Firsthand Reports of THE SCHAEFER SIBLINGS’ TRIAL IN MUNICH, DAY 5, July 12th and DAY 6, July 13th 2018.

 
:
left to right: Attorney for Alfred, RA Frank Miksche; Alfred Schaefer; attorney for Monika, RA Wolfram Nahrath; TBR correspondent Michèle, Lady Renouf
 
Firsthand Reports of THE SCHAEFER SIBLINGS’ TRIAL IN MUNICH, DAY 5, July 12th and DAY 6, July 13th 2018.
 
PREAMBLE
 
A “Judicial Industry”? –  terrorising free speech?
 
Are we seeing the emergence of a “Judicial Industry”, asks one reader of these firsthand Court reports?
 
It is true that the Schaefer siblings’ trial was scheduled to commence on the same day as the judgment in the big trial of the “National Socialist Underground” (NSU) “terror trial” – a long-running Process of seven years’ duration concerning the murder of nine immigrants (mainly Turks) and one policewoman – first believed to have been killed by ethnic-minority gangsters, now said to have been victims of a “neo-nazi” conspiracy which somehow escaped the attention of numerous state agents close to the alleged “terrorists”. (Incidentally, one of the defence lawyers involved in the NSU case, RA Wolfram Nahrath, is also the lawyer for Monika Schaefer.)
 
On Day 1, July 2nd, on my way to the courthouse, I stopped to ask a technician sitting in one of the many media vans, lining the street alongside the Courthouse, whether they were there to cover the Schaefer trial?   Turns out, all those TV vans were there to cover the great media scandal of the NSU, interestingly timed, as in the UK, where the big scandal of the “Right-wing terrorist” conspiracy trial was playing out.  
 
One might say, the Jeremy Bedford-Turner trial for “racial incitement” (carrying a custodial sentence of potentially seven years, like the Schaefers’ potential five years) was underway at a parallel period when a series of trials, leading to the present trial for “conspiracy to murder” a Member of Parliament was underway in the U.K..  Perhaps is there a certain attempt to conflate the idea of actual murder cases with “thought-crime” cases in which there is no crime but only a Prosecution argument to make out an “aggression” case out of rendering simple opinion as equally culpable to actual crimes? Yet as Alfred Schaefer well exclaimed to the Munich court judge – and similarly one might say as did Jez Turner to the London court judge – “there is a difference between warning and threatening”.  
 
As I happen to know both these two defendants, I can say that – while each has a tendency to use naturally excitable rhetoric at demos and in videos – that is again quite different to “aggression” and “incitement” to commit an actual crime.  Both men are of proven “exemplary character” as evidenced in their civic-minded actions in performance of their duties towards their communities and spirited defence of free opinion and open debate.  Each is convivial, neither debate-hateful nor malicious towards criticism, and both are conscientious intellectually in their separate endeavours to inform the public of issues in the interests of public-need-to-know, as warnings to “the Powers That should not Be” (to quote Jez)!  Neither man has given cause for any corruption charges or any dishonesty in their dealings.  In both cases, only the fear of “political-correctness” could lead a jury to judge otherwise.  A great pity that jurists have no chance for a secret final ballot to overcome the pressure of peer and political fear.  
 
I experienced firsthand what a difference this secret vote can make to the behaviour of a jurist.  In London’s top private club, the Reform Club on Pall Mall, two internal ‘trials’ were held to adjudicate if I, as a long-standing member, by inviting to the Clubhouse the pariahed British historian David Irving, had offended the “sensitivities” of the “jewish cabal” within the Clubhouse and owed them an apology.  The pariahing of Irving was in consequence of his lost civil action in London’s High Court against Professor Deborah Lipstadt.  This case in 2000 was the subject of the 2016 Hollywood movie “Denial”. Incidentally, my unintimidatable presence on Irving’s otherwise empty courtroom bench –  “your kamakaze leap” asked Professor Art Butz, “into historical Revisionism?”(!) – is factually depicted in the movie, for I did attend daily throughout the several months of that revelatary civil trial (a rare fact, actually) in that thoroughly mis-depicting movie.  The point I am making is this: When the head of MORI Polls, the admirable American, Professor Robert Worcester, acted as my McKenzie’s friend in my defence at the Club, he asked, naturally, that the 12 Club ‘jurors’ be permitted a secret vote.  They then voted for no expulsion. But later on, when the same charge was re-run, and my new McKenzie’s friend failed to ask for the jurors to be permitted a secret vote, in casting their open votes those same ‘ urors’ called for my expulsion. Thus, proving my point that under peer and politically-correct pressure jurors are left subject to the “terror” or call it “heresy” vote.  (The ‘judge’ in charge of the Club’s expulsion proceedings on each occasion being a Jewish lady lawyer!) Many in the London courtroom public gallery, following the persuasive defence by Jez’s barrister Adrian Davies, felt that had the jurors voted in a secret ballot, they might well have acquitted the non-aggressive Jez of “malicious incitement”.   Yet in an open ballot those jurors would certainly fear exposing themselves to the many personal and professional dangers involved in revealing “politically-incorrect” opinions.
 
A great pity is that German law has had no jury system since 1924, when juries were abolished supposedly as a money-saving measure, at a time when the German economy was under great pressure due to the onerous reparations payments imposed at the end of the First World War. (Interestingly, as these trials are occuring in Munich, for a very short time from 1948 to 1950 this city and the rest of Bavaria reintroduced jury trials, but they were scrapped again once the Federal Republic of Germany was established.)
 
Relatedly, as mentioned earlier in these reports, I witnessed that Munich citzens do feel a terror of attending the Schaefer siblings’ trial.   Having to show their passports for entry to the public gallery makes them fearful of being placed on a watch list for simply showing their “anti-semitic” or “ Nationalist tending” curiosity in such political issues.
 
 
Day 5 of the trial, Thursday July 12. 
 
The morning session was farcical!  It had to be recessed until 13.30.
 
This late start was because the Court had failed to inform the Stadelheim Prison that Alfred had to appear in court that day!  They were only told about it after Alfred did not show up in the morning when all other actors in the proceedings had duly arrived on time at 09.15, including Monika.  
 
It was just the kind of slack incompetence that Alfred draws on when saying his opponents keep making “own goals”, for when eventually he was brought to the court not until the afternoon, he declared: “Had you let me sleep at home instead of prison I’d have arrived perfectly on time!” – (as per his estimation of the competence of conduct in his preferred era under Deutsches Reich discipline!).  
 
In the afternoon Alfred’s video “Brainwashing 9/11 Part 1“, was shown.  Since it has no German version, an official interpreter had made a translation and this German text was read simultaneously during regular pauses while the video was being screened.  Frau Schaefer told me the translations were good and fair.
 
Alfred was asked by the judge, how he had reacted after he had “found out about 9/11”?   Alfred said, that at first he had sleepless nights, then he started doing a lot of investigation and research. He reached the conclusion that we are in big trouble, like noticing your house is on fire yet the people inside the house do not notice or dare to deal with its disquiet, disturbance, or danger.   So he felt the obligation to warn and awaken everybody. 
 
He knew that life would be more comfortable in the short-term if he would not care about it.  But this was not an option for him, even if it meant, as indeed it does, his being, right now, in jail even during the remainder of his own trial.
 
Alfred explained that his video-viewing audiences at that time were mainly the Americans.  So he did not bother translating this video into German. Alfred stressed several times, that his biggest wish is to solve this whole problem peacefully.  That is why he feels the duty to do what he is doing, to warn and to inform people. (Indeed, he does use the term “lesson” and performs like a firm but patient school teacher in his videos.)
 
Alfred said, “what our judicial system is doing now, is wrapping duct tape around a steaming pressure cooker while turning up the heat on and on”.
 
