AFFIDAVIT OF FREDRICK TÖBEN

On 30 April 2008 I, Fredrick Töben, of 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 2 January 2008, the Amended Notice of Motion of 19 February 2008, to my Affidavits of 17 and 31 January 2008 and 19 February 2008 wherein I contest the charges made against me in the Applicant’s originating Notice of Motion set down for 5 December 2006.

2. I consider this legal action to be a political matter because any historical investigation implies, among other things, a political knowledge of the period under investigation. Historical investigations can thus be regarded as doing politics in reverse. This is certainly the view expressed by the editor of The Adelaide Review, when writing about my matter in ‘Extreme Adelaide – Dissenters On Both Sides Of Politics’, Issue 326, Sept 28 – Oct 11, 2007, at pp.10-11. I refer to Annexure “1” as being a copy of that magazine.

3. The 27 November 2007 Consent Court Order was agreed upon by me on the strength of my being prepared to apologize for posting “rude and crude” material on our website, which went in part to Point 3 of the 17 September 2002 Court Order. However, I would never apologize for publishing material that I believed to be factually correct. I make reference to Point 5 of Affidavit of 31 January 2008. I reject Applicant’s legal counsel’s interpretation that this apology to the FCA was an admission of guilt, of having been in contempt of court. This indicates how the Applicant has used the FCA as a proxy to gain political mileage out of the proceedings. I make reference to Newsletter No 373 and item:

JONES V TOBEN: FCA N327 of 2001 SHORT MINUTES OF ORDERS, wherein is stated: “the respondent admits that he has breached the undertaking he gave to the Court and the applicant on 27 November 2007 by not deleting some of the material that that undertaking required and requires him to delete and makes statements impugning the integrity of the Court and the judicial process.”

4. That, if a request is made in a civilized way, I have no problems in deleting material from our Adelaide Institute website. We have done this in the past and expect to be doing this in the future. However, we are reluctant to respond to such a request if it is threatening legal action without first discussing the matter that is deemed to be contentious. Also, if there is no reason given as to why material should be removed from our website, then we shall ask for such to be given in writing. When this action against me was launched by the Applicant in 1996 in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Applicant refused to conciliate our different view-points, and immediately demanded formal hearings, knowing full-well that I would have difficulties gaining legal representation at the fact-finding stage, this being the world-wide pattern in western democratic countries where laws exist to protect the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah from open rational debate.

4.1 For example, author Bryan Rigg asked to have his article about Jewish Soldiers serving under Adolf Hitler in the German army removed from our website because he did not wish it to appear on a Revisionist website, and so it was removed.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

4.2 Dr Erik Venderby, A Danish citizen, requested that material be removed from Adelaide Institute’s website, as per below. I am still waiting for a formal response from either Dr Enderby or from his legal representative.

 -----Original Message-----

From: erik venderby

Sent: Monday, 5 June 2006 5:09 AM

To: info@adelaideinstitute.org

Cc: erikvenderby@lycos.com

Subject: Newsletters/n269 Dr. Hamer

Importance: High

To whom it may concern: News Letters No. 269.

The information you write about me and Dr. Hamer is not correct information, therefore do I ask you to remove the news letter as soon as possible, within seven days, I hope you understand, thank you kindly.

Best regards

Erik Venderby

------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----

From: Adelaide Institute info@adelaideinstitute.org

Sent: Monday, 5 June 2006 9:19 AM

To: erik venderby

Cc: Adelaide Institute

Subject: RE: Newsletters/n269 Dr. Hamer

Dear Dr Venderby

1. Unfortunately I cannot simply remove a newsletter within seven days because someone claims to be the person mentioned therein.

2. This matter must now be viewed legally and I shall pass on a copy of your request to Dr Hamer.

3. As I am not in contact with Dr Hamer, I will need to establish contact with him via the various websites that feature his work, and I need to hear what he may have to say about your request. Accordingly I am Cc this email to one email address I have displayed in the newsletter

4. In this matter I need to accord Natural Justice to both you and Dr Hamer.

5. Would you kindly also obtain for me a letter from your solicitor officially requesting removal of specific words and sentences from within the body of Newsletter No 269.

Sincerely

Dr Fredrick Töben, Director, Adelaide Institute.

 _____________________

4.3 An internal Revisionist request for material removal rejected but augmented through Right-Of-Reply:

From: Andrea  Carancini carancini@libero.it

Sent: Friday, 29 February  2008 11:19 PM

To: Faurisson Robert

Cc: Adelaide Institute;  Majxxn; claddaghduff@iolfree.ie; Sophie Crêtaux

Subject:  please

dear  prof.

please...(http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/zundel/reports_may09.htm)
would you br so  gentle to remove this stuff?

regards,
a.c.

-------------------------------

From: Faurisson Robert [mailto:norton3.cru@orange.fr]

Sent: Saturday, 1 March 2008 4:24 AM

To: Fredrick Töben

Subject: FW: please

Dear Fredrick,

Presently we are all of us preoccupied by your legal trials.

Therefore I do not want to worry you about this Carancini matter...

He should not have sent you that message. He had attacked me, and I had to reply. It would be unfair to keep the attack on your site and to ask for the deletion of my defence. Anyway his attack was also, I suppose, on other sites.

I do not answer his requests.

Bon courage, Fredrick!    

R. Faurisson

----------------------------------

From:  Adelaide Institute <mailto:info@adelaideinstitute.org>

To: 'Andrea Carancini' <mailto:carancini@libero.it>

Cc: claddaghduff@iolfree.ie ; N <mailto:majxxn@tin.it>

Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 2:49  PM

Subject: RE: please

Dear Andrea Carancini

Generally it is a futile exercise to delete material on the Internet because the WayBackMachine saves all world-wide Internet traffic.

However, we do not have problems in deleting material - especially if the request is made in a civilised way and not via legal threats.

I am seeking comment from Professor Faurisson and others to whom you sent this email. Unfortunately the Cc emails to Prof Faurisson and Sophie Crêtaux do not work.

Kindly re-send your email with those working email links so that I can forward your request and my comment to them.

Sincerely
Fredrick Töben

-----------------------

De : Andrea Carancini <carancini@libero.it>

Date : Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:02:38 +0100

À : Adelaide Institute info@adelaideinstitute.org

Cc : claddaghduff@iolfree.ie, N majxxn@tin.it, Faurisson Robert norton3.cru@orange.fr

Objet : Re: please

dear dr. toben,

it is not my intention to carry out legal threats.

i consider myself a friend of the revisionists.

this is the reason it seems strange to me reading about my "dishonesty" on a revisionist site as adelaide.

anyway best wishes for your battle.

regards,
andrea carancini

ABOUT MY ALLEGED “DISHONESTY”

Andrea Carancini

In the spring of 2005 I translated in Italian an article by professor Robert Faurisson (available at the following link: http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/1/Faurisson78-82.html ). When I finished the translation i send it to the author for his approval.

But Prof Faurisson wasn’t satisfied with the thing.

He blamed me for not having informed him before I began the translation.

Then he told me he would have corrected the text.

When he returned it to me for the publication I realised that my translation was disappeared, replaced from another one entirely new, made by another translator.

Furthermore, the new translator behaved in a very unfair manner towards me, saying my work was “bad” (it was not true).

Please note that my translation was made for free while the new one was paid by Faurisson.

At that point, considering the treatment quite humiliating, I decided to publish my translation anyway, on the AAARGH site.

(Please note another thing: in the last years I made several translations of revisionist texts from the English language, many of which I published on the VHO Italian section:

 http://ita.vho.org/LIBRI.htm . Revisionist author Jürgen Graf told me that my translations of his lectures were “excellent”.)

Faurisson reacted with anger, saying he caught me “red handed in my dishonesty”, but without explaining where the alleged dishonesty lay

(http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/zundel/reports_may09.htm ).

In this regard I cannot agree with him: maybe my reaction was excessive but not “dishonest”.

Anyway last year Faurisson came in Italy, invited by another professor: Claudio Moffa.

After his missed lecture in Teramo, Faurisson came also here at my home, invited by me and by my family.

He was a welcome visitor and we spent some pleasant hours.

For not disturbing the peace found again, I decided not to translate the Faurisson’s texts anymore.

But this is an exception not the rule (due to the distinguished role of Faurisson in the history of revisionism): I run a revisionist blog (http://andreacarancini.blogspot.com ) and I simple cannot ask the permission for all the translations I make.

Regards,

Andrea Carancini

 _____________________________________

4.4 Related Requests for information addressed to Adelaide Institute

To: Adelaide Institute

Subject: RE: questions

5. That owing to the nature of these proceedings I further submit to this court more of our 2008-published newsletters for clarification purposes – in the hope that what is and is not permitted to be published will be spelled out in detail and not as it is stated in the vague and somewhat confused 17 September 2002 FCA Orders where terms remain ambiguous and ill-defined.

5.1 Certainly since the publication of the 2002 Court Orders I was under the impression that I was successfully negotiating my way through these orders – until over four years later, when I became aware of the 5 December 2006 Notice of Motion, which indicated to me otherwise. Surely, in a vibrant and robust democracy, such as exists in Australia, no danger can flow from mixed messages that deal with historical matters.

5.2 In fact, when in March 2004 The Australian Jewish News published the front-page headlines: ‘