On 80th Anniversary of Normandy & “Fight for Democracy”, Germany Puts A 95-Year Old Grandmother on Trial AGAIN For Challenging the Hollywood Version of WW II

New trial of elderly Holocaust denier starts in Hamburg

DPA

Fri, June 7, 2024 at 12:23 PM EDT

The accused Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck sits in the district court at the start of her appeal proceedings. The 95-year-old, who is popular in right-wing extremist circles, was sentenced to ten months in prison without probation by the district court in 2015. The senior citizen appealed against this. In the trial before the district court, the public prosecutor's office is accusing the woman from North Rhine-Westphalia of two counts of incitement of the people. Markus Scholz/dpa Pool/dpa

The accused Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck sits in the district court at the start of her appeal proceedings. The 95-year-old, who is popular in right-wing extremist circles, was sentenced to ten months in prison without probation by the district court in 2015. The senior citizen appealed against this. In the trial before the district court, the public prosecutor’s office is accusing the woman from North Rhine-Westphalia of two counts of incitement of the people. Markus Scholz/dpa Pool/dpa

The trial of German Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck for inciting hatred began on Friday at the Hamburg District Court.

The 95-year-old, who is a prominent figure in right-wing extremist circles, was sentenced to 10 months in prison by the Hamburg District Court on November 12, 2015. She appealed, and almost nine years later the case is once again before the courts.

The public prosecutor’s office in Hamburg has charged Haverbeck with two counts of incitement of the people.

On April 21, 2015, on the fringes of the trial of former SS member Oskar Gröning, Haverbeck is said to have told journalists that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp but a labour camp.

In a television interview with the broadcaster NDR she also denied that there had been a mass extermination of people there. These contributions were shown in the courtroom on the first day of the trial. Historians estimate the Nazis murdered at least 1.1 million people in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp alone.

“I have never denied the Holocaust,” Haverbeck said, claiming that she had merely asked questions. However the judge found that the comments in the TV reports were not questions, but statements.

She wanted to know if the accused still stood by her remarks. Haverbeck then repeated one of them.

Haverbeck has previously served more than two years in jail for Holocaust denial. In 2022, she was again sentenced to one year in prison without probation by a Berlin court for incitement of the people. The judgment is final, but that sentence has not yet been served.

A doctor accompanied Haverbeck, who was in a wheelchair and repeatedly complained about the “infirmities of old age.” “I think you’re really fit,” the judge told her.

The trial is due to continue on Wednesday.

The accused Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck sits in the district court at the start of her appeal proceedings. The 95-year-old, who is popular in right-wing extremist circles, was sentenced to ten months in prison without probation by the district court in 2015. The senior citizen appealed against this. In the trial before the district court, the public prosecutor's office is accusing the woman from North Rhine-Westphalia of two counts of incitement of the people. Markus Scholz/dpa Pool/dpa

The accused Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck sits in the district court at the start of her appeal proceedings. The 95-year-old, who is popular in right-wing extremist circles, was sentenced to ten months in prison without probation by the district court in 2015. The senior citizen appealed against this. In the trial before the district court, the public prosecutor’s office is accusing the woman from North Rhine-Westphalia of two counts of incitement of the people. Markus Scholz/dpa Pool/dpa

The accused Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck stands in the district court at the start of her appeal proceedings. The 95-year-old, who is popular in right-wing extremist circles, was sentenced to ten months in prison without probation by the district court in 2015. The senior citizen appealed against this. In the trial before the district court, the public prosecutor's office is accusing the woman from North Rhine-Westphalia of two counts of incitement of the people. Markus Scholz/dpa Pool/dpa

The accused Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck stands in the district court at the start of her appeal proceedings. The 95-year-old, who is popular in right-wing extremist circles, was sentenced to ten months in prison without probation by the district court in 2015. The senior citizen appealed against this. In the trial before the district court, the public prosecutor’s office is accusing the woman from North Rhine-Westphalia of two counts of incitement of the people. Markus Scholz/dpa Pool/dpa

Ursula Haverbeck, Former German Political Prisoner & Skeptic About the Hollywood Version of WW II Age 94, in Hospital After A Fall — Send A Card

Ursula Haverbeck, Former German Political Prisoner & Skeptic About the Hollywood Version of WW II Age 94, in Hospital After A Fall — Send A Card

From her attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath:
Ursula Haverbeck fell heavily down a flight of stairs and being seriously injured with five broken ribs and severe bruises, she is now in the hospital [this is its address below]. Yet by comparison, as ever, she has sustained her unbreakable spirits.

Ursula Haverbeck
Mathildenhospital
Renntormauerstraße 1 – 3
32052 HERFORD

GERMANY


Telefon: 05221 5930
Station 4a Zi. 443

Best wishes,

Lady Michèle Renouf

Ursula Haverbeck will NOT now be jailed – victory for international protest

Ursula Haverbeck will NOT now be jailed – victory for international protest

adminGermanyHistorical memory lawsUrsula Haverbeck

Ursula Haverbeck – the 94-year old German scholar and publisher who was facing 12 months in prison for the ‘crime’ of raising questions about the ‘Holocaust’ – will not now be jailed, following a decision just announced in Berlin.

Even after the rejection of a final legal appeal last October, Ursula’s tireless lawyer Wolfram Nahrath had persisted with arguments that it was unacceptable for a 94-year-old lady to be incarcerated – and the authorities seem finally to have accepted this.

Ursula Haverbeck with her Berlin lawyer Wolfram Nahrath

We shall have fuller details of the Berlin decision soon.

What is already clear is that international protests played a part in convincing the German authorities that jailing Ursula Haverbeck was a propaganda disaster for them, and that their reputation would suffer even further if the sentence were enforced.

Thanks are therefore due to her lawyer Herr Nahrath, but also to the international campaign that drew attention to the original sentence and to the tyranny of Germany’s jailing of dissident historians.

The next step should be the repeal of the volksverhetzung law itself, which is an outrage against traditional European standards of free historical debate and rational argument.

Having Broken No Law Spanish Nationalist, Isabel Peralta Banned From “Democratic” Germany for Life

Writer and Activist Isabel Peralta Banned from Germany for Life

Chris Rossetti (Editor) · 0

GERMANY IS ALREADY KNOWN for its laws banning free political debate and historical research – most notoriously for the recent decision to imprison 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck. It has become almost routine for Germany to deny basic human rights to its own citizens, while welcoming alien immigrants from every corner of the world.

Now the German authorities have again breached their basic obligations under the Schengen treaty, by which fellow Europeans are supposed to be allowed freedom to travel across its borders.

They are attempting to impose a life ban on Spanish nationalist activist and Heritage and Destiny magazine (H&D) writer Isabel Peralta – despite the fact she has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, any criminal offence in Germany.

As we reported in Issue 111 of H&D (but has only yesterday been picked up by the mainstream press in Spain), German police detained Isabel on 6th October while she was minding her own business in the central German university town of Marburg. She was served with official papers ordering her to leave the country.

https://odysee.com/$/embed/@Nationalism:3/isabel-interview-ODYSEE:d?r=Zyhg2ef4mvKgybizSqsbEJvhnmd22vMW

This followed earlier harassment at Manchester Airport, when Isabel was detained for more than six hours on 24th September, the night before her speech at the H&D meeting in Preston, which can be viewed online here.

It’s now apparent that UK authorities abused Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, so as to do a favour for their German colleagues. The UK authorities knew perfectly well that they had no valid reason to detain Isabel, but they used Schedule 7 as a ‘fishing expedition’ to collect political intelligence from her phone and computer, and pass it to the German authorities.

This has nothing to do with terrorism and nothing to do with UK law: British police and border security have become accomplices in the German authorities’ campaign of political persecution against nationalists.

Unlike post-Brexit UK citizens, Isabel is of course (as a Spanish citizen) entitled under European law (in fact under the European constitution) to enter Germany free of harassment, and for that matter to work or study in Germany.

Such rights can only be withdrawn in very exceptional circumstances: Even convicted criminals are normally entitled to these rights.

In order to expel Isabel, and now to argue that she should be excluded from Germany for life, the authorities have had to argue not that she is a criminal (because they know that she has broken no German laws) but that she is a serious threat to “national security”, because she supposedly has such high-level connections with dangerous subversives in leadership positions among the “far right”, including people who aim to overthrow the German government! https://www.youtube.com/embed/fiFIpMJoo1w

This extraordinary paranoia reflects the fact that despite the evident short-term weakness of German nationalist movements, those who govern the occupied Federal Republic are aware of their lack of legitimacy. They know that their rule since the end of (blatant) Allied military occupation in the early 1950s has been based on lies, and they fear (correctly) that Isabel Peralta, as a brave and intelligent advocate of truth, is capable of inspiring a movement among new generations of Europeans that will eventually win.

That’s why they had to invent a quite ludicrous case against her, which now aims to exclude her from Germany for life. This legal and constitutional outrage will of course be appealed, if necessary as far as the European courts.

H&D and our colleagues in several European countries have been working for the last two months on a major investigation of the extreme measures that have been adopted by the enemies of nationalism to subvert our movement and deny legal and constitutional rights. Next week we shall publish the results of this investigation.

Isabel is still facing legal proceedings in Spain under their version of the race laws (though this case is unrelated to her exclusion from Germany and does not provide any valid reason for the German authorities’ behaviour). She is also bringing a civil action against the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Jerusalem Post, a case which has already begun in the Madrid courts.

French scholar Vincent Reynouard arrested in Scotland — Held for Extradition for Though Crimes in France

French scholar Vincent Reynouard arrested in Scotland

adminFranceHistorical memory lawsRobert Faurissonsite introVincent Reynouard

French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard was arrested in Scotland on Thursday 10th November. He is presently in an Edinburgh prison cell, awaiting a court hearing on 24th November to determine whether he should be extradited to France, where he would be jailed under that country’s laws restricting historical and scientific enquiry.

Vincent Reynouard built his scholarly reputation with a detailed re-examination of what had been termed the ‘Massacre of Oradour’, and went on to become one of the world’s leading sceptical investigators of the ‘Holocaust’. Francophone readers should visit his excellent website.

British and American readers might be shocked that a specialist squad of police from SO15 – the Counter-Terrorism Command, directed from London – swooped on a small Scottish village to arrest this 53-year-old scholar, who is not accused of anything that would be a crime in the UK.

Yet in fact this is simply the latest example – though an especially important example – of an increasing trend across Europe, where politicised courts and prosecutors, aided by politicised police forces and intelligence agencies, are seeking to crush any dissent and enforce a quasi-religious obedience to one particular view of 20th century history.

The question that should immediately occur to any educated European is: why?

Why should our rulers be so afraid of what remains a small minority of scholars who – inspired by revisionist pioneers Robert Faurisson in France and Arthur Butz in the USA – have persisted in raising serious questions about the alleged murder of six million Jews, in unfeasible homicidal gas chambers, on the undocumented alleged orders of Adolf Hitler?

Any other area of history with such blatant evidential problems would have attracted dozens of academic sceptics. Yet with a handful of honourable exceptions, the academic world has not only been cowed into silence, but has queued up to accept lucrative commissions and tenured positions promoting the new religion of Holocaustianity.

Our rulers approach has been the well-tried one of ‘carrot and stick’.

The carrot is the promise of well-remunerated posts in universities and charities, combined with fat cheques from publishers, newspapers, television stations and movie studios.

The stick (increasingly used during the last quarter-century) has involved heavy fines and prison sentences. In Germany, the 94-year-old Ursula Haverbeck has been sentenced to another year in prison, and is expected to begin her incarceration any day now. Her equally courageous compatriot Horst Mahler (now 86) has at the last count spent about fifteen years in prison since his 70th birthday, again for the ‘crimes’ of publishing articles and books, and giving interviews about this forbidden area of 20th century history. And in the USA the exiled German chemist Germar Rudolf faces determined efforts to have him extradited to Germany, where he would certainly be handed a long jail sentence.

Vincent Reynouard consulting his lawyer during one of his many court appearances in France. In the background can be seen one of Vincent’s most loyal supporters, Jérôme Bourbon, the editor of long-established journal Rivarol.

So far the UK has no such specific law criminalising historical revisionism, and several British historians, including leftists and liberals such as Timothy Garton Ash, have commendably condemned all such laws.

