Here we have a critically important example of an interesting tactic now being employed in Germany. Essentially that tactic goes something like this; a brave and rationally minded individual says ... 'The so called holocaust story line is a load of nonsense, I can defend that statement, laws which ban scrutiny of it prove my point, now arrest me and put me on trial !'.
Below we have an outline of one man's, Kevin Käther, effort. Comments invited.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurdity and impossibility of the 'holocaust' story is the message.
- Hannover
[Translator's preface]
Mr. Kevin Käther is a representative of the growing "Self-Accusation"
movement, or citizens' demanding that they be charged and tried for
crimes of opinion.
The following trial report reflects the growing courage, enthusiasm
and freshness of vision among patriotic young Germans as they answer
the call for a new kind of civil disobedience. They are publicly
"confessing" the "crime" of expressing opinions critical of their
government's inquisitorial enforcement of official historiography, as
well as their government's slavish adherence to the outrageous
conditions imposed on Germany by the victors of World Wars I and II
in clear violation of international law.
In the tradition of Henry Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi, the new
activists demand that they be tried and punished for their crimes.
Growing numbers of judges and public officials are also expressing
their opposition to governmental tyranny. How long will the present
regime be able to resist popular pressure for human rights, a
constitution and an end to military occupation by the USA?
from Kevin Käther:
Truth Is Coming to the Reich Capitol
Day 2 of the of the Self-Accusation Trial of Kevin Käther
written by Kevin Käther
kevinkaether@gmx.de
Translated by J. M. Damon
My self-accusation trial continued on 18 November 2008, and let me
begin by saying that it was the best trial day so far!
Court resumed shortly after 1 pm, at which time I continued
submitting my evidentiary motions, namely the body of facts
establishing the scientific validity of Germar Rudolf's analyses of
the so-called "gas chambers" at Auschwitz.
Today I submitted the "Rudolf Expert Report on the 'Gas Chambers of
Auschwitz,'" making clear to the Court that Rudolf's critics have
been unable to disprove it. For this reason, it is particularly well
suited to disprove the lies and atrocity propaganda concerning the
alleged murders of millions of Jews and other races.
In order to emphasize the scientific validity of the Report, I also
read the opposing report of the court-appointed expert Prof. Dr.
Henri Ramuz, which he forwarded to the Third District Court in
Châtel-St. Denis on 18 May 1997. The Ramuz report further establishes
the scientific validity of Rudolf's work.
The Berlin District Attorney has said that he considers Rudolf's
conclusion in his "Lectures on the Holocaust" to be a criminal act.
It is a quotation from Prof. Norman Finkelstein's book The Holocaust
Industry: "Certain Jews falsify and exaggerate the Holocaust for
financial and political advantage."
[Prof. Finkelstein has familiarity with the subject of Auschwitz
Concentration Camp that is unexcelled among members of his
generation, since both his parents were interned there during World
War II. He grew up hearing his parents discuss Auschwitz with each
other as well as with numerous friends who had also been interned
there.]
In order to establish that Rudolf is correct in his evaluation, and
that I too am convinced of its validity, I submitted Finkelstein's
book with the legal motion that it be read by the Court in
Selbstleseverfahren (in which members of the Court read the evidence
for themselves.)
My next point was to describe the origins of the Allied legal
doctrine of "Manifest Obviousness" (of "Holocaust.") I pointed out
that the source and basis of "Manifest Obviousness" cannot even be
mentioned in German courts today.
[The Allies borrowed this infamous propaganda concept from the
Soviet show trials staged in Moscow during the 1930s, in order to
avoid the burden of having to prove that the crimes with which the
German defendants were charged had actually occurred.]
The "Manifest Obviousness" of "Holocaust" was constructed on the
phony "determination of facts" presented at the International
Military Tribunal in Nuremberg and the subsequent Auschwitz show
trials staged at Frankfurt by the vassal BRD (Bundesrepublik or
Federal Republic of Germany).
I made clear to the Court that the "determinations of fact" made by
the Allied military tribunal could not be used in a legitimate court
of law because, as has been definitively proven, they were based upon
on or obtained through extortion, falsification of documents,
suppression of exonerating evidence, torture, false testimony and
lying under oath. In a legitimate court, these "determinations of
fact" could not possibly be used to support "Manifest Obviousness."
As supporting evidence for my presentation of facts I submitted
Carlos Porter's book "Not Guilty at Nuremberg," which is particularly
informative and well documented.
I made the legal motion that the Court also take his book into
consideration through Selbstleseverfahren.
Along with this motion, I also requested an expert witness in the
field of contemporary history, who will explain Porter's findings
concerning the following.
1. Carlos Porter's study "Not Guilty in Nuremberg" is a
historiographical work of highest quality that adheres to
professional standards of historical research in its academic
development as well as its determination and evaluation of reliable
sources.
2. The International Military Tribune was not a legitimate court of
law, but rather a vehicle for vindictive "victor's justice" in legal
disguise, which acted in defiance of international law and was
therefore criminal in nature.
3. The accused German prisoners and their defenders were not allowed
to present exonerating evidence and, in addition, the defense was
hindered, bullied and harassed by monstrous stipulations that made
defense impossible.
4. The defendants were subject to torture, as described by the
National Socialist author and publisher Julius Streicher, before
being forced to sign statements that had already been prepared by the
victors.
5. The Allied prosecutors committed widespread falsification of
documents, while burning tons of documents that would have exonerated
the defendants against charges of "war crimes."
6. Disguised as a "commission," the Prosecution had interviewed and
coached the witnesses in the absence of the Defense, previous to
their appearance before the Tribunal.
7. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of boiling and
roasting Jews were total fabrications made by biased witnesses.
8. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of making soap
from the corpses of Jews were likewise total fabrications made by
biased witnesses.
9. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of murdering
Jews with steam were total fabrications made by biased witnesses...
10. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of tanning
human skins and making lampshades of them were total fabrications
made by biased witnesses.
11. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of weaving
stockings of human hair were fabrications made by biased witnesses.
12. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of murdering
Jews with electricity were fabrications made by biased witnesses.
13. The charges made during the Nuremberg Show Trials of murdering
Jews by means of a vacuum were fabrications made by biased witnesses.
14. The charges made at the Nuremberg Show Trials of evaporating
mountains of corpses with atomic bombs were fabrications made by
biased witnesses.
15. Therefore, these claims of the "Manifest Obviousness" of the
genocidal murders of millions of Jews could never be accepted by a
legitimate court of constitutional law.
My next submission was a comprehensive evidentiary motion 105 pages
long, covering all the relevant facts about "Holocaust" with
reference to an expert witness for every fact.
This motion included 89 factual determinations that relegate the
mendacious ploy of "Manifest Obviousness" to the dustbin of history
where it belongs.
The only obvious thing about "Manifest Obviousness" is that it is
used by unscrupulous prosecutors and courts to suppress empirical
truth and to imprison seekers after the truth.
If the gentlemen who employ it should be punished for their lies in
the way that Pinoccho was punished, they would need bedchambers with
ceilings 20 feet high, just to accommodate their noses!
The last evidentiary motion I submitted was rather startling and
original, if I do say so myselfPerhaps a brief explanation would be
in order here.
During my readings, I happened to come across the number of
reparation suits filed by alleged victims of "Holocaust."
According to the Finance Ministry, this number comes to 5,360,710.
This brings up an interesting question: if we go along with the
number of 6 million murdered Jews, how can 5,360,710 of them be
demanding compensation?
This absurd situation inspired the following motion:
In my Show Trial AG Berlin (275 Ds) 81 Js 3604/07 (157/08), I hereby
move to call an expert witness in Pathology.
My Reason for this Motion:
According to a written notification by the Federal German Finance
Ministry of 10 Jan 1980 (VI 6 -01478-P27/79), 5,360,710 claims for
"Holocaust" reparations had been approved as of 1 July 1979.
This figure gives rise to extremely serious doubts about the number
of six million Jewish victims.
It has prompted the mother of Prof. Finkelstein, a Jewish woman who
with her husband was interned at Auschwitz, to ask this question: If
everyone who claims to be a survivor of Auschwitz really is one, then
whom did Hitler kill?"
[Source: "The
Holocaust Industry," p. 85]
By paying these 5,360,710 claims for indemnity, didn't the Finance
Ministry deny its own official version of "Holocaust?" The only
logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the story of
the attempted extermination of European Jews by the National
Socialists is a lie.
Any expert witness in the science of Pathology will explain to the
Court that the dead are unable to file claims for reparations.
Berlin, 18 November 2008
Kevin Käther
****************
I believe that with this evidentiary motion I have exposed the
ultimate liars, therefore I will spare myself further commentary.
Besides, I have used all my evidentiary motions for the day. In the
course of this trial there will certainly be more to follow.
****************
Then came the big moment!
The judge ruled that two of my evidentiary motions for
Selbstleseverfahren (reading by members of the Court) would be
accepted. These motions concerned Germar Rudolf's "Lectures on the
Holocaust" as well as Horst Mahler's motions on Judaism that were
submitted during his trial before Berlin District Court in 2004.
The Judaism motion, which is 511 pages long, develops the thesis that
in its relationships with non-Jews, Jewry is governed by a concept of
humanity that does not acknowledge non-Jews' claim to freedom.
The judge's acceptance is significant because until now, such
evidentiary motions have always been disallowed as "meaningless" and
rejected for reasons that were "obvious."
Of course we must not "count our chickens before the eggs have
hatched," because the case has not been decided. However, my personal
opinion is that just-minded and objective persons cannot close their
minds to these two important works. To do otherwise would be
unjust and arbitrary to the point of criminality. These works
objectively present all the relevant facts to the reader. They will
demolish the historical lies of Germany's enemies, once and for all.
The trial was adjourned until 9 December.
Please disseminate this report as widely as possible.
Berlin am 19.11.2008
Kevin Käther