Another question from the judge was, how did Alfred make the step from “9/11” to the “Holocaust”?   Alfred answered that it was the TV interview with Michael Chertoff, which Alfred presents in his video, where Chertoff states that denying the official story of “9/11” is like denying the “Holocaust”. 
 
This led to the conclusion depicted in the video, which seems to be one of the points of the accusation, that Alfred now saw “with the help of Chertoff that the Official “9/11″ story = bullshit, likewise that the official “Holocaust” story = bullshit”.
 
Alfred also described how he at first started blogging on the internet and encountered the “Hasbara” – (a Hebrew word for “Erklärer”, an explainer, though Israeli sources define it more fully as a propagandist i.e. Hasbara “refers to public-relations efforts to disseminate, abroad, positive information about the State of Israel and its actions”.)
 
Alfred said a Jewish friend from Palestine told him this when someone had made very obscene and offensive comments under his Blog, instead of reacting in a factual (objective) way and manner.
 
Alfred‘s final statement on this day was that “many people now are waking up, especially the young people in the USA. Truth is marching on, even if they throw us into jail, for now”.
 
In the afternoon a German version of Monika’s Video “Entschuldige Mama, …” (Sorry Mum…’) was shown, but was not commented upon, as yet.
 
 
“No surrender!”
Michèle, Lady Renouf
 
 
 
Day 6 of the trial, Friday July 13.
 
PREAMBLE
 
 
Heresy is holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted – Monika’s case is just that. She no longer believes in her own earlier accusation against her mother of having been complicit in what Monika once assumed was a evidentially-backed “crime”. “Denial” is not part of the method of  “Holocaust Revisionism”  for the method (not being an ideology) only asserts its scientific findings drawn from search into new evidence which comes to light in the course of historical documents being released from archives, new geological technology for examining the alleged crime scene and so on.  The Revisionist method is objective and is not balked by “sensitivities” to the investigation of sacred sites and sacred memories.  Indeed it is the opposite of the International Guidelines for Teaching the Holocaust in which, on page 11: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers [ie sceptics] or seek to disprove their position through normal hstorical debate and rational argument”. These Teaching Guidelines seek to treat the “Holocaust” in the manner of religious instruction. See BBC World Service link to “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” – an hour-long, worldwide phone-in radio programme in which the two main guests were Jewish history Professor Lipstadt and Bishop Williamson-supporter Lady Renouf, when these Guidelines were aired, though ‘never again’.
 
As usual in the public gallery there were five persons in the morning, then three by the afternoon. Fewer in the Press gallery.  
 
Concerning the media, I had observed on the day of the release of (the now late) Ernst Zündel from Mannheim Prison that only one single reporter, from the Associated Press, turned up with a single photographer, thus proving how the internationally syndicated Press relies on one story and one take on how that monopolised story will be presented.  There seems to have been no story of note about the Schaefer trial in the German media to date. Yet one would think news proprietors would estimate that German citizens would be interested to buy newspapers about this dual siblings’ case with its international aspects.  Not least, a general public interest could be expected, bearing on how their country’s laws are seen to be perpetrated on Canadian citizens.   
 
The case against Monika was instigated by the Toronto tentacle of  B’nai Brith ( Sons of the Covenant) with the motto: “The Global Voice of the Jewish Community” – an international organisation – “the oldest” it extoles – in Canada.  One wonders, as it  is committed to the security and continuity of the Jewish people and the State of Israel and combating antisemitism and bigotry” why it has not (since the existence of the Jewish Entity in Palestine) seen fit to be headquartered in the “State of Israel”?  
 
Strange to onlookers too, is how the prayer “Next year in Jerusalem” (though being one of the oldest prayers), still leads so few Jews literally to go live there, even to help build up the demographic Jewish presence in their second Jewish homeland.  At a famous socialite’s garden party in London, I happened to ask, quite cordially, that very question to two very prominent and amusing Jewish personalities – the columnist and Booker Prize-winning novelist Howard Jacobson; and Maureen Lipman, columnist and comedienne (very popular for her “Beatie” role in TV commercial endorsements).  Each ran home to file their column items of their accounts at being asked an “anti-semitic question at a garden party”!  Had one asked an Australian cordially at said garden party: “still dragging your ball and chain?”, would there be media mileage in exclaiming criminal “anti-Australia” questions were being entertained?  Since then, our hostess reluctantly has had to distance herself from ever inviting me again, though she has maintained loyally and generously that such a jolly presence at parties is “life-enhancing”.  Our hostess, like for certain Robert Worcester my able McKenzie’s friend did, has likely got her spoonful of social punishment for that!  There are many such provable evidences of the terrorising of free opinion.  We shall soon see how that pertains to Canadians when visiting Germany nowadays.
 
In 1875, Canada’s B’nai Brith lodge – global Lodge No. 246 – was established in Toronto, and soon after in Montreal. Its parent company, International B’nai B’rith (which preserves the original hyphen in B’rith), was founded in NYCity in 1843).  Interestingly, the “emancipation of Jewry” into the newly unified Germany had only taken place about the same era in 1871.
 
These international Jewish lodge activities are said to reflect the organization’s (racially-exclusive) commitment to “People Helping People” – fundamentally acting as a “Jewish State within other States” is surely a factual statement.  This is a statement made by Chaim Weizman, Israel’s first President, in adherence to the ideology of Judaism though its brethren are scripturally obliged to “disperse among the nations”.  The Balfour Declaration of 1917 made provision for both – Herzl’s Jewish State as well as the option to remain a state within states.  In two millennia there appears to have been no quest (other than the saying “Next Year in Jerusalem”) for jews en masse to congregate in their entirety in a homeland carved out of unconquered territory, say in Australia or Canada before ‘gentile’ settlers came and did so.  The first Jewish Homeland, and now a Jewish Republic of Birobidjan, was only established (by Stalin) in 1928 and remains the first homeland option which did not displace any indigenous people to this day in its peaceful inception.  This existence of this peaceful first homeland option is kept very quiet even in the Hebrew language media.
 
It so happens that in 2000 I undertook a post-graduate academic interest in the “Psychology of Religion” at the University of London’s Heythrop College (a Jesuit college).
 
Interestingly – given the ‘state within states’ complaint coming from B’nai Brith Canada against Monika – in January 2004, Shahina Siddiqui, executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association, filed a formal complaint against B’nai Brith Canada under the “discriminatory signs and statements” section of the Manitoba Human Rights Code. The Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC) accepted the complaint and began an investigation that would last five years. In 2009, the MHRC issued a report that dismissed the complaint due to a lack of evidence. Not enough is made available about this complaint, but safe to say, only jews are permitted to install “eruvs” (wires on poles around neighbourhoods) and run a “Shomrim” police force (a specifically Jewish “community”/some call it “vigilante” police patrol). This Jewish police force has the same powers as the UK’s genuine police force, as identified by Jez Turner in his recent public-need-to-know trial – and for this he sits punished in a prison cell for the next 12 months.  Is this terrorising free opinion the public are entitled to ask?
 
 
The formation in the 1930s of a B’nai Brith lodge in Shanghai represented the organization’s entry into the Far East. This international expansion came to a close with the rise of National Socialism. At the beginning of that Nationalist era, there were six B’nai B’rith districts in Europe. Eventually, the NS stopped all B’nai B’rith expansion in Europe.
 
B’nai B’rith Europe was re-founded in 1948. Their sources inform us that members of the Basel and Zurich lodges and representatives from lodges in France and Holland attended the inaugural meeting. In 2000, the new European B’nai B’rith district merged with the United Kingdom district to become a consolidated B’nai B’rith Europe with active involvement in all institutions of the European Union. By 2005 B’nai B’rith Europe comprised lodges in more than 20 countries including the former Communist Eastern Europe.
 
