Germany vs. Carlos Porter
HOLOCAUST MUSEUM OF STUPIDITY MOVES TO NEW LOCATION: STATE COURT OF APPEALS OF MUNICH [OBERLANDESGERICHT MÜNCHEN]
What would happen in an American criminal court if you asked for a new trial date on the grounds that you had previously been unable to appear due to radiation burns suffered while experimenting with an atomic bomb? If you were on trial for murder, a psychiatric examination would most certainly be ordered. In any other case, the result would be a severe reprimand: "Objection denied on grounds of obvious frivolity; any further undue levity on the part of the defendant will be severely punished".
Not so in Germany. The weakness of the so-called Holocaust is that it is a fundamentalist religion, not a jot or tittle of which may be taken away. Every aspect of it must be defended with deadly seriousness, no matter how absurd or insane. The defendant was indicted, in part, for denying the existence of the "steam chambers" at Treblinka. He said, OK, so get me a steam chamber and bring it to court.
Objection ignored. All legal arguments, all demands for evidence or clarification of the charges against him, were simply ignored. The court continually insisted that it would accept only the defence of inability to appear on the grounds of injury, accident, etc.
Goaded beyond endurance, the defendant then claimed inability to appear due to cranial injuries caused by the pedal-driven brain-bashing machine at Sachsenhausen, as described during the Nuremberg Trial.
Objection denied; date of injury not stated [!].
He was given one week in which to object. He then claimed to have suffered "radiation burns" on 9 October 1997 while experimenting with the German WWII atomic bomb used in a "secret experiment" at Auschwitz and described during the Nuremberg Trial by Robert Jackson [!]. This objection was taken seriously [!!!] by the State Court of Appeals of Munich, which stated, in a unanimous opinion written by a panel of three judges [!!!]:
Objection denied: received late [!!!] The reason (or excuse) for this was that the postman left a notice of registered delivery with return receipt in the defendant's mail box on 22 December1997. The defendant did not actually sign for delivery, or receive the judgement, until New Year's Eve [!]. The return receipt was therefore dated 31.12.1997, as the court very well knows, and as the defendant can easily prove.
He was given one week to object "from date of delivery" [!]. He objected by fax on 5 January 1998, as he can easily prove, by production of his itemised telephone bill. The State Court of Appeals, with mock seriousness, also got the date of the objection wrong, which is given twice as 2 January. Presumably this was done to make it more difficult to prove wilful falsehood as to the date of delivery. The delivery date of 22.12.1997 is mentioned 3 times. The text contains no mention of pedal-driven brain-bashing machines, atomic bombs, or the defendant's claim to be "still radioactive". It is obvious that, while the judges may be willing to perjure themselves as to the delivery date, they are reluctant to make themselves look ridiculous.
The decision was written in German.
---
Certified True Copy
OBERLANDESGERICHT
MÜNCHEN
Nymphengergerstrasse 16,
80097 München 2 Ws 98/98 18 Ns 112
Js 11637/96 StA b.d.
LG München I III BerL 117/98 StA b.d.
OLG
München
DECISION
The 2nd Panel of Criminal Judges of the State Court of Appeals of Munich
[blah, blah, blah] after consultation with the State Prosecutor, hereby REJECTS
defendant PORTER's immediate objection, [etc. etc. blah, blah,blah]
objection
REJECTED with imposition of costs [blah, blah].
The 18th Chamber [blah,
blah] REJECTED the defendant's appeal in a decision dated 10.10.1997 [blah,
blah]. This decision was delivered to the defendant at his address in Belgium on
22.12.1997. The decision and information as to legal remedies were translated
into English. The defendant's immediate objection was received on 2.1.1998, it
was written in German [!]. The immediate objection is inadmissible, because it
was received late [!!!]. [Blah, blah, blah.] Delivery on 22.12.1997 was
therefore effective [blah, blah] The one-week objection period therefore began
to run on 22.12.1997 [blah, blah]. Receipt of the immediate objection on
2.1.1998 [!] was therefore late [!]. The legal remedy is to be rejected as
inadmissible. [Decision as to costs, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah].
Dr.
Glück,
Mallwitz
Sole Presiding Judge
Judges of the State Court of Appeals
[Certified True Copy,
etc.]
Münich, 10.02.1998 ---
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, on 2 February 1998, the publisher of the
German translation of NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG received the following letter by
registered mail with return receipt: ---
[LETTERHEAD]: THE CHAIRWOMAN
[Vorsitzende, female]
BPJS
Federal Examination Centre for Texts Dangerous to Youth [!]
Post office box 26 01 21
53153 Bonn
To: NINETEEN-EIGHTY-FOUR PRESS [a name most aptly chosen, it would seem to appear] [address, etc.]
