JEREMY JONES

                                                                                                                     Applicant

                                                                                             FREDRICK TÖBEN

                                                                                                                      Respondent

AFFIDAVIT OF FREDRICK TÖBEN

On 5 March 2007 I, Fredrick Töben, of Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, retired teacher, say on oath and without prejudice:

1. That the letter from Samantha Edwards, Associate to the Hon Justice M F Moore, of 26 February 2007, advising me of the 8 March 2007 directions hearing, did not contain a videoconference request form. However, I obtained same at the FCA, Adelaide Registry, and on 27 February 2007 I posted same to Romina Mohan at the FCA, Sydney Registry. 

2. I make reference to my Affidavit of 17 January 2007, and add thereto that this matter before the court is not only a legal matter but also a political and religious-cultural matter. I refer specifically to the 10-12 December Teheran Holocaust Conference. Annexed hereto and marked “A” is a copy of Adelaide Institute’s Newsletter No. 309. My colleague, electrical engineer and public servant, Richard Krege, who attended the conference was upon his return to Canberra, and without the customary three warnings, instantly dismissed from his almost ten-year employment with Air Services Australia, a government instrumentality. Upon my return from the conference I received warnings that dire consequences, in the form of a to-be published Adelaide Advertiser human interest story on the Toben family, would be run if I did not recant and write an apology, then read it out to the court at the first directions hearing. It was stated that my 84-year-old mother would not survive this expose. The person informing me of this is, according to his own words, closely associated with Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock. I was also advised that I would not survive, without a doubt, the definite six months prison in Long Bay Jail. Annexed hereto and marked “B” is a copy of Adelaide Institute Newsletter No. 310 and No 311.  

3. That in 1999 I spent seven months in a German prison, specifically for writing a letter of support to a German Revisionist, then sending copies to German judges and public prosecutors with a request for their comments. The matter was heard in court and I received a ten months prison sentence but was released immediately afterwards on posting DM 6,000. The judge had accepted the ‘push-pull’ argument, i.e. that Internet material is not pushed into the German homes but that a person must pull it down. The matter was reviewed by a superior court, which ordered a re-trial because it found that German law applies anywhere in the world. The re-trial has as yet not occurred on account of my being banned from entering Germany. At no stage did I, as claimed by a number of mainstream media outlets, distribute Revisionist material in Germany itself. Justice Klaus Kern had not censored me for posting material on our Adelaide Institute website, this being the review ground granted to the prosecution. Annexed hereto and marked “C” is a copy of Adelaide Institute Newsletter No. 312, 313 and 314, at p.12 with reference to the article, ‘The pope and the Holocaust deniers’.

4. As those who refuse to believe in the prevailing ‘Holocaust’ narrative are treated as criminals in Germany, I state that I have as yet not been convicted of having committed a crime in Germany. This is important for me, especially since I enrolled myself in 2006 as a student at The University of Adelaide, with the intention of pursuing a law degree.

5. It must be noted that absolute privilege does not attach to court proceedings in Germany, as it does in Common Law countries such as Australia. In Germany my 1999 defence counsel had just been heavily fined for defending a Revisionist because the defence counsel had ‘too vigorously’ defended his client. Further, in the current trials at Mannheim of Revisionists Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel, all supporting evidence has become irrelevant because of the legal principle of ‘judicial notice’. That a defendant is in court is proof of his guilt, and what the judge has to determine is whether the defendant shows remorse or not. This is the classic case of a witch-trial where matters of fact are uncontestable, and if a defence is offered this merely further proves the guilt of the accused. There is also no objective written record kept of court proceedings, and the judge writes his notes from his perspective only.

