Form 20
                                                                                                                         Order 14, Rule 2



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY                                                               No. NSD327 of 2001


                                                         JEREMY JONES

                                                             FREDRICK TÖBEN




On 11 July 2008 I, Fredrick Töben, of 23 Caloroga Street, Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, director of Adelaide Institute, say on oath:


1. I am the above Respondent in these proceedings and make reference to the Notice of Motion of 17 January 2007, the Notice of Motion of 2 January 2008, the Amended Notice of Motion of 19 February 2008 and to all submitted Affidavits.


2. The Apology on 27 November 2007 was given by me in good faith, something that was abused by Applicant and his associates. As stated in Affidavit, 30 April 2008, I have no problem in deleting alleged offensive material.


3. I reject that I have been in contempt of court since the Orders were handed down on 17 September 2002 and will contest each of the allegations made against me, including those already deleted as per consent orders.


4. On 15 June 2008 I sent this email to the following:



From: Adelaide Institute

Sent: Sunday, 15 June 2008 6:34 PM


Cc:;;; Adelaide Institute
Subject: Jones v Toben - for consideration as a cost-minimizing matter


Dear Associate to Justice Lander


I would be pleased if you could forward the contents of this email to His Honour. A copy has also been sent to Solicitor Lewis and SC Margo. As I am acting on my own behalf I cannot see anything wrong in expressing myself in this way to the other parties involved in this matter, especially because I seek to do everything in my power to minimize costs.


1. I thank Justice Lander and SC Margo for the numerous times during the 11 June 2008 hearing at Adelaide for expressing their concern about the matter of my being afforded all necessary assistance in preparation for the August 2008 hearing. I can therefore rest assured that I will “get justice in this court”.

1.2 With respect, all this rings hollow, especially because this assurance came when an oral order had been made not to permit Justice Alan Goldberg to appear as a hostile witness on my behalf, so that I am now unable at the August hearing to present the in-depth political ramifications of the current action before Justice Lander.

1.3 Further, I was propelled back 24 years when a school principal had publicly stated he wished to help me because I had “massive teaching problems”. My response was to inform the principal that my problems were no different to any other teacher working within the Victorian Education Department, except that his hypocritical stance against my person, my values and my German birth was common knowledge within the school and wider farming community.

1.4 This ‘personality clash’ escalated and ultimately caused a great injustice to me because it effectively terminated my teaching career in Victoria and it destroyed my marriage on account of an almost decade-long legal litigation process – from 1984 to 1993. Fortunately, a Victorian judge declared invalid my dismissal from the teaching system.


2. Of interest is a comment made by my former Barrister, Paul Charman, who summed up my current problem thus: “You lost the war”. To that I responded that the South Australian Premier, Mr Mike Rann, declared in State Parliament some time ago that the Second World War was over.


3. After the 11 June 2008 hearing, I left Adelaide to seek out legal counsels interstate. During my brief visit to Canberra and Brisbane I met with individuals who initially expressed interest in taking on the case. Unfortunately, owing to my being on a disability pension, I cannot afford to pay for their advice. This problem is compounded by a general weariness amongst supporters to offer financial donations to the legal battle. In other words I cannot afford engaging a legal counsel who is prepared to represent my interests on 5 August 2008. That this is the sorry state of affairs since 1996 before the HREOC and subsequent FCA hearings speaks for itself – a legal railroading that will empower Jewish Holocaust-Shoah interests.

3.1 By early July 2008 I shall know whether another tentative counsel is prepared to take on the case. Should this also prove unsuccessful, then I would have to rely on His Honour to assist in securing for me legal counsel, and as I stated elsewhere I would not mind having a Jewish barrister who is fearless about touching the Holocaust-Shoah subject matter for the sake of free expression.


4.  That this matter of court costs is creating injustice for those involved in attempting to correct the media’s continuing World War Two propaganda onslaught is highlighted in the article below: “Accused ‘Nazi’ denied legal aid ‘.


5. Alternatively, I see no reason why all parties cannot negotiate a successful settlement of this matter.  Our battle-of-the-wills is nothing out of the ordinary, and even the legal fraternity is not immune from such battles – see article below: “Magistrate urged to sue over ‘delusional’ blast”.

5.1 I was willing to go along with that Apology but then relied upon Counsel for advice because my receiving the written Apology at around 7pm and then signing it around 9am the next day, on 27 November 2007, did not give me any time to reflect on what was contained in that Apology, which was written without my bot having any input into its contents.

