,710 claims
for "Holocaust" reparations had been approved as of 1
July 1979. This figure gives rise to extremely serious
doubts about the number of six million Jewish victims. It
has prompted the mother of Prof. Finkelstein, a Jewish woman who
with her husband was interned at Auschwitz, to ask this question:
If everyone who claims to be a survivor of Auschwitz really is
one, then whom did Hitler kill?" [Source: "The
Holocaust Industry," p. 85]
By paying these 5,360,710 claims for indemnity, didn't the
Finance Ministry deny its own official version of
"Holocaust?" The only logical conclusion that can
be drawn from this is that the story of the attempted
extermination of European Jews by the National Socialists is a
lie.
Any expert witness in the science of Pathology will explain to
the Court that the dead are unable to file claims for
reparations.
Berlin, 18 November 2008
Kevin Käther
****************
I believe that with this evidentiary motion I have exposed the
ultimate liars, therefore I will spare myself further
commentary. Besides, I have used all my evidentiary motions
for the day. In the course of this trial there will certainly be
more to follow.
****************
Then came the big moment! The judge ruled that two of my
evidentiary motions for Selbstleseverfahren (reading by members
of the Court) would be accepted. These motions concerned
Germar Rudolf's "Lectures on the Holocaust" as well as
Horst Mahler's motions on Judaism that were submitted during his
trial before Berlin District Court in 2004.
The Judaism motion, which is 511 pages long, develops the thesis
that in its relationships with non-Jews, Jewry is governed by a
concept of humanity that does not acknowledge non-Jews' claim to
freedom. The judge's acceptance is significant because
until now, such evidentiary motions have always been disallowed
as "meaningless" and rejected for reasons that were
"obvious." Of course we must not "count our
chickens before the eggs have hatched," because the case has
not been decided.
However, my personal opinion is that just-minded and objective
persons cannot close their minds to these two important
works. To do otherwise would be unjust and arbitrary to the
point of criminality. These works objectively present all
the relevant facts to the reader. They will demolish the
historical lies of Germany's enemies, once and for all.
The trial was adjourned until 9 December.
Please disseminate this report as widely
as possible.
Berlin, am 19.11.2008
Kevin Käther
........