The Schaefer Siblings’ Trial in Munich – a report by Michèle, Lady Renouf

The Schaefer Siblings’ Trial in Munich

– a report by Michèle, Lady Renouf

for The Barnes Review

 

 

DAY 8, Tuesday July 17th 2018.

 

Fear to Think out Loud; Canada and Germany are contrary to international law.

POSTCARD: “Jews like treason; but hate the traitor”

A new development:  The “hate” Law that actually Incites Family Treachery.  

Is that its real intention?

 

The trial session commenced with the judge informing the court about the continuation of the trial.  The plan is to end the hearing of the evidence by August 16th., and on August 17th. the verdict is to be pronounced.

 

The application for release from detention, in the Alfred Schaefer case, was rejected by the court because two postcards Alfred Schaefer had sent to his relatives were deemed “threatening.”  As the postcards were sent openly without an envelope, it is not clear who may have denounced them first since any post office worker could readily read them, and Alfred did not conceal his sender address.

 

Now it is made clear to all in the courtroom why the police arrested my host at his home on July 6th – released him – then re-arrested him and now he remains in prison for his trial’s duration. Family betrayal.  People in careers that are especially vulnerable to political-incorrectness such as schoolteachers are generally in fear and trembling of politically-incorrect “association”.  It has been known for them to denounce a colleague in such circumstances to keep their job.  Such is the appalling effect of these crude “hate” laws, that colleagues will feel forced to abandon decency and honour in order to spare their careers from being axed.  Citizens dare not listen whose livelihood depends on their not listening.

 

As in Orwell’s “1984”, confronted by fear of his worst nightmare, Winston, the central hero, ultimately succumbs to his contrariwise-conditioning inquisitor to denounce fianceé Julia, screaming in tortured terror: “Do it to Julia! Not to me! Do it to Julia!”.

 

The legal team for the siblings’ defence has explained to me the following.  Today their request to have Alfred released from prison during his trial is refused by the leading judge.  The reason Alfred is being held in prison is not only because of his so-called “threatening” tone or Roman salutes in the courtroom or that the alleged effect of Alfred’s “aggressive tone” influenced someone’s behaviour in the public gallery who decried the Prosecutor as cruel after she left the courtroom.

 

The main reason is now made public.  Alfred himself did not speak publicly of this denunciation by his relatives – the issue has only come out into the public domain because now it seems these relatives do not wish him released! His attorney’s appeal for his release was again denied. Apparently the judges consider Alfred may try to influence these family witnesses and so he should be behind bars during his trial.

 

The leading judge read to the court what Alfred had written on these postcards – postcards picturing Monika with her violin in a photograph with the caption “Freiheit für Monika”, and addressed on the back as 
”Prisoner of war Post” (Kriegsgefangenenpost).   Alfred is alleged to have written on the postcards the leery message: “the Jews like treason, but hate the traitor” – adding something like “we ask to remain anonymous”.  Alfred also put his own sender’s address on the postcards. 
I have seen these type of postcards which are addressed to the prison: “Monika Schaefer, Schwarzenbergstr. 14, 81549 München”.  If they were sent openly, and therefore addressed to the prison, I remain baffled as to how his relatives are involved at all?

 

The reason for his arrest was, according to the judge, because with these two postcards Alfred had been trying to influence witnesses by intimidation and threats. 
Alfred said, the reason why he sent these postcards was mere frustration and to “let off steam”. He never intended to influence, threaten or intimidate anybody.
 Besides, the judge argued, Alfred had shown already repeatedly his expressed threats in his speeches and videos, which would show, that making threats is part of Alfred’s personality. 
Whereas Alfred stressed again, like he had done already during the trial and several times, that his statements are never threats at all, they are mere urgent warnings!
 This whole trial seems to be about interpreting seemingly trivial things the way they want them to be to generate, seemingly a specious significance …

 

Alfred’s own school-teacher relatives, it would seem, denounced him to the police!  It seems they are claiming they are “threatened” by him and so they wish him locked away (!).  This is in consequence of their fear from his so-called Drohen (threatening) behaviour as in these two postcards.

