This website is a First Amendment
Free Speech Zone!

Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter explicitly states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Self-Accusation Trial in Berlin

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?

Truth Is Coming to the Reich Capitol

Day 2 of the of the Self-Accusation Trial of Kevin Käther

Written By Kevin Käther
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 Selbstleseferfahren.

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 myself.

Perhaps 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 - kevinkaether@gmx.de