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.
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.
Michèle, Lady Renouf
Day 6 of the trial, Friday July 13.
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.
Michèle, Lady Renouf