6.  It is my view that my matter before the FCA is very close to becoming a case where my thoughts and beliefs are being criminalized, as is already the case in Germany. This view is supported by the fact that anyone labelled by the concepts, such as hate speech,  Holocaust denial, antisemitism, racist, neo-Nazi, xenophobia, is criminalized in a number of European countries where Common Law free expression does not operate. It must be remembered that when the Bolsheviks took over Russia and formed the Soviet Union in 1917, one of the first laws passed was to criminalize the concept antisemitism. Thus anyone who questioned the origin of most of the Bolshevik Revolutionaries’ ethnic background and rightly concluded the large majority were of Jewish origin, and state such in public would be sentenced to death on account of his antisemitism. Annexed hereto and marked “D” is a copy of Adelaide Institute Newsletter No 315, 316, 317.

7. The fact that pressure for me to ‘re-cant’ informally came from the Attorney General’s circle of close associates has me worried. I, and my family, were subjected to considerable pressure for me to ‘re-cant and to write an apology’, then read it out in court at the first directions hearing of 6 February 2007. Upon reflection I regard this matter before the court as becoming quite specifically political.

8. An item from Weekend Australian, January 27-28, 2007, contextualises this matter before the FCA within a global perspective, which is headed, ‘Outrage remains, but Carter is sticking to his story. Attached hereto and marked “E” is a copy of Newsletter No. 320.

9. My own work since returning from the December 2006 Teheran Holocaust Conference is reflected in the enclosed Exhibits. Annexed hereto and marked “F” is a DVD copy of a 12 December 2006 live television discussion, about the Teheran Holocaust conference that I participated in while in Iran.

10. A report of this pending second directions hearing was mentioned in the Australian Jewish News on 16 February 2007 under the heading: Toben’s lawyer suspended from practice until May. In view of the nature of these proceedings as partially reflected in the impertinent tone expressed in the 16 November 2006 Notice of Motion – the threat made to me, arbitrarily, for not attending a court hearing by Jeremy Jones’ legal representative when I was legally abroad without knowledge of the pending case against me before the FCA – wherein it is requested that I be arrested and sent to prison, I resist any attempt,  if orders are sought to interfere with the proposed May commencement of the matter.

11. If, as is usually the case in such matters that Mr Jones brings into court, there is always and urgency-of-hearing argument expressed, then I counter that by stating that the material on Adelaide Institute’s website remains harmless and will certainly not cause a civil disturbance. Nothing of the sort has been experienced since we began operations in 1994, and a comparison of our work with what is available on the Internet will indicate to the court that we have a modest and balanced approach to matters.

12. The expressed ‘hurt’ that our published Internet material allegedly causes Mr Jones has never been substantiated or clinically measured by anyone. Mr Jones did not have to prove his case, as is usual in matters of personal injury or defamation actions, by bringing along medical reports of his having suffered psychological harm. In the four cases that Mr Jones has brought into the FCA, all Respondents remained legally unrepresented. Annexed hereto and marked “G” is a copy of an AJN newspaper article listing the matters that Mr Jones has brought into the FCA.  

13. If during this second directions hearing the court so finds that grave danger to Mr Jones’ mental balance exists by Adelaide Institute’s material still being available on the website, then I am quite prepared to switch-off/delete the various URLs that allegedly contain offensive material until the trial in May 2007. I remind the court that after the HREOC decision ordered the ‘offensive’ material to be deleted from Adelaide Institute’s website, I deleted the whole content on our website, and began again. When the FCA ordered the ‘offensive’ material to be removed, it had already ceased to exist – but I again deleted all material on our website, and began again. In each new beginning I attempted to comply with the orders without compromising my moral and intellectual integrity and my quest to use my self-reflective intelligence and to make sense of the world around me. Annexed hereto and marked “H” is a copy of Adelaide Institute’s Homepage, Contents page and Newsletters 318, 319.

Sworn by Deponent

at Adelaide

on the 5^th day of March 2007                                                            …………………………..      

                                                                                                           Deponent’s Signature

Before me:…………………………

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Filed by    Dr F Töben                                                        Tel: 08.83310808  Mob: 0417088217           

                                                                                            Email: toben@adelaideinstitute.org

                Wattle Park 5066

______________________________________________________________________________________