SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
James Dow
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:11 am

SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby James Dow » 6 months 4 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:56 am)

According to a May 1943 Munich court ruling,
The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.
This quote claims that the function of the Kommandos was, "extermination of the Jews". Does this quote prove that the Kommandos function was to exterminate European Jews, or that this was a crooked judge?


"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -Voltaire

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2313
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby borjastick » 6 months 4 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:23 am)

Can you shed some more general light on the context of this trial please? Who, what, where, when and how? Is the document shown in German original or are you reading a translated copy and without reference to the German original? The wording is rather obtuse as one would expect from a judge and also I question the word 'extermination' as this has long been a word used in ping pong about eradication, removal, etc.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
James Dow
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:11 am

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby James Dow » 6 months 4 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am)

The document is, "Document index: Az. St.L. 29/42" It is an excerpt from
the verdict of the SS and Police Supreme Court in Munich, against SS-Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner, passed on May 24 1943 before SS-Standartenfuehrer (Colonel) Dr. Reinecke (judge) and SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer (Lt-Colonel) Dr. Brause, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) Sukkau, SS-Untersturmfuehrer (Second Lieutenant) Gamperl and SS-Untersturmfuehrer (Second Lieutenant) Tarnow. Document index: Az. St.L. 29/42.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -Voltaire

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9579
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby Hannover » 6 months 4 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:39 am)

James Dow wrote:According to a May 1943 Munich court ruling,
The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.
This quote claims that the function of the Kommandos was, "extermination of the Jews". Does this quote prove that the Kommandos function was to exterminate European Jews, or that this was a crooked judge?

Huge problems here:

There is no original German document that can be shown to say what this English text alleges. Try finding it.

Just by giving a reference number means nothing. Those can be simply made up, and / or the actual document number cited does not say what is claimed in English, hence the necessity to see the actual, authentic, original German document.

Ergo, this English "translation" is fake, a fraud.
Simple as that.

And once again, you cannot have an alleged 'extermination of millions of Jews' without the human remains of millions of Jews, which are claimed to be in allegedly known locations.

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9579
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby Hannover » 6 months 4 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:51 am)

CODOH Forum & 'Max Taubner', been there done that.

Further demolition of the Max Taubner fraud here:

see:
Nizkorite Taubner
viewtopic.php?t=1201
and:
Taubner Verdict - Proof of extermination?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3693

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
James Dow
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:11 am

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby James Dow » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:17 am)

I understand the points you have made, and it is true that the original document, cannot be located. "Document index: Az. St.L.29/42" simply tells you the location of the archive, not the actual thing. So what about the judge? Wasn't the judge a real person who did a real ruling, even if we can't find it?
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -Voltaire

avatar
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby Breker » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:44 pm)

James Dow wrote:I understand the points you have made, and it is true that the original document, cannot be located. "Document index: Az. St.L.29/42" simply tells you the location of the archive, not the actual thing. So what about the judge? Wasn't the judge a real person who did a real ruling, even if we can't find it?

We assume he was a real person, now conveniently deceased. So were numerous other people who are alleged to have said or done things they obviously did not, could not do.
Per Hannover, one could simply add the name of the actual judge to the false - fake English text, so what?
You cannot be serious, mate.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
James Dow
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:11 am

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby James Dow » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:51 pm)

I suppose you are right. I have looked up the supposed judge, and his existence is questionable to say the least. I guess even if he was a real judge, it wouldn’t really prove anything if you can’t see the original court decision in German.
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -Voltaire

avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:41 pm)

What comes to mind is if this was evidence for the holocaust and the einsatzgruppen role, we would have heard about it from the opposition, and I don't recall this ever being brought up by them.

avatar
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby EtienneSC » 6 months 1 day ago (Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:24 am)

James Dow wrote:I suppose you are right. I have looked up the supposed judge, and his existence is questionable to say the least. I guess even if he was a real judge, it wouldn’t really prove anything if you can’t see the original court decision in German.

Reinecke was a real judge and legal scholar. I have a copy of some of his research. The transcript of the verdict I obtained dated from the 1960s. It is possible to raise doubts about the evidence, but it is also possible that Reinecke made some unwise (and illegal) remarks in the course of his verdict. I could not get access to wartime court records, but they may still exist somewhere. If you recall, we also identified SS disciplinary and personnel records held in the USA that would be worth looking into further, if anyone wishes to do primary research.

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 6 months 22 hours ago (Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:47 pm)

Reinecke was a real judge and legal scholar. I have a copy of some of his research. The transcript of the verdict I obtained dated from the 1960s. It is possible to raise doubts about the evidence, but it is also possible that Reinecke made some unwise (and illegal) remarks in the course of his verdict. I could not get access to wartime court records, but they may still exist somewhere. If you recall, we also identified SS disciplinary and personnel records held in the USA that would be worth looking into further, if anyone wishes to do primary research.
For the sake of the argument, let's say that Reinecke was a real judge. Can you provide me a photo or a link to a photo of the orginial German text? Send it anytime, and I will be more than happy to look at it. You simply cannot find an orginal German text of this case. It simply does not exist.
The transcript of the verdict I obtained dated from the 1960s.
Okay, that is from the 1960s. I want one from the orginals of May 1943.
I could not get access to wartime court records, but they may still exist somewhere.
Yeah, many things "could exist". However, if you can't provide evidence of the thing in question, you can search all you want, but I have no reason to believe it exists unless you provide evidence it exists.
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby EtienneSC » 6 months 20 hours ago (Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:11 pm)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:For the sake of the argument, let's say that Reinecke was a real judge. Can you provide me a photo or a link to a photo of the orginial German text? Send it anytime, and I will be more than happy to look at it. You simply cannot find an orginal German text of this case. It simply does not exist.
Clearly Reinecke existed. He gave evidence at the Nuremberg Trial and is the author of Münchner Privatrecht im Mittelalter (Munich: Beck, 1936). Here is part of his testimony:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp
Here are a couple of extracts from the case:
Taubner_4.PNG
Taubner_4.PNG (180.45 KiB) Viewed 976 times

Taubner_3.PNG
Taubner_3.PNG (104.99 KiB) Viewed 976 times
The second indicates that a copy was made by the post war court. The authenticity does not seem to have been disputed by the defendant. It is possible to dispute the evidence, as forgeries have been made and duress may have been applied, but there seems little evidence for either. The defendant was a senior lawyer and would have been able to defend himself.
Okay, that is from the 1960s. I want one from the orginals of May 1943.
As noted, I could not find these.
Yeah, many things "could exist". However, if you can't provide evidence of the thing in question, you can search all you want, but I have no reason to believe it exists unless you provide evidence it exists.
"No reason" is too strong. You are challenging an official court document. The evidence is the copy, which was made by a court officer and was not challenged at the time.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9579
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby Hannover » 6 months 18 hours ago (Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:29 pm)

This alleged 1959 document proves nothing, and provides nothing other than window dressing for the text below.
Image

This typed text, easily done by anyone to accompany the claimed title page, made in 1959.
Image

Still no original 1943 German documents.

EtienneSC says:
The authenticity does not seem to have been disputed by the defendant.
Of course not, Judge Reinecke apparently was not questioned about it.
Besides his pressured acceptance of claims which are now discredited, we see nothing whatsoever about this claimed Max Taubner trial verdict here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp

Connect the dots, the claimed trial verdict is bogus with no proof whatsoever.

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby Hektor » 6 months 16 hours ago (Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:05 pm)

EtienneSC wrote:
JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:For the sake of the argument, let's say that Reinecke was a real judge. Can you provide me a photo or a link to a photo of the orginial German text? Send it anytime, and I will be more than happy to look at it. You simply cannot find an orginal German text of this case. It simply does not exist.
Clearly Reinecke existed. He gave evidence at the Nuremberg Trial and is the author of Münchner Privatrecht im Mittelalter (Munich: Beck, 1936). Here is part of his testimony:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp

Yes, I recall him. I should add that Dr. jur Günther Reinecke is an interesting figure for a couple of reasons. He may be worthwhile a thread on its own.
EtienneSC wrote:Here are a couple of extracts from the case:
Taubner_4.PNG
Taubner_3.PNG The second indicates that a copy was made by the post war court. The authenticity does not seem to have been disputed by the defendant. It is possible to dispute the evidence, as forgeries have been made and duress may have been applied, but there seems little evidence for either. The defendant was a senior lawyer and would have been able to defend himself.
Okay, that is from the 1960s. I want one from the orginals of May 1943.
As noted, I could not find these.
Yeah, many things "could exist". However, if you can't provide evidence of the thing in question, you can search all you want, but I have no reason to believe it exists unless you provide evidence it exists.
"No reason" is too strong. You are challenging an official court document. The evidence is the copy, which was made by a court officer and was not challenged at the time.


Bear in mind that we are challenging a lot here, that is "official court documents" that were not "challenged at the time". As for anecdotal evidence: I'm reading ~100 pages of contracts now. I pick up certain aspects in them, that I correct. For a lot of it, I got to trust the lawyers though. If someone exchanged pages in them putting them in front of me with slight changes or insertions in them, I probably won't notice, especially in a situation under stress like in a trial.

The wording in the Taubner verdict text is a bit fishy, especially the usage of the word Judentum sounds misplaced.

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 5 months 3 weeks ago (Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:46 am)

You cited a German text which reads as follows
Wegen der Judenaktionen als solcher soll der Angeklagte nicht bestraft werden. Die Juden mussen vernichtet werden, es ist um keinen der getöteten Juden schade. Wenn sich auch der Angeklagte hatte sagen mussen, daß die Vernichtung der Juden Aufgaben besonders hierfür eingerichteter kommandos ist, soll ihm zugute gehalten werden, daß er sich befugt gehalten haben mag, auch seinerseits an der Vernichtung des Judentums teilzunehmen. Wirklicher Judenhass ist der treibende Beweggrund für den Angeklagten gewesen. Er hat sich dabei allerdings in
According to http://www.online-translator.com, this translates to
The defendant should not be punished for the Jew's actions as such. The Jews leisure are destroyed, it is a pity around none of the killed Jews. If himself also the defendant had leisure says that the destruction of the Jews is duties especially for this of furnished commands, should be held to him that he might have kept himself authorised to take part also on his part in the destruction of the Judaism. Real anti-Semitism has been the propelling motive for the defendant. However, besides, he has himself in
I have read this entire document. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp. It was very mudane, and nothing close to that quotation came up even once, even if this document which you cited is authentic.
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bonniwell2923, Google [Bot] and 33 guests