Translate

Apr 24, 2010

Schumer and Congressional Jews Pressure Obama –A detailed behind the scenes account of how they push, push, push

 


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Schumer_Obamas_Counterproductive_Israel_policy_has_to_stop.html

 

Schumer and Congressional Jews Pressure Obama –A detailed behind the scenes account of how they push, push, push

START:

April 22, 2010
Categories:

Schumer: Obama's 'counter-productive' Israel policy 'has to stop'

New York Senator Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration's attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama's policies in such blunt terms. 

Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration's very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month. 

But Schumer dramatically sharpened his tone on the politically conservative Jewish Nachum Segal Show today, calling the White House stance to date "counter-productive" and describing his own threat to "blast" the Administration had the State Department not backed down from its "terrible" tough talk toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Schumer, a hawkish ally of Israel since his days as a Brooklyn Congressman, described "a battle going on inside the administration" over Middle East policy.

"This has to stop," he said of the administration's policy of publicly pressuring Israel to end construction in Jerusalem.

"I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk," Schumer told Segal. "Palestinians don't really believe in a state of Israel. They, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.

"If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, 'Why should we negotiate?'" Schumer said.

Schumer described the recent confrontation over construction in Jerusalem as a "kerfuffle."

"Israel apologized and when Biden left, and Biden is the best friend of Israel in the administration [and] everything was fine," Schumer said. "But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it public through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley. And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations."

Schumer was referring to State Department spokesman PJ Crowley'sdescription of Clinton's conversation with Netanyahu, in which he said that Clinton "made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."

"That is terrible," Schumer said today. "That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew--would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, 'If you don't retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this,'" Schumer said.

Schumer said the White House had backed off that statement, but that now "many of us are pushing back, some of the Jewish members will be meeting with the President next week or the week after, and we are saying that this has to stop."

"You have to show Israel that it's not going to be forced to do things it doesn't want to do and can't do. At the same time you have to show the Palestinians that they are not going to get their way by just sitting back and not giving in, and not recognizing that there is a state of Israel," Schumer said. "And right now there is a battle going on inside the administration, one side agrees with us, one side doesn't, and we're pushing hard to make sure the right side wins and if not we'll have to take it to the next step."

The full transcript of Segal's interview with Schumer is after the jump.

 Chuck Schumer Interview with Nachum Segal 4/22/10

Nachum Segal: Straight to what has become one of the most concerning issues in the Jewish Community certainly, and for anybody in the United States, and anywhere in the world who cares somewhat, or more, about Israel. There is a perception that the White House and Jerusalem are not enjoying the same type of relationship that the White House and Jerusalem have enjoyed in the past. Need we be concerned?

SCHUMER: Well of course we should be concerned, and the thing we should most be concerned about, of course, the threat to Israel…I mean it always changes but it's always there it seems to be the fate if Israel and
it seems to be the fate of the Jewish people. Right now what are the threats? I would rank them in this order: Greatest threat- Nuclear Iran, obviously as Netanyahu has said that's an existential threat. Second greatest threat- SCUDs in Syria these are rockets
that can go four or five hundred miles and carry a bigger payload and could be launched by Hezbollah and hit any part of Israel far more damaging and devastating than the katyusha rockets. And third actually is what everyone is focused on, which is the disagreements
between the United States and Israel, very real, on how to sit down and negotiate with the Palestinians. The irony is Nachum, on the first two, if you talk to the Prime Minister if you talk to the Israeli military, US-Israeli cooperation continues strong and
hand in glove. Both the US and Israel greatly fear a nuclear Iran, and there are very serious discussions going on as to how to deal with it. We in the Congress Senator Lieberman and myself, Senator Bayh, are working up our sanctions bill, which even if the
UN sanctions are weak we could have unilateral sanctions by the United States, for instance, if you cut of gasoline. Iranians do not produce their own gasoline, and by the way the Iranian people are ready to rebel and overthrow this regime, and if we would
squeeze them economically that could happen.



SEGAL: If in fact all this is true, and let's assume there is no reason not to believe that it's true, that in fact Israel and the United States continue the same cooperation level they have had in the past, and we
know that when it comes to serious matters, especially military matters, it's been great cooperation, Why wouldn't the President of the U.S. want that perception to be out there? Why would he want to alienate so many who care about Israel.



