Form 20
                                                                                                                         Order 14, Rule 2 


NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY                                                               No. NSD327 of 2001





On 27 August 2007 I, Fredrick Töben, of  Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, say on oath:

1. I make reference to my previous affidavits of 17 January, 5 March, 9 August and 13 August 2007.


2. As a teacher I attempted to be an example to my students by fulfilling my moral, social and legal duties.


3. As an academic I attempted to uphold the moral and intellectual integrity of my world view and of my work done in the public’s interest.  


4. This mindset flowed into my work at Adelaide Institute that has been on-going for 14 years beginning in 1994. Until about two years ago we had associates in each Australian state, but this was discontinued on account of pending and threateningly expensive legal court action. There are enough precedents to hand that prove dissident thinkers are legally persecuted by those who feal threatened by their work for whatever reason. The latest example is Richard Krege who was our ACT Associate. After attending the Teheran Holocaust Conference in December 2006 he was dismissed upon his return from his job with the Commonwealth Government’s Air Services at Canberra where he had worked for almost ten years. It is well known that I do not have anything to lose, having already lost everything dear to me when the Victorian Education Department dismissed me in 1984 – as written up in my book: The Boston-Curry Party.


5. In 1995 the local Adelaide Advertiser and Brisbane-based Courier Mail began to vilify me personally because of my work by using the following words: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi. After 9:11 the additional word terrorist has also been used. Not a single one of these words has ever been openly/publicly defined in court because they are merely used to stifle debate on contentious issues. 


6. In 1996 the Applicant in this matter before the court began to proceed against me in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - HREOC. He refused to participate in any mediation sessions available where differences of opinion could be thrashed out – something that is the normal course of events in an open society where democratic principles operate. Hence, the two civilising principles – the use of reason and understanding – remained inactive, and the Applicant continued to use media outlets personally to defame me. His character assassination attempts were then picked up by various media outlet and repeated. I lacked the financial means to initiate any kind of action against the Applicant.


7. The procedure used by HREOC in Australia is almost an exact copy of that used by Jewish groups in Canada against Revisionist and German nationalist Ernst Zündel when he faced the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and later the court in Toronto in 1985, 1988 and 1992, among other dates.  Annexed hereto and marked “1” is a copy of an Anti Defamation League article: >Ernst Zündel: Holocaust Denier, Neo-Nazi Propagandist<, and I make reference to it.


8. When the matter came before Commissioner McEvoy, substantive issues of the subject matter complained about, i.e. defining the above abuse terms and the numerous historical issues, were not aired in court. I failed to secure legal representation and this procedural fact mirrored the legal procedure used in a number of Civil Law countries, in particular Germany, where absolute privilege does not attach to matters aired in court, as it does in Common Law countries. Any defence in a German court is foregone because in matters under Section 130 of the German Criminal Code anyone who attempts to justify actions is regarded to be aggravating the offence, and any barrister who engages in any defence activity will automatically be charged. Any defence is thus impossible – and what the judge determines, as judges did during the witch-trials, is whether the accused shows remorse or not. We saw this procedure applied recently in Germany where Ernst Zündel received a maximum of five years prison because he dared state in his final address to court that were his assertions and beliefs about World War Two German historical events proven wrong, then he would apologize to world Jewry. This was considered by Justice Meinerzhagen to be an aggravation of the charge Zündel was facing, and the judge imposed the maximum of five years prison, a heavy sentence to bear for being a thought criminal. In Germar Rudolf’s case the sentence imposed was relatively light – 30 months prison. Rudolf did not take advantage of making a final submission to court because he felt he had said everything in his main submission.


9. My appearance before the HREOC, and my 1998 submissions of various books upon which I relied in forming my views of the historical issues, in particular Dr Joel Hayward’s MA thesis which stated, as did Professor Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century,  there was no systematic extermination of European Jews. This created uproar behind the scenes, as witnessed in the vicious media frenzy that engulfed Dr Hayward and Canterbury University in New Zealand, something the commissioner did not report upon in her October 2000 Reasons for Decision. It was during 2000 that the thrust of the MA Thesis had been demolished, not through empirical research but through a >bending to Jewish pressure<, abstract arguments that had nothing to do with empirically testing of various assertions made by those who felt threatened by the Hayward thesis’ conclusion. Also, Dr Hayward received death threats, and so he apologized for his “error’ and stated “I stuffed up”. Canterbury University stood firm and refused to downgrade the MA to a BA, as New Zealand’s Zionists demanded, because the investigation could not find any evidence of Dr Hayward having been dishonest or lied. It was also in 1999 that Commissioner McEvoy received an honour from the University of Mannheim for her legal work on human rights done at The University of Adelaide. Ironically, while she received the honour I was incarcerated at Mannheim Prison for seven months for having committed thought-crimes.


