Pausing for thought is now a crime in the Federal Republic of Germany!

An eyewitness report on the trials of the traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson

By Lady Michèle Renouf

This eyewitness report on the trials of the traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson ought to commence like an unlikely fairytale with, “Once Upon a Time”, for:

Bishop Williamson ambushed by Swedish television

Readers may recall that in 2010, the traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson was found guilty in the Regensburg court of so-called “incitement to hatred” (Volksverhetzung).  This was for his saying: “Historical truth goes by evidence not by emotion” which he then supported by citing investigative evidence arising from the 1980s “Holocaust on Trial” hearings held in Canada, and conducted by the legendary “battling barrister” Doug Christie.  These ground-breaking trials were led by Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel, French Professor Robert Faurisson an expert in document investigation, and Fred Leuchter a U.S. expert in the construction of execution gas chambers.

Having witnessed many an historical source-critical Revisionist’s trial – from Canada (where in 1990 a Tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled that truth was no defence) and across Europe (where judges jail attorneys who “defend their Revisionist clients too well”) – I thought that the current state of justice and its separation from scientific attitude could get no closer to Grimm… the Brothers Grimm.

Yet on the 16th January 2013 in Regensburg’s District Courtroom, thirty trial observers plus thirty journalists in its packed stalls witnessed a judicial farce more ludicrous than occurred in the Canadian court (still pertinent to this day and case).  In 1985 the presiding Judge at the District Court of Ontario in Toronto had accepted telepathy as admissible reasoning by the late, Jewish “Holocaust historian” Dr. Raul Hilberg.  Under rigorous cross-examination he admitted “I am at a loss” when asked to provide scientific proof of either a Hitler order or how the alleged “murder of 1 million Jews” could have been carried out in the tiny Auschwitz mortuaries alleged to have been converted into a “mass homicidal gas chamber”. However, the Judge was re-convinced by this acknowledged expert’s testimony when Hilberg scientifically explained that “the Holocaust” was ordered and organised via telepathy “by a far-flung, bureaucratic meeting of minds”!!

In Regensburg 2013, the presiding Judge Andrea Hausladen (with the appearance of a school girl) now rules that an English Bishop’s pauses for thought during an interview he gave in 2008 to the Swedish SVT broadcaster constitute his conscious intention to commit a criminal offence in Germany!  Yes, the Bishop’s pause for thought, in itself – as deemed by her telepathic input – is judged a “crime”, for which she condemns him!

The €1,800 fine levied against Richard Williamson, 72, on January 16th 2013 in Regensburg District Court is the latest outcome of a re-trial over the “wrong” opinions the world’s last traditionally faithful Catholic Bishop re-stated in 2008 when pursued for them by the Swedish television crew.  Twenty-three years ago, and in accord with the forensic findings of scientists, experts, historians, and the rigorous cross examination by Doug Christie of eyewitnesses (who admitted employing “poetic licence”) during the “Holocaust on trial” in the Ontario courtroom – the Bishop, then had mentioned that “6 million Jews murdered in mass homicidal gas chambers” during World War Two was "lies, lies, lies".


“Are these your words?”

In the final five minutes of an hour long interview otherwise wholly devoted to matters ecclesiastical and conducted in Regensburg, the Swedish interviewer sprang the personal question: “Bishop Williamson, are these your words?” upon the unsuspecting Bishop.  Naturally surprised by a totally different topic taken at the tail-end of a 55 minutes’ long (non-live) TV interview, the honest Bishop as per his calling is then kept busy trying, in pauses, to dredge up correct data from various 1980s trials in Toronto to answer the sudden quoting of his comments made decades ago…before turning his attention to notice that he has been tricked into answering them on German soil!

In the opinion of the Regensburg Judge who conducted the current first round of his re-trial, the Bishop’s pauses were for the purpose of considering how he might best break German (Federal Republic) law. Yet, any non-brainwashed listener could hear for him/herself in the recording played twice in court that the contrary is clear and not the Judge’s telepathic interpretation !  “Thought crime” by projection ?  That’s a judicial one-upmanship on Orwell !

I raise the issue of brainwashing and the Judge’s youth advisedly. A young person of her schooling era would have been saturated with “Holocaust education” based on the official international Guidelines for Teaching About the Holocaust.  They dictate that: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers…or seek to disprove the denier’s position through normal historical debate or rational argument”.  These Teaching Guidelines fly in the face of our Western scientific attitude, to render the “Holocaust” a secular faith beyond “rational argument”.  Set above all open historical enquiry and sanctifying its veto, this opposes our norms of revisionist method by privileging its ethically alien debate-denial.

Plain for all to hear in the courtroom’s playback is the Bishop’s startled realization that his answers, though not punishable in England or Sweden (or the United States), are being uttered where they are deemed a “criminal” act, for he pleads to the Swedish crew who have entrapped him:  “I beg of you. This is against the law in Germany. If there was a German… [pause, looking to the side]… someone from the German state… [pause, looking behind]. You could have me thrown in prison before I leave Germany. I hope this is not your intention?”.

The Regensburg courtroom before the trial

His current attorneys argue (as would anyone of common sense) that the Bishop should not be held responsible if the broadcasters pursued the Bishop and ignored his unambiguous pleas not to abuse the vulnerability for which they had lain in ambush.  Thereby, the Swedes themselves committed a double treachery by making the Bishop’s final five minutes’ conversation with them potentially accessible in the Federal Republic of Germany, where normal historical source criticism, is called “Holocaust denial” and punishable by up to five years in prison.


Five years prison for a sceptical opinion

Indeed in March 2009 the German lawyer Horst Mahler received the maximum five year prison (twelve years altogether!) sentence for such offences, as did the German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel in 2007 after being expelled from Canada under an unconstitutional “national security certificate”.  German lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to three and a half years in prison in 2008, and banned from practicing her profession...for practicing it! That is, she endeavoured to submit the evidential exhibits in her client’s defence – an act, in itself, prosecutable in German (federal republic) law (as inherited from the deconstructive, anti-facts ‘reasoning’ of the Frankfurt School mindset).

Whether it be the English Bishop or the Swedish team who “should” be prosecuted in the Federal Republic of Germany, in any event the costs to be borne are also by the hard-pressed taxpayer for citizens and foreigners pursued for litigation if, accidentally, they express a sceptical opinion.  Indeed, this ludicrous law (with its cruel consequences) is in operation across fourteen European countries.

Prof. Robert Faurisson outside one of his own trials in Paris

The leading Revisionist, Professor Robert Faurisson, is apt to quip about it with wit and pith – and did so when he flew to London in November 2008 for the Press Conference following my mobilized defence team’s unique legal victory.  To illustrate what this law really means, he promised the President of France (where “Holocaust denial” is an opinion crime) that as a half Scots/half Frenchman, while in London, his half-French would not listen to his half-Scot!

In these fourteen countries (including the criminally-devised entity of Israel in Occupied Palestine), to dare quote Professor Faurisson’s sixty words (originally in French) constitutes a crime:

“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which made possible a gigantic financial-political fraud, the principal beneficiaries of which are the State of Israel and international Zionism, and whose principal victims are the German people -- but not their leaders -- and the entire Palestinian people.”


An ambush so perfectly timed, is it fishy?

Back in January 2009, at a timely two months later, the interview was broadcast when Bishop Richard Williamson – at that time a member of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) the traditional Catholic brotherhood – was anticipating the Pope’s imminent invitation to welcome the brotherhood back into the Vatican fold.  Only the last five minutes of his remarks pursued by the journalist were broadcast and provoked wide media attention and outrage, including several lawsuits. These five minutes (not the first fifty-five) became widely available on the internet. International Jewish organisations trumpeted their global hysteria, leading to pressure on the Roman Catholic Church from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.


Projected “Disobedience”

Bishop Williamson had been under tremendous pressure from within his church, including the leadership of his traditional Society, to abandon his defence and meekly accept criminalization for his words.

The SSPX is the religious brotherhood founded by the traditional Catholic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who broke away to oppose the treacherous consequences, in effect, of Christendom’s Judification at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Richard Williamson is one of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre, which led to their excommunication from Rome. In 2008 the Pope was preparing to lift their excommunication when, due to Jewish Lobbyists’ interference, Williamson suffered expulsion from his seminary in Argentina.  He now lives in London.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

The well-advised Bishop has not been lured into attending these trials in person in the German Federal Republic, but he goes on courageously protesting the sentence, and expressing in his online Eleison [Have Mercy (Upon Us)] Comments his doctrinal concerns for the “conciliar” redirection of the SSPX.  Ordered to remain completely gagged by his Superior General Bishop Fellay from all public discourse about his concerns for the SSPX, Williamson’s privately distributed Eleison Comments became the ignominious excuse given by Fellay for casting him out for “disobedience”.

Having failed to goad Bishop Williamson into resigning from the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, in keen compliance with tyrannical Jewish pressure, saw not only to Williamson’s expulsion, but permits his being thoroughly disrespected in every court hearing by the SSPX Regensburg representative Maximilian Krah. His Grace, whom Fellay has publicly disgraced and would see him rendered penniless, has, by contrast, “the true gentleman, Willis Carto, who offered to launch an appeal fund me, but this was not necessary at the time”.  And Fellay’s reward for his keen obedience to the globally orchestrated Lobby’s work to compromise the founding spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre before its re-entry into an equally disfunctional Vatican?  Next, Fellay himself is accused of “anti-semitism” for hermeneutical answers he uttered during a private ceremony!  (Coat-tailers hitch but a short fix on the traditionally slippery anti-gentiles.)


Middoth, the little known Judaic method of argument

Too little acknowledged nowadays are the warnings about the anti-gentiles – “the deceivers” – as held in common by the traditional SSPX Christianity and the Koran.  These warnings arise over the Talmud (the Jewish law books) and Middoth (the Jewish method of argument) for being ethically incompatible with our Classical truth-seeking culture. (The Frankfurt School of deconstructive argument – still heavily influential since its infiltration into Germany’s intellectual spheres of influence in 1923 - is a latter-day manifestation of the ancient Judaic Middoth method of fact-dismissive expedience.)


Eleison Comments

In his online Eleison Comments dated January 19th 2013, Bishop Williamson clarifies his battle for the survival of Lefebvre’s SSPX and the treachery of its current leadership:

”Thanks to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Catholic Church held firm, but thanks to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the official Catholic Church joined in the slide. Then thanks mainly (but not only !) to Archbishop Lefebvre (1905-1991), relics of the Church of Trent gathered themselves together to form amidst the desert of modernity a Catholic oasis, the SSPX. But where the mighty Church had not been able to resist, it was, sure enough, merely a matter of time before the puny SSPX would be tempted in its turn to join in the slide.
“Thus, like most politicians of the last 500 years, these SSPX leaders are talking to the right while walking to the left…such leaders "advance behind a mask", seeking to disguise their move to the left beneath words to the right, or words clearly ambiguous.”

The Second Vatican Council led to the
official Catholic Church "joining the slide".

The perennial witness at the Williamson trials is representative of the treacherous elements within the SSPX, Maximilian Krah.  In effect, he acts in favour of the Prosecution in wishing to see the last of Bishop Williamson (the only true exponent of Lefebvre’s mission) and is relieved to be “well rid of him”.  At each hearing for a full hour Krah has ridiculed and denounced Bishop Williamson in court, not objectively but subjectively. The new witness in the recent re-trial is Father Stefan Frey, an objective representative from the once doughty SSPX brotherhood in Germany and Rector of the Zaitzkofen seminary where the interview took place.  From Father Frey we learn for the first time that Bishop Williamson had in no way pushed himself to give an interview to Swedish TV.  In fact, the SSPX in Regensburg had meant another person to do it but he had met with an accident! - so Bishop Williamson was asked to step in.


“Guidelines for Teaching About the Holocaust”

Many references by Krah are made to “the Canadian trials” and to “Professor Faurisson”.   It made me think of the shocking conclusion from Mark Weber, director of the California based Institute for Historical Review.  Weber advised Faurisson during the IHR Conference in 2002 that the “Holocaust” was a fading issue.  Yet here we are eleven years on, with more and more prosecutions for sceptical opinion being perpetrated across Europe and famous footballers in England recruited to give “Holocaust lessons”.  Football heroes, born way after WW2, endorse DVDs produced by the Holocaust Educational Trust for schools, entitled Introduction to the Holocaust: Footballers Remember. The same Teaching Guidelines apply – Hollywood style, omnipotent and omniscient, to promote plausibly persuasive not forensically objective history, which is ethically incompatible and undermining to our Classical educational system.


“History goes by evidence not by emotion”

Sylvia Stolz with Lady Michèle Renouf at the court

I had the privilege of sitting beside German Attorney Sylvia Stolz during the January re-trial hearing in Regensburg.

Disbarred for defending her clients too well, Attorney Sylvia Stolz explained to me why these proceedings violate Justice, for having to totally avoid the substance of the case.  She was released from prison on April 13, 2011, after serving a sentence of three years and three months for calling “Holocaust the biggest lie in world history" when representing the Canadian publisher and pacifist Ernst Zündel for trial in 2005-6.

What did the Bishop mean, “history goes by evidence not by emotion”? He spoke of the Revisionist method, the norm of historical source criticism.  In her summing up, the young Judge Hausladen parrots the privileged veto that “the Holocaust must not be questioned”, nor can “Jewish sensibilities be injured”.  Yet, Revisionists do not “deny” but simply affirm new forensic and geological findings, the cross-examination of witnesses as in all historical fields of endeavour, without “sensibility” exceptions.  In refusing to permit all discussion of this privileged veto on history, indeed Attorney Stolz must be correct in her assessment that “Prosecutor violates the legal principles, violates the principles of justice” which should permit both sides of a case to be heard without fear of prosecution for client and attorney! "The main points are strictly ignored."

In German courtrooms witnesses are not routinely asked to swear on oath.  As our European cultures are based on the Classical Greek tradition of the four inseparable Classical Virtues – namely, Temperance (balance, measure, harmony), Justice (unbiased), Wisdom (in the Greek sense with scientific attitude) and Courage (empathetic not vainglorious) – ought it to be obligatory that witnesses (law-makers, judges, state prosecutors, alike) swear to carry out their duties with those four inseparable Virtues firmly in mind?

Attorney Sylvia Stolz was, herself, jailed for three years for the “crime” of “defending her Revisionist clients too well”.  A perfect example of the debate-denying Lobby’s swindle-speak !  Though released from prison in April 13, 2011, she is still punished with a ban forbidding her to practice law for five years.  I hear that her former professor and author Professor Roxin, has written a book in which he expresses doubts about the prosecution of what is slyly termed “Holocaust-denial”. I say sly, because the choice of the term Holocaustleugnung, given that in the German language leugnung (unlike the English word denial) implied dishonesty, thus functions slyly to impose a scare tactic on anyone being honestly inclined to scepticism, for fear of the smear.

Judge Hausladen – so young, school-girlish, light-weight – was no doubt ideal to judge this case, and not only to provide appearances which diminish its ground-breaking importance. As one just commencing her career, she is perhaps unlikely to blot her copybook to defend Justice against a privileged veto on German historical source criticism imposed by an oppressive Jewish “sensitivity” and jew-ish debate-deniers. A senior judge with nothing to lose career-wise, perhaps his pension, might risk overcoming the fear barrier to reach a free and fair judgment. The “Holocaust” cannot be considered historically proven and self-evident while ever all normal historical source investigation into its many subjective edicts (including its chosen religious description meaning a “sacrificial burnt offering”) is forbidden. 
Even the two retired Constitutional Supreme Court judges Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem and Winfried Hassemer – each having bravely expressed doubts about criminalizing “Holocaust denial”, have since refused to dare give another interview!

I daresay the aim of the reduced fine, from  €6,500 in 2011 to €1,800 in the 2013 re-trial’s first round was intended to encourage the Bishop to view the fine now as an insignificantly trivial sum and simply pay it.  That thinking would be in line with the cultural trend of prioritising monetary discounts and “move on” spinelessness above honour and justice.  But in the case of an incorruptible traditional Christian Bishop, not afraid to voice the warnings in the New Testament about usury, deceivers, and treachery, we can expect to hear two more challenges, the next in the Landgericht, and then in the European Court of Human Rights.


The legal backstory

A criminal investigation of Bishop Williamson was launched by the German (federal republic) authorities within weeks of the broadcast, and in October 2009 he was fined €12,000 under the German (federal republic) system of “order of punishment”, which initially involves no trial but is sometimes accepted by defendants in straightforward cases, such as traffic offences and the like.

The Bishop’s initial lawyer Matthias Lossmann had been appointed via the SSPX, and pursued a defeatist strategy (as I witnessed) especially by his reliance on the kiss-of-death, anti-Williamson testimony from the SSPX representative Maximilian Krah.  This led to his client being convicted following a trial in Regensburg in April 2010, though the fine was reduced to €10,000.

A first appeal was heard in July 2011, again in Regensburg, by which time Bishop Williamson had taken on new lawyers – first Wolfram Nahrath.  Within 20 minutes of his announcement on the schedule as Williamson’s legal representative, Nahrath was disallowed by an unnamed pressure put upon Fellay for Williamson to choose another lawyer. Finally, Williamson was permitted to choose Prof. Dr. Edgar Weiler.  He represented him vigorously, as I witnessed, at the appeal hearing, for the legal arguments introduced by Weiler resulted in the complete throwing out of the original charges (with another reduction of the fine down to €6500).

A reading of the documents suggests that Prof. Weiler was successful in challenging the very basis of the charges – namely the essential question of at what point Bishop Williamson had committed an offence.  Was it illegal simply to make these statements in Germany, even behind closed doors, to the Swedish journalist?  Surely this was not a “publication”.


The necessity of “vague and imprecise” law-making

In February 2012, the courageous British Bishop Williamson had won an appeal against conviction by the lower District Court of Regensburg when the Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Nuremberg (the competent appeal court in this case) quashed it. The Appeal Court ruled that the lower District Court had failed to say when and how the offending remarks were made public in Germany.  As the Press chose to express it, “the Prosecution was found to have been sloppy in their procedures”. Yet, more telling is that the charges are vague and imprecise because of the special law against all norms of historical source critical scepticism (called “Holocaust denial”) upon which it rests is itself vague and imprecise. 

And so Williamson was sent a penalty notice which cited the relevant passages of the interview, but lacked any mention of how and where this interview was actually distributed to the public – one obvious defect of the Prosecution. The two courts in Regensburg did not take note of this – the higher regional court in Nuremberg, however, picked up both judgments and suspended the case temporarily. The "interview given to camera" represents "a non-punishable act of preparation," says the appeal decision. Only when the statements were published, does Holocaust denial become a criminal offense.


Is the Bishop responsible for the Swede’s publication of “his words”?

Media coverage of trial (incorporating YouTube clip!)

Central now in these re-trials of this sole courageously faithful SSPX Catholic cleric, is the silly question: Was the Bishop to know that his answers for Swedish television would be made public in Germany? I say silly and I speak from firsthand experience, for journalists are notoriously untrustworthy with one’s words (even fabricate them) in an endeavour to satisfy their commissioners. Speaking as one who has been internationally scandalized and ostracized via the dirty tricks some journalists play, even upon the wary, the notion of the Judge and Prosecution that a citizen can control publication of their remarks, even after pleading for them to be considered off-limits, is laughable.

Judge Hausladen in her summing-up said Bishop Williamson “had a conscious intention to say ‘punishable’ words, since his pauses during his answers show that he was considering”!  Yet should one wonder whether Hausladen might be herself quite an exponent of what I term swindle-speak, for with or without pauses, in normal parlance, if one says, as the Bishop did: “Now be careful. I beg you. This is against the law in Germany. You could have me thrown in prison. I hope that is not your intention!?” is he not warning plus begging them not to broadcast these last remarks in Germany?!  Pretty clear, one might have thought.


"The exploitation of the Germans"

In the interview, straight after the British Bishop complains of "the exploitation of the Germans", it is at this point when raising the issue of “German guilt” that the Bishop becomes abruptly aware of the national soil upon which he is standing, and the consequences! He instantly warns the TV crew – “Now be careful” – of what this means – that defending his statements are illegal if published in the Federal Republic of Germany – and “begs” them to be merciful for their exploitation of him!
Moreover, proof of the Swedish surrogates’ “guilt” (in this Grimms’ Rumpelstiltskin world of unnameable tyranny) is that the Swedes do not dare come for cross-examination.

They know they would risk prosecution …or is it also that their employers won’t risk their coming to expose for whom these surrogates achieved this devious pursuit to get the only indomitable SSPX Bishop criminalised? Let us look closely at the truly conspiratorial circumstances surrounding this singular Bishop’s typical ‘demonise, ostracize, then criminalise’ treatment.

More tellingly, is that only these last 5 minutes, not the first 55 minutes, were the part chosen for worldwide broadcast.  This fact reinforces the Defence argument about how sneakily the Swedish journalists had "set a trap" for the unsuspecting Bishop.  Moreover, the Defence argues that Williamson's reply to “Are these your words?” before the cameras were "a background discussion" and should not have been broadcast.  And in which case, they add that not Williamson but the journalists have committed an offense.  The Defence concluded that even the order for prosecution against their client was unlawful.

Prosecutor Edgar Zach

The Chief Public Prosecutor Edgar Zach, having dared make little or no replies to incisive arguments by Williamson’s Defence, sat as if bored, confident of the usual outcome.

If he did reply, his case would risk drawing further attention to the dangerous ambiguity of a Federal Republic legal system which operates by very different standards of justice and free expression for the lawyer to defend his/her client from those supposed by the general public.

Common sense reigned when Defence lawyers Professor Dr. Weiler and Andreas Geipel sustained their main points. Number one, that the Accusation lacked precision as in the prior legal process in 2011. And this, I venture, is because the so-called “unique Holocaust mass murder weapon” itself is not scientifically defined in law – (as I had earlier learnt when interviewing Attorney Dr. Schaller) – even as it may not be questioned scientifically for fear of severe prosecution!  And number two, that given what the Bishop stated so specifically at the close of the Swedish TV interview, indisputably Bishop Williamson had not the intention that his answers about “Holocaust” should be published in the Federal Republic of Germany.  How clearly does he say it: “Now be careful. I beg you…I hope that is not your intention?”. Yet both Judge and Chief Public Prosecutor can ignore the facts, even twist them to mean the reverse!

Where is the Judge’s honest recognition that, given the Bishop’s calling he is obliged to answer a question honestly, and in doing so, naturally his pauses relate to his efforts to answer the questions as conscientiously as he can, especially at the point when, after mentioning “German guilt”, he pauses to realize on which territory he happens to be sitting!

Prosecution should be completely ruled out when the Bishop suddenly becomes aware of what the interviewer is really up to and begs him not to publish where such questions and answers are prosecutable.  As Sylvia Stolz said to me, the case never addresses why such questions and answers in themselves could amount to a “crime”?  Sentencing someone for his honest effort to answer a question is surely the crime, a crime against natural justice!  The Federal Republic’s legal operatives do not have a moral compass.

Judge Hausladen declares: “when I speak in front of a camera I presume it will be broadcast”. She forgets that in her profession she is trained to doubt witnesses and count her words when handling journalists.  In the Bishop’s profession he is trained to rely, not on judicious calculation, but on faith, and hope for the salvation of human nature, and thus would pause for exactitude (in accord with Faurisson’s Revisionist principle).

Hausladen parrots how such words by Williamson “disturb the public peace and the life of the living Jews in an unbearable manner”. After the interview Williamson expresses “Bereuen” (regret) but this is not relevant for the Judge because to her the relevance is in the pauses during the interview when Williamson had the moments right then to concentrate on expressing regretfulness for “Are these your words” (not a defence of them). Williamson did indeed express regret, at being ambushed, but not about his human right to hold an opinion and express it when requested.


Defence counsel Andreas Geipel meets the press

No surrender

I can concur with Press reports that Prof Dr Edgar Weiler and his colleague Andreas Geipel, fought diligently for their client, and left the courtroom smiling after almost eight hours of the January 2013 round one of the re-trial. They know their client will not surrender his honour and justice to pay a fine simply by its being reduced to one-fifth of the original demanded two years ago. They know that, though the cultural current readily surrenders to mercenary values, the taking of that unscrupulous line of least resistance is far from their client’s “fishers of men” mission.


Defence counsel Edgar Weiler

The big question now: Is Williamson responsible for the publication?

With the new charge, in a subsequent trial, the Prosecution believe they have sufficiently rectified the earlier failings. The website of the Swedish TV channel, a report in the magazine Der Spiegel, Youtube and are the sources that are now named with the relevant dates.

Public Prosecutor Zach rebuts the objections of the defense, and though admitting Williamson could have no influence on the precise circumstances of publication, but yes, says Zach, it could be reasonably assumed that the interview would be published in Germany.

In her brief closing remarks Judge Andrea Hausladen follows the Public Attorney almost verbatim: "When I speak in front of a camera, I can assume that my statements are public”. It remains to be seen which argument will be accepted by the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg.


Attorney Sylvia Stolz – A Pearl before Swine

Attorney Sylvia Stolz at Regensburg

Too precious few lawyers dare draw attention to the pig-ignorant separation of Justice from Scientific Attitude, save debarred attorney Sylvia Stolz when she strew pearls before the Judge in Mannheim. During the Zündel trial she was excluded as defence counsel and forcibly removed, carried out of the courtroom in 2006. It is surely a grotesque miscarriage of justice to punish lawyers simply for doing their job. At the end of her own trial in 2008 she was arrested.

The Judge’s disdain was recorded – for, no court transcripts were taken – by the Berliner Tageszeitung (Berlin Daily), on February 9, 2007 when the so-called TAZ “had the honour” notes Stolz of reporting this statement by Judge Meinerzhagen: 
"Towards the end [of the Zündel trial], and to the surprise of antifascist groups present in the room, the court rejected all the evidence, and for good simply because it is "completely irrelevant whether the Holocaust really happened or did not happen. His denial is illegal in Germany and that's all that matters to the court."

Yet as the German attorney Sylvia Stolz says, she is again facing prosecution for questioning the “Holocaust” narrative, this time for speaking at an Anti-Censorship Coalition conference held in Switzerland, in November 2012 (and available on YouTube). I would recommend your viewing it.

According to reports, Daniel Kettiger, a Bernese lawyer, has filed a criminal complaint against Stolz at the Swiss Prosecutors Office. The lecture has been re-worded by media coverage – they are trying to fake a “Holocaust denial”. However, Sylvia Stolz's lecture explains that “Holocaust” is not reliably defined. She points out that sentences against “Holocaust deniers” are lacking any factual findings about “Holocaust”, for example about crime scenes, killing methods or pieces of evidence. The reasons for judgment are also lacking any referrals to precedents in findings in the former sentences. She quoted historians in order to show that the “obviousness” of “Holocaust” requires discussion in court. She quoted passages of the so-called “Nuremberg sentence” and of the sentence of the “Frankfurt Auschwitz trial”.

Stolz is not the only person for whom a criminal complaint has been filed. Ivo Sasek, the organizer of the Anti-Censorship Coalition conference also faces similar prosecution. 


“That line of evidentiary enquiries too sensitive”

The Williamson defence team

The Regensburg-digital online news report on the Williamson trial claimed the Defence “filed a flood of evidentiary applications”. In Germany this procedure is known as a Beweisantrag, in which the lawyer applies to the court requesting that the judge allow particular evidentiary enquiries to provide proof of an aspect of the case that the lawyer thinks relevant and important. It is up to the judge whether to allow the court to go down the route suggested. Of course if the judge rejects the Beweisantrag this could become one of the grounds for appeal. 

I had seen firsthand this veto by a judge in operation during the British historian David Irving’s libel action in London’s High Court in 2000 when many stands of Mr. Irving’s defence were balked by Judge Gray whom I heard say “that line of questioning is too sensitive Mr. Irving”. No doubt enquiries especially into unnatural deaths are painful to the bereaved but their sensibilities cannot be given licence to prevent normal police, forensic, and scholarly enquiry to establish truth.

Before the Regensburg 2013 hearing, a "lengthy passage through the courts" had been promised by Williamson’s lawyers Professor Dr. Edgar Weiler and Andreas Geipel. As a public information by-product, citizens will get several further chances to eyewitness the travesty of German (Federal Republic) justice. Weiler and Geipel have also applied to dismiss the case. And of course also – as is always raised in trials related to “Holocaust denial” – they argue that the use of Section 130 of the Criminal Code, which criminalized freedom of opinion as public incitement (Volksverhetzung), should be reviewed by the Federal Constitutional Court, because it is contrary to the Basic Law i.e. the Grundgesetz, the constitutional basis of the Federal Republic of Germany. Actually, Section 130 of the Criminal Code contradicts the popular understanding of democratic right to free opinion and debate versus sedition. It is not sedition when freedom to debate source critical information serves the public’s need to know. It is a basic pillar of our Western civilization.


Importance of the Töben court victory for the case of Bishop Williamson

Such contradictions led of course to the historic victory in the London courts in 2008, when a European Arrest Warrant against the Australian academic Dr Fredrick Töben, drawn up by German (Federal Republic) prosecutors was similarly thrown out for reflecting the very vagueness of the law it is based upon, which fails to define terms such as “Holocaust” or its unique alleged mass murder weapon.

In fact, it is due to all I had learnt, incidentally, when interviewing veteran Viennese attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller for my Telling Films documentary “Jailing the Lawyers” that prompted me to mobilize a Defence team to fight the extradition arrest warrant of Australian academic Dr. Töben along Schaller’s strictly legalistic (not Töben’s anticipated moralistic) lines – lines which had successfully seen the early release of the British historian David Irving from a Viennese prison in 2006. (Irving had been jailed for ten words he had uttered to an undercover journalist in Austria sixteen years earlier).  Dr. Schaller’s skills had prompted a law to prevent him from taking on future cases – a law barring, in his field, those over the age of 75, though still successful veteran Dr. Schaller was already aged 85!  Even though he had no direct input, I consider our London legal victory as the influential legacy of Schaller’s soldierly swansong.

The ground breaking legal victory of the Töben case saved English law from “harmonizing” with the Federal Republic of Germany’s “Holocaust denial” laws and the automatic rubber-stamping of its extradition calls.  It also saved the British Bishop from such a legal precedent with its automatic extradition. (Today in some way this victory is preventing the easy extradition of Wikileaks whistleblower Australian Julian Assange to the U.S.A. for his likely execution.  Reminiscent of the Bishop ambush, the authorities are having to rely again on Sweden and the European Arrest Warrant system, to entrap Assange.)

On that occasion too, the German authorities and their partners in the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that they would appeal and continue to seek Dr. Töben’s extradition. But they quickly abandoned their flimsy case for fear of its reaching the goal of our Defence team: its free debate in the House of Lords.

On the day of Bishop Williamson's expulsion back to Britain by an Argentine government cowering before the World Zionism Lobby, I was again called into action when the traditional Catholic Bishop returned from Argentina to his native England.  My legal team was on stand-by at Heathrow airport. There was every risk of a further step by German (Federal Republic) prosecutors to deploy a European Arrest Warrant, this time over comments the Bishop had made to the Swedish television crew, answering their questions about his views on “Holocaust”, and also on “anti-semitism” to which he had replied: “If it’s true it’s not anti-semitic”.

The interests of truth and justice – not to mention the interests of the hard-pressed German taxpayer – would be well served if the prosecutors finally accept defeat in Bishop Williamson’s case to return scientific attitude, (not “sensibility” exceptions), as inseparable to law-making and justice.


Nordau's forward planning “like rungs of a ladder”

Max Nordau

I recognise in these procedures a forward planning strategy which accords with the one outlined by World Zionist founding father Dr. Max Nordau in his 1903 “ladder speech”. The “rungs of a ladder” leading step by step, in our day’s example, commenced in 2008 with the attempted extradition of the Australian academic Dr Fredrick Töben under a European Arrest Warrant to face trial in the Federal Republic of Germany and a potential five year prison sentence.  Had it succeeded this would have provided the next “rung”, as precedent for a planned (and - had the Töben case gone through) virtually automatic rubber-stamped, future extradition of Bishop Richard Williamson.

Speaking to a packed audience of his supporters in Paris soon after the 1903 Sixth World Zionist Congress, Dr Nordau foretold:

“Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, The Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war [ it took two! – citing World Zionism’s forward planning for WW1 eleven years before it happens!], the peace conference where with the help of England a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.”

Elsewhere I have extended the parallel, in this instance, with the ladder rungs beginning with Rung 1: the European Arrest Warrant for the extradition of Dr Töben intended to cause English law to “harmonise” with the German (Federal Republic) “holocaust-denial” law.  Rung 2: the anticipated ease of expediting an extradition order from the Federal Republic of Germany for the English Bishop Williamson to go through simply rubber-stamped without due process in England.  Rung 3: With the devious TV entrapment and criminalization (had this succeeded) of the SSPX’s sole, strenuous Bishop silenced in a German (Federal Republic) dungeon; or by Rung 4: successful Jewish bullying for his being disgraced by expulsion.  His expulsion would leave the SSPX effectively de-toothed enough to appease the Jewish lobbyists.  Only then could they permit the Pope’s wish to rescind the SSPX’s excommunication and invite it to re-join with the Vatican’s 1960’s submission to Roman Catholicism’s effectively ongoing Judification. The top “rung” was the ultimate destination to halt the Vatican’s 1.1 billion followers from reaching the authentic SSPX influence which aimed to reverse this ‘compound usury’.  This, to me is seen, in the bullying of British Bishop Richard Williamson and the Vatican, by Jewish "First Covenant" supremacists who meddle in Christian hermeneutics with their anti-gentile rabbinical and secular "Holocaust" dogma.

These forward-planned “rungs” lead inexorably, as well, to the subversion of the U.S. Constitution for which the State of Kentucky’s ban of its citizens to so much as their freedom to greet me this month, is a tiny though telling outcome.  The subjection of the entire Internet to the catch-all repression of sceptical opinion (cunningly denounced as “hate speech”) via the US equivalent of England’s Public Order Act will be up there, about Rung 6.  The Töben defence team in 2008 won a fear-barrier victory in breaking the rungs carefully constructed by a forward-planning “state within a state” tyranny intent upon undermining the four pillars of our inseparable Classical Virtues, the basis of authentic America’s Jeffersonian tradition.


Unconstitutional 'special' law-making

Now, let us see where the Federal Republic of Germany’s Supreme Court stands with regard to the criminalisation of “Holocaust denial”. As Sylvia Stolz explains:

“Because the law here prohibits a specific opinion it is regarded as a 'special law'. This was determined by the Supreme Court in a rather recent decision in 2009. Restriction of freedom of speech is only admissible in the Federal Republic when it is done by a general law. The official acknowledgment of paragraph 130 as a 'special law' is a small step forward. The Supreme Court should take the consequence and repeal the law criminalising 'Holocaust denial' due to its unconstitutionality...with the inherent criminalisation of evidence and legal defense. But it does not. Instead of this it speaks of National Socialism's 'unique crimes'. As if giving evidence is both superfluous and criminal, when dealing with a 'unique' crime! Does this seem logical to you?”


Historian Ernst Nolte

Two courageous young Germans

It did not seem logical to two courageous young Germans Dirk Zimmerman and Kevin Käther. They decided to make their test case.

Each, with no previous conviction, was prepared to be prosecuted for sending the book by chemist Germar Rudolf Dissecting the Holocaust to a mayor, two priests and two academics for their opinions. The respected German historian, Ernst Nolte, whom I met at the 2010 Käther trial was called there as a witness.  In Nolte’s book, The Causal Nexus, the historian had noted that: “The witness testimonies are for the most part based on hear-say and assumptions. The few eye-witness testimonies we have, are in partial contradiction with one another, and raise questions regarding overall credibility.” The defence, ably conducted by Wolfram Nahrath, achieved, on appeal, the setting aside of an earlier prison sentence. To quote Käther: “The Federal Republic's Holocaust inquisition has dropped my trial in order to avoid my questioning the official Holocaust expert Professor Wolfgang Benz.” Since the fruitful challenge to the “authority” of Professor Hilberg during the 1985 Toronto trial, establishment “experts” such as Professor Benz are wary, as are judges and prosecutors, of exposure to cross-examination. The official reason given was that dissemination (the crime) had not been established.


Collective punishment for US citizens and global visitors if Renouf visits Kentucky!

Why does the State of Kentucky ban Lady Renouf’s visit?!

New World countries like America should not imagine that teaching guidelines and lawmaking in fourteen European countries (including the criminally-devised entity of Israel) against freedom of debate and natural justice are confined to the Old World.  The reality of free speech and publication in the USA runs to maniacal lengths. I speak from personal experience.  This month I was banned by the STATE of Kentucky from so much as showing up at the world renowned public event of the Militaria Society’s annual Show of Shows which took place this February 28th to March 3rd when, if I did, all of its thousands of participants would have been thrown out!  A wartime-like collective punishment for US citizens and global visitors was threatened – and, in effect, a ban on history at the Militaria Society’s Show of Shows!!
What do those leaders who govern the State of Kentucky – (as do those in Europe) – fear from my modest promotion via my Telling Films, of freedom of debate and opinion? 

What is the leadership of the State of Kentucky afraid of?  Might Renouf’s CDs remind participants that the U.S. Constitution, indeed Western civilisation, is founded advisedly on the four inseparable Classical Virtues identified by Plato and celebrated by Thomas Jefferson?  Might she mention to participants that the BBC World Service hosted a debate on Why Can't We Question the Holocaust? with main guests Lady Renouf and Prof. Deborah Lipstadt and the former won the day?

Lady Renouf at European Parliament

Might the participants get to know that Renouf went ‘behind enemy lines’ in the European Parliament to expose Netanyahu’s UN deception when he waved a false “proof” document? For the truth was waved by Prof. Robert Faurisson with his 1976 discovery of that Auschwitz ‘blueprint’ - (that’s the blueprint Netanyahu waves) - which shows, with label, a small disinfectant gas chamber which is not at all suitable for any mass homicide (save in the plausible advertising sleight-of-hands the like of Bibi and Hollywood). And so, in France, there is an anti-Faurisson law to prosecute the norm of ongoing research for historical truth. This November will see Professor Faurisson again in a Paris courtroom taking legal action against a re-issue of persecution for the research he uncovered and which was reported in Le Monde newspaper in 1978!

A leaflet to alert the American public about this anti-Jeffersonian tyranny whereby US citizens are denied their right to freedom of information, opinion and association if they wished to greet a civil and civic-minded British visitor with no criminal record of any kind, is available here.

The leaflet states: 
The State of Kentucky – controlled by Gov. Steve Beshear and Lt. Gov. Jerry Abramson – has banned a British film maker and free debate campaigner from visiting one of the State’s longest-running traditional events, the Show of Shows staged in Louisville by the Ohio Valley Military Society in 2013. Lt. Gov. Abramson is the former Mayor of Louisville, and the most powerful politician in the city’s history. Yet citizens had traditionally believed that even the most powerful Americans accepted their nation’s Constitution. Unlike European countries where historians, scientists and researchers are often jailed for normal historical revision of once accepted orthodoxy, Jeffersonian America was renowned as the Home of the Free. As George Orwell perceived, some are more equal than others – and some are certainly more free than others to impose their own politically correct version of “history”.

Within two hours of a press release announcing that Lady Renouf would be attending the Show – as the guest of veteran stallholder Harry Cooper of the Florida-based Sharkhunters International – the State of Kentucky informed organisers that if Renouf’s visit went ahead the entire show would be closed down, with thousands of attendees thrown out on the street!


Latest Telling Films DVD – Dresden Holocaust 1945

So what do Renouf’s TELLING FILMS reveal that US citizens most not hear?

From the latest release on DVD is titled “Dresden Holocaust 1945: An Apology to Germany is Due”. Filmed outside Westminster Abbey, London, on 14th February 2012, this double DVD tells the facts behind the Allied bombing war policy: a war that Britain began by dropping the first bombs on Germany in September 1939 then escalated to civilian areas in May 1940 in a brutal campaign of deliberate “dehousing”. Renouf’s Telling Films cites British heroes who denounced Churchill’s terror policy which intentionally burnt alive civilians across 60 German towns and cities.

What do those leaders who govern the State of Kentucky fear from freedom of opinion and debate? In the New World where a British visitor is banned from, so much as, attending a public-welcoming event which is open to the world: and in the Old World where a British bishop is prosecuted for his pauses for thought, I draw this conclusion. If all that these global debate-deniers have to rely on for authorizing their gagging laws is their projections upon interviewees’ “thoughtful pauses”, then these brutish debate-deniers are showing themselves increasingly clawless.  I, for one, am confident that their throttling grip is loosening itself with every overplayed hand. Bring on more public-need-to-know exposure to the steadfast British Bishop’s re-trials!  The Old and New world needs a Happy Ever After end to this Grimm judicial farce wherein unconstitutional law, like the SSPX, is a “fish rotting from the head”.  I believe the general public smell this rot.  The task is to help the swindled public see the full panorama.