SCHUMER: Nachum this is the question I talked to Rahm Emanuel about, and the President about this week. I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took
to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk. Palestinians don't really believe in a state of Israel,
they, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a 2-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there. If the U.S. says
certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, "Why should we negotiate?" So that's bad and that should change and we are working on changing it. But the other two are very good, according to both the Israeli government and the Israeli military
and the U.S. government. But we should make that known, why don't they? I asked them to do just that, I said we should make it public because it will, at least, give people, who are supportive of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, a little bit of solace.



SEGAL: That I agree with. But then you see the Gates memo which has become its own sort of entity out there, and you wonder about what type of support the United States could give Israel if, god-forbid, they were
attacked by Iran.



SCHUMER: I do think that this administration, like previous ones, realizes a nuclear Iran is devastating and is a very bad thing. By the way, not just for Israel but for the whole Middle-East and for world peace and
I think they're working strenuously to avoid it. They are having more success in this area than the previous administration, they are trying to get some of the Europeans, and even the Russians and Chinese to impose sanctions, but we are moving in the Senate
and the house to achieve any unilateral action that the U.S. can take. If we tell any major oil company that if they sell gasoline to Iran, directly or indirectly, they can't sell any oil product in the U.S., then they will stop selling gasoline to Iran and
the Iranian economy will have real problems. This will, at the very minimum, divert the leadership from their nuclear strategy and could bring down the regime. This is important and good. Let's talk about the bad. Let's talk about, what I'm sure your listeners
are most aggravated about, is what's happened in the last while in Israel. Let me say this: things were going pretty well, until a couple of months ago, for this reason—the Netanyahu administration, with money from the U.S., had gotten the PA on the west bank
to have their own police force and have them come down on the terrorists , for their own self interest not to protect the Jewish people. It has worked, not only are there fewer killings of Jews on the Israeli side of the fence, but there are many fewer in
the other side because there is a Palestinian police force and they have put those terrorists in line. As a result Israel has been able to take down 27 of the checkpoints and as a result of that there is some economic growth in the west bank. Its growing at
7-8%, Netanyahu brags that -- when he came here I spent a lot of time with him – That there are multiplex theatres in places like Ramallah and Janeen. At the same time that is happening, there is prosperity with the more moderate Palestinian Authority in the
west bank, and Hamas in Gaza is being squeezed and people there are doing very badly. Not only because Israel has blocked off the border and not let anything into Gaza, and I support Israel in doing that, and it may be tough on the Palestinian people, but
when they vote for Hamas they are going to have to suffer the consequences. But also because Egypt is preventing all the tunnels from going under the Gaza-Egyptian border, not so much because they want to help Israel but they don't want the terrorists infiltrating
from Gaza into Egypt. So the Palestinians were beginning to see those who talked about living in coexistence with Israel, and not terrorism, and not wiping it out, such as the PA on the west bank would do better, and those who talked about destroying Israel,
and shooting rockets into it were doing horrible.



SEGAL. I don't think the checkpoint and open highway point is one we are going to agree on Senator. But I want to move to another hot point which is Syria, it seems, and I'm not sure how many people would consider
these confirmed reports or not and I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but Syria is making sure that Hezbollah, north of Israel is being armed with SCUD missiles at this point. And you know that Washington is making efforts to try and strengthen the
diplomatic relationship with Syria. Do you think that's outrageous?



SCHUMER: I do, and think that's stopped. They are working very hard to put pressure on the Syrians both diplomatic and then maybe economic, to stop this and it's intolerable and that has to change. Let me just finish
this dialogue about Israel for a minute. All we have to do is leave things alone, and you might get the Palestinians more willing to sit down and actually discuss peace because they would see the contrast. When Biden was in Israel and there was this kerfuffle
over settlements which is in Israeli Jerusalem 5 minutes from downtown and should never have been an issue to begin with, but they probably shouldn't have made the announcement when Biden was there. But Israel apologized and when Biden left, and Biden is
the best friend of Israel in the administration everything was fine. But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it pubic through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley.
And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations. That is terrible. That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements
on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew--would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, "If you don't retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this."
Of course they did retract it. Now what's happened, and many of us are pushing back, some of the Jewish members will be meeting with the President next week or the week after, and we are saying that this has to stop. You have to have, in terms of the negotiations,
you have to show Israel that it's not going to be forced to do things it doesn't want to do and can't do. At the same time you have to show the Palestinians that they are not going to get their way by just sitting back and not giving in, and not recognizing
that there is a state of Israel. And right now there is a battle going on inside the administration, one side agrees with us, one side doesn't, and we're pushing hard to make sure the right side wins and if not we'll have to take it to the next step.




SEGAL: You know Senator Schumer, the perception among New York state residents, and I'm one of them as you know, is there likely is no one closer in the Senate to the President than you.



SCHUMER: That's not quite true, but I have an ear and frankly I spent time on the phone just yesterday talking to him about this, and telling him that I didn't quite understand the United States policy, because even
if the goal is to bring about talks of peace, it was counter-productive because it's encouraging the Palestinians not to sit down.



SEGAL: More than ¾ of the Senate, including a lot of democrats, signed the letter to Sec. of State Clinton rebuking the administration for these confrontational stances toward Israel. Were you surprised that names
like Kerry, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy and Reid were not included in that letter?



SCHUMER: well I think Senator Reid signed the letter, some didn't sign but the majority of both parties signed. And we'll have other letters and other meetings to keep pushing that. I think you can say there are a
handful of people who are not sympathetic to Israel in the Senate of each party, but 90% of the Senate is overwhelmingly in support of Israel. And one of my jobs, as you know is to rally those forces to do strong poll work for this year (couldn't hear this
part perfectly). Believe me I think the policy has to change, and I'm working hard to make it change and I think it will. Every administration at the beginning has this view even Ronald Reagan, the best friend Israel ever had, do you remember his first 2 years?
When George Schultz wanted to sell AWACs to Saudi Arabia? Every administration has this idea to talk tough to Israel and make nice to the Arabs and the Palestinians and that's the way to bring about peace. It's counter-productive, it's actually the
opposite. The only way the Palestinians will sit down and talk is if they know Israel and the United States are as close as could be. And each administration learns it. Schultz had to learn it and Reagan had to learn it. Clinton did it in the early years and
later became a very good friend of Israel. George Bush the first did it and never got over it, (SEGAL laughing muffles SCHUMER). We are at a crucial moment here and I am hopeful that administration will see the right way to go. I am working on it. I don't believe
that have made any definitive decision, and as I have said on both Iran on Syria there is close cooperation, you can check with your Israeli contacts Nachum and they will confirm that. So we just have to get this third part right and I'm working hard to do
it and I'm optimistic that that can happen.



SEGAL: Good to hear that. Finally Senator, just for our own curiosity, just like the most recent justice appointed to the Supreme Court, will the next one also be a New Yorker?



SCHUMER: I don't know. I would like it to be, I recommended the first one. I have 3 criteria for Supreme Court Justices: they should be legally excellent, they should be moderate as is typical of my politics I don't
want too far right or far left, and diversity, which means different ethnic groups and everything else. Luckily in terms of Jewish people we have good representation in terms of the Supreme Court. That will continue. One thing I want to assure your listeners
Nachum, my name as you know comes from a Hebrew word. It comes from the word shomer, which mean guardian. My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov and I believe Hashem, actually, gave me name as one of my roles that is very important in the
United States Senate to be a shomer to be A. a shomer for Israel and I will continue to be that with every bone in my body for of the other is against me.



SEGAL: can I ask you one other favor Senator? To be a shomer against the value-add tax?



SCHUMER: I am against it. I'm not sure it's needed but I will be a shomer against it.



SEGAL: always a pleasure Senator, thanks so much for joining us.



SCHUMER: Nachum, nice to see you and I hope you readership continues to go in peace and prosperity.

Reader Comments (235)




-- 

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

.

__,_._,___

Bishop Williamson's Heresy Trial / Ketzer-Prozess

 



Der Ketzer-Prozess gegen Bischof Richard Williamson
The Heresy Trial of Bishop Richard Williamson

By Günter Deckert

Translated by J M Damon

In a small triumph for free speech and human rights in Germany, we are fortunate to have two excellent "alternative" accounts of last week's witch trial of Bishop Richard Williamson in Regensburg.
It is clear that ever more readers are becoming suspicious of the "Establishment" media and turning to alternative sources of information.
Bishop Williamson  dares to question "Holocaust" dogma, which he apparently considers incompatible with Catholic dogma.

The present report by independent writer and reporter Günter Deckert is posted on numerous websites, including <globalfire.tv/nj/10de/verfolgungen/bischof_williamson.html.>
Herr Deckert provided us with Revisionist accounts of the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Sylvia Stolz and Horst Mahler among others, most of I was privileged to translate into English.
Marcus Haverkamp's excellent account of the Regensburg trial, written in English, is posted on numerous Internet sites including <revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/04/trial-of-bishop-who-wasnt-there.html>

****************

A quotation from an indignant article posted at <regensburg-digital.de> for 17 April 2010:
"It was actually said that we Germans are living under a Jewish dictatorship and they (the Media) wouldn't be allowed to write the truth anyway;" that National Socialism is "the only alternative, a splendid economic system;" and "there was no Holocaust!"
These are some of the things that were heard in the visitors' section of Regensburg Courthouse on Thursday during the frequent intermissions.
Sometimes they were said quietly and furtively, sometimes directly into the TV camera!"

{Tr.: <regensburg-digital.de> is sponsored by a group calling itself the VEREIN ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER MEINUNGS- UND INFORMATIONSVIELFALT  (Organization for the Promotion of Diversity of Opinion).
"Organization for the Promotion of Hypocrisy" might be a more fitting name, since the group disapproves of "diversity of opinion" where "Holocaust" is concerned.}

****************

The County Court is in the same courthouse as the District Court, connected to the jail for suspects who are under investigatory arrest.
At the entrance to the courthouse, security is the same as that of the Mannheim Heresy Trials {the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Sylvia Stolz and others} with magnetic archways and searches of pockets, purses, briefcases, etc., like at the airports.

Only two officials are on duty, a man and woman, and the searches are somewhat lackadaisical.
There is another security check as we enter the main courtroom, again a male-female team.
The representatives of the Establishment media are not searched, however.

There is room in the courtroom for only 19 visitors, in the very back.
The rest of the space is reserved for the Establishment media.
As the trial gets under way there are several empty seats in the media section and visitors are allowed to take them.
Around 90 persons are present in the courtroom including 35 visitors, interns and trainees.
Present are Lady Michelle Renouf from London, Frau Ursula Haverbeck, Markus Haverkamp, Andreas K. from Berlin and Gerd W. from Zossen / Brandenburg, another a victim of Section 130 {the section of the German Penal Code dealing with "Incitement of the Masses."}
There are no other prominent persons to be seen; if anyone is here from the Munich branch of the NPD (National Party) or NATIONAL-ZEITUNG (its newspaper) I do not see them.
There is only one bailiff and he is unarmed.
There is a partition between the section for visitors and media and the Prosecutor's staff, who are sitting on the right, and the Defense, sitting on the left.
The table for the witnesses is between the other two.
Two court translators, one English and one for Swedish, are sitting near the partition.
There is only one judge, an attractive blond woman in her thirties who speaks with a Bavarian accent.
She is sitting on an elevated podium.

Proceedings begin a little after 9 O'clock.
Even though it is known that Bishop Williamson is not coming, media interest is high – even the Südwestrundfunk (Southwestern Broadcasting Corporation) has come from Mainz, both radio and TV.
After a few minutes of filming and photographing the media leave, except for a few newspaper reporters.
Judge Karin Frahm (this is not a Bavarian name!) opens the proceedings and invites a bearded, grey haired senior prosecutor to read the rather short indictment.
The attorney, who appears to be in his late 50s, informs the Court that three Swedish journalists who were involved in Bishop Williamson's interview and broadcast were summoned as witnesses but have not responded.

Bishop Williamson's attorney, Matthias Lossmann of Coburg in Upper Franconia, states that his client would have gladly come but his ecclesiastical order, the Pius Brethren, did not give him leave.
Judge Frahm declares that the trial can proceed without the accused, and Attorney Lossmann reads a statement of the bishop to the effect that the bishop feels he has been betrayed by Swedish television.
Lossmann says his client clearly gave the Swedish reporters to understand that part of their discussion (the part concerning "Holocaust") should not be broadcast, on account of the proscription expressing such opinions under German law.
The interview, which lasted a little over an hour, had concerned questions of religion, dogma and the Church (1).
FOOTNOTE 1: Bishop Williamson had come to Zaitzhofen, where there is seminar for priests of the Pius Brethren, for the consecration
of a Swedish convert from the state church.
The leadership of the seminar had allowed Swedish TV to cover the event.

At the very end of the discussion, "out of a clear blue sky," the interviewer, Ali Fagan, a BEUTE-SCHWEDE (? "predatory Swede"?) suddenly brought up remarks that Bishop Williamson had made to a Canadian newspaper more than 20 years ago.
The reporter had obviously investigated Williamson very closely.
Fagan's questions about Williamson's past remarks developed into questions and answers, in English, on the subject of "Holocaust," "Gas Chambers," "Third Reich," "Adolf Hitler," etc.

Attorney Lossmann states that in addition to presenting Williamson's statement, he intends to call Attorney M. Krah of Dresden as a witness.
Krah is the confidential attorney of the Pius Brotherhood in Germany, who recently took over the Williamson case.
The judge then asks several questions for the record.
After this, the Court views the broadcasts of Williamson's statements on Swedish state television as well as re-broadcasts on German television.
The complaint against the bishop had been filed by an official in the Criminal Police Department acting on behalf of the Regensburg District Attorney.  
The visitors are unable to follow all of this because of technical problems – there is no TV screen on the wall.
The interpreter translates the English text of the interview word for word.

(As the Jewish media master Michel Friedman cynically remarked in Issue 16 of ZEIT Magazine: "You can say anything you want in Germany, but you must be prepared to pay consequences.")

"Defense Attorney" Lossmann then states his own opinion.
He is careful to make perfectly clear that he believes in "the historical actuality of Holocaust" and that he wholeheartedly approves of Section 130 of the Penal Code and believes that it must be retained.
His tactic is obviously to cover his derriere while raising doubt as to whether Williamson's remarks are punishable, due to the unique circumstances surrounding this particular case.
The Swedish reporters have submitted written statements to the effect that they had no agreement with Williamson regarding parts of the interview that should not be broadcast.
Thus it is their word against his.
The fact is significant, and mentioned even in the "Establishment" media's coverage, that the Swedish government and Swedish TV are refusing to assist the Regensburg prosecutor because this trial violates Swedish concepts of freedom of speech and opinion.  

Then there is a prolonged procedural back-and-forth argument between the Defense, the Court and the Prosecution as to whether these written explanations should be included as evidence.
The judge rules that the material is includable.
There have been numerous short breaks; now the judge calls a longer intermission at 11:10.
Afterwards Attorney Maximilian Krah, a witness for the Defense, is called to the stand.
He is a civil rather than criminal attorney from Dresden but not a Saxon.
 
He describes in detail how he became involved on the evening of 19 Jan. 2009, after reading about the incident in SPIEGEL.
He was authorized by Father Franz Schmidtberger, the leader of the German Pious Brethren, as well as the central office in Switzerland.
He says he immediately attempted to contact Williamson, who was still in Argentina.
Finally, after considerable difficulty, he was able to get in touch.
Williamson immediately understood what was happening and remarked, "Well, that's just the way journalists are."

Attorney Krah says that it was immediately clear to him that the TV broadcast could not be intercepted and so he concentrated on reaching an understanding with the Swedes to avoid a posting on the Internet site of the Swedish TV station.
His attempt was unsuccessful, however.
 Then he requested an injunction with the District Court at Nuremberg/Fürth, which was successful.
Basically the key sentence of the ruling stated:
If there is no intent (in this case, no agreement!), then criminal prosecution is not called for, and there is no need for prompt action. That is why he did not seek legal recourse (lodge an appeal.)
 Because of his heavy workload he recommended Attorney Lossmann.

Judge Frahm has a great many questions for the witness, such as:
How did Bishop Williamson react?
Was he surprised?
What did he want to have done?
Krah says it is very clear that the Bishop did everything he could to avoid the broadcast, which happened in spite of his request at the end of the interview.
The judge's questions become quite specific when she asks about the inner life of the Brethren.
She asks how many priests there are worldwide.
Krah answers around 600, or 700 including those on the periphery.
How many are there in Germany?
- About 25.
And how many active followers are there?
Krah says there are around 600,000, mostly in France, Switzerland (the French part) and the USA.
And what was Williamson's position at the time of the "offense?"
Krah answers that he was the head of a seminary in Argentina.
 
Surprisingly, and in my opinion pointlessly, Krah blurts out that Williamson is considered marginal within the Brethren.
He is a genteel and cultivated but eccentric outsider who radiates great personal charm.
Krah says the leaders of the order have ambiguous feelings about him.
FOOTNOTE 2: My impression is that it was Krah's mission to "talk up" the Brethren and "talk down" Bishop Williamson.
This became even more clear during the intermission when he repeatedly exclaimed to Lady Renouf: "This is not their case!" meaning that the Brethren are not involved here, or do not want to be involved.
Both the judge and head prosecutor conducted themselves in compliance with the System.
The question of whether the existing law is legitimate is never asked.
The question of whether the judge believes in her own verdicts is another matter.
If one wants to enjoy a career and live in peace in Germany, one cannot behave any other way.
The judge and prosecutor have "done their jobs" and kept up appearances in "saving our democracy."
We have to consider that very few individuals have the courage to resist "the throne" (established authority)!
There are very few heroes in our time.
I personally doubt that Bishop Williamson's defending attorney has done him any favors, however.
I shall try to find out what his political orientation is.
It would be pointless to attempt an appeal and change of verdict in Williamson's favor under the present  "BRDDR" regime.
If the attorneys favor an appeal, it will be for the sake of their fees.
If Bishop Williamson should appeal, it would be for the sake of publicizing Jewish "Holocaust" dogma and "grabbing it by the throat."
It would be helpful to demonstrate how undemocratic our little present day Germany is, "the freest state that ever existed on German soil" according to the present propaganda.
The fine is of course purely symbolic since it cannot be collected in England.
Nothing can happen to Williamson as long as he stays in England, even if the "BRDDR" issues an international warrant for his arrest.

Krah goes on to say that there are four bishops among the Brethren whose position is not comparable to that of a bishop in the Catholic Church, and furthermore Williamson is not a member of the General Assembly.
He is more like a "traveling representative for the consecration of priests," a kind of independent agent.

The judge then wants to know about Bishop Williamson's financial situation.
Krah replies that when he is traveling, he receives a travel allowance as well as re-imbursement for expenses and spending money of 250 Euros per month.
In addition he receives room and board.
He says that Williamson is not a wealthy man but neither does he have to beg in the streets.
Then Judge Frahm asks whether Williamson has access to the assets of the Pius Brethren and Krah answers with an emphatic "No!"
After that, the judge has no more questions.

Additional Observation

Despite the persecution and pervasive judicial terror directed against Revisionist researchers and experts, the Enlightenment insistence on empirical evidence cannot be reversed.
Even Zionist Inquisitor Friedman has to admit:
"The older I get, the more I doubt that legalistic measures really help combat Revisionism.
At any rate, the number of Holocaust Deniers has not grown smaller, and we must consider that."
Michel Friedman of the Jewish Central Committee as quoted in ZEIT, Issue No. 16, 2010.


Attorney Lossmann then continues questioning his witnesses. He asks whether Williamson is inclined to believe in conspiracy theories as "Wikipedia" suggests.
Krah replies that yes, Williamson has peculiar views concerning the "Holocaust" story, and he always says what he believes to be true.
He is confident in his opinion, as is shown in his conversation.
He is very concerned about the truth.
Krah says that Williamson's problem is with acknowledging official truth; the bishop's problem is a defective ability to perceive it.

There is a brief intermission, then the proceedings continue.
The subject is now a report on Ali Fagan in a leading Swedish newspaper.
Lossmann says the report was initiated by Italian newspapers who perceive that the Williamson trial is a plot against the German pope.
Lossmann insists on a translation of this report on Fagan, saying the whole affair is comparable to Washington's "Watergate."
He observes that the proceedings against Bishop Williamson have not only gained Fagan a great deal of publicity, they have made him rich.

After another brief intermission, the head prosecutor begins speaking.
Predictably, he has no doubts about the validity of the trial.
He has no doubts that the conditions of Section 130 ("Incitement of the Masses") have been met, and a crime has been committed against the public.
He says Germany's peace has been disturbed and the bishop has acted with BEDINGTEM VORSATZ or intent, since he realized and accepted that the interview would be broadcast.
He says it was Williamson's goal to publicize his proscribed views among the people.
He says that people like Williamson have a "pathological compulsion" to spread false and unlawful opinions, therefore he is guilty on all points.
On the basis of the bishop's income of 3000 Euros per month (!?) he calls for a sentence of four months' incarceration at 120 Euros per day.
He says this is appropriate in view of Williamson's position within the Brethren, even though it is his first offense.

In his summarization, in which he pleads for acquittal, Attorney Lossmann disputes the state attorney's demand.
As for Williamson's income, he points out that it should be set at a maximum of 1000 Euros and in case of a guilty verdict would call for 30 to 60 days in jail, certainly less than 90.
He says that in view of the circumstances, which have become clear in the taking of evidence, acquittal is the proper verdict.
He says that Bishop Williamson's conduct was unbecoming to be sure, but he simply acted in a naive manner.
He says that Williamson had been misled and waylaid, but he had made every attempt to limit the damage he caused.
He says there can be no question of the bishop's "accepting the consequences."
He points out that, had it not been for the overall situation concerning the Pius Brethrens' readmittance into the Catholic Church, the media would not have played up the incident.
Lossmann concludes with the opinion of a professor of law who was quoted in SPIEGEL as saying that if Bishop Williamson did not intend for his views on "Holocaust" to be broadcast, he could not be punished.
He emphasizes that Williamson obviously lacked this intent; he was not aware the Swedish journalists would broadcast his remarks until they had done so.
Therefore he should be acquitted.

Shortly after 1 O'clock the judge calls a 30-minute intermission and retires to consider her verdict.
She returns after 45 minutes and everyone stands to hear the verdict "in the name of the People."
Which people, one wonders.
She finds Williamson guilty and sentences him to 100 days in jail at 100 Euros per day, 20 days less than what was demanded by the state attorney.
She takes a half hour to explain her verdict and agrees with every point of the state's attorney, emphasizing that "Holocaust is an acknowledged fact" and the number of Jewish victims "established by the highest court."
Needless to say, she does not bother to give her sources for this "acknowledged fact."
Perhaps she will give them in her written verdict.

The courtroom gradually empties.
Attorney Lohmann is the only one who is surrounded by the reporters.
They ask if there will be an appeal.
He replies that Bishop Williamson must make that decision.
Presumably the State might appeal the verdict, since it considers the sentence too lenient.








+++

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

.

__,_._,___

Tax evader who blamed Holocaust gets months

 

ReportersNotebook Memo: 

"H" Card Expiring?

Does this ruling constitute "Judicial Review for Holocaust compulsion as a psychiatric disorder"?



START:

Associated Press

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hdjRPnA-UKs851hzB3YsGZN6QtaAD9F8VJVG0

 By CURT ANDERSON (AP) – 1 day ago

April 23, 2010

Tax evader who blamed Holocaust gets months

MIAMI — A tax evader was sentenced Friday to 10 months in federal prison after claiming his Jewish parents' experience fleeing the Nazi Holocaust drove him to compulsively hide more than $10 million in secret accounts at Swiss bank UBS AG and other offshore tax havens.

U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan imposed the longest sentence to date for a UBS client against 65-year-old Jack Barouh, even after giving him credit for cooperating in the ongoing investigation and belatedly attempting to come clean with the Internal Revenue Service.

Barouh pleaded guilty in February, the latest in a string of convictions won by the Justice Department after UBS last year admitted orchestrating tax evasion among rich U.S. clients and paid a $780 million fine.

UBS also separately agreed to turn over more than 4,450 names of wealthy Americans suspected of dodging taxes through secret UBS accounts.  (Has anyone seen this list—I wonder what the ethnic composition might be.)

Jordan noted that Barouh has sought psychiatric help for the Holocaust compulsion, which his attorney described as the desire to "hide and hoard" assets to guard against a potential repeat of the Nazi attempt to exterminate Jews during World War II.

+++


Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

http://www.DebatingTheHolocaust.com

Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: Holocaust Tax Allowance...

 

The Bernie Madoff Guide To Holocaust Survival............r o n
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 07:40
Subject: Holocaust Tax Allowance...

Holocaust Tax Allowance by Gilad Atzmon

 

I do think that taking Tax from Jews is nothing less than Anti Semitism in practice. After the Holocaust and 2000 years of Jewish suffering we should accept that Jews have the right to hide some money from the tax authorities, just in case the horror repeats itself.

 The BBC reported today that A US watchmaker told the American court that he "hid $10,000,000 in a Swiss bank account because of 'survival behaviour'  learned from the Holocaust". ...
 
To read more:
 

 
 
 


This message was sent from Gilad Atzmon to ron@denvermediaservice.com. It was sent from: Gilad Atzmon, XXX XXX , London, XX 7 7 XX, United Kingdom. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Email Marketing by
iContact - Try It Free!


Manage your subscription  

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Welcome to Mom Connection! Share stories, news and more with moms like you.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

.

__,_._,___