10. In the Federal Court of Australia, where the HREOC material was heard before Justice Branson, any substantive argument in support of my beliefs was not made because I could not find legal counsel to represent me who would present the matters of fact upon which I rely and have them examined and cross-examined.


11. To the allegations as stated in the Applicant’s Affidavit of 1 November 2006, I state the following:


11.1 When Commissioner McEvoy handed down her 2000 Reasons for Decision, I had a few days earlier deleted the full contents of Adelaide Institute’s website. Bearing her comments in mind, except for the demand of making a written apology to the Applicant and Australia’s Jewish community, I again began to publish my research material on Adelaide Institute’s website.


11.2      When Her Honour, Justice Branson handed down her judgment in 2002 and ordered that certain material be deleted, that material had already ceased to exist two years prior to the order coming into effect. However, I again removed the full content of Adelaide Institute’s website that had been on display since 2000. Bearing Her Honour’s Orders in mind I began for third time to publish material on Adelaide Institute’s website, adding a disclaimer thereto – we are merely reporting on matters in the public interest. Recently I Googled the Internet and found one of the items ordered to be deleted from the website headed:>About the Adelaide Institute<. I make reference to Annexure “4” of my Affidavit of 9 August 2007. The contents of this item clarifies the rationale influencing work published on Adelaide Institute. To this day I cannot understand why the material within this article is offensive. It presents in an objective way the aim and objectives of our enterprise.


12. To the specific Orders made by Her Honour Justice Branson on 17 September 2000 I state the following:


12.1 Order A – the term >Holocaust< is a generic term that Jewish interests have attempted to use singularly, with some success. However, this has not proven conclusive and Jewish interests now use the term >Shoah< whenever reference is made to the 1933-45 World War Two period of history concerning matters Jewish.

  12.1.1  There are so many >Holocausts< that an Australian academic, Bill Leadbetter in 1994 stated that the 20th century was a century of Holocausts. Annexed hereto and marked “2” is a copy of my book, Forty Days in Teheran. Actual copy will be handed up during trial. Further, a specific Episode of a series One Third Of The Holocaust on Treblinka should be viewed by the court, in particular episode 29: Book: Treblinka by Alexander Donat.

12.1.2  There are references to >a bloody holocaust< when referring to the World War One Battle of Fromelles, ref. . Further references to various Holocausts can be found by using an Internet  search engine. Annexed hereto and marked “3” is a copy of the International Express, August 7, 2007.

12.1.3  The latest claim of an >>untold holocaust<< perpetrated by the British in India is detailed in Amaresh Misra’s War of Civilisations: India AD 1857. Annexed hereto and marked “4” is a copy of the Mail & Guardian online article, dated 24 August 2007.

12.1.4  If one talks about the Holocaust, then in a Court Order it should at least be specified as >the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust< otherwise it is subject to inference that the Order is biased and made at the behest of Jewish supremacist interests, among other things.

12.1.5  In the world media there are also references to the >American Holocaust<, the >Abortion Holocaust<, the >Hitler Holocaust<, the >Space Holocaust<, the >Armenian Holocaust<, the >Jewish Bolshevik Holocaust<, et al.

12.1.6 I would now like to comment on each of the items listed in the Applicant’s Affidavit of 1 November 2006 Schedule marked “B” – numbered 1 to 81

12.2      Order B concerning the matter of the Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers. Does this Order refer to:

12.2.1  - the 1996 decommissioned homicidal gas chamber Krema I at Auschwitz-Stammlager, also known as Auschwitz I? – or

12.2.2  - does it refer to the homicidal gas chambers known as Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau, also known as Auschwitz II? – or

12.2.3  - does it refer to the homicidal gas chambers located in Bunker II, also known as a farm house, just outside of the Auschwitz II concentration camp complex, as stated by German historian Fritjof Meyer in May 2002. Meyer also de-commissioned the homicidal gas chambers at Krema II.

12.2.4  - does it refer to Gitta Sereny’s assertion as stated in The Times, 29 August 2001 that >>Her ruthless desire to stick to the facts – that, say, Auschwitz was not a ‘death camp’ – has not always won her friends. She is particularly scathing about the identification of Hitler’s evil with the death of the Jews and only the Jews. She deplored the use of the word “holocaust”, she says.<< 

12.2.5   I would now like to comment on each of the items listed in the Applicant’s Affidavit of 1 November 2006 Schedule marked “B” – numbered 82 to 117.

12.3      Order C concerning the limited intelligence of those who are offended by and challenge Revisionists. I would strongly object to my work ever alluding to anyone who objects to it as being of limited intelligence. Such a view would reflect badly upon my own person and my philosophical training would thereby be negated.

12.3.1   Further, as a teacher who has taught at secondary and tertiary level, if one has such a view of one’s students mental potential, it would negate the world view that holds all humans are capable of developing moral and intellectual values, which then express themselves in the battle of the wills where, especially in my case, the scape-goating mindset and control-freakery has no home.

12.3.2   I make reference to Annexure “4” of my Affidavit of 9 August 2007, wherein appears the following: >>If I offend anybody because I show poor taste in my sometime blunt and honest questioning, then I apologise. However, if I offend because I am politically incorrect by asking uncomfortable questions, then I claim it as my right, under the free speech principle, to say these things.<<

12.3.3   I would now like to comment on each of the items listed in the Applicant’s Affidavit of 1 November 2006 Schedule marked “B” – numbered 118 to 122.

12.4      Order D concerning the assertion that there is what Professor Norman Finkelstein called a >Holocaust Industry<.

12.4.1   Annexed hereto and marked “5” is a copy of the Counterpunch article, dated August 22, 2007, wherein Professor Finkelstein in >Remembering Raul Hilberg< elaborates in the matter.

12.4.2  I would now like to comment on each of the items listed in the Applicant’s Affidavit of 1 November 2006 Schedule marked “B” – numbered 123 to 144.

13. I repeat my assertion that I refuse to be locked up within the conceptual prison wherein the Applicant attempts to place me, which is made up of the following words: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi, and the latest terrorist. I oppose any mindset that thrives on applying such words without clarifying them, without giving one such labelled a right-of-reply. This offends against the basic Common Law principle of Natural Justice. Instead, the Applicant has continued to defame me personally within the media outlets that he controls, for example in The Review, Australia’s primary Zionist monthly publication. The latest he called me was >ratbag< in one of the comments he made about my attending the Teheran ‘Holocaust’ conference in December 2007. This indicates to me that the Applicant has abandoned civilising principles, such as reason and understanding, as he wishes to suggest it is I who lack these civilising qualities.

13.1      The mindset that denies basic Common Law principles, for example the presumption of innocence, is rampant within these proceedings. It is only a step away from employing the term terrorist to dissident thinkers, as was implied by the Canadian Justice system when it used on Revisionist Ernst Zündel the now declared illegal >Security Certificate< in order to justify his deportation to Germany. I make reference to Annexure “1”, a copy of the Anti Defamation League article: >Ernst Zündel: Holocaust Denier, Neo-Nazi Propagandist<. 

13.2      The pattern of legal persecution is also afoot in the USA where the world’s leading Revisionist, Germar Rudolf, was deported to Germany. Basic Common Law principles have also been abandoned by vested interests on account of the attempt to overcome the US constitution’s First Amendment that guarantees free expression in order legally to lock up the 1933-45 World War period so that it remains a sword and a shield for world-wide Zionist activity, but not only. Annexed hereto and marked “6” is a copy of the Counterpunch article, dated August 20, 2007, >A Grave Blow to the Constitution<, and Jim Kirwan’s article: >Michael Chertoff: The Man & His Star-Crossed Past<, and I make reference thereto.

13.3      The matter before this court is saturated with political malice, and I make reference to Annexure “9” of my Affidavit of 9 August 2007 where this pressure to conform to Zionist interests is graphically illustrated in a letter Alan Goldberg, QC – now Justice Alan Goldberg of the Federal Court of Australia – wrote to retired South Australian parliamentarian, Mrs Joyce Steele, O.B.E., on 1 July 1985. It is in regard to such Zionist pressures upon public figures that I formulated my maxim: >Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure<. If followed, this maxim enables an individual to bring >battle of the wills< situations back into balance, rather than to adopt a scape-goat mentality and >blame Jews< for everything that is undesirable. It is the mirror image of those who use the following terms against Revisionists in order to block open enquiry on vital matters of public interest: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi, xenophobe, terrorist. It is not possible in such a malicious and unbalanced mindset, where verbal abuse is rife – and supported by legal persecution – to use reason and understanding as calming agents so that the well-spring of any battle-of-the-wills makes a worthy contribution to world knowledge rather than to hide or even to distort it, as is currently the case in matters concerning the World War two 1933-45 period. Annexed hereto and marked “7” is a Jerusalem Post article: >Stop Durban II< wherein the use of concepts within a highly-charged political situation is illustrated. It must be remembered that Durban I ended four days before 9:11 occurred, and where Israel had up to then been condemned for being a racist and terrorist apartheid state, post 9:11 Israel was once again part of the western democracies, and Islam - the Muslim world stood condemned as terrorists. 9:11 is a display of absolute power – but that power is not emanating from the Muslim world! My comment here is one for the historical record.

13.4      If the above conceptual prison is used in Australia, then we are inexorably moving towards the Soviet-style GuLag, and free expression, the hall-mark of Australia’s democracy cannot let truth, honour and justice flourish. Such ideals are much-needed as civilizing influences within our social fabric where then all citizens benefit from its glow, and not just a minority. Already in the USA the concept of free expression has been split into free speech and hate speech, thereby reserving for dissident thinkers, who refuse to believe in the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust, a special place within the US legal fabric – where there is no Natural Justice-right of reply, no habeas corpus-indefinite imprisonment without knowing on what information the allegations are based, etc.

13.5      Future directions – of things to come in Australia? German media reports comment on the Internet censorship in China and Iran, among others – but such reports remain silent on how Germany imprisons dissident thinkers such as Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel, and legally attempts to censor overseas websites that carry Revisionist material. This hypocrisy has been highlighted by the Iranians who remind the Germans of their own imprisonment of dissidents. Legally German Zionist interests use the concepts as in 13.3 to suspend and not to accord basic human rights to those who refuse to believe in the Nazi-Jewish Holocaust. Germany does this because it is still an occupied country and Germans are not masters within their own home. Annexed hereto and marked “8” is an article written in German: >Tipps für “Cyber-Dissidenten”<, and a fanciful report about the Teheran Holocaust Conference, albeit appearing under >Entertainment: Michael St John’s Confidential File<.

13.6      A worrying aspect of all this is the move to declare anyone who refuses to believe in the Nazi-Jewish Holocaust to be “mentally” but not “morally” ill. Annexed hereto and marked “9” is the article: >Wiesel case referred to court for the mentally ill< In all my 14 years, and I have been assured by others who have been within the Revisionist movement for three decades, has an Revisionist ever used physical violence, as that attempted upon Professor Elie Wiesel by 23-year-old Eric Hunt. It is the reverse. The upholders of the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust story have used violence against Revisionists. When this matter was first reported in the world press it was stated that Hunt had sent an email detailing his attack on Wiesel to an anti-Semitic website in Australia. I did, indeed receive an email from him but I did not publish it because I found Hunt’s action to be morally repugnant – clearly offending against the Categorical Imperative, but another Australian website did run the letter – ZIOPEDIA, a website based in Sydney and staffed mainly by Jews who oppose Zionism. It was not Adelaide Institute! Annexed hereto and marked “10” is a copy of an email from ZioPedia, dated 26 August 2007. The fact that this website ran the Hunt-Wiesel story, the fact that it also covers the once-taboo topic of the >Holocaust<, the fact that most contributors to this website are Jewish, indicates to me that if I am condemned for publishing material on Adelaide Institute’s website that is allegedly >hurtful< to the Applicant’s feelings, then as long as ZIOPEDIA continues to exist there is one law for Gentiles and another law for Jews – and that is a gross injustice.