 

Our culture once taught as per Plato that: “Honour not men more than truth”.

 

Continuing from the day before, the video “Pavlov‘s Dog, Brainwashing 9/11 Part 3” is screened.

Alfred explains, by these means, how we are manipulated with forbidden symbols, gestures (like his Roman salute) and words. When we see one of these symbols or hear these words we react like a Pavlovian conditioned dog, with fear, denial, or denunciations.

 

Alfred refers to the book “History of Central Banking“ by Stephen Mitford Goodson, when illustrating what he agrees have been the ethically undesirable influences of certain Jews down the centuries.

 

The “hate law”/”populace incitement”, that is, personal opinions mis-defined in his observations as “sedition”, is fostering such overwhelming fear and trepidation in the mindset of populations that we are witnessing an evermore sinister, new development.  The Schaefer siblings’ trial itself is proving that “hate”/”public incitement” laws  – in Germany, known as “paragraph 130” – the one that seeks to criminalise certain historical debate – actually creates hate among family members out of fear of relationship within ordinary families.  During this very trial, family members are readily betraying other family members to avoid “association” with their family “thought criminal”. The Schaefer siblings’ senior attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath, says this is a new development for him, this denunciation among relatives.

 

A thought criminal is one who questions current affairs and historical consensus accounts of what the world syndicated monopoly media narrative asserts as the politically-correct interpretation they MUST adopt or risk ostracism, persecution, and prosecution.  Alfred and Monika want this brought to light.

 

 

It is common knowledge that George Orwell’s book “1984” warns about the tyranny of politica-correctness.

In Alfred’s videos he deploys telling scenes from the movie of “1984” which demonstrates the very fear-inducing and hate-conditioning techniques which have led to the sickening mentality very prevalent within work, social, home-life, self and communal opinion censorship as is being made manifest during the very trial of the Schaefer siblings.  In this dystopian novel – (already a reality in 1948 when he wrote it) – the 7 years’ old daughter (a fanatical Party member) ‘dobs in’ her father to “Big Brother” for liquidation because her father, let slip in his sleep, his deeply repressed hatred of “double-speak” (the swindle-speak) of the State Party.

 

“ ‘What are you in for?’ said Winston. 

 

‘Thoughtcrime!’ said Parsons, almost blubbering. […]’You don’t think they’ll shoot me, do you, old chap? They don’t shoot you if you haven’t actually done anything — only thoughts, which you can’t help?”

 

What is also common knowledge – though unacknowledged by citizens for fear of severe penalties for showing their ‘knowing’ – is that there are “powers that be” which must never be named.  These “hate laws” – effectively undermining both academic freedom and political free speech – go mostly unchallenged for the personal and professional lives they ‘liquidate’.

 

 

Further evidence comes from Canada of a global organisation’s tyrannical ‘liquidation’ of an academic’s his university post.

 

 

In a letter from her prison cell in Germany, Monika wrote: “Alfred mentioned [in court] an example the other day…He said that more and more American universities are disallowing anti-semites entry into their programs of indoctrination I mean oops, into their programs of studyI guess those universities would have disallowed Jesus Christ entry into their hallowed institutions”.  As she has no access to the internet, Monika is kept likely unaware that this applies also to Canada and specifically to her friend Professor Anthony Hall.

 

Deploying swindle-speak to call their admittedly bullying racist victory as “a victory for human rights” B’nai Brith Canada mis-describes that:  “This is a monumental and precedent-setting victory for human rights in Canada,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada, in a release to The Herald (August 9th). “B’nai Brith commends our supporters for keeping pressure on the university, the Government of Alberta, and ultimately on Hall himself.”

 

Here again is the B’nai Brith Canada onslaught action from a racist minority interest organization, boasting of their power to crush the free speech in Canada of Professor Anthony Hall.  During the Schaefer siblings’ trial session we learnt that Prof. Hall had given an interview which was used by the American based historical Revisionist forum, CODOH (Open Debate On the Holocaust) along with interviews by Monika and Alfred and made available in an online video.

 

Another video, not made by Alfred, entitled “Why do you support open debate on the Holocaust?“ was presented in court.  Three people were asked why they supported the open debate about the “Holocaust”. The court wanted to know where Alfred and Monika Schaefer knew the interviewees and if there had been a script for the video?  Monika Schaefer explains that there was no script, because everyone tried to describe his point of view and each person had only wanted to give food for thought.  This video, she said, was made for the English-speaking countries and was only intended for an open and honest debate to find the truth.  Monika and Alfred Schaefer say and demonstrate that they are always ready to revise their views if they would be provided valid evidence. That, they say, is the nature and method of traditional historical source critical research and should be maintained without legalese-terror and scare-enforced exceptions.  I am reminded by RA Nahrath that laws and sentencing for politically-incorrect opinions are far harsher in Austria for nationals and foreigners alike.  David Irving was given a three years’ sentence for ten words he uttered to an undercover journalist sixteen years after he had last visited Vienna. Günter Deckert was prosecuted for simply translating someone’s politically-incorrect article.

 

 

The CODOH-Video “Why do you support open debate on the Holocaust?“, shown to the court, where Professor Anthony Hall, Monika and Alfred give their statements, was simultaneously translated into German by the court appointed professional.  Alfred did not produce this video.  The three of them each sent their answers by email to the CODOH Forum, which then published the video.  The Prosecutor wanted to know if Alfred and Monika got money for this.  The answer was “of course, no!”

 

 

Alfred mentions the book from Michael Collins Piper about the murder of John F. Kennedy (one of many political murders by Jews quotes Alfred), where Piper also names specific Jews.  There are a lot of non-Jews who are even worse behaved than Jews, regrets Alfred.  He sees the danger, that all Jews will encounter a destiny they will not want, if we don‘t manage to solve this problem in a civilized way.  This he says is a sensible warning, not a threat.

 

The Lethbridge Herald continues: “Hall, who was a tenured professor who taught Globalization studies, Native American studies and liberal education at the U of L since 1990, was suspended without pay in October 2016 over concerns he had contravened Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, including providing a platform for hate speech regarding some of his online activities.  Hall had maintained some of the issues involve academic freedom and that he should be allowed to promote his work as he sees fit. He was reinstated in 2017, but was recently dropped from class listings for the coming fall semester.”  Hall added: “Sometimes the difficult times have proven to be the most significant in terms of my own experiential learning about how power is structured and exercised in the academy.”

The Herald notes that: “Last week, B’nai Brith Canada reported that Hall was listed as teaching two courses during the fall 2018 semester. After registering a complaint, the university immediately removed Hall’s name from the syllabus.” In an email statement to The Herald, Prof. Hall gave his track-record: “I have been a full-time faculty member in Canada for 36 years, the last 28 of which have been at the University of Lethbridge”.  It seems that his opinions may have been limited for publication.

 

Yet, as in the Brothers’ Grimm cautionary tale “Rumpelstilskin”, we used to learn that naming the ‘powers that be’ ends their magic power of usury over Kings and States thus bound in its thrall.  Alfred and his sister Monika have decided to name whom they believe is “Rumpelstilskin”.  Whether they are “hunting the devil in the details” or not, it is plain for all to see that they are being persecuted by the external ‘powers that be’, self-namely the B’nai Brith Canada.  Whose sedition is it if concerned citizens complain of external international groups interfering to have a Canadian citizen arrested in Germany? Is the international group’s action rather more of the seditious variety, or the parties who are complaining of their internationally interfering activities?

 

Because, since 1958, and never democratically elected by the citizenry but imposed on them by the ongoing wartime Allied-victors, the Federal Republic of Germany’s Basic Law was (and remains) externally imposed.   German citizens have not been given a choice to have their sovereignty returned or asked whether they wish to remain under the holding laws of the Allied war victors’ Basic Law’s hostility to German nationalism.  This aspect is part of the trial’s underlying ‘foundation’…as is Professor Carlo Schmid’s recorded on film exposeé in 1948 that the German Federal Republic’s Basic Law was never democratically elected by the citizens which means the citizens have no free will to hold a dissident opinion for they accept Allied victors’ rule though WW2 ended in 1945.

 

This state of affairs did not change with the partial reunification of West and East Germany. When Prof. Schmid made that speech, it was expected, not only by Schmid but by other constitutional experts, that the Basic Law would be superseded be a future German constitution – not imposed by military occupiers but freely adopted and voted on by the German people in a future reunited Germany.  After the fall of the Berlin Wall, they got the partial reunification but not the new freely adopted sovereign constitution.

 

 

“Para 130”, today’s advance towards a Medieval blasphemy law

 

The little-known, yet classic Orwellian case of Monika Schaefer may yet establish, if it were to become common knowledge, dystopian precedent in terms of the power of a special-interest group in exerting its influence beyond jurisdiction, beyond international borders and beyond our universal principles of human rights. It is now of public media record that B’nai Brith Canada brought this hateful prison plight upon a fellow Canadian citizen.

 

According to The Star newspaper in Toronto the Schaefer case involves: “several videos of the siblings questioning the existence of Nazi death camps during the Second World War”.  Rather one-sidedly, the paper neglects to assist the readership to comprehend that these videos do not deny the existence of wartime concentration camps – only that the Schaefer siblings quote serious historical revisionist scholars and Red Cross reports that these camps were labour or prison camps, not homicidal mass death camps as maintained by a literal set-in-stone consensus (like holy writ). Yet all history is constantly revised to varying degrees, except this one.

 

Monika says the very thing that many people suspect but dare not ask out loud, were the National Socialist era concentration camps for forced-labour, or for extermination?  If the latter, why did they have hospitals where Jews themselves say they received curative treatment?  Monika explains: “Jews (and others) died en masse of typhus outbreaks, not mass homicidal gas chambers”.  If not, it does not kill or harm anyone (other than the skeptic) if discussion of these issues were permitted to be the norm as is the case for all other eras of war and wartime propaganda.  Otherwise tyranny is the word we use to describe the undermining of both academic freedom and political speech.  In fact, a ninety years’ old woman, Ursula Haverbeck, sits behind bars simply and only because she asks these forensic questions.

 

As pointed out in the official judgment of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (which took place from 1963 to 1965), the court “lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records, expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked any trace of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness testimony was only possible in rare cases”.  Ursula Haverbeck continues to ask a great number of 21st century “Holocaust” education bodies and official authorities for clear statements as to the murder weapons, locations etc.   She is following up the open acknowledgment by the Frankfurt court that they did not have such evidence. One might expect that half a century later, once the Iron Curtain was opened with access to all relevant archives, it would be normal to answer such questions.  Yet Ursula has met an implacable wall of silence, and mere assertions that the historical facts are offenkundig, “manifestly obvious”, not requiring evidence or discussion.

 

Jacob Mchangama, the director of Justitia, a Copenhagen-based think tank focused on human rights and rule of law, says they are“building their foundational discourse on the urge to avoid the misfortunes of World War II through European integration and acknowledgment of foundational atrocities”.

 

“Never again” would be a fitting raison d’être for the institutions that underpin modern Europe. But it is not clear that “never again” includes ‘Jew versus Gentile’, Gentile versus Jew, and Gentile versus Gentile, and Jew versus Jew – all such manifestation have occurred – otherwise “never again” should not be accomplished through limiting freedom of enquiry and expression for the sake of victor one-sided sensitivities.  If one says to a German in the street that Britain and France begun WW2, he/she will insist fiercely, no! A non-fact, as Alfred says when so deeply embedded by conditioning will so affect the subject that he/she will denounce family members for fear of ‘association’ with the heretic.  A politically correct non-fact yet, as Alfred proves, this is a deeply imbibed conditioned reflex which effectively terrorises people to close their ears, eyes, and mouth.

 

An American commentator, Carolyn Yeager, reports that: The Constitutional Court rejected Haverbeck’s appeal on the grounds that ‘Holocaust denial is not covered under the constitutional right to free speech.’ Think about thatShe cannot be found guilty of saying ‘Auschwitz has not been proven to be a death camp’ because that is totally true. She can only be found guilty of saying something that is not covered by the ‘constitutional right to free speech.’ In Germany, you are not free to question that Auschwitz was a ‘death camp’ because that is some kind of Holy Writ.”

 

Alfred quotes the late Anthony Lawson from his video where he states: “Many organisations have managed to persuade the governments of many otherwise civilised countries to criminalise any adverse discussions about the details of the ‘Holocaust’ on pain of imprisonment or a heavy fine.  Merely imparting information is not incitement to commit a crime.”

 

In this same documentary video, Lawson quotes the eminent American judge Chief Justice Charles Wennerstrum, who served on the Iowa Supreme Court, 1941-1958, and was a judge at one of the later Nuremberg trials in 1947-8.  Wennerstrum was highly critical of the way in which the Nuremberg trials were conducted.  His thoughts were published in 1948 in the Chicago Daily Tribune, yet such dissident voices like his were eventually drowned out.

 

Justitia informs that: “France has had a ban on Holocaust denial in place since 1990. Austria’s ban was adopted in 1992, and Belgium’s is from 1995. Germany itself did not adopt an explicit ban until 1994, though it countered Holocaust denial before then through laws against defamation, incitement, and disparaging the memory of the dead. The European Union also took steps in this direction through a joint action adopted in 1996, which obliged member states to take steps toward criminalizing the “public denial” of the crimes that formed part of the Nuremberg trials. Holocaust denial laws were also approved in the 1990s by the European Court of Human Rights (under the Council of Europe), which stated that the negation or revision of “clearly established historical facts — such as the Holocaust — … would be removed from the protection” of free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights. The joint action was given more bite in 2008 with the adoption of a much more detailed framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.”

 

An ever-growing number – what Alfred calls the exponential curve – of online citizens are wishing to see free academic discourse on these topics as per our democratic right, and not the opposite, the sinister acceleration jailing of unarmed dissidents for their opinions.  These laws banning normal scientific enquiry into a unique method of mass murder, by their sinister prohibition from the forensic norm, in themselves cast doubt in minds of skeptical thinkers, finds Alfred.

 

To quote just two Canadian citizens from their Letters to the Editor of the National Post, Toronto, in response to:  Cherry picking and the Holocaust (Editorial July 24, 2014)

 

John Mortl : Now asking questions about the holocaust will be characterized as a sly form of denial”.

 

Ian V. McDonald (former diplomat): “Guest Editor Shimon Koffler Fogel, who makes a career of fruitlessly cherry-picking:  His article is riddled with convoluted sophistry suggesting that any remark that casts suspicion on Jewish righteousness is inherently criminal in nature.”

 

Thoughts and hatred are not to be deemed criminal in our Hellenic skeptical tradition.

 

 

In Switzerland (a non-E.U. country), a popular anti-censorship organization – AZK (Anti-Censorship-Coalition) – attracts thousands of ordinary people who attend with their children (I have attended on one occasion and know this firsthand).  At its 2012 Conference, the German former attorney Sylvia Stolz gave a talk (having spent three and a half years behind bars for the ludicrous charge of “defending her Revisionist clients too well”).   In consequence, the German government is currently in the process of endeavouring to put her back behind bars for her presentation on free speech in Switzerland!  This opinion tyranny has to be seen to be believed, it is so incredible.  As noted by Alfred, Sylvia’s eloquent presentation on free speech has garnered vast internet audiences and is still available on Youtube in several languages. In an interview, Alfred explains that: Sylvia Stolz was put in prison for three and a half years for defending the late Ernst Zündel at an inquisition in Mannheim Germany in 2005 – 2006.  She was arrested after the inquisitor had demanded that she stop presenting further evidence during the trial. She was told that any evidence that contradicts the Holocaust narrative is illegal. That did not stop her and she continued presenting evidence until they dragged her into the dungeon. This is not a horror movie, this is the reality of our world today, and it will continue to get worse until we stop it”. 

 

B’nai Brith Canada was gloating, acknowledged Alfred, about how clever they were to spot a “Holocaust denier” at the trial of another notorious “right wing extremist Holocaust denier”, and they were patting themselves on the back at their own sneakiness and bravery in calling for a surprise break to trap and arrest Monika. They were also amusing themselves at the simple-minded stupidity of one “Holocaust denier” coming to see another “Holocaust denier” and then getting arrested.  Anyone that stupid deserves to be arrested. That was the tone in the Jewish controlled newspaper.  After seeing how this has now aroused indignation worldwide, they are not patting themselves on the back anymore.   Monika’s incarceration actually offers the Jews the opportunity, adds Alfred, to prove their possible innocence and good intentions by simply getting her out of prison.

 

With reference to his Brainwashing video series in court, Alfred Schaefer reported extensively on how much our opinion has been conditioned by the media in a certain direction for many years with images and symbols.

 

Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, in 1985, had already nailed the syndicated media as:

 

Self-appointed rulers of your opinion”.

 

Nowadays, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) has been aptly nicknamed by Clive Menzies (of Critical Thinking.com) as the “British Brainwashing Corporation” – not least for its monstrous example of bias when the policy was to refuse broadcasting the Gaza Humanitarian Appeal.  This grotesque bias was in favour of Israel after that criminal entity had rained down upon helpless Palestinians in the biggest concentration camp called Gaza, inextinguishable phosphorous bombs, the like of which were previously rained down via the despicable WW2 Allied policy over 60 German towns and cities specifically targeting and burning alive its civilians.

 

Alfred explains to the judges, how the process of waking up has multiplied during the past years like exponential curves. For example the 1985 videoed interview with Yuri Bezmenov, the Russian dissident giving his propaganda expertise is now all over the internet.  Whereas when he discovered it for the first time almost nobody was aware of it.  Massive censorship of the internet is the impasse and the suppressive measures being taken against the awakening of the people. Yet the networking is steadily growing.  Alfred feels obliged to do what he is doing. For him it was the decision between failure to render assistance in an emergency or risking being punished for so-called “hate speech“ (Volksverhetzung). We are in a life-threatening situation and his reaction to this is as to an emergency call.  He chose to lend assistance even if it would mean for him a prison sentence. In the future everybody will have to explain to his/her children, why they kept silent.

 

A question from the judge: What does this new world order look like that Alfred is speaking of?  Alfred explained, that he does not have a complete solution, but all peoples of the world should have self-determination and independence.   Society will not always just be there to serve a tiny privileged minority, while enslaving the majority ever more. Nowadays the productive people (workers) are systematically exploited and their right to opinions suffocated. Everywhere in this world people are confronted with the same brainwashed conditioned problem so that they have no say in the way, for example, they are taxed or the way their taxes are spent.  The first step to solve this problem is waking up to comprehend and with this he tries to help with his teaching aid videos.

 

In Alfred’s ‘Brainwashing Part 3’ video, by way of his continuing to find ways to explain brainwashing and subversion, he cites Yuri Bezmenov, a.k.a. Tomas Schuman, the Soviet KGB defector – formerly of the Novosti Press Agency and KGB propaganda expert.  Bezmenov outlines and explained for the historical record in detail the tactics of proven subversion and takeover of target societies, at a lecture in Los Angeles, 1983. The videoed lecture on Youtube describes Yuri Alexandrovitch Bezmenov as “a former KGB propagandist who was assigned to New Delhi, India, defected to the West in 1970, and was interviewed by Edward Griffin in 1985. Bezmenov explains his background, some of his training, and exactly how Soviet propaganda is spread in other countries in order to subvert their teachers, politicians, and other policy makers to a mindset receptive to the Soviet Bolshevik ideology. He also explains in detail the goal of Soviet propaganda as total subversion of another country and the 4 step formula for achieving this goal through product marketing, manipulation of terms, choice of terminology, packaging and mis-selling of ideas and events, whereby public opinion is formulated.

 

Bezmenov explained in this interview the methods used by the Soviet KGB to secretly subvert the democratic system of the United States”. This encompasses the methods and application of psychological warfare, subversion, and control of Western society via the radicalisation of human relations to destabilise and antagonise family and social coherence to a point where citizens out of fear of association will denounce one another. Alfred points out the moral decline of society everywhere recognisable is evidence of this socially engineered subversion described by this Russian expert.  Alfred went on to explain how in the final stage with the complete destabilization of society, civil war results.  These are the subversive steps leading up to the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution as hindsight now can teach us.

 

“Self-appointed rulers of your opinion”.

 

Recently, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg – who is Jewish – said in an interview, published in The Daily Telegraph, UK, he “would not ban Holocaust deniers” from his social media Facebook because “there are things that different people get wrong”.  Other commentators, like author and poet Mike Walsh, have assessed concerning Twitter and Facebook, that: “These are data miners not social networks”; as did publicist and artist Edmond Morrison Facebook: It’s an ego building snare just waiting to snap up information”.  On Russia Today, the worldwide, admired whistle-blower Julian Assange assessed that: “Facebook is the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented”

 

Confounded by the sharp decline in Zuckerberg’s profits, people are left to wonder if displaying his tolerance (“Holocaust-deniers are simply getting it wrong”) and in consequence tribal denunciation may account for this sharp profits decline; or if his business has dropped off dramatically owing to the outrage that the social media giant must explain how personal data from up to 87 million users was harvested by Cambridge Analytica and used to further political agendas in the UK, US and even Kenya”.  In all events, there has been an onslaught from the “Holocaust-preacher” fraternities upon Zuckerberg to adapt Facebook as a “Holocaust” teaching platform in the emotive manner of a religious belief.  The heavyweight pressure is on Zuckerberg – for the ‘Party’ sent him a letter August 7th, subject HOLOCAUST DENIAL – ACTION PLAN FOR FACEBOOK – and our Big Brother world awaits his Winston ratification: “Do it to Julia, not to me”.

 

Alfred Schaefer went on to explain to his judges that there was little interest in his videos at the beginning, but that there was exponential growth evident from recent reactions and affirmative commentaries, as the audience recognized our present situation.   Viewers were able to relate to his style of video lectures.

 

Alfred said he had to create these videos because otherwise he would have had to look on as a passive accomplice if he had not acted.  But he had never pursued evil intentions with his videos.  All human beings would sooner or later be confronted with the excesses of the subversive machinations.  Everything, he predicts, once citizens awaken to how they are being subliminally manipulated – sold mis-packaged concepts as in advertising – what duped citizenry believe now will be swept away and all the teachers and professors would then have to explain why they had been silent for so long.  For Alfred, he sees it as our task to deal with reality and to no longer believe the fantasy stories we were being presented.

 

The leading judge asked what the New World Order would look like?  Alfred Schaefer replied what it would not look like. He referred to research carried out in a book, predicting that the mass migrating “invaders” from Africa (as warned about by Colonel Gaddafi) would put on a friendly face to get inside the welfare systems developed within Western industrial nations as long as they needed us and were dependent on us. But as soon as they reached a certain percentage of the population, they would destroy our civilization. Then a situation would arise that none of us would want and that no one in the developed world would be prepared for. Already in some European countries the “invaders” are outnumbering the standing army.  However, by retaining people in their ancestral regions, every people should regain their self-determination and not be controlled from the outside by separating us from our racial and race-related cultural roots.  In Alfred’s observation, this is making us sick by the syndicated-biased media telling fairy tales (no longer traditionally as beneficial cautionary tales but contrary to the public’s mental health and moral interests).  Everywhere in the White world it is looking just like ours, a disorienting multi-culti experiment, and you come to the same bewildering conclusions.

 

A further question from the leading judge: How does Alfred deal with different opinions?  Alfred replies that different opinions are no problem for him at all.  The only problem for him is when free speech is not allowed and no open discussion is possible when prohibitions are imposed on free, unintimidated, open discussion of their concerns. There must be an open and objective discussion. People are hungry for logical explanations and a desire to learn how to join the dots of their growing comprehension of how the world works and if it is being worked or socially engineered in the common good or otherwise.  Logical explanations as per our cultural disposition.  Citizens are hungry for logical explanations for laws, taxation, regulations, and UN Resolutions which permit unjustifiable exceptionalism.

 

 

The next trial session is July 26th. 2018, at 09:15 am.

 

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

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.

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