In response to what later was conceived as the “Holocaust”, in 1943 B’nai B’rith President Henry Monsky convened a conference in Pittsburgh of all major Jewish organizations to “find a common platform for the presentation of our case before the civilized nations of the world”.
 
B’nai B’rith was present at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco and their source say it has taken an active role in the world body ever since. In 1947, the organization was granted non-governmental organizational (NGO) status and, for many years, was accorded full-time representation at the United Nations. It is credited with a leading role in the U.N. reversal of its 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism (an extraordinary disdain of fact since Zionism relates directly to founding principles of the racially Jewish State!).
 
B’nai B’rith’s NGO role is not limited to the United Nations and its agencies. B’nai B’rith also has worked extensively with officials in the State Department, in Congress, and in foreign governments to support the efforts of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to combat anti-Semitism. With members in more than 20 Latin American countries, the organization was the first Jewish group to be accorded civil society status at the Organization of American States (OAS).
 
Up against all this colossal influence and powers, German courts must be deafened by B’nai Brith’s global clamour to stand a chance of hearing the siblings who are trying to get an unarmied citizen’s plea for an unbiased hearing!  Their cases call for international eyes and ears.
 
 
 
Trial Session DAY 6, Friday, July 13th.
 
The session began at 09.45 and the whole day was devoted to viewing first Monika’s then Alfred’s videos.
 
The entire morning was spent on Monika’s case.
 
This time Alfred was brought from his prison cell to the court on time!
 
In the morning the English version of Monika‘s video “Sorry Mom …” was shown and a professionally prepared German translation was read simultaneously by the interpreter in regular pauses during the video.
 
Monika was asked questions about her video “Sorry Mum I was Wrong About the Holocaust” by the leading Judge.
 
Why did she make the film? What was her intention in doing so?
 
Monika read her Statement (Einlassung), which was considered by some in the public gallery as “very impressive”.  Some of the public hope a full version of it will be made public. 
 
 In the afternoon the video “Dissidenten sprechen Klartext” (Dissidents Speak Out) was shown.  This is an Interview Alfred had with the political firebrand Gerhard Ittner (who is himself now locked away in Nuremberg prison).  Incidentally, Gerd Ittner was the organiser of the Dresden Commemoration, February 2018, who was permitted to organise the demo yet conditionally disqualified from speaking at it himself because of an earlier conviction for “incitement”.  It was at this Commemoration as a visitor that, though an unscheduled speaker, the crowd called for me to speak.   That impromptu 10 minutes’ address, after which I was arrested for “incitement”, was used to close down that Commemoration, yet to the “own goal” satisfaction of Alfred!  He was one of the scheduled speakers, who gladly said “closing down the demo with Lady Renouf at the microphone meant worldwide mainstream media coverage of an event which otherwise would have gone unnoticed”.
 
The judge asked Alfred:  Why this time in this video he does not differentiate between Jews as a whole and the jewish “Großkapital” (Jewish big business), which he had in his “brainwashing” video, shown the day before?  Alfred pointed out that, “if it is okay all the time to blame all Germans for the nazis, why is it that we do not get the same right when referring to the Jews?”.  Why the exceptionalism for some generalisations and not for others?
 
Finally before close of day the video was shown which was filmed by the German police from Alfred‘s speech in Brezenheim – at the Rhine-Meadow (Rheinwiesenlager) Memorial, part of where post-war ca. one million German POW soldiers were herded there to starve to death in those densely crowded, open muddy fields under the orders of the “Allied victor” General Eisenhower who denied Red Cross access).  At this atrocity-mourning Commemoration in Brezenheim, Alfred is since accused of having made the “Hitler-Gruß“ (the Hitler greeting) at the close of it.  Alfred said he never mentioned Hitler, instead he had shown the “Roman Salute”.  It seems appalling to an observer that the “Basic Law” could possibly care more about a greeting gesture than the barbaric murder of post-war soldiers of all stripes.  The weight of the scales of justice are off the ‘Richter’ scale in terms of human versus emblem values.  Relatives of the Schaefer family were at these barbaic Rhinemeadow open air death ‘camps’.  Yet the Law may sooner protect the public from an historic greeting gesture than acknowledge the advance to barbarism exhibited by the post-war “victors” under whose auspices the Basic Law was planned.
 
Frau Schaefer, Alfred’s wife, asked to have a word with her husband, but the Prosecutor said she, not the Judge, would be the judge of that as it was her job to say yea or nay. Eventually, Elfriede Schaefer was granted 10 minutes to speak with Alfred.  She wanted to ask if he had received the clothes she had taken for him to the prison.  He had not.
 
 
The court session closed quite early at 15.00.
 
 
On the matter of UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION (since in the case of Gerd Ittner, in the first instance he had been extradited from another country to face the charges made against him in Germany), one reader asked:
 
 

A) “Does Germany claim extraterritorial jurisdiction for all acts that are illegal under German law and committed in other nations or just for issues related to the authenticity of the “Holocaust” narrative?

 
On the question of  jurisdiction: 
The Germans do claim “extraterritoriality”, in other words, the right to put people on trial in German courts for “crimes” committed elsewhere in the world. This type of claim of extraterritoriality is not unique to Germany.  For example, a few years ago a Spanish judge brought an action against the former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet for alleged crimes committed on Chilean not Spanish soil.
 
An informal reply comes from an English barrister:
 
“Most European countries claim universal jurisdiction over their own citizens, whereas common law countries don’t for most crimes.  Ironically the idea of universal jurisdiction over nationals came in as part of the nationalist revolutions of the 19th century.  It has certainly turned around and bitten nationalists on the butt . . . there is a moral here!
 
So, if a Frenchman picks an Englishman’s pocket in the streets of NYC, the French courts assert the right to try him, though recognising the right of the state of New York to try him too.
 
Double jeopardy is avoided by the application of the principle of the Roman law called ne bis in idem, [literally ‘not twice for the same thing’] which means that if our French pickpocket has been tried in New York, the French courts will not try him for a second time, whether the verdict was guilty or not guilty.
 
So it’s not only Holocaust revisionists.
 
 
A reader’s question B):
” Did some part of what is charged occur in Germany? Or have the Germans declared themselves the cops of the world?”
 
Concerning your question re the “cops of the world”: ‘safe’(!) to say the pro-Zionist USA hold that chutzpah title (having jettisoned their superior Jeffersonian ideal of  “no meddling in other countries”).  Due to the technological changes brought about by the Internet, various legal systems have been struggling to work out whether an online posting can be judged to have taken place in any jurisdiction in the world.  A similar position has often applied in civil cases, where plaintiffs go ‘shopping’ for a favourable jurisdiction, for example Americans sometimes bring a libel action against British newspapers in a London court while ignoring the same allegations written in American publications. This is because the burden of proof is very different in the UK.
 
 
Monika’s attorney adds, “Not all. But especially for denying the “Holocaust” and other so-called political crimes. The best examples would be the cases of the late Gerd Honsik, the late Ernst Zündel, Sylvia Stolz and Dr. Fredrick Töben. They all did not commit anything in Germany.”
 
 
 
On Monday, July 16th 2018 from 09.45 the whole day is scheduled for screening the rest of Alfred’s videos. And an additional day is scheduled for Tuesday July 17th.  An extra date in August is to be announced.
 
“No surrender!”
Michèle, Lady Renouf

Day 6 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer’s Trial in Munich

 
Day 6 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer’s Trial in Munich
 
On the sixth day of the trial of Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich court, 13th July 2018, Monika Schaefer gave her personal statement. Translation made by R. Edmonds.