13.7      On any day I receive hundreds of emails that report on matters concerning world events wherein the Nazis are ever present or Jews are singled out. Annexed hereto and marked “11” are articles of such nature received via email or via links from Internet websites: Fearing the Nazis again; Pro-‘surge’ group is almost Jewish; Credibility of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Expose; Right Political Leader Charged After Recommending Hitler’s Deputy for Nobel Peace Prize; Austrian neo-Nazi writer arrested in Spain for denying the Holocaust; Fears grow over neo-Nazi ‘school’; Book says Berlin Philharmonic became tool of Nazi propaganda machine; Digital Holocaust archives handed over to Washington’; Holocaust Or Holohoax? New Nazi Records Delivered To Shoah Museums in Washington And Jerusalem May Break The Tie; Neo-Nazis infiltrate WWII re-enactment group’; Russian archaeologists believe they may have found the remains of two children of Russia’s last tsar; German Prisoner Of Conscience Germar Rudolf Sounds Off in August 15th, 2007 letter; - and a letter-to-the editor >Disappointed< from the Barossa Valley Herald, 22 August 2007. The final item indicates how the German-Jewish-Nazi-Holocaust – World War Two – is still alive and kicking at the communal and the global level. Surely it is time to put aside old animosities and open the archives to find the truth, rather than play power-politics and distort world history.  

14. Since 17 September 2002 I have with great difficulty attempted to abide by the rather imprecise orders handed down by Justice Branson. I repeat the apology made at 12.3.2. and reiterate that I see my work as reporting on matters of national and global significance

14.1      The matter of the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust has been resolved in the Revisionists’ favour because the Holocaust believers rely on the sledge-hammer of legal persecution to suppress any opposing view-point. Revisionists simply lack the political power to overcome this vicious and anti-democratic way of settling historical disputes. Professor Alan Dershowitz, one of the leading upholders of the legitimacy of the existence of the Zionist state of Israel stated that the 1988 Zündel second Toronto Holocaust trial – where Professor Raul Hilberg had to concede that there existed no >two written Hitler Order that started the Final Solution<, as Hilberg had previously claimed in his monumental work: The Destruction of European Jews – had taught upholders of the Shoah that they should never again put their arguments to the test under cross-examinations in any court-case. This pattern has been followed in the Irving-Lipstadt London trial of 2000, the Zündel and Rudolf legal persecution in Germany, the Faurisson and Theil legal persecution in France, et al., the Fröhlich and Irving legal persecution in Austria, the Scully, Grigor-Scott and Töben legal persecution in Australia

14.2      It was from 1988 onwards that the world-wide legal persecution of Revisionists occurred in an abstract legal vacuum where TRUTH was not a defence against any allegation and where unsubstantiated HURT FEELINGS became the measure of finding an accused guilty. As Professor Arthur Butz, in his Affidavit in my matter before HREOC rightly pointed out – such legally-framed legislation (RDA) will find anyone guilty because anyone can have a hurt feeling. It is therefore a pity that the Applicant in this matter before the Federal Court of Australia has never had to prove the quantum of his hurt feeling, and it is sad and a great injustice to me that Federal Court Justice Branson never asked for Jeremy Jones to bring along a doctor’s certificate wherein the psychological hurt has been established.

14.3      Likewise, my suggestion that the >push-pull< argument be applied in this matter before the Federal Court as not taken up by either the HREOC commissioner nor by the CFA judge. The Internet material is not being pushed on to the Applicant, but rather he has to make a deliberate attempt to pull it from a website. This argument then enables him to make a choice – to download or not to download – to switch-on or switch-off. It demands that a moral and intellectual choice be made. The implication in any favourable decision for the Applicant is that he cannot help himself whenever he comes across >Holocaust-Shoah< material and that the more the material hurts his feeling the more he looks for it, rather than just switching it off and not developing any hurt feelings.  

14.4      With the December 2006 Teheran Holocaust-Shoah conference and the imprisonment of leading Holocaust-Shoah author and publisher, Germar Rudolf, the topic has been completed in its fundamentals in the Revisionists’ favour. Where Revisionists are treated like thought-criminals any rational debate is impossible and those who rely on this method of clarifying pressing issues have lost the plot. The alternative for Revisionists is to start telling lies and swim with the flow instead of upholding the highest moral and intellectual values of research – or just give up. Dr Joel Hayward apologized and gave up – and still, on account of his legacy, he is pursued by Zionists who still feel threatened by the contents of his MA thesis that concluded there is no physical evidence to support the claim that European Jewry was exterminated in homicidal gas chambers. Such a claim, of course, runs counter to the established version of events, which is upheld by persecuting Revisionists through legal prosecution.

15. Adelaide Institute also covers other contentious issue, such as AIDS – and we established contact with the South African government that refused uncritically to accept the official version of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Annexed hereto and marked “12” is an email >‘HIV denial’ is costing lives<. Note the link to the article about SA President, Mbeki, sacking one of his ministers for unauthorised attendance of an AIDS conference - Mbeki sacks minister for attending AIDS conference .

16.  I repeat what I have raised elsewhere in my various Affidavits that on a personal level the accusations contained in the Holocaust-Shoah, the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust, et al, are extremely hurtful to me because with my German background I am uncritically to accept that my father belonged to a murderous military machine that exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers. This is a grave injustice because any normal, healthy mind within a justice system – where truth stands uppermost as a moral civilizing value and is the foundation stone of our civilization – must be given the opportunity to respond to such an allegation. It is mental rape if I cannot ask any questions about such an allegation levelled against the Germans. That a Federal Court of Australia judge has attempted to lock-up the topic that was ripped wide open at Teheran in December 2006 is an indication how important it is that a sober and balanced review of the Holocaust-Shoah – Jewish-Nazi Holocaust be established. The physical facts are out there, and even Professor Raul Hilberg, who died recently, stated that only 20 per cent of the facts has been researched. It is no wonder that he looked favourably upon the work done by fearless Revisionists whose love of truth is that of the Godly command freely to think and to speak because this gives us our humanity and those that take this liberty of our minds commit a crime against humanity. 

17. My work at Adelaide Institute consists of thinking about issues that are in the public interest, and this means I firmly resist the bullying tactics used by those who attempt to silence me. The German word >Vordenker< - thinking ahead – aptly describes my work. 

17.1 I do not advocate any physical action, and so long as Common Law principles are applied to my work – and not that of European Civil Law – then I cannot become a thought-criminal. In Charles Morgan’s sense, my Liberties of the Mind are secure and safeguarded and where anyone, who looks me in the eyes, knows there is someone at home – unlike those victims of authoritarianism who are subjected to show trials where written confessions are extracted through physical and mental torture. According to the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, in Australia we still have a justice system that safeguards our democratic right to free expression –  or has our justice system become a mere legal system modelled on the justice system of the Babylonian Talmud?

17.2  A most recent topic to be discussed on Adelaide Institute’s website is the matter of Jewish ritual kosher killing of animals, in particular cattle. Annexed hereto and marked “13” is a copy of Adelaide Institute Online Newsletter No 354 and a DVD, Bloody Hell, wherein Adelaide-based Mr David Brockschmidt writes an open letter to Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick, of Melbourne. I would appreciate guidance and advice from His Honour whether such material can be considered to be offensive and hurtful to Jewish people.

17.3  Finally as to one matter of fact concerning the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust: In The Weekend Australian of 18-19 August 2007 Professor Geoffrey Blainey reviews Ian Kershaw’s latest book: Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World, 1940-1941. Therein the idea that Adolf Hitler had such hatred for Jews he wanted to exterminate them from the start of his political career is laid to rest – a matter that for Revisionists is nothing new because they knew this a long time ago and have incorporated this into their narrative of the 1939-45 World War Two period. Annexed hereto and marked “14” is a copy of this article Big calls won the day.

18. I reiterate my earlier request as expressed in my first Affidavit of 17 January 2007 for court protection in this matter against those who wish to stop me from functioning, as the Applicant has publicly stated. The opponents of Revisionists have in the past not shied away from threatening and violent behaviour in order to silence Revisionists. 



19. I would be pleased to receive from the court any guidance and assistance that would help resolve this matter amicably and in a civilized way.



Sworn by Deponent
at Adelaide
on the 27th day of August 2007



Filed by Dr F Töben

Tel: 08 83310808

Mob: 0417088217


Top | Home

©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute