TBR exclusive report on the Ursula Haverbeck trial in Berlin
On April 1, 2022, an April Fools’ Day legal farce was played out under Allied Occupied German laws where judges are obliged to rule that forensic “truth is no defense” when it comes to any aspect of the official WWII narrative.
After three days of hearings (commenced in March) at the Berlin Regional Court, the Appeal hearing against the 93-year-old Frau Ursula Haverbeck came to an end. The verdict was one year’s imprisonment without parole for the civil and civic-minded “German grande dame of historical enquiry,” as Frau Haverbeck has been dubbed by the late great Scots-French document analyst and leading Revisionist Professor Robert Faurisson.
Two statements formed the substance of the trial. One was made more than six years ago, the other more than four years ago. There are no time limits and no parole for those who express “heretical” skepticism on one particular historical era. In fact, post-war Germany’s Basic Law is designed by the so-called victors to outlaw National Socialism in any form and the law deems criminal any expression of or explicit or implicit show of support for National Socialism, i.e., stickers bearing the wrong insignia or raising an arm in a Roman salute gesture. (Currently, the latter “crime” by Alfred Schaefer got him an extra year in prison in Munich!) Needless to say, offering opinions in support of National Socialism or Hitler or expressing any sort of dissident from the prevailing victor’s narrative of WWII would be considered prosecutable offenses in modern Germany.
Readers will be outraged to learn that, as an accredited correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, my AFP pass was deemed invalid for entry to the Berlin courtroom press gallery, even as an antifa hack “journalist” was invited to take front row!
Luckily for me, although sad to see, the public gallery was barely a quarter filled. German citizens, as I learnt when covering the Schaefer siblings trial in Munich in July 2018, fear being seen to take an interest in such “heresy” trials. They have to show their identity papers, a la Orwell’s “Big Brother,” and likewise this serves to intimidate the curious. Coronavirus G3 certificates were mandatory for the court even on the day when masks and other measures officially had been lifted! Somehow, attorney Nahrath had succeeded to make himself and his client, the indomitable Ursula Haverbeck, exempt. Mask mandates, one often sees, encourage unhealthy opportunities for state endorsed, anti-civic bullying among citizens.
When Haverbeck emerged, never bitter, ever modest, from the courthouse, she was full of smiles, even hugs in modest gratitude for my coming to record her eloquent stand for the English-speaking world. Interestingly, when arrested at a Dresden Holocaust Commemoration in 2018, the first question the German police officer asked this writer was: “Do you know Haverbeck?”
“Proudly as an old personal friend,” I proclaimed before opining my view of her as the greatest living German patriot in all the land—a national treasure!
Frau Haverbeck and late husband Professor Haverbeck founded the Collegium Humanum in Vlotho in 1963. It was at first an educational centre for environmental education and protective action. Later in 2008 it was banned for, among other scientific matters, their estimation that National Socialism was a better political and environmentally beneficial system than either international Communism or international Capitalism. It was at this time that Haverbeck began to take a forensic interest in the unexamined science of an unique mass murder weapon and eyewitness impossibilities concerning how this industrialized wartime phenomena worked and where the physical remains of a “Holocaust” could possibly be.
After the trial, Wolfram Nahrath, Haverbeck’s attorney (and mine, too) gave the AFP and TBR readers an opportunity to learn more about the conduct of his unique client’s case.
MLR: Does Ursula now go straight to jail?
Attorney Nahrath: No. This is not the end of the Appeal process. Ursula Haverbeck can also Appeal this verdict once again. Then the Highest Court of the State of Berlin, which for traditional reasons is called the “Kammergericht” (Court of Appeal) in Berlin, will have to decide whether the prison sentence of one year without parole is valid. If the verdict of the Berlin Regional Court is upheld, Ursula Haverbeck will have to go to prison once again. She will appeal this verdict and continue her legal fight.
MLR: The ancient “Kammergericht” court building came about during the middle of the 15th century by the Brandenburg Elector Friedrich II. Alas, on this occasion the Appeal was heard in the new ugly appendage currently under scaffold.
Today I believe the populous (if ever asked) would find that putting an antique lady aged 93 through trials about her skeptical opinions would constitute the real crime!
Nathrath: The three days of trial, especially today, were a tremendous strain for the old lady. During the trial, her long-time comrade-in-arms and friend Dr. Rigolf Hennig died. Ursula Haverbeck, however, withstood the enormous strain and kept her composure.
MLR: Undauntable Ursula has outlived her valiant peers and goes on at 93 years to battle as an entire battalion in herself!
MLR: I witnessed today in that courtroom how Ursula stood tall for 35 minutes, and stoic, to deliver her closing speech. I also witnessed how the Judge —so “woke” in her biased mind, tone and callous words—was extraordinarily unprofessional. This included her insulting impertinence to chastise a lawyer for “raising his eyebrows” during the summing up and sentencing. Quite as if you were on trial and subject to her personal judgment!
Nahrath: The presiding judge could, according to my impression, hardly hide her anger towards Frau Haverbeck. Her tonal emphasis and the way she chose her words did not correspond, in parts, to the objectivity that judges should use as a matter of principle, I felt. She asked why I “raised my eyebrows,” but then refused any reply.
MLR: I heard the Prosecutor raised awareness of new “memory crimes”—was it in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution?
Nahrath: Yes, Resolution 76/2022. This was raised before the presiding Judge said in her verdict to Frau Haverbeck that: “You are not a Holocaust researcher, you are a Holocaust denier. This is not knowledge that you spread, this is poison.” The Judge also said that she had “distanced herself miles from historical truth” and “damaged the memory of millions of murdered people.”
MLR: This puts one in mind of the Prosecutor in the Paris Court during the trials of Professor Robert Faurisson. She claimed the document analyst “murdered the Jewish people twice” i.e., for a second time when alread dead! I witnessed when this Paris court Prosecutor stood to pray (in secular France, no less) “to protect His People from Robert Faurisson’s deceitful lips!”
One can anticipate, given the universally comprehensive “Definition of Anti-Semitism” that UN Resolutions for so-called “human rights” and “hate speech” and “memory laws” will amount to adoption of the Judaic Noahide Laws for Gentiles (i.e., a binding set of universal “moral” laws for those not among but in service to God’s Chosen People).
Nahrath: As a defense attorney in such proceedings, one is severely limited in the possibilities of defense. Every application for the purpose of “counter-evidence” against the “obviousness” of the so-called “Holocaust” is wiped away on the grounds that this event is known and accepted as above all doubt by the court, i.e., it is obvious. For the defense counsel, each of these proceedings is a dance on the tightrope. One “wrong” word and he himself later sits in the dock. The phrase you yourself dubbed in your Telling Films Jailing the Lawyers is always an accompanying reality in Germany in connection with proceedings of “Holocaust denial.”
MLR: Having to defend clients under laws which prohibit a lawyer in cases of historical skepticism from presenting evidential exhibits in their client’s defense makes achieving any unbiased justice seem virtually impossible. I witnessed in Mannheim Court where Attorney Sylvia Stolz was warned by the Judge if she continued to defend her client (the late great publicist Ernst Zündel) “too well” that she too would be prosecuted and indeed she was!
You had mentioned that serious attempts have been made upon you and other lawyers who have defended your skeptical clients “too well” – can you elaborate?
Nahrath: I regret that I did not succeed in achieving a better result for my client in this second instance before the Regional Court in Berlin. All arguments, including the massive criticism against the penal provision of Section 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code and against the case law, ultimately went unheard.
MLR: I was appalled to see how the Judge projected upon your client her own unproven opinion that Ursula “knew she was lying” as in the peculiarly German meaning of “Holocaust,” Leugnung. In German, Leugnung means one knowingly denies something—whereas in English to deny something does not necessarily carry any knowing intention to lie.
Nahrath: In her summary, the Judge put the 93-year-old in a bad light, insinuating that she wanted to make herself important with her appearance in the past years as a lonely woman, playing herself up as a “grand dame,” which the Judge concluded, from among other things, the fact that Frau Haverbeck reported in the trial about the quantities of “fan mail” to the prison. In fact, Frau Haverbeck received a large amount of sympathetic mail from all over the world.
MLR: Yes, indeed your client not only received sympathetic mail but also I know she received flowers by the dozens when she was in prison, for I was among her many international admirers who sent them!
Nahrath: The Judge repeatedly explained why in her opinion Ursula Haverbeck had devoted herself to the subject of the “Holocaust” in the first place. In truth, the subject had not interested her at all for a long time during the era of the Collegium Humanum. Thereby the Judge claimed without proof that decades of research were undertaken partly while Ursula was still together with her husband Werner.
MLR: When and why did Ursula begin to take an interest in the “Holocaust”?
Nahrath: She had attended war crimes trials in Germany, read countless books and papers, and spoken with the authors. She had never received a definite answer from other authorities, such as the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the public prosecutor’s offices and other institutions, to the questions she had asked about the crime scenes and the means of committing the crimes.
When finally the director of the memorial of the concentration camp Auschwitz, Danuta Czech, was shown on public television in 1993 with the statement that due to new findings the number of victims of Auschwitz had to be corrected from originally 4 million to a good 1 million and the memorial plaque was then actually changed accordingly; and a well-known Spiegel editor in the magazine Osteuropa reduced the total number of victims to approximately 565,000, 356,000 of them in Auschwitz, and that he moved the gassing to outside the central camp, Frau Haverbeck’s attention to the topic become more concrete.
She asked the comprehensible question where then had the other many millions of people been gassed? Again, she had not received any answers from the appointed authorities. However, in the course of the years she had received and read more and more works, which brought further aspects of doubt, also about the means of the murder weapon “Zyklon B.”
MLR: As I have understood from the leading historical revisionists whom I know personally, none “denies” anything; they simply confirm their forensic findings.
Nahrath: As a result, Frau Haverbeck gave more weight to the historians and the natural scientists than to the lawyers, whom she thinks are not ready to deal with these works and circumstances. She does not “deny” because she cannot do so at all. She is asking questions that have not been answered in this trial either.
MLR: I think I heard the Judge designate the works of British military historian David Irving, Swiss revisionist Jürgen Graf, Plank Institute graduate Germar Rudolf, Jewish “Holocaust” analyst Gerard Menuhin, and The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein among others as “pseudo-scientists” and “deniers” who knowingly lie.
Nahrath: Today’s presiding Judge also chose the familiar path and described all these works as pseudo-scientific—and thus included works by members of the victim’s people. She claimed that Frau Haverbeck, who was 16 years old at the end of the war, knew precisely that the “Holocaust” had taken place as it had always been evident to all Germans. Therefore, the Judge proclaimed that it is particularly reprehensible that Frau Haverbeck only expresses herself one-sidedly and denies it against her better knowledge.
MLR: I marveled at how Ursula at age 93 could endure listening right from the start of the day to the Judge reading aloud a relentless monologue of past cases of “speech crimes” committed by your client, without a moment’s pause, for well over two hours!
Nahrath: In its formulations, the Judge’s opening statements took in already known guidelines from other judgments. She did not ever address the question of the possible human rights violation of the penal provision. Frau Haverbeck and also the younger generation of Germans had no personal guilt for this “monstrous crime,” but according to the law they had the responsibility to ensure that such a “crime” would never happen again in the world. And for this, according to the presiding Judge, it was right and important that this penal provision existed in order to take action against people like Frau Haverbeck. Those who do not obey the law must go to prison.
MLR: Talk about “one-sided knowledge” set in cement! Our readers will be appalled at how any humane nation, nearly a century after a war, can send to prison a very elderly woman of evident intellectual caliber and good character, for her tenacity to study historical events “like a police detective,” as the late Professor Robert Faurisson put it.
The Judge said Haverbeck had learnt nothing when she talked about Jews and Germans for she should know that “Jews can be Germans and Germans can be Jews.”
This “woke”-blinded Judge knows little about racial differences and Talmudic law wherein non-Jews are described as not human but as cattle. Thereby, in accord with Jewish law, to save a human life means saving only a Jewish life.
I recall your once telling me that even conscientious judges also risk prosecution if they allow a lawyer to defend his “Holocaust” querying clients “too well.” This was at the time of my making a Telling Film called Jailing the Judges in 2008 when two German ex-Constitutional Court judges, Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem, called for the “Holocaust denial” laws to be repealed.
Nahrath: Yes I do recall this, however no follow-up came of it.
Before the sentence was pronounced, I asked whether one could still sleep peacefully if Frau Haverbeck were to be sent to prison again for opinions expressed more than six years ago or more than four years ago. Frau Haverbeck had not killed, injured, robbed, raped, abused, stolen from or defrauded anyone. She had, merely, said something! However, the Judge dealt with this in her statement of the reasons for the verdict and said that it would be possible to sleep well.
MLR: Indeed it might be possible, in accord with her thoroughly “woke” warped judgment, that this will earn her career rewards. I say “woke,” because it was pointed out to me that she used politically correct, trendy made-up pluralisms—a mix of male and female gendered pronouns and new creations. Such “woke”-addling notions aim to blur distinctions, erase the subtleties of expressing human relationships, and arrest commonsense.
I noted also that the male lay judge was casually attired in a jumper, representing a drop in sartorial standards unbefitting for an official appearance in court and disrespectful at a formal occasion.
What seemed so unrelated was how the Judge almost from the beginning of her opening statements and repeatedly thereafter referred to the conflict with Ukraine. I experience the Ukraine’s presidential broadcasts as wall-to-wall omniscient “Big Brother” monopolized bias, yet I did wonder how this too was being woven into the constitutionally biased case against Ursula?!
Nahrath: Five years ago when Obama sent tanks to the east, Frau Haverbeck predicted war would erupt between the Ukraine and Russia. She saw the Ukraine as the geopolitical tinderbox between Europe and Asia. On the Internet she had said in 2017-18 that if we do not solve the problem in the Ukraine, we shall see the beginning of WWIII. I said this observation shows Frau Haverbeck looks ahead to future geopolitical happenings, not only to the causes of past events, and thereby her mind is mentally alert and responsibly concerned with the present.
I requested acquittal and I am convinced that this was and remains the only correct request. The legal battle in this matter is not yet over.
MLR: Thank you Wolfram for your thoughts. Clearly you and your equally valiant client are nobody’s April Fools!
The aspect of that day in Berlin which heartened me the most was the way the police guards in the courtroom ceased to take any further robotic interest in whether some persons in the public gallery where wearing their masks correctly once Attorney Nahrath began his closing speech.
At this moment Nahrath put me in mind of the late great Austrian attorney Dr. Herbert Schaller, the veteran who got David Irving out of the Viennese Prison on Appeal in 2007. After that success in which he was able to address (in Austria) the vagueness of “Holocaust” eyewitnesses, this prompted the so-called victorious authorities to introduce a new age-limit for practicing in his field of law specifically to prevent him (already aged 85!) from taking on new and again successful cases! There is something about that wartime generation whereby many of those exemplify the four inseparable classical virtues of measure, just objectivity, forensic attitude, and empathetic courage.
The Berlin court guards shifted their focus totally on Nahrath’s every word, riveted by his measured tone and modest eloquence. With evident balanced authority, he commanded their rapt attention.
It showed me that anti-German brainwashed policemen are still capable of listening and taking in alternative reasoning. All, thereby, may be by no means lost!
– Michèle, Lady Renouf
No comments:
Post a Comment