In 2008 a London court rejected the German government’s request for the extradition of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben under a European Arrest Warrant. Will a similar situation protect Vincent Reynouard?

New extradition arrangements post-Brexit have only been in force since 11 pm on 31st December 2020, so while we can see the statutory position, we have little in the way of case law (on either side of the border).

I am not a lawyer, but I was closely involved in research work for the Töben case, and have had good reason more recently to refresh my memory and understanding of the legal position regarding EU citizens travelling or resident in the UK.

Traditionally the UK’s position on extradition (as was once common internationally) was based on two essential principles. One was the existence of an extradition treaty with the country concerned, which entailed mutual respect for legal systems. For example, the lack of such a treaty with Spain (due to political embarrassment over the presence of numerous anti-Franco exiles, including terrorists, in the UK) meant that Spain became notorious for decades as a refuge for British criminals – i.e. non-political criminals such as bank robbers.

Despite Brexit, French prosecutors seem able to demand extradition from the UK of a man who has committed no crime under UK law.

Once such a treaty was in place, the essential principle was ‘dual criminality’, i.e. that the offence of which the requested fugitive was charged should also be an offence in the country from which extradition was sought. Naturally the criminal laws involved would rarely be identical, and it was up to the courts to resolve whether ‘dual criminality’ applied.

In a case such as that of Vincent Reynouard, this would once have presented a problem for the authorities. It would have been necessary to prove not only that he had committed ‘Holocaust denial’ (not in itself of course an offence in the UK), but that he had done so in a manner which also contravened some UK law (such as the laws against “inciting racial hatred”).

As readers can easily imagine, the “dual criminality” requirement allowed legal loopholes to be exploited in any number of criminal cases, especially those which involved wealthy crooks, or IRA terrorists who had a well-funded support network, and whose extradition from European countries (or the USA) to the UK was occasionally blocked.

So even setting aside our enemies’ broader political agenda, there were (from the general public’s viewpoint) apparent practical advantages to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system, which after long discussion replaced the traditional extradition laws, and took effect in the UK on 1st January 2004.

Under the EAW there was a fundamental assumption that all legal systems within the EU could trust each other to respect natural justice, etc.; and there was no need to establish “dual criminality”.

In place of the latter principle, the EAW established a list of “framework offences”. Once it could be shown that a fugitive was accused of anything that fell within these quite broadly defined “framework offences”, he would be extradited very swiftly in what amounted to a “rubber-stamp” procedure even though it formally took place in court. There was no provision in most cases for the courts to investigate the full circumstances of the alleged ‘crime’ before extradition under an EAW.

This is Baroness Scotland, the ‘British’ government minister who gave Parliament an assurance that the European Arrest Warrant would not be used as a back-door criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’. If Vincent Reynouard is extradited, it will be clear evidence that she lied to Parliament.

One of the framework offences was “racism and xenophobia”. However, so far as ‘Holocaust denial’ was concerned, there remained a potential loophole.

This loophole only existed because of objections that were raised in the House of Lords during passage of the legislation that wrote the EAW system into UK law.

Under repeated cross-examination by peers, the Home Office minister in the Lords (Baroness Scotland) gave a specific assurance that the EAW would not amount to a back door criminalisation of Holocaust denial in the UK.

The position was to be as follows. If any element of the ‘offence’ of ‘Holocaust denial’ had taken place in the UK, it would be deemed to fall under UK law and therefore (unless it could be shown that it also involved other existing crimes under UK law) extradition would not take place.

A ‘Holocaust denier’ would only be extradited under a European Arrest Warrant if it could be shown by the requesting country’s authorities that the ‘crime’ had been committed purely and simply within the jurisdiction of the country concerned.

The specific example given to Parliament was of someone who had made a speech in Cologne market place denying the ‘Holocaust’, and had then escaped to the UK before being apprehended. In such a case (provided other boxes were ticked, such as the offence potentially attracting a prison sentence of more than 12 months) the requested person would be extradited.

However, if someone had produced a magazine, or a book, or a website, or an online video, etc., ‘denying the Holocaust’, then such a person would not be extradited. Even though part of the ‘offence’ might have been committed in France, Germany or wherever, part of it would also have been committed in the UK.

The minister’s precise words to Parliament included the following assurance:
“Holocaust denial …is a very particular offence. We would say that those engaging in that endeavour in part in this country would not be capable of being extradited as the offence would in part have allegedly been committed in this country, and in this country it is not an offence. So we would not extradite those involved in it.”

Dr Fredrick Töben, whose London lawyers defeated an extradition attempt by German prosecutors in 2008.

Such was the difficulty for the German authorities in the Töben case. They issued a European Arrest Warrant, and Töben was arrested while merely passing through London’s Heathrow Airport on 1st October 2008. He was jailed pending extradition, which at first was expected to be a ‘rubber-stamp’ process.

However, on closer examination (once Töben was represented by extradition specialist Kevin Lowry-Mullins rather than by a duty solicitor) it was found that the German request was insufficiently detailed. The reason for such vagueness was obvious: the authorities both in Berlin and London were well aware that Töben’s alleged criminal conduct did not fall within the very limited definition of ‘Holocaust denial crimes’ for which people could be extradited from the UK. To do so would be a flagrant betrayal of pledges to Parliament during passage of the EAW into UK law.

Consequently, the legal difficulty (and political embarrassment) was colossal. After the Westminster magistrate ruled against extradition, the British and German authorities swiftly dropped their appeal, resulting in Töben’s release.

So the question in 2022 becomes whether the new arrangements that have replaced the EAW post-Brexit, in relation to extradition from or to the UK, are in any way similar in their application to Vincent’s case.

Vincent Reynouard with two of his children: his case is a vital test of whether the UK still retains any respect for traditional liberties.

These new laws were agreed as part of the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ between the UK and the EU which regulates the whole spectrum of such relations post-Brexit. It passed into UK law in the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, which took effect at 11 pm on 31st December 2020.

Broadly speaking this replicates the EAW, in that it is intended to fast-track extradition (in each direction) between the UK and EU countries, and is similar to the existing arrangements that the EU has with Norway and Iceland.

Specifically, there are very limited grounds on which it will be possible to argue that Vincent should not be extradited, and there is a presumption that the whole procedure should be completed swiftly.

It is potentially important that the new law – unlike the EAW system – does not specifically state that the UK and EU nations have “mutual trust” and “mutual confidence” in one other’s legal systems.

Moreover it is stated in the new law that any extradition should be “proportionate” and in particular should avoid long periods of pre-trial detention.

One potential argument is that the French legal system is so heavily politicised in respect of thought-criminals (especially ‘Holocaust deniers’) that there are serious grounds for believing that Vincent Reynouard’s fundamental rights would be imperilled by extradition.

There will be extensive updates here at the Real History blog on the Vincent Reynouard case as it develops. And we shall very soon be reporting on a broader new initiative to advance revisionist scholarship with the aid of a new generation of European intellectual adventurers (to use Professor Robert Faurisson’s celebrated term). — Peter Rushton

The front page of Scotland’s oldest newspaper (now owned by Americans) led with the Reynouard story on Tuesday 15th November. Contrary to the headline, there is no “anti-nazi law”: the French authorities are seeking Vincent Reynouard’s extradition under a law banning critical enquiry into ‘Holocaust’ history. No such law exists in the UK and it is shameful that Police Scotland collaborated in this arrest.
The leading French nationalist journal Rivarol also has Vincent Reynouard’s arrest as its front page lead story, though unlike the Glasgow Herald, Rivarol defends traditional European freedoms.

extradition, gas chambers, Oradour

94 Year Old Ursula Haverbeck Ordered Back to Prison – and her Rebuttal to this Order

Free Speech Monika

~ Exercising My Human Right to Speak Freely!

Monika Schaefer

Ursula Haverbeck Ordered Back to Prison – and her Rebuttal to this Order

  • 13 October 2022
  • by Monika Schaefer

Ursula Haverbeck, born on November 8, 1928, has been told she must turn herself in to the prison within two weeks of having received the order, to serve her one-year sentence. This would mean presenting herself at the gate by October 25, 2022. The nearly 94-year-old German woman is guilty of none other than asking inconvenient questions about “the Holocaust” and where those alleged murders took place. After years of asking questions and never receiving answers, she drew “politically incorrect” conclusions.