5.2 I was quite prepared to delete offending material, as I already have, because doing this is nothing new for me. However, if the Applicant wishes to have his ‘pound of flesh’ – that proverbial life-or-death battle – then, of course, my willingness to compromise will be regarded by the Applicant as a sign of weakness.

5.3 The fact that we are now even further from weighing up ‘matters of fact’ and are right into only considering ‘matters of law’ leaves me with little hope that a legal cost-reducing solution can be arrived at. If that is the case, then the situation will fuel the public impression that an injustice will occur and that truth-telling will be legally punishable.


6. I am somewhat puzzled by Applicant’s counsel’s tone when expressing dismay at my publishing all material submitted to the NSW FCA Registry on our website. From my limited legal knowledge I understand that British Common Law provides a Court of Record, and is not like the German courts where this safeguard of a public written record does not operate.

6.1 Further, all matters aired in open court are privileged, which again is something that does not occur in a German court where, for example, a barrister cannot defend his client for fear of making himself liable if the argument is too forcefully presented, especially if it too closely reflects the mindset of the accused. At one instance in a Holocaust-Shoah case the barrister was physically carried from the court because she objected to the judge wilfully preventing her from vigorously defending her client. This is thought-crime legislation in action – and we do not need this in Australia.

6.2 We have as yet not reached such a situation within the Common Law system, though in Sydney there are instances where open court defiance has been noted and acted upon as contempt of court incidents. My understanding is that all Affidavit material I submit as evidence via the Court Registry is available to anyone who seeks it out, as for example, the media does on a daily basis – of course, for example, being duly alerted by an insider that a judge will hand down something significant.


7. Attached is a copy of my January 2007 Notice of Motion, and my 19 February 2008 Amended Notice of Motion, the latter if which His Honour could not locate on the court record. The URL at which these and other matters can be found on Adelaide Institute’s website is the following:


Submitted for your consideration.

Dr Fredrick Töben



From: Adelaide Institute []
Sent: Sunday, 15 June 2008 10:12 AM
To: Adelaide Institute
Subject: Australian DPP is hostile to German interests

Fredrick Töben comments: Obsessive hate-monger and blood-hound Zuroff closer to victory?


I, too, was refused Legal Aid when in 1996 the action Jeremy Jones v Fredrick Töben began in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission began in 1996 – and since then have had to rely on supporters funding a limited legal response. The Australian Director of Public Prosecutor’s office is under Jewish influence  and the “fear of the Jews” is great –


So, what’s new?                                                                  



Accused 'Nazi' denied legal aid

Paige Taylor, The Weekend Australian, June 14, 2008


ACCUSED Nazi-era war criminal Charles Zentai has been refused legal aid for a historic extradition hearing and is closer than ever to losing his home over mounting legal costs.

Mr Zentai's lawyers learned yesterday that the pensioner must pay for his own lawyer at the three-day hearing in the Perth Magistrates Court from August 18-20. Commonwealth prosecutors will argue at that hearing on behalf of Hungary that Mr Zentai should be sent to Budapest to face trial for the 1944 murder of Jewish teenager Peter Balazs, who was caught living in the city on false papers.

Mr Zentai's only asset is a modest home unit, and in April costs estimated to be more than $200,000 were awarded against him by the High Court. The retired mental health nurse cannot afford to pay those costs.

He has less than $40,000 after spending more than $100,000 on lawyers for the action, which was a technical challenge to the authority of magistrates to preside over his extradition hearing. He lost, and could become the first accused war criminal to be extradited from Australia.

If the 86-year-old is ordered to be extradited, he also intends to appeal that decision and will lobby Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus, who has the power to cancel any extradition on grounds including ill health and advanced age.

Mr Zentai admits taking part in patrols as a 23-year-old warrant officer in the Hitler-aligned Hungarian army in 1944, but denies he was the one who plucked 18-year-old Balazs from a tram and took him to the Arena Utca barracks.

He also denies taking part in the fatal beating of Balazs, after which the body of the young resistance-movement member was covered with hay and taken by horse and cart to the Danube River, where it was weighted and thrown in.

After the war, Mr Zentai's fellow soldiers Bela Mader and Lajor Nagy were convicted in the Budapest People's Court for their part in the murder.

He was implicated by six witnesses at Nagy's 1947 trial but had already left Hungary for Germany, where he worked as a driver and farmhand. An extradition request sent to US officials in Germany in 1948 came to nothing and in 1950 Mr Zentai, his young bride Rose and their baby Tomas sailed to Australia as refugees.

