Written By Kevin Käther
Translated by J M Damon
The original is posted at
The German “Holocaust” Inquisition has dropped my trial in order to avoid my questioning the official “Holocaust” expert Prof. Wolfgang Benz!
For seven years now I have been occupied almost exclusively with the so-called “Holocaust” and the findings of Revisionism.
At first I was highly skeptical of the Revisionist movement and so I examined it very closely.
(In the view of my government, this close examination turned out to be my “fatal error!”)
It was not long before I realized that guilt neurosis has been induced in the German nation by the “Holocaust” narrative.
I learned that this neurosis, like the entire “Holocaust Industry” that Prof. Norman Finkelstein so accurately describes (both his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the Second World War) has little to do with historical truth and forensic facts.
This insight led me to take a strong interest in “Holocaust” Trials such as those of Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf.
I soon realized that these legalistic proceedings had little to do with truth and legal guidelines but a great deal to do with the predetermined politically correct outcome that characterizes show trials.
All these trials have one thing in common, namely that the courts disallow all the defendants’ evidentiary motions pertaining to “Holocaust.”
Following the lead of prosecutors in the infamous Nuremberg show trials, collaborationist German courts decree that the factuality of “Holocaust” is “manifestly obvious.”
Consequently, forensic evidence that would prove that crimes were committed as alleged is not required of the prosecution; and evidence proving such crimes were not committed is not allowed for the defense.
[In real courts of law, prosecutors have to prove that alleged crimes were actually committed.]
The “Holocaust” Inquisition has grown so brazen that Sylvia Stolz, the defense attorney for Ernst Zündel, was charged by the District Attorney of Mannheim, Andreas Großman, with “Incitement of the Masses” because she insisted on fulfilling her duty as defense attorney.
She defied the German court by submitting motions to introduce forensic evidence that would have proven the innocence of her client, and for this she was sentenced by the phony Mannheim “judges” to three years in prison.
Three years for a German attorney with no prior convictions - for submitting evidentiary motions on behalf of a client who had been hauled before a German court for the crime of questioning the absurd official version of “Holocaust?”
What a crime!
That was just too much for me.
In November 2007 I decided to join Horst Mahler, Dirk Zimmermann and Reinhold Leidenfrost in officially filing charges against ourselves in the attempt to protest present injustice and compel justice from the German courts.
I mailed letters containing CDs of Germar Rudolf’s LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST to the following four persons: the District Attorney; Lea Rosh, (the driving force behind construction of the massive “Holocaust” memorial in Berlin); Prof. Wolfgang Benz, instructor emeritus at the Technical University in Berlin and head of the Center for Investigation of Antisemitism; and historian Prof. Ernst Nolte, whose theses launched the great HISTORIKERSTREIT (Historians’ Debate) in 1986.
As I reported in my article in the National Journal issue of 14 September 2010, my additional appeal trials took place on 25 October and 1 November 2010.
The second round of my appeal trial came about because the KAMMERGERICHT (Superior Court) of Berlin overturned the first appeal verdict in my self-accusation trial and referred it back to District Court for retrial.
The Superior Court instructed the District Court to call as witnesses all three recipients of Rudolf’s LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST.
In its decision to void my verdict, the Superior Court argued as follows:
“Merely passing on to one or a few individuals does not meet the definition of ‘dissemination’ unless it is determined that these persons in turn passed on the proscribed materials to others...
The contested verdict does not establish such distribution.
Mass distribution is not present here because only three copies of the proscribed literature for three specific recipients are at issue.
Thus the “critical degree” of required number of recipients is clearly not present...”
My new trial began on 25 October with my attorney, Wolfram Nahrath, reading my opening statement.
He stated in my name that I had sent Rudolf’s book to the three recipients knowing that the recipients would not publicly display the book.
He also stated that, after sending the proscribed book, I had filed a complaint against myself in order to compel an official resolution of the matter in court.
I gave no answers to the Court concerning other questions, since this explanation represented my opening statement.
Following this statement I had my attorney read a motion calling on the Court to set aside the trial proceedings and submit the trial records to the BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT (“Constitutional” Court) under provisions of Article 100 of Basic Law so that that court could determine whether or in how far Section 130 Paragraph 3 of Penal Code (Punishment for Disputing “Holocaust”) is compatible with Basic Law.
The motion was made with reference to the ruling of the First Senate of the “Constitutional” Court dated 4 November 2009, concerning Section 130 of Penal Code (1 BvR2150-08).
I reported on the findings of the First Senate in my article of 14 September 2010. [FOOTNOTE 1:
The Court shelved decision on this motion even though the motion concerned a key point in this trial and should have been decided immediately.
Immediately after submission of this motion, the Court called the head of the FÖRDERKREIS DENKMAL FÜR DIE ERMORDETEN JUDEN EUROPAS E.V. (Society to Create A Monument to the Murdered Jews of Europe) Lea Rosh (aka Edith Renate Ursula Rosh) as witness. [FOOTNOTE 2: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lea_Rosh#cite_note-1]
It should be noted that the witness Rosh did not want to appear or make a statement in court.
When summoned to appear, she wrote the following to Berlin District Court:
Dear Mr. Nowak,
I just now learned from the Internet who Kevin Käther is.
I had never heard or read of him before.
Now I learn from the Internet that he allegedly sent me a book.
I never received such a book, therefore I have never read it and can add nothing to clarification of this matter.
Under these circumstances please inquire as to whether I am required to comply with this summons.
Yours truly, Lea Rosh
She was of course lying before the Court when she said she had not received Rudolf’s book – I had sent it to her by registered mail and I have her receipt.
She was clearly afraid of being questioned.
Even under oath, she still maintained that she had not received the book.
Not until the presiding judge pointed out to her that court documents showed she had received the CD and given it along with a note to Berlin Police did she recollect having received it.
Needless to say, she was not punished on account of her false statement, although for anyone else this would have entailed legal consequences.
Frau Rosh denied having disseminated Germar Rudolf’s work and I dispensed with further questions, since on basis of what had transpired, it was clear that I could not expect truthful or objective statements from her, and the Court would not punish her false statements.
After that, Professor Ernst Nolte appeared as witness.
Following the usual questions concerning personal information, the Court asked Prof. Nolte whether he had received Rudolf’s CD along with my note.
He replied in the affirmative, adding that he lacks computer skills and thus had been unable to read the CD at first.
He said it had not seemed important, since he was already familiar with Rudolf’s work GRUNDLAGEN ZUR ZEITGESCHICHTE and had assumed that the book I sent contained roughly the same contents.
After the summons to appear as witness, however, he had printed out the book and read some of it.
Asked whether he had disseminated the proscribed book he added that, in view of its contents, he had most certainly not passed it on.
Prof. Nolte had mostly positive things to say about Germar.
In the context of his works, he characterized Germar not as a negativist but rather a scientist and revisionist, someone who does not strictly deny “Holocaust” but rather examines it from the standpoint of the natural sciences.
Prof. Nolte added that he had never been able to seriously discuss the subject of “Holocaust” with his German colleagues.
He said that the only scientists with whom he had been able to candidly and objectively exchange opinions were foreign historians.
The judge allowed me to ask him only two questions, and so I
I asked the following:
1) “Is the following quotation from your book STREITPUNKTE applicable here?”
“The widely held opinion that any doubt about prevailing concepts of ‘Holocaust’ with its six million victims is indicative of maliciousness and a contempt for mankind and must therefore be vigorously repressed, is simply unacceptable within the scientiic community.
This is because of the fundamental scientific maxim ‘DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM EST’ (Everything must be doubted.)
This opinion in support of suppression should be opposed as an attack on scientific freedom.”
[FOOTNOTE 3: Ernst Nolte, STREITPUNKTE, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main Berlin 1993, S. 308.
Prof. Nolte then characterized Germar Rudolf as a serious scientist, stated to the Court that criminal enforcement of official historiography is an attack on scientific freedom, and answered my question as follows: “Yes, that is a quotation of mine.”
2) I then asked him the following question:
“Do you consider the conviction of Germar Rudolf by Mannheim District Court to be an attack on scientific freedom?”
Prof. Nolte’s response: “Yes, I see the conviction of Germar Rudolf as an attack on scientific freedom.”
After this I was allowed to ask Prof. Nolte no further questions and I was warned that I could ask only questions having to do with mailing Germar’s book.
I pointed out that this was an unreasonable limitation since I had been accused of “Denying Holocaust” and so had a right to defend myself by questioning a renowned historian as witness before the Court.
The Court insisted on limiting my right to question Prof. Nolte and he was then released from testifying under oath.
(I have learned that the National Journal intends to publish the additional questions that I was not allowed to ask Prof. Nolte.)
The presiding judge then read excerpts from my police record as well as previous verdicts, then adjourned the trial with the announcement that Prof. Benz would appear at the next session.
He had been unable to attend this day because of illness.
On the next trial day I had intended to submit my questions as evidentiary motions following testimony from Prof. Benz.
At that time, however, the “Holocaust” Court capitulated, to our great surprise.
When the trial resumed we were informed that the Court had decided that “uncertainties” existed and called the trial off.
The district attorney concurred in this recommendation.
Furthermore Witness Benz had not appeared, which led us to conclude that the dismissal had been decided several days before.
We argued against dismissal of the case, since we wanted an acquittal.
Prof. Wolfgang Benz “chickened out!”
He submitted apologies and the Court dropped the case, obviously in order to protect the “Establishment’s” prime “Holocaust” expert from being questioned by Kevin Käther!
Why caused this change of heart on the part of the “Holocaust” Inquisition, in my fourth trial?
The reason is quite clear, actually.
They felt they had to avoid my submitting evidentiary motions and asking their “Holocaust” expert embarassing questions about his “research.”
The crux of the matter was that they had to avoid acquittal at all costs, because acquittal would have had the result that Germar Rudolf’s book LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST could be legally mailed to scientists throughout Germany.
Given the discontent within the “System,” acquittal might have started a chain reaction.
[As Sylvia Stolz remarked during her trial, “Nicht all Richter sind Schurken!” (Not all judges are scoundrels.)]
Furthermore we have to consider that Horst Mahler and Dirk Zimmermann were sentenced to prison on the same charges - Munich District Court sentenced Horst to six years, and Heilbronn Court recently sentenced Dirk Zimmermann to nine months without probation.
The “Holo Inquisition” was clearly aware that they had little to gain and much to lose by continuing my trial; and so, instead of establishing the facts and allowing justice to prevail, they called off the trial.
Needless to say, I am not going to allow this dismissal to stand uncontested.
I will file a Sonderbeschwerde (special complaint) against the decision, since I am insisting on acquittal.
We should take note that, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the “liberation” of Auschwitz, the SÜHNEAKROBAT (penance acrobat) and former president of Federal Republic Horst Koehler announced before the Israeli Parliament:
“Responsibility for Shoal is part of the German identity.”
[FOOTNOTE 4: Speech in Israeli Parliament, according to ARD TAGESSCHAU, 2 Feb 2005, 8 pm.]
On the same occasion, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was hawking the same message: “The memory of Shoa is belongs to our national identity.” [FOOTNOTE 5: WELT AM SONNTAG, 30 Jan 2005, p. 2.]
If “Shoa Business” (Abba Iban’s timeless expression) is to be part of our national identity, we have a right to know the basis of our identity, its intrinsic authenticity.
In conclusion I would like to express my sincere thanks to all who have supported me over the years, stood by my side or simply expressed moral support.
I hope that we can continue to work together, because I will not rest until we have all achieved our common goal, which is freedom and human rights for all nations.
I send regards to friend and foe alike and I end with a quotation from our last great German statesman:
"WIDERSTÄNDE SIND NICHT DA, DAß MAN VOR IHNEN KAPITULIERT, SONDERN DAß MAN SIE BRICHT."
(Obstacles are not placed in our path so that we can capitulate to them, but so that we can overcome them.)
[FOOTNOTE6: Adolf Hitler, MEIN KAMPF", Chapter 2, “Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna,” p. 19
Berlin, 9th November 2010
The translator is a Germanophilic Germanist who makes German articles about the German plight accessible to those who do not read German.
Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)