Very little is published on the repression of dissenting historical research and political opinion in Europe. "Censorship" is something that happens only in Burma, China, Turkey, Egypt, and other far-away places. Censorship in Europe is simply a "matter of criminal law"!
The "law" is almost completely one-sided and the defendants are almost invariably so-called "right-wingers" and "nationalists". In Germany, dissidents can be charged with 3 different offences: "popular incitement" (whatever that means), "incitement to racial hatred", and "defaming the dead". There is no objective definition of these offences and no way to distinguish between them (they are said to be "identical in law"); yet the first is punishable by 5 years imprisonment, while the second is punishable by 3 "only". The statute of limitations is 10 years, as against 3 or 6 for most serious felonies. No transcripts are made of oral argument before the courts, and no substantive defense is possible: defendants are permitted to argue technicalities only. Lawyers "guilty" of defending their clients too vigorously are commonly imprisoned as well.
One case, however - the records of which are reproduced here - took an unexpected turn when the wild-card defendant refused to cooperate...
* * *
On April 25, 1995, a former member of the Wehrmacht (not the SS), Reinhold Elstner, burnt himself to death at the Feldherrnhalle in Munich to protest what he called the "Niagara of lies" engulfing Germany.
Astonishingly, the Munich police had the shamelessness to arrest people for placing wreaths on the spot, and to remove all the burn marks with a blow torch. In protest, I sent over 200 copies of Nicht schuldig in Nürnberg, a German translation of Not Guilty at Nuremberg, a brochure authored by myself, accompanied by a protest letter, one to every important newspaper, magazine and politician in the country, to Helmut Kohl, Richard von Weizsäcker and five others by registered mail, to make sure they got it.
The Mayor of Munich, a certain Christian Ude, got his knickers in a twist and the result was 17 months of so-called "legal proceedings" during which I told them more or less to bugger off. Of course, I was polite about it: I said, "I defy your authority and I refuse to comply with any order to do anything."
For 17 months, the German courts ignored everything introduced by the Defendant, i.e., myself, in reply to the avalanche of subpoenas, summonses, certified letters, certified translations, demands for payment, etc. Jokes, insults, sarcasm, refusals to appear, demands for the production of evidence, irrefutable legal arguments, refusals to pay, etc. were all ignored - like a computer continually displaying the same error message.
Goaded beyond endurance, his back to the wall, the Defendant took drastic, perhaps unprecedented action...
Carlos W. Porter
"Sinopsis" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
FINAL STATEMENT TO THE COURT
May It Please the Court:
In civilized countries it is the custom to allow a defendant to make a final statement to the court prior to sentencing.
The Nuremberg Trial transcript is 14,638 pages long in German alone, much of it in small print. I have read this material, and evidently you have not. I have provided approximately 1,000 exact references to both the American and German transcripts.
The pagination and format are not the same; it can be almost impossible to find certain things in the German, even if you know where it is in the English, and vice-versa. I have also read the British transcript, which is much shorter. There are many discrepancies. All references were completely revised and corrected prior to printing; all page numbers are given twice, according to the German and American transcripts.
I defy you, or anyone else, to find one single error in any of the references quoted in Nicht schuldig in Nürnberg.
I refuse to be dictated to by people who have not read this material, and who have no idea what it contains.
I refuse to be deprived of a basic right which belongs to everyone else in the world as a matter of course: the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I retract nothing. I regret nothing. I fear nothing.
I stand by the contents of my letters to the court dated 7 January, 10 March, 1 July, 1 September, 5 September, and 7 November 1997.
I stand by the contents of my letter to Christian Ude.
If you fine me, I will not pay it. If you put me in prison, I will go on hunger strike like Bobby Sands.
I defy your authority and I refuse to comply with any order to do anything.
I am not afraid of you; I fear the future if I do nothing. That is all.
Carlos W. Porter
FINAL DISPOSITION OF CASE
On April Fool's Day 1998, after 17 months of proceedings before 4 courts and a total of 7 judges, beginning with my appearance before an examining magistrate in Verviers, Belgium, on 4 November 1996 in answer to "international letters rogatory" (a procedure normally used in the pursuit of international car theft rings, etc.), I (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant") was convicted of "Popular Incitement" (or "Incitement of the Masses") [!] [?] in Munich, Germany, and fined an odd sum of money (probably the most they thought they could collect in view of the fact that the Defendant was self-employed and the father of 4 children) ending in 20 pfennigs.
Intrigued by the date of my final conviction, and in an effort to determine whether or not the Germans are really as stupid as they would very often seem to appear, I sent the Munich State Prosecutor's Office a 10 pfennig-piece Scotch-taped to my Final Statement to the Court (in which, for the third or fourth time, I refused to pay anything), asking them to deduct 10 pfennigs from the amount owing and send me a receipt for it. They did. I haven't heard from them since.
They spent a fortune prosecuting me, including mountains of certified translation work, German into French, French into German, German into English, English into German, wasting 17 months of their time, then they sent me a receipt for 10 pfennigs. And we wonder why our countries are broke.
P.S. In the interests of historical accuracy, it should perhaps be noted that what the defendant calls a "receipt" was, in reality, an exact duplicate of the demand for payment, accompanied by copious and dire threats, which they had already sent him about 10 days before, but deducting 10 pfennigs! The German authorities are required by law to acknowledge all part payments, so, like all other correspondence in the case, it was sent by registered mail with return receipt. The stamp on the envelope, if the defendant's recollection is correct, was DM 6.50. So it cost the German taxpayers DM 6.50 to send what amounted to a "receipt" for 10 pfennigs.
- Carlos W. Porter
Carlos Whitlock Porter was born in 1947 in California in a family of Navy officers and lawyers. C.W. Porter studied in Europe, and is a professional translator and member of the Institute of Linguists. He has studied the Holocaust and war crimes trials with detailed patience and precision, including related questions of law, toxicology and chemistry, since 1976. Concerning the International Military Tribunal trial records, C.W. Porter's work exposes these kangaroo courts to have been absurd and hideous miscarriages of justice. The Nuremberg Trial records would be hysterically funny if they were not responsible for over fifty years of suffering and injustice. C.W. Porter thinks that even in our times the "allied" countries try to keep the multiply proven false and unauthentic Holocaust story alive, because that is the only tool that justifies their starting and entering the Second World War, and the deaths of millions of young men who fought for completely false goals, contrary to the real interests of their countries. His main works are "Made in Russia: The Holocaust" and "Not Guilty at Nuremberg".
"Sobre este título" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
Descripción Estado de conservación: New. This item is Print on Demand - Depending on your location, this item may ship from the US or UK. Nº de ref. de la librería POD_9781291483390