With the help of an online translator and a few of my own corrections to it, this is my best effort to present an English version of her letter which she submitted to the court authorities. Frau Haverbeck’s original letter in German follows the English version. If bilingual readers find errors in interpretation, please put those in the comments.

It is simply astonishing with what chutzpah the so-called “justice” system in Germany operates, in order to keep the official narrative going. Someone – I wonder who – must be very afraid to let the truth emerge about what really happened in Germany during that chapter in history commonly referred to as World War Two.

For previous articles about Ursula Haverbeck on my website: please see this and this, both articles from December 2020 and this one from November of 2020 just after she was released from her 2&1/2 years in prison.

Here is the letter from Ursula Haverbeck:

**********************************

District Court Tiergarten
10548 Berlin
Business reference (251b Ds) 231 Js 1640/16 (54/16)
Objection to your communication of 07.09.2022
Notification to the Regional Court of Berlin

October 11, 2022

Dear Sir or Madam,

The judgment of the District Court Tiergarten of December 4, 2020 cannot be final, as the trial took place without charge. As a defendant, I had no idea what the trial was about. I was released from prison 12 days before the trial, had to find my way around my house, where there was water damage, and only at 4 p.m. the day before the 1st day of the trial (November 17, 2020, 10 a.m.) received the message that I had to attend in Berlin. I arrived in Berlin completely tired out and confused. I also do not have the Charges. That is why I could not prepare. On the 2nd day of the trial, the judge told me that I did not have to appear on the 3rd date on December 4, 2020, as only two witnesses were to be heard. On December 4, 2020, however, these witnesses were not heard (although present), but in fact a verdict was announced, without my presence and without the Last Word of the Accused. I still do not know the verdict of this case. Could you be so kind as to send me the indictment and verdict? Thank you!

Thus, the judgment of the Regional Court of April 1, 2022 is also invalid, because it states there and in your communication of September 7, 2022 quite clearly that the first judgment of the District Court Tiergarten of October 16, 2017 in conjunction with the second judgment of December 4, 2020 had been combined to a total penalty. Without the second trial at the Tiergarten District Court, the overall sentence would not have been possible. The sentence of six months would have remained or the appeal would have had to be upheld: i.e. no penalty.

How is it at all possible that a “judge at the district court” (cover page of the judgment of April 1, 2022) makes a judgment in the regional court – in a complicated and publicly known case?
With this multitude of procedural errors, why was my appeal simply rejected without any justification? Even legal laymen can see that something is wrong.

I request the termination of the proceedings and the annulment of the judgment of the Regional Court of April 1, 2022. I would also like to point out that I am no longer in a position to serve a prison sentence due to my health.

Awaiting an early reply and
with kind regards,
~Ursula Haverbeck ******************************** Here is the original letter in German from Ursula Haverbeck to the District Court and to Berlin. ********************************

Amtsgericht Tiergarten
10548 Berlin

Geschäftszeichen (251b Ds) 231 Js 1640/16 (54/16)
Einspruch gegen Ihre Mitteilung vom 07.09.2022

Nachrichtlich an das Landgericht Berlin

11.10.2022

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

das Urteil des Amtsgerichts Tiergarten vom 04.12.2020 kann nicht rechtskräftig sein, da der Prozeß ohne Anklage stattfand. Ich hatte als Angeklagte keine Ahnung, worauf sich das Verfahren bezog. Ich bin 12 Tage vor dem Prozeß aus der Haft entlassen worden, mußte mich im meinem Haus zurechtfmden, wo ein Wasserschaden war, und bekam erst am Vortag zum 1. Prozeßtag (17.11.2020, 10 Uhr) um 16 Uhr die Mitteilung, daß ich mich in Berlin einzufinden hätte. Ich kam völlig übernächtigt in Berlin an und war vollständig verwirrt. Ich habe auch keine Anklage. Daher konnte ich mich auch nicht vorbereiten. Am 2. Prozeßtag sagte mir der Richter, daß ich zum 3. Termin am 04.12.2020 nicht erscheinen müsste, da nur noch zwei Zeugen zu vernehmen wären. Am 04.12.2020 wurden aber diese Zeugen nicht vernommen (obgleich anwesend), tatsächlich dann aber ein Urteil verkündet, ohne meine Anwesenheit und ohne das letzte Wort der Angeklagten. Ich kenne das Urteil dieses Verfahrens bis heute nicht. Könnten Sie so freundlich sein, mir Anklage und Urteil zuzusenden? Danke!

Damit ist auch das Urteil des Landgerichts vom 01.04.2022 hinfällig, denn es heißt dort und in Ihrer Mitteilung vom 07.09.2022 ganz eindeutig, daß das erste Urteil des Amtsgerichts Tiergarten vom 16.10.2017 in Verbindung mit dem zweiten Urteil vom 04.12.2020 zu einer Gesamtstrafe verbunden worden sei. Ohne das zweite Verfahren am Amtsgericht Tiergarten wäre die Gesamtstrafenbildung gar nicht möglich gewesen. Es wäre bei der Strafe von sechs Monaten geblieben oder es hätte der Berufung statt gegeben werden müssen: keine Strafe.

Wie ist es überhaupt möglich, daß eine ,,Richterin am Amtsgericht” (11. Deckblatt des Urteils vom 01.04.2022) ein Urteil des Landgerichts fällt – in einem komplizierten und öffentlich bekannten Verfahren?

Bei dieser Vielzahl von Verfahrensfehlem: Warum wurde meine Revision einfach verworfen, ohne jede Begründung? Da können selbst juristische Laien erkennen, daß etwas nicht stimmt.

Ich beantrage die Einstellung des Verfahrens und die Aufhebung des Urteils des Landgerichts vom 01.04.2022. Zudem weise ich daraufhin, daß ich mich heute gesundheitlich nicht mehr in der Lage sehe, eine Haftstrafe anzutreten.

In Erwartung einer baldigen Antwort und

mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Ursula Haverbeck

This Autumn 93-Year Old German Grandmother to Serve Another Year for Thought Crimes

[

This Autumn 93-Year Old German Grandmother to Serve Another Year for Thought Crimes

Ursula Haverbeck’s crime is questioning the Hollywood version of World War II. What sort of civilized country repeatedly jails a nongenarian for non-violent thinking for herself?]

Ursula Haverbeck: The Verdict Is Final; Sentence Expected to Begin in the Fall Friday, August 19, 2022 https://newsrnd.com/life/2022-08-19-ursula-haverbeck–the-verdict-is-final—the-charge-to-begin-the-sentence-is-expected-to-be-in-the-fall.S1O9CzpR9.html

Ursula Haverbeck was sentenced to one year in prison for hate speech. The decision is now final. The 93-year-old is due to start her sentence soon.

image

Ursula Haverbeck in November 2020: She publicly claimed that the Holocaust never happened. Photo: Filip Singer / EFE / EPO

The judgment of the Berlin Regional Court against the 93-year-old Holocaust denier Ursula Haverbeck for incitement to hatred is final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on July 28. This was announced by a spokeswoman for the court on Friday when asked by SPIEGEL.

In 2016 Haverbeck had claimed in a public lecture and in 2018 in an interview published on the Internet that the Holocaust did not exist. In April 2022, she was sentenced to a total of one year in prison for sedition. The revision of the defense was unsuccessful.

Despite her old age, the chamber ruled out a suspended sentence because Haverbeck had shown no insight or remorse. The presiding judge of the Berlin Regional Court stated in the pronouncement of the verdict that there was “no alternative” to imprisonment. Not even a previously served sentence of two and a half years in prison would have impressed Haverbeck.

“Nothing can stop you.”

According to the responsible public prosecutor, Haverbeck is expected to receive a summons to begin this sentence in the fall.

It remains to be seen whether her lawyer will try to justify his client’s incapacity for imprisonment.

Her lawyer Wolfram Nahrath could not be reached for comment on Friday afternoon. (Der Spiegel)

Further Abuses pf Human Rights in Germany: Publisher & Widow 93Year-Old Usula Haverbeck Sentenced to Another Year in Prison for Questioning the Hollywood Version of WW IIhttp://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=7524

Berlin appeal court confirms 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck – video interview update

Posted by admin978 on April 1, 2022 · Leave a Comment 

Ursula Haverbeck (above centre) began her appeal hearing a few weeks ago where she was represented by Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath (above right).

On Friday afternoon an appeal court in Berlin confirmed the conviction and 12-month jail sentence against 93-year-old publisher and author Ursula Haverbeck.

Her ‘crimes’ involved expressing her opinions on German history, and asking ‘forbidden’ questions about the alleged murder of six million European Jews and the unique ‘mass murder weapon’ of the homicidal gas chamber.

Ursula Haverbeck (above second left) with supporters at her court hearing in Berlin last Friday: (above left to right) Dennis Ingo Schulz, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Nikolai Nerling

In the video below our correspondent Lady Michèle Renouf – who has been a friend of Ursula’s for many years and was in court for the final day of the appeal hearing – interviews Nikolai Nerling, known to German nationalists as the Volkslehrer, whose filmed discussion with Ursula formed the basis of one of the ‘criminal’ charges.

A further report on the case will appear here soon.

Filed under Freedom of Speech, Germany, Historical Revisionism, Incitement of Hatred, Movement News, Police State · Tagged with

Comments are closed.

TakiMag Skewers Anti-Free Speech Germany for Imprisoning 92 Year Old Granny, Ursula Haverbeck

The Week That Perished

Takimag

December 13, 2020

The Week That Perished

photo credit: Bigstock FacebookTwitterEmail

The Week’s Most Stoned, Boned, and Bemoaned Headlines

“VEE HAFF VAYS OF MAKING YOU NOT TALK.”
Last week saw the 79th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, a.k.a. the day the Japanese favored the world with a strikingly vivid real-life illustration of the phrase “biting off more than you can chew.” Pearl Harbor Day is certainly an appropriate time for reflecting upon what a terrible, terrible world this would be if the Axis powers had won World War II.

Imagine Germany in 2020 if the U.S. and Soviet Union had not beaten some democratic sense into the totalitarian Nazi state. Imagine a Germany that had not been immolatingly guided into embracing the sacred tenets of freedom and human rights. A Germany not brought to heel in 1945 would surely be a monstrous, oppressive society that tortures 92-year-old women just because they don’t parrot state doctrine.

Oh, wait; that’s Germany today. Sorry, Hitler!

Ursula Haverbeck is 92 years old, and “free and democratic” Germany just can’t stop imprisoning her. One could reasonably ask why any major world power—or, frankly, any minor world power—would feel the need to keep locking up one elderly woman. What manner of criminal mischief could this senior scofflaw possibly be engaged in to merit repeated stints in the pokey? Did she plow through an open-air market in her Volkswagen? Is she a suspect in the disappearance of Hansel and Gretel?

Nope. She won’t stop saying that Auschwitz wasn’t an extermination camp. And the fact that one insignificant old lady holds a view that the state finds objectionable is something that free and democratic Germany simply cannot allow.

In 2016 Haverbeck was sentenced to ten months imprisonment for saying hurty words about Auschwitz. When she was released, the state asked her, “Has your punishment taught you to stop holding your opinion?” Haverbeck said no, and she was sent back to the pen for another two and a half years.

A few weeks ago, she was released again. And again, the state asked her if she would recite history in the manner that free and democratic Germany insists it must be recited.

Unfortunately, the villainous granny still refused to parrot the scripted words that the free-thought-loving, human-rights-respecting German government was forcing her to recite, so back to jail she went last week. Read More

As reported by Der Tagesspiegel:

Ursula Haverbeck repeatedly claims that there was no mass murder in Auschwitz. She was just in jail—and was immediately put on trial again afterwards. The 92-year-old was sentenced to one year imprisonment just one month after her release from a prison in Bielefeld. She was released at the beginning of November after serving a total of two and a half years.

In the words of Tagesspiegel, “She kept asserting that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp.” And the German government has pledged to continue imprisoning and re-imprisoning this frail nonagenarian until she quits “asserting” stuff that the government considers untrue.

Thank heavens the Allies prevailed in Germany. Otherwise, who knows what kind of dictatorial nightmare that nation might be today?