Monika Schaefer read out her personal statement, which according to the judge is usually not permitted. But the judge accepted that Monika dos not speak German perfectly, hence he decided to make an exception. Monika related how she became engaged politically and how she felt herself deeply drawn to Green politics. She campaigned many times for political office. That had all continued till she had learnt that Israel’s wars were being justified by false claims. There-upon she left the party. She had learnt very early to think for herself.

She had made the video herself. Once she had made the film and put it in the public domain, she then felt a feeling of relief and felt freed from a heavy burden. She had always held her parents under a general suspicion, but now she knew that there was nothing to reproach them with, because History was quite contrary to what we had been told since 1945. This was this reason why she had apologized to her mother.

As a consequence of the success of the video, she had lost many friendships; and a campaign of ritual defamation commenced against her. For example, in a small newspaper of a town with five thousand inhabitants, readers’ letters started appearing, written by readers from quite other districts, who would not normally read the news-paper. These readers’ letters served the purpose of defaming her. At the beginning, she had to force herself to go to her front-door. However when one deliberately and with conviction breaks such a taboo, because one knows that the official claims regarding the period 1933 -1945 are a shabby lie, then such ritual defamations are easier to bear. Every attempt had been made to intimidate her. For example, she always rides by bicycle, and one day at the traffic lights a car had sped away from her throwing the sand of the street against her. Also attempts had been made to ruin her financially. Not a single student from her locality came any more to take instruction on violin-playing. A regular witch-hunt was organised against her. This witch-hunt had split the community in which she lived. Whilst many had turned away from her, on the other hand, many others whom she did not know had come to her; and they could not understand what was happening. In July 2016 a new local law gave permission for music to be played in the local park close to her. A licence for this was needed, but this licence was refused to her. Finally her brother had made the offer, that it was better to come to Germany, if the situation in Canada should become too dangerous for her.

The judge asked, why she had made a video rather than chosen to write an article. Also he wanted to know why she had given advice as to where information on the subject could be found, for example referring to the video about Ernst Zundel or “Questions about the HC.” Monika replied that she herself had found the sources very helpful in order to understand everything. She wanted to invite everybody to learn more in order to understand what had really taken place in the period of 1933 to 1945. In reply to the question from the judge, why she found the lie so shabby [threadbare, seedy, mean], Monika declared because the intention was that the guilt feelings should continue for ever. The fact that she was in prison proved that. — Richard Edmonds

FROM POLITICAL PRISONER MONIKA SCHAEFER TO SINGER & ENTERTAINER BARBARA ANN NOWAK

 
FROM POLITICAL PRISONER MONIKA SCHAEFER TO SINGER & ENTERTAINER BARBARA ANN NOWAK
 
(FROM MONIKA SCHAEFER TO BARBARA ANN NOWAK) July 1, 2018
Dear Barbara, thank you, dear sister, for your long and wonderful letter and envelope with Elvis stamps in a heart. I notice details. Well that one would be pretty hard to miss — haha – unless I was a dullard. And if I was a dullard, I guess I wouldn’t be in prison for speaking words.
I must tell you, so you don’t think I’m a slacker, that your letter took exactly 8 weeks and a day to reach me from when it was postmarked! I used to say that the average time for mail one way in and out of prison was about a month but now I would put the average at 6 weeks. Pretty bad eh? It leads to slow conversations. Maybe that’s the equivalent of the slow food movement and I like the slow food movement so maybe the slow conversations are a good thing? Having just reread your letter before responding I’m kind of in free flow here, inspired by you.
 
Me too, I am totally into organic real food and have always grown veggies wherever I could. I grew up in a family of seven, five children, in a big city, but we were like Urban Farmers. Huge vegetable garden, fruit bushes, some small apple and cherry trees in the yard. The family would go berry picking in the river valley, we could walk there right from our home and pick saskatoon’s, chokecherries, rose hips and I can’t remember what else. We live really near the Storyland Valley Zoo. You should ask Alfred to tell you the story of how he used to talk with the seals. It was funny. Speaking of funny, you can probably imagine this without me telling you, Alfred had us in stitches a lot when we were growing up. (In case that is just a local expression, “in stitches,” that means we laughed a lot. Very fun and funny.
 

​Barbara Ann Nowak “the Queen of Karaoke”

 
I love the image of you and Dolly singing to the dudes (?). That is just Priceless. Speaking of images, although that was a mental image, yes you can send me a few pictures but not too many. There is a limit of 20 pictures in the cell and I have my limit but when people send me a few more, then I can trade them out and send the excess into storage. So if you sent three or four pictures in a letter nobody gets in a sweat. I wonder what the storage looks like. Stuff keeps getting sent there, that people try to send me and I cannot have. I will need a few wheel barrels or a pickup truck when I leave here. People send stuff and I can’t have it, how sad. It’s pretty strict around here. Oh and you mentioned internet, definitely not! I wonder if people are trying to send me emails. Oh dear, I dread trying to wade through thousands of emails when I get out. I will probably just have to delete all and start over as it will be too overwhelming.
 
Very interesting that you got persecuted by the doctors for breastfeeding. When I had my daughter, breastfeeding was encouraged but the actual support to do so was not that great. I became a La Leche League leader and did that for a number of years in my town. I learned a lot about the industry of baby food, formula, etc. Boycott of Nestle ever since.
 
The hot water just got delivered through the little hatch in the door. I feel so special here, getting room service like that! Now I am going to enjoy my cup of coffee, knit and listen to music on the radio for a bit. That is my early morning routine I’ll be back.
 
An hour later… I love that part of the day. Come to think of it, there are many parts of the day that I really enjoy. So you see, they are not getting me down. I am sure that you would be the same. You wouldn’t waste very many minutes or seconds on self-pity and you would get right to work on becoming creative and using the time well. 
 
On the subject of being well, I want to add that I certainly couldn’t do it alone! Just like you said about the karaoke coming from God, I too feel I am being guided and helped by spirit and that includes all the loving energy thoughts and prayers coming from many many people including yourself. Thank you also for the Bible verses, and the Elvis lyrics. We used to sing the German folk song Muss I Denn, around the campfire when my dad’s best friend came over from Germany and visited us one summer with his wife and two of his many children, they did that twice with different children the second time. He belted out those folk songs and we sang along and just loved it.
 
Well, my dear, it has been lovely spending part of my morning with you. Let’s do it again sometime, yes? I’ll put the kettle on… We are the birds flying free in this picture.
 
love
 
Monika.

 

Late Breaking News — German  Armed Cops Re-Arrest Political Prisoner Alfred Schaefer  at His Home Friday 

Late Breaking News — German  Armed Cops Re-Arrest Political Prisoner Alfred Schaefer  at His Home Friday 
 
FRIDAY, July 6, 2018. Today At 2:00 pm, at the home of Alfred Schaefer, he and I had just finished watching and discussing matters regarding his videos which he was succeeding to screen in full in the Munich courtroom. …Then his wife laid table for lunch after I removed my laptop. Then,   I went to wash my hands). I then heard Police knocking on my bathroom door announcing their arrival. It was like a nightmare Hollywood movie about a police state action! 


 
At first, I thought maybe high-spirited Alfred was playing a joke. On opening my bathroom door, there stood two armed officers awaiting me. I gave them  my passport. They said they’d come to arrest Alfred. I saw five of them handcuff Alfred. He was taken away  with the little packed lunch his experienced wife swiftly made and handed to one officer for her husband). Alfred was hauled away about something he had perhaps said perhaps when yesterday ( as he has to do) he had duly turned up at the police station as he must do twice per week since he is out on bail. Whatever this “crime” was, he’s again in a police cell now. 
His wife advised that her houseguests,  should disappear asap in case police returned knowing now that we two were there, easy to haul in for good measure. What a business — cat and mouse  — but at least valiant Frau Schaefer made sure we each took with us our  lunch cheese!
 
“No surrender!”
 
Michele Lady Renouf

Report Day 4 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer Trial in Munich: Spectator  Jailed 4 Days For Having Told Prosecutor She Should See A Prison From The Inside & Alfred Schaefer Screens Videos Showing His Awakening

Report Day 4 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer Trial in Munich: Spectator  Jailed 4 Days For Having Told Prosecutor She Should See A Prison From The Inside & Alfred Schaefer Screens Videos Showing His Awakening

Der vierte Tag in München begann wieder sehr spektakulär.

The fourth day in Munich started again very spectacularly.  But let us have a process observer report who has already gathered some information for us over the past few days:

Der heutige Tag begann recht turbulent. Nach dem Erscheinen des Inquisitionsgerichtes fragte der Vorsitzende in den Zuschauerbereich, wer ein Herr X sei. Als dieser sich meldete wurde er konfrontiert mit dem Vorwurf, daß er am Vortag im Vorraum eine Staatsanwältin beleidigt haben soll, indem er zu ihr gesagt habe, er wünsche ihr, daß sie auch mal einen Knast von innen sehen würde, was der Richter – außer sich vor Erregung – mit 4 Tagen Ordnungshaft bestrafte.

Today began quite turbulently. After the appearance of the Inquisition court, the chairman asked the audience who a Mr. X was. When he reported himself, he was confronted with the accusation that the day before he allegedly insulted a public prosecutor in the lobby by saying to her that he wished that she would also see a prison from the inside, which the judge punished – besides himself with excitement – with 4 days in custody.

Unmittelbar nach dieser Verkündigung wurde Herr X von Polizisten aus dem Raum geführt. Sein Hinweis, daß doch sein Auto noch irgendwo dort draußen stünde, wurde vom Richter wütend beantwortet mit der Aussage, das sei ihm egal. Er schrie Herrn X regelrecht an: „Gehen Sie rauß, ich will sie hier nicht mehr sehen“. Unvermittelt wendete er sich auch an Alfred Schäfer mit der Frage, was er denn davon halte. Alfred Schäfer antwortete, er wolle sich dazu nicht äußern, weil Wörter in diesem Gericht stets uminterpretiert würden und ihm ein Kommentar dazu deshalb zu gefährlich sei. Die Sitzung wurde anschließend für kurze Zeit unterbrochen, weil der Richter erklärte, er brauche jetzt erst einmal 5 Minuten, um sich zu beruhigen.

Immediately after this announcement, Mr. X was led out of the room by police officers. His statement that his car was still out there somewhere was angrily answered by the judge with the statement that he did not care. He really shouted at Mr. X: “Get out, I don’t want to see you here anymore”. Suddenly he also asked Alfred Schaefer what he thought of it. Alfred Schaefer replied that he did not want to comment, because words in this court are always reinterpreted and a comment is therefore too dangerous for him. The hearing was then suspended for a short time because the judge said he needed 5 minutes to calm down.

The fourth day, From a process reporter:

Als die Sitzung wieder eröffnet wurde, hat der Rechtsanwalt von Alfred Schäfer den Antrag gestellt, den Richter wegen Befangenheit abzulehnen. Daraufhin wurde die Sitzung für 2 Stunden unterbrochen, der Antrag jedoch mit Beginn der Verhandlungswiederaufnahme vom Staatsanwalt wegen „Aneinanderreihung von Vermutungen“ abgelehnt.

The fourth day, From a process reporter:

When the hearing was reopened, Alfred Schaefer’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the judge on the grounds of partiality. Thereupon, the sitting was suspended for two hours, but the motion was rejected by the public prosecutor at the beginning of the resumption of negotiations on the grounds of “juxtaposition of suspicions”.

 

Anschließend erfolgte die Fortsetzung der bereits am Vortag begonnen Videovorführungen. Erneut wurde auf zwei Symbole hingewiesen, die in dem Video einander gegenüber gestellt werden. Links im Bild wird ein Judenstern gezeigt und als Pendant dazu rechts im Bild ein Hakenkreuz, was in dem Video von Alfred Schäfer als Symbol des Bösen dargestellt wird, da er seinerzeit noch geglaubt habe, das Hakenkreuz stehe für das Böse. Diese Gegenüberstellung der beiden Symbole ist offenbar Gegenstand der Anklage.

Afterwards, the video presentations, which had already begun the day before, continued. Again, two icons were pointed out that are juxtaposed in the video. On the left side of the picture a Jewish star is shown and on the right side a swastika, which is shown in Alfred Schaefer’s video as a symbol of evil, because at the time he still believed that the swastika stood for evil. This juxtaposition of the two symbols is apparently the subject of the charge.

In dem Video, dessen hohe Verbreitung großes Erstaunen bei Gericht auslöste, wird Prof. Noam Chomsky von einer Universität in Amerika zu 9/11 befragt. Prof. Chomsky erklärt in dem Interview, daß keine Beweise für eine Involvierung der amerikanischen Regierung in den Terroranschlag vorlägen. Alfred Schäfer hatte Prof. Chomsky aufgrund dieses Interviews angeschrieben und verliest in dem Video seine Briefe an Prof. Chomsky sowie dessen Antwortbriefe. Prof. Chomsky hat die Briefe von Alfred Schäfer zwar beantwortet, allerdings ohne die von Alfred Schäfer gestellten Fragen konkret zu beantworten, was Alfred Schäfer dazu veranlasste, seine Briefe strenger zu formulieren.

In the video, that had a high distribution rate that caused great astonishment in court, Prof. Noam Chomsky from a university in America is questioned about 9/11. Prof. Chomsky explains in the interview that there is no evidence that the American government was involved in the terrorist attack. Alfred Schaefer had written to Prof. Chomsky based on this interview and read out his letters to Prof. Chomsky and his reply letters in the video. Prof. Chomsky answered Alfred Schaefer’s letters, but without specifically answering Alfred Schaffer’s questions, which prompted Alfred Schaefer to formulate his letters more strictly.

Als der Richter einen „aggressiven Umgangston“ bei seinem Briefwechsel mit Prof. Chomsky rügt, erklärt Alfred Schäfer, man müsse schließlich verstehen, daß Prof. Chomsky im englischsprachigen Raum „ein Guru“ sei und seine Ausführungen über 9/11 aber doch eine große Enttäuschung darstellten, weshalb er ihn als „feigen Verräter“ und „Zionistenfaschisten“ bezeichnet habe. Prof. Chomsky habe eine große Chance vertan, denn er hätte sich rehabilitieren können. Stattdessen habe er für seine „Glaubensbrüder“ seinen guten Ruf auf‘s Spiel gesetzt und sich mit dieser Einlassung selbst seine ganze Größe vernichtet, obwohl er ihm doch eine eindeutige Faktenlage präsentiert habe.

When the judge reprimands an “aggressive tone” in his correspondence with Prof. Chomsky, Alfred Schaefer explains that one must understand, after all, that Prof. Chomsky is “a guru” in the English-speaking world and that his statements on 9/11 were nevertheless a great disappointment, which is why he called him a “cowardly traitor” and “Zionist fascist”. Prof. Chomsky missed a great opportunity because he could have rehabilitated himself. Instead, he risked his good reputation for his “fellow believers” and with this statement destroyed all his greatness, even though he had presented him with a clear factual situation.

Der Richter warf Alfred Schäfer auch vor, er habe auch gegenüber allen „jüdischen Freunden“ von Prof. Chomsky eine Drohung ausgesprochen, in dem er im Video sagt, sie würden sich mitschuldig machen, wenn sie weiterhin über die Wahrheit von 9/11 schwiegen. Wie aus der Pistole geschossen erklärt Alfred Schäfer dem Richter den Unterschied zwischen einer Drohung und einer Warnung anhand eines praktischen Beispiels. Er erklärte auch, daß dieses Video sein erstes Video war und mehr oder weniger den Beginn seines Aufwachprozesses darstellt. Als er erkannte, daß sich manche Leute durch Betrug und Manipulation mehr Geld ergaunern können, als Heerscharen von Arbeitern durch ehrliche Arbeit, habe das bei ihm einen politischen Denkprozess angestoßen.

The judge also accused Alfred Schaefer of also making a threat to all of Prof. Chomsky’s “Jewish friends,” by saying in the video that they would be complicit of guilt if they continued to remain silent about the truth about 9/11. Alfred Schaefer explains the difference between a threat and a warning to the judge using a practical example. He also explained that this video was his first video and more or less represents the beginning of his awakening process. When he realized that some people can obtain more money through fraud and manipulation than armies of workers through honest work, this triggered a political thinking process in him.

Das zweite gezeigte Video ist ein Interview mit Henry Hafenmayer zum Thema „Die Drahtzieher unserer heutigen Situation“. Die Kommentierung dieses Videos wurde auf die folgende Woche vertagt.

The second video shown is an interview with Henry Hafenmayer on the topic “The masterminds of our current situation”. The commentary on this video has been postponed to the following week.

Anschließend wurde ein Zeuge vernommen, der behauptete, Alfred Schäfer habe mit seiner Rede auf der Gedenkveranstaltung in Bretzenheim am 25.7.2017 Hetze betrieben. Außerdem habe Alfred Schäfer seine Rede noch mit einem römischen Gruß für 2 oder 3 Sekunden abgeschlossen. Der Richter befragte den Zeugen noch, ob die Rede vom Publikum mit Applaus quittiert worden sei, woran sich der Zeuge jedoch nicht mehr erinnern konnte. Dem Gericht wurde ein Foto aus dem Video gezeigt.

Subsequently, a witness was called who claimed that Alfred Schaefer’s speech at the commemoration ceremony in Bretzenheim on July 25, 2017 was instigation (hate). In addition, Alfred Schaefer concluded his speech with a Roman greeting for 2 or 3 seconds. The judge asked the witness whether the speech had been acknowledged by the audience with applause, which the witness could not remember. The court was shown a photo from the video.

Alfred Schäfer erklärt anschließend dem Gericht, daß er in dieser Rede schlicht das wiedergegeben habe, was ihm sein Vater über die Rheinwiesenlager erzählt hat und, daß er sich dagegen verwahre, seinen Vater als Hetzer zu verleumden. Sein Vater habe als Kriegsgefangener in den Rheinwiesenlagern beobachtet wie Gefangene gesund hinein gebracht wurden, aufgrund der vorsätzlich herbeigeführten lebensbedrohlichen Umstände bald jedoch erkrankten und wie täglich LKWs mit den Leichen der verstorbenen Kriegsgefangenen abtransportiert wurden, ohne daß man erfuhr wohin. Sein Vater habe die Rheinwiesenlager nur durch glückliche Umstände unbeschadet überlebt.

Alfred Schaefer then explained to the court that in this speech he simply reproduced what his father had told him about the Rhine meadow camps and that he would not slander his father as an agitator. His father had observed as a prisoner of war in the Rhine meadow camps how prisoners were brought in healthy, but soon became ill due to the deliberately caused life-threatening circumstances and how daily trucks with the corpses of the deceased prisoners of war were transported away without being told where. His father survived the Rhine meadow camps undamaged only by fortunate circumstances.

Der Antrag auf Haftverschonung von Monika Schäfer wurde abgelehnt mit der Begründung, daß sich am Tatvorwurf nicht geändert habe.

Monika Schaefer’s application for exemption from detention was rejected on the grounds that the accusation had not changed.

Auch heute war die Verhandlungsführung im Zuhörerraum teilweise wieder sehr schlecht zu verstehen.

Die Termine für die weiteren Verhandlungstage sind der 12. und 13. Juli jeweils ab 9:15 Uhr.  Quelle: http://die-heimkehr.info

Again today, the conduct of negotiations in the auditorium was sometimes very difficult to understand.

The dates for the further hearing days are July 12 and 13, each starting at 9:15 a.m.  Source: http://die-heimkehr.info

Es wunderte uns nun nicht, daß die Tänzerin der ersten Verhandlungstage wieder zugegen war. Schließlich musste sich die – mit solch schrecklich bösen „Flüchen“ belegte – heute gleich ärztlich versorgen lassen. Während ihres Auftritts am gestrigen Tag ließ die ärmste nicht erkennen, daß sie so zart besaitet ist. Wenn wir beobachten was die Verfolgten der BRD alles über sich ergehen lassen müssen – unsere Monika wird schon seit 3. Januar gefangen gehalten – möchte man nur noch brechen. Willkommen im jüdisch-bolschewistischen Rechtsstaat.

We were not surprised that the dancer [nickname by the author for the female prosecutor] from the first days of the hearing was present again. After all, she had to get medical care today – after being covered in such terribly evil “curses” [not meant literally]. During her performance yesterday, the poor woman did not reveal that she was so delicately strung. When we observe what the persecuted in Germany have to endure – our Monika has been held captive since January 3 – one only wants to just puke. Welcome to the Jewish-Bolshevik constitutional state.

Dennoch gibt es auch immer etwas erfreuliches zu berichten. Immer wieder erscheinen zu solchen Prozessen neue Zuschauer, denen nun auch die Augen geöffnet werden. Nicht nur wegen dem Material was in der Verhandlung gezeigt und besprochen wird, sondern auch wegen den Zuständen die in einem BRD Gericht herrschen. Die Menschen sind regelrecht erschrocken darüber, daß sie so viele Jahre die Augen davor verschlossen haben, so uninteressiert waren.

Nevertheless, there is always something pleasing to report. Again and again new spectators appear for such processes and their eyes are now also opened to them. Not only because of the material that is shown and discussed in the trial, but also because of the conditions that prevail in a FRG court. People are really shocked that they have closed their eyes to it for so many years and were so uninterested.

Jetzt aber, manche nach nur einem Tag als Zuschauer, sind sie sich darüber im klaren: Wir müssen diesen Wahnsinn beenden, so lange wir noch ungestraft atmen dürfen!

But now, some, after only one day as spectators, they are aware of this: We must stop this madness while we can still breathe with impunity!

REPORT ON DAY 2 OF THE TRIAL OF POLITICAL PRISONERS MONIKA & ALFRED SCHAEFER IN MUNICH


REPORT ON DAY 2 OF THE TRIAL OF POLITICAL PRISONERS MONIKA & ALFRED SCHAEFER IN MUNICH

COURT DAY 2 July 3rd Tuesday: Caption: Alfred Schaefer Released After One Night in Prison!(a small victory) 

 
Number of Press, between 3-4 Security 6 (but feel there are people interested in this case as I see security people sitting down with the audience for a while, looking (body language) very alert and interested but not staying very long(perhaps their break time?) 
Audience: 12 and stayed 12 (perhaps with one or two change in the people) 
 
Session starts 12:42 (probably meant to start at 12:30? General Presentation of the day: Very clear, precise and substantial. Unlike yesterday no time was lost for trivial and petty issues like greeting, arrest declaration(of Alfred), and whether water could be available for Alfred and Monika. Hence there was no booing, moans of comments from the audience (unlike yesterday when there were several during the day, culminating with Sylvia Stolzʼs arrest, post Court.( The problem arose due to the fact that although the session was officially finished, the Judge had not left the room yet when she stated that this Court/ session was “Terror” And everyone had to leave the court so she can be arrested
 
So, unlike yesterday, the audience seemed content and satisfied with what was happening at Court. Alfredʼs lawyer is  Frank  Miksch and Monikaʼs lawyer is Wolfram Nahrath.  
 
Today was Monikaʼs turn. Hence Lawyer Frank Miksch read first. (After he started there was one interruption/comment from the persecutor. Then he continued again ʼtil the finish. Like yesterday there were many quotes and documents quoted. Newspapers like Allgemein ZeitungJewish Chronicle…. Gilad Atzmon and “Holocaust Swindle” Gerald Menuhin…possibly his book (if so was only said in German..) 
 
Then some rather longer section from Allgemein Gazette..Words like, ʻhistoricalʼ ʻobjectiveʼ and journalistic reports and names but I could not really catch or recognize them. But basically the lawyer was trying to show the absurdity of this law 130, or specifically 130.03, applicable only on the German soil. So words like ʻabsurdʼ ʻabsurdityʼ. Holocaust Lugen “psychological law” The historical fact that Auschwitz plaque had been changed from 4 million to 1-plus million. So, why would ʻquestioning the numberʼ be illegal. Words like”totalitarian state”were used. And a constant reference to Bundesrepublik Deutschland something about extreme Right, laws for 100 years.
 Holocaust was mentioned  every now and then a quote from Richard Wagner on the “predation” (of the Jews)? Also questioning the German law with the expression Article this, Article that…etc. At 1:50 a 10 minutes break until 2PM.
2PM onwards… Another word used was ʻoffenkundigʼ not allowed to question what is so obvious. Another reference often used was this PARAGRAPH 6 of the German law. This would be repeated until the end. Then there are names like Horst Mahler, Zundel, “Bomber Harris Do It Again” in both German and English with obviously more explanation. Staftlaw The the universality of the Law….including the Law of and for Holocaust(Holocaustianity-my comment not his) discussed other genocides/holocausts like Armenia that are to open debate and questioning unlike the version for Judea. But that is not possible in Bundesrepublik Deutschland. So other words mentioned, Ein Volk, and Verboten(forbidden), They were talking about precedent cases too. Horst Mahler, the law=Article 5, often mentioned. And of course Paragraph 6.=exclusive to Germans and to the period of the Third Reich ONLY.
 Literature was mentioned. Along with “confrontational” “provocative videos Mein Kampfs (our fights) Meine Freiheit (our freedom) “Totalitarian …” “false interpretation of history”. “Billigen und Miss(German S here)billigen”-(Probably the definition for these words meaning appropriate or inappropriate. Again Paragraph 6 and 130. Also mentioned the fact that a Chinese dissident won a Nobel Prize while in jail. What would be a historical interpretation of the Holocaust? Mentioned in detail was the case of Bishop Richard Williamson, about what happened to him, including being interviewed by a Swedish TV on  German soil and its consequences.
At 2:50, the lawyer  handed the 22 pgs or so paper to the Judge. In between the Court Clerk came to tell the Judge that the bail has been deposited (5000 Euros) and Alfredʼs passports(Canadian and German) surrendered to the Court so that Alfred can be released from custody. The Judge signed a document. This occurred around 2:30. Therefore at the next break took place from 2:50 to 3:00 p.m. Alfred is greeted by friends and his wife outside the trial area.
3:00 p.m.: Lawyer talks now. Some articles of 2005, words like Auschwitz, ʻLugenʼ(lie) and Dr.Stefan Godsta. Article 5 was mentioned again. There was more quotations and documentation.
The lawyer concluded at 15:25. He lawyer  handed the paper over to the Judge. Somewhere in the day 2 ex-constitutional Judges, Hoffman-Reim and Hassimer were quoted who had stated that the Holocaust Law should be repealed. Then, the Prosecutor gave a kind of critique. She is critical of provoking “emotionality”(provoking on purpose that?) First Lawyer Frank  Miksch responds (rather briefly) followed by Lawyer Wolfram (much longer and observers said he responded quite eloquently to the critique) stating that it is just Alfred’s personal style and emotions are natural and appropriate to what one is reading. The Judge then thanks the 2 lawyers and says few words. There is a very short pause. Then, the Judge continues, basically on how the proceedings will be the following day. And other technicalities like the agreement on showing Alfredʼs video.  As well on the following day,  the Court will listen to Monika and Alfred life, starting off with their childhood.
The trial finished around 4:30PM and will proceed at 10 tomorrow morning.

Alfred Schaefer Defiant and Taken Into Custody at His Own Trial: Report on Day One of the Trial of Alfred and Monika Schaefer

Alfred Schaefer Defiant and Taken Into Custody at His Own Trial: Report on Day One of the Trial of Alfred and Monika Schaefer
 
 
 
 
 

Court case of today, July 2nd Monday, First Day. People clapped as Monika entered. Alfred was already seated or at least in Court and was giving a rather long address that went on quite a long time. The Press seemed to be inside the Court area and took a lot of photos of Monika and Alfred greeting each others. Then the cameras disappeared. We kept on having breaks because of Alfredʼs defiance and refused to recognize the Court as official. He refused to get up for the entrance of the Judges. He used expressions like “Muppet Show” and “Inquisition”. He also stated something to the Judge like, that we should change positions and that you(the Judge ) should be judged by the Volk. 

 
So there was break actually twice because there was also a member of the audience that stated that he could not hear and if they could speak louder or get a microphone. Around this time Monika also asked if they was an open court or not and if it was an open court, then microphones be used so that everyone can hear. (The microphones actually did not appear until 13:05) It must have been requested before 10:00 AM. Alfred has prepared this brief of about 75 pages and so the Judge decided that was too long and if it could be shortened.
 
Lawyer/advisor Sylvia Stolz, Wolfram Nahrath, Mr. Miksch (lawyer for Monika Schaefer), 
lawyer for Alfred Schaefer, Alfred Schaefer, Lady Michele Renouf


 
 
So, there was a 2 hour break, from 10:30 until 12:30. Most members of the audience went to the Court cafeteria and had tea, coffee, that kind of things. (Among the audience was Sylvia Stolz, who has been giving Alfred advice) Basically,  it was Alfred reading this document (which is about 78 pages and in the end got shortened to about 65 pages but either way it was Alfred reading for several hours.) This presentation was like a documentation of quotes. Here are some that I caught. In chronological order: There were several quotes form Professor Karl Schmidt. Gunter Deckert was mentioned, his translation. Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel The Swastika, Communism and Stalinism USS Liberty, and Freemasonry Quotes from newspapers like Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Haaretz(Israel) Jewish Telegraph…. World Peace Organization, Basel, Switzerland Ritual Defamation and Anti Semitism Horst Mahler, Shlomo Sand, Talmud, 911 and Larry Silverstein, Frederick Vrba?Robert H.Jackson (Robert Houghwout Jackson was an American attorney and judge who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He had previously served as United States Solicitor General, and United States Attorney General, and is the only person to have held all three of those offices. Jackson was also notable for his work as the Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals following World War II….) Kurt Lewin Roosevelt and NATO Nurnberg(probably the Judgement) R Coudenhove-Kalergi like not one but several quotes, Negroiding of the race, to Pan-European Union concepts one ʻRacial exclusiveness” Judea declares War on Germany… Samuel Untermyer (Israel | Transcript of Samuel … The following is a transcript of Samuel Untermeyer’s speech made on WABC, declaring a ‘holy war’ by the Jews against Germany, and appealing to the masses of non-Jewish humanity to boycott German-made imports …) Something about Downing Street? England? Britain? Theodore Kaufman Anyway quotes for the background and from WW1 to WW2 and post….ʼtil recent like 911.
 
Anyway this took several hours. Finally what he and Monika are guilty of; The videos, available on U-Tube and one the Internet, in both English and German. The main charge is Paragraph 130. AND videos made with this collaborators, like Gerd Ittner, Henry Hafenmeyer  and Brian Ruhe And Alfred kept on insisting about the LUGEN(The Lie) and Judea many many times throughout. 
 
The lawyer of Monika Schaefer’s lawyer was happy as the way it went and how the audience reacted with courage with comment and disapprovals. (There were about dozen or so of us.)
 
Alfred Schaefer to be put into custody during trial. Basically, he was  arrested and put into prison like Monika, as soon as the day’s session was over. After the day’s session,  we all got into the car together and we left for his home without him. I could not even wave them goodbye or see them off.
 

Today is:
Monday, July 2nd, 2018
DAY 180 of Monika Schaefer’s loss of freedom
Day 58 of Ursula Haverbeck’s loss of freedom
Day 53 of Gerd Ittner’s loss of freedom
 Day 52  of Jez Turner’s loss of freedom

SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1, July 2, 2018 — Report by Lady Michele Renouf From the Right End of the Horse 

SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1, July 2, 2018 — Report by Lady Michele Renouf

From the Right End of the Horse 

I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-citizenbrother Alfred). Upon my arrival  at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) warned me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom ) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika ( while she attended the attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018).  This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery.  Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five years’ custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration.  Wiser our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe when they provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings  – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings anyway if witnessing the process behind enemy lines.

I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell ) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmeyer as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker ( though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).

Though RA Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “International affection for the Schaefer siblings” she agrees that my making a report to include this advice as given by my own attorney in fact serves to strengthen the drama of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this Alice in Wonderland anti-National Socialist non-Sovereign German legal-land where – ‘first we have the verdict then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence’ – is the nonsensical norm for historical sceptics.

Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his awakening via the videos he has made. I am only anxious that the judge may manage to forbid this exposee by him . The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings from the horse’s mouth.

Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by Attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them and while Alfred gave the Roman salute ( a harmless gesture ludicrously outlawed in still Allied / all- lies occupied Germany. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schaffe judges but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.

In the “curiouser and curiouser” world of occupied-German law, the judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water! Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing to which fittingly Alfred added that the court was but a clownish “Muppet Show”.

Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction wilfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the judge demanded he give only a summary.  At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full.  The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland wherein these nonsensical trials precede via “first the verdict then the evidence”. No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the Holocaust on page 11 determine that: “Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position with normal debate and rational argument”!

Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since  2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service  broadcast under the title” Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented instead of the standard Hollywood version of WW2 history.

Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassimer and Hoffman-Reim called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws there have been numerous valiant attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zuendel,  Dr Herbert Schaller, RA Rieger, Gerd Honsik, – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Henry Hafenmeyer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Gunter Deckert, Herr Froerlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Sven L and Christian H to name but a few.  Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the tide to call for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.

Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed and I await further news from the right end of the horse…

Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 6-8 which included two supporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.

 

The Schaefer trial in Munich, afternoon session, Day one, Monday July 2nd, 2018.

The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias towards the Defendant Alfred Schaefer.  The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th when the matter would be weighed.

The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handed Alfred an arrest warrant that he must spend an open ended period in police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the case.

Monika Schaefer achieved her commonsense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate.  By now the day’s session was already half over!  Alfred gave a four hour well-documented presentation of why the Federal Republic was illegitimate.  The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included.   His 77 page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his sister.  At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained for two days in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his disdain for the authority of the Court, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed the Process was unbelievable: “This is terror”.  After all, Alfred’s disdain of the court authority was of the essence to his own defence!

When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge what she meant by accusing the court rulings as terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”, as were the stunned public gallery who had never before witnessed such surreal events.  By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe since the Judge had ended the day’s session.  Yet the Judge insisted that Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end.  Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court.  Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine.  Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s percipacious presence during the coming days.

The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaufer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye.  But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathetically the moving pathos they would witness that may pass between the siblings.

“No surrender”!
Michele Renouf
www.jewishrepublic.com

Birobidjan – capital of the first Jewish homeland option

www.jewishrepublic.com

Sorry, you don”t appear to have frame support. Go here instead – Birobidjan – capital of the first Jewish homeland option

 

Lawyer/advisor Sylvia Stolz, Wolfram Nahrath, Mr. Miksch (lawyer for Monika Schaefer), lawyer for Alfred Schaefer, Alfred Schaefer, Lady Michele Renouf 

Free Speech in Mortal Peril in Canada, the U.K. & Germany 

Free Speech in Mortal Peril in Canada, the U.K. & Germany 

https://youtu.be/evAP1qI7Ay4

*Updates on the Alison Chabloz, & Monika & Alfred Schaefer

* Updates on Canadian cases — YOUR WARD NEWS, Bill Whatcott, now charged by the outgoing Pakistani, Moslem AG for “hate” & other

LETTER TO FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER CHRYSTIA FREELAND CALLING FOR CONSULAR MONITORING OF MONIKA SCHAEFER’S FREE SPEECH TRIAL IN MUNICH

LETTER TO FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER CHRYSTIA FREELAND CALLING FOR CONSULAR MONITORING OF MONIKA SCHAEFER’S FREE SPEECH TRIAL IN MUNICH

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director


June 21, 2018


Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Re: MONIKA SCHAEFER, JAILED IN MUNICH

Dear Minister Freeland:

I am writing out of deep concern  about a Canadian now languishing in a German prison and now about to face trial under a law, Sec. 130 of the German Criminal Code having to do with racial incitement.

 

The woman, Monika Schaefer was born in Canada and is a Canadian citizen. On January 3, while visiting her brother and attending a trial in Munich, she was seized and arrested and sent to Stadelheim, a maximum security prison in Munich. She was visited by an official from the Canadian Consulate who offered her some help with matters in Canada but informed her they were only allowed to visit every six months. She remained imprisoned WITHOUT being charged until mid-May. Her trial begins July 3.

 

Several weeks ago her brother Alfred was advised by the Canadian Consul in Munich that, on Ottawa’s orders, there would be no consular observer at her two week trial. This is a matter of free speech and protection of Canadians travelling abroad. Let’s be clear: Ms Schaefer could face five years in prison. The issue before the court is a video she recorded in June, 2016 in which she apologizes to her late mother for haranguing her as a teenager for not having “done something” to stop the killings of Jews in WWII.

 

Actually, if we believe in freedom of speech, her views, like them of not as expressed in her six minute video “Sorry, Mom, I Was Wrong About the Holocaust,” should not matter.

 

The absence an observer from the Consulate sends a distinct message to the German authorities: We are not interested in this woman; do as you please. That is appalling.

 

When I and others have sought to inquire from various government officials about what is being done for Monika Schaefer, we are shuffled aside by the invocation of the Right to Privacy Act.  This is the typical response: “Please know that consular officials are bound by the Privacy Act and cannot release details about consular cases. This also applies to the case of Ms. Schaefer. I can, however, confirm that Canadian officials in Germany are providing consular assistance to her.”

 This is one of the most misused bureaucratic excuses for keeping matters secret. We are not inquiring about Ms Schaefer’s sex life (or lack of it) in prison or about any allergies she might have but about what is being done to assist her.

 

We urge you to reconsider the decision and send an observer to Ms Schaefer’s trial. She is a violinist and has long taken a passionate interest in her community, having four times run in elections for the Green Party, which, I trust will not be held against her.  An observer lets the German authorities know that Canada’s government cares and is concerned about freedom of speech. We had hoped that more active interest on the part of the Canadian Government might have convinced the German authorities to avoid a trial and simplydeport her and send her home to Canada.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Paul Fromm

Director