Registered Mail with Return Receipt Bonn, 19.01.1998 [note dates - it took
13 days to arrive]
Pr. 208/97-I/AK
For information to: The Federal
Ministry for Family, the Elderly, Women, and Youth
Rochusstrasse 8-10 53123 Bonn
Application of 13.08.1997
File
no.: 415-2434-I/204
Regarding: Brochure of Carlos Whitlock Porter "Nicht Schuldig in Nuernberg" Enclosure: Application for indexation from the
BMFSFJ [They are too stupid to realise that it was already prohibited a year
ago; what do Germans pay taxes for?]
Dear Sirs,
The application is to be decided in the simplified
procedure according to section 15a GjS. The address of the author is not known
at this office. It is left to your discretion to send him a copy of this letter
upon request. You may, however, notify us of his address as well, so that
delivery may be made immediately (section 12 GjS, section 4 paragraph 4
paragraph DVO GjS).
You [i.e., the publisher] are being given an opportunity of notifying us,
within ONE WEEK of delivery of the present notice, whether or not you have any
objections to the present application and to the processing of the same in a
simplified procedure. [!]
Faithfully,
Monssen-Engberding Ltd.
Reg.Direktorin [female director]
Kennedy
Allee 105-107
53175 Bonn
Telephone (0228) 37 66 31
Fax: " 37 9014 ------
[Enclosure] FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR FAMILY, THE ELDERLY,
WOMEN, AND YOUTH
Ref.: (please mention in all correspondence): 415-2434-1/204
[address
again, blah, blah, blah]
Telephone: (0228) 930-2756 Or
930-0 [sic]
Fax: (0228) 930-930-2221
Bonn, 13.08.1997
Processing: Dr. Scholtz [Doktorin, another idiot female]
Federal
Examination Centre for Writings Dangerous to Youth
Kennedy Allee 105-107
53175 Bonn
[stamp: Federal Office, etc. blah, blah blah, received 18
August 1997]
Application for Indexation] [Note that they are actually shameless enough
to borrow the term "Index" from the medieval inquisitors] [!!!]
The
application is hereby made to index the brochure "Nicht Schuldig in
Nürnberg" by Carlos Whitlock Porter according to section 1, paragraph 1
sentence 1 of the law on the dissemination of writings and media content [sic]
dangerous to youth. [!] [It must be pure coincidence that Germany produces the
filthiest pornography in Europe, falling behind the Dutch in child pornography
only.]
Reason: The mere title of the text mentioned above gives rise to
the conclusion that its content is likely to disorient children and young
people. [!] PORTER's brochure is a revisionist publication in the broadest
sense of the word, but nevertheless contains a few passages denying the
Holocaust. The intent of the text is, first of all, to slander the International
Military Tribunal [!] from a one-sided point of view [!] and to rehabilitate the
condemned war criminals. Germany is thus to be discharged from its
responsibility.
A general attempt is made, through the alleged innocence of
the chief defendants, to prove that there was no extermination of the European
Jews. The well-known Holocaust denier Robert FAURISSON receives positive mention
(see p 36) to this end, among other things. The meaning and intent of this text
is, therefore, partially, to discredit the Military Tribunal [!], and,
secondarily, to deny the Holocaust. The author attempts to suggest to the reader
that no crimes of the kind imputed to the defendants took place in Germany
between 1939 and 1995 [sic]. The points of the indictment against the defendants
are attributed solely to falsification on the part of the Allies. PORTER
continually presents the criminals indicted at Nuremberg as the real victims,
who were in no way guilty.
[This is not quite true. The introduction
clearly states: "This book contains a great many references to page
numbers. They are not there… to prove the truth of the matter stated [!],
but to help interested people find things." The author makes no pretence of
knowing the exact location of the Gneisenau on 1 September 1939, for example, or
whether it carried any ammunition supplies; that is for others to verify.]
An attempt is made to suggest levels of scientific research which the text
in no way reflects. To shore up the credibility of his statements, the author
gives the references to the Nuremberg trial transcript at all times. The sources
and quotations used by him are given unsystematically and taken out of context
[i.e., they are defence statements instead of statements of the prosecution.]
He is not successful in creating a connection to the arguments intended by
him. [OK, so where do YOU say the Gneisenau was on 1 September 1939?]. It is
remarkable that the author neither quotes correctly, nor gives correct
references.
[None of the author's mistakes are cited against him as
examples; perhaps they have gotten the human soap "recipe", USSR-196,
mixed up with the human soap "exhibit", i.e., the soap itself,
USS-393, and think that the latter is a "mistake".]
Media with
similar content have already been indexed by the Federal Examination Centre.
[The author is waiting for a hole to be bored in his tongue with a red-hot
iron.]
With relation to the above mentioned brochure, we are asking you to
examine whether or not there is an identity, or identity of content, between
this text, and texts which have already been indexed, or texts for which an
application has been made for listing [in other words, whether the same thing
may also have been published under some other name] [!].
Upon behalf of. Dr. Scholz [Inquisitrix] [to be continued]
Continue with Germany vs Porter Part XI
Return to Germany vs Porter Part IX
Return to ARTICLES PAGE
Return to CONTENTS PAGE
Soviet propaganda image stolen from http://www.reichslieder.com/reichslieder_Tshirts_150.html.