Efraim Zuroff, of the Jewish human rights group the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, said it was understandable that people would develop sympathy for an elderly man who had led a good life in Australia for almost 60 years. "But ... it's essential to remember the victim was a teenager who had his whole life ahead of him," Dr Zuroff said.,25197,23861127-5006789,00.html




Magistrate urged to sue over ‘delusional’ blast

Jamie Walker, The Weekend Australian, 14-15 June 2008

South Australia’s magistrates closed ranks around their deputy chief, Andrew Cannon, as civil libertarians and lawgroups hit back at the state Attorney-General for calling him “delusional”.

Colleagues of Dr Cannon yesterday vented their anger at the vehemence of Michael Atkinson’s attack on him, precipitated by Dr Cannon’s call for prison over crowding to be taken into consideration by judges and magistrates when sentencing.

The deputy chief magistrate was being urged to take defamation action against Mr Aktinson, who as Attorney-General is the state’s first law officer.

A fellow magistrate, declined to be named, told The Weekend Australian Mr Atkinson’s language was totally inappropriate. “I would say Andrew … is crazy if he does not go to see a solicitor about defamation,” the magistrate said. “I would, without blinking.”

Mr Atkinson blasted Dr Cannon on Thursday, accusing him of being “daft,” “delusional” and misunderstanding his place in the legal hierarchy after he wrote sentencing principles that were uploaded to website accessed by other magistrates and judges.

Mr Atkinson has been point man for Premier Mike Rann’s hard line law-and-order approach. Both have played to public opinion by attacking lawyers for supposedly putting the interests of criminals ahead of those of victims.

The ferocity of Mr Atkinson’s criticism of Dr Cannon, a respected figure in Adelaide’s legal community who holds a PhD and has been published widely on criminal justice issues, has surprised senior lawyers used to being in the government’s bad books.

South Australian Law Society president, Grant Feiry, said Mr Atkinson “immoderate” language would not help the debate on sentencing principles.

Rick Sarre, professor of law and criminal justice at the University of South Australia, said it was “another nail in the coffin” of the traditional role of the attorney general to defend the judiciary.

Australian Council for Civil Liberties president, Terry O’Gorman, said prison-overcrowding had long been recognized as an ameliorating factor in sentencing. “The one out of step is not this magistrate, but the Attorney-General with his rather bizarre,” Mr O’Gorman said.

A spokesman for the state’s Courts Administration Authority said yesterday Dr Cannon would not respond to Mr Atkinson’s criticism. Chief Magistrate Elizabeth Bolton and South Australian Chief Justice, John Doyle, also declined to comment.

Mr Atkinson refused to say on Thursday whether Dr Cannon retained his confidence, and has referred the veteran magistrate position paper on the implications of prison overcrowding for sentencing and Australia’s international treaty obligations to Justice Doyle and Ms Bolton for investigation.

Dr Cannon was at his desk yesterday in central Adelaide’s court complex, and is said to have told colleagues he intends to remain there.





5. That I attended an interfaith conference in Melbourne where the Applicant, Mr Jeremy Jones, addressed a session. Among other things, Mr Jones stated in all earnestness that there are two types of people: the sane and the insane. Such a statement went counter to the conference’s theme that DIALOGUE is necessary if conflict is to be avoided. I refer to Annexure “A” as being a copy of the August 2008 No 400 Newsletter.


6.  That in August 2007 the Federal Government suspended the Racial Discrimination Act so that it could intervene in a number of Northern Territory Aboriginal communities – to improve the living conditions prevailing there.


7. That Professor Alan Dershowitz is the world’s leading Jewish Holocaust-Shoah propagandist who engages in hate speech against Germans and anyone who refuses to believe in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah narrative.


I refer to Annexure “B” as being a DVD of his latest diatribe.


8. That for the record I am again submitting the latest newsletters to the court with the express request that the court advise what material offends against the 17 September 2002 Court Order. My dialectic dilemma is: Do I tell the truth or do I obey the law. I refer to Annexure “C” as being copies of Newsletters No. 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 4001 and 4002.



Sworn by Deponent

at Adelaide

on the 11th day of June 2008  


                                                                                                                                                                         Deponent’s Signature 

                  Before me:…………………………


Filed by Dr F Töben                                                                               Tel: 08.83310808

23 Caloroga Street                                                                               Email:

Wattle Park 5066                                                                                  Mob: 0417088217    


Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute