Kevin Käther erneut zu 20 Monaten verurteilt
Kevin Käther Re-sentenced to 20 Months
The Latest Judicial News from Absurdistan
By the authors of the National Journal
Translated by J M Damon
The original is posted at <globalfire.tv/nj/10de/verfolgungen/kevin_kaether.htm>
Like a true patriot, Kevin Käther has been fighting the modern Inquisition tribunals on behalf of the German nation.
In an appeal hearing on 9th June 2009, Tiergarten District Court (Berlin) initially sentenced him to a prison sentence of eight months without probation.
The concerned citizen will ask: What brought about his guilty verdict and prison sentence?
Kevin’s crime consisted of sending compact discs (CDs) of Germar Rudolf’s proscribed book “Lectures On the Holocaust” to three judges in Berlin and then filing an official complaint against himself for violating Germany’s notorious censorship laws.
His purpose in doing this was to judicially determine, in a court trial, whether Rudolf’s factual conclusions are scientifically valid.
In the cover letter that he sent with the CDs, he stated that if empirical evidence proved the contents of Rudolf’s book to be inaccurate, he would accept his punishment without objection or appeal.
“Under the censorship laws of the Federal Republic, distribution and dissemination of this book is proscribed as ‘Denial of Holocaust.’
Germar Rudolf, the author of this book, was sentenced to a prison term for the commendable but criminal act of writing it.
As a self-respecting German I have a patriotic obligation to publicize these lectures in our country...
I realize that I will probably be indicted and convicted in a court of law for my action, and I accept that probability.
In the ensuing criminal trial, you will be required to testify as witnesses.
For this reason, you should familiarize yourselves with the factual contents of Rudolf’s book, applying old-fashioned German thoroughness.”
The indictment came immediately.
In order to either prove or disprove the veracity of Rudolf’s book in a judicial framework, Kevin submitted over four thousand pages of empirical evidence during his trial, along with Rudolf’s “Expert Report on the Alleged Gas Chambers of Auschwitz.”
[Rudolf, a diploma chemist at the Max Planck Institute, had originally prepared this expert report for the Defense in the 1992 trial of Retired Gen. Otto Ernst Remer for “Denying Holocaust.”]
In 1993Gen. Remer sent the Rudolf Report to more than 300 professors of Inorganic Chemistry.
Not a single professor found a single mistake in his numerous analyses, and an expert witness in a Swiss court also attested to its accuracy.
Regarding this report, the director of the Jewish Anne-Frank Association in Amsterdam, Hans Westra, made the following statement in 1994 on the Belgian TV program “Panorama”:
“The scientific analysis in this expert report is perfect.”
The Rudolf Expert Report was Kevin’s main piece of evidence, but he pointed out a number of other discrepancies in the official “Holocaust” tale that need clarification as well.
For example, the newsweekly DIE Zeit had reported that the “Auschwitz Holocaust” was carried out by mass shootings rather than homicidal gas chambers.
In addition, Kevin called on Gita Sereny, Britain’s foremost Jewish “Holocaust” researcher and writer, as a witness.
In the LONDON TIMES issue of 29 August 2001 she agreed that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp.
Kevin also wanted the judges to indicate which of the official estimates of the number of Auschwitz deaths is correct, since they range from 66,000 to 9,000,000.
Kevin then asked the Court to clarify which of the judicially valid Maidanek verdicts is correct: Berlin District Court determined that Maidanek Concentration Camp had no homicidal gas chambers, whereas Düsseldorf District Court ruled that mass gassings took place in homicidal gas chambers there.
He also asked the judges to clarify through evidentiary findings whether the victims in Treblinka Camp were killed with steam or gas.
The Allied Military Tribunal decreed that victims were “steamed” at Treblinka whereas Federal Republic verdicts claimed they were “gassed.”
With over 4000 pages of evidentiary motions, Kevin hoped to make the Court establish whether he, on the strength of the documents he presented, had a legal right to publicly express the opinion that no homicidal gassings took place in Auschwitz and other wartime camps.
However, all of his evidentiary motions were disallowed, and he was threatened with additional criminal charges for attempting to introduce them!
This young German patriot, who had hoped to determine whether his historical opinions were correct or incorrect by introducing empirical evidence in a German court of law, had fallen into the black pit of judicial chaos.
The German courts refused to rule on whether official documents and their own rulings, which wildly contradict one another, support Kevin’s opinions.
Kevin then appealed his verdict within Tiergarten Court.
In these proceedings, in which he submitted another 2500 pages of evidentiary motions, the original verdict of eight months imprisonment was upheld, as was the Court’s proscription against his submitting evidence.
Kevin then appealed on points of law to the next higher court.
Then, on 16 September 2009, a judicial sensation occurred: the Fourth Criminal Section (Kammergericht) of Berlin Superior Court of Justice vacated the verdict of the Tiergarten Appellate Court -- and it did so in a way that allowed nothing but acquittal!
The Kammergericht ruled that Kevin’s sending the book CD to three judges did not involve the public, which was indispensable for the crime of “Holocaust Denial.”
Their decision reads as follows:
“The handing out of literature to one or a few specific individuals does not fulfill the requirement of distribution unless it is definitely established that these individuals intended to further distribute the literature.
The charge specified in the appealed verdict does not constitute such distribution.
“’Distribution’ is not involved here because we are dealing with only three CDs of the book that were intended for specific recipients and sent to them alone.
The ‘critical value’ of the minimum number of recipients needed to qualify as ‘distribution’ is clearly not present.”
Thus the Kammergericht ruling forced the hand of the Court of First Instance.
Because it was now clear that acquittal was certain to result from the first trial, Tiergargen District Court prepared a new indictment – this time on account of the evidence that Kevin attempted to submit.
The submission and consideration of evidence to prove the innocence of defendants is of course a universally recognized human right.
The European Convention of Human Rights specifically protects it.
In the “Holocaust” witch trials that are currently staged in the Federal Republic of Germany, however, this basic human right is routinely trodden underfoot.
It is undeniable that by refusing to accept evidentiary motions that would prove innocence in “Holocaust” trials, German courts routinely deny defendants the fundamental human right to a legal defense.
Actually the situation is even worse: our courts take the denial of human rights a step further than merely refusing to allow accused persons to defend themselves.
Not only are defendants forbidden to defend themselves: Even worse, they are charged with additional crimes for submitting evidentiary motions.
Not even China engages in such judicial tyranny!
On 10 December 2009 Kevin was sentenced to a prison sentence of one year and eight months for repeated “Incitement of the Masses” (specifically, reading and submitting evidentiary motion in his first trial.)
This time, however, even though his “crime” was greater than in the first trial (distributing proscribed literature), the Court surprisingly substituted probation for prison time, even though the greater “crime” would logically rule this out.
Did the judges suddenly develop a conscience, or did they simply abandon all attempts at logical consistency?
Even with this new sentence, however, the Court still lacks any and all legal basis for sentencing Kevin.
This is because he had asked the Court to declare the session in which he read his evidentiary motions “not open to the public.”
Again no “public” existed, and with no public, there can be no distribution.
As the Kammergericht ruled, such a public is necessary for conviction under Section 130 of the Penal Code.
Thus this intrepid young father of a family, an honorable and patriotic German, has been effictively silenced.
With the probated sentence, the Court obviously intends to hold him politically hostage so that in future he will “keep his mouth shut.”
Kevin exhibited truly heroic patriotism, however.
He is a family man with a small daughter, and his conscience and sense of responsibility oblige him to refrain from further action under the present system.
He has done enough, risked enough, struggled in exemplary fashion.
Now he must devote himself to his family.
Our unjust and inconsistent system is certain to bring about its own downfall.
This is the way it has always been.
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)
©-free 2010 Adelaide Institute