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 had apparently dared 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 which yours truly was privileged to translate into English.
Marcus Haverkamp’s excellent account of the Regensburg trial, written in English, is also posted on numerous Internet sites including <revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2010/04/trial-of-bishop-who-wasnt-there.html>
This translation is available in MS Word Format on request.

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

Following is 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 alternative, a splendid economic system;” and that 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 camera!”

{Tr.: <regensburg-digital.de> is a city blog 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 strongly 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.

 

 

©-free 2010 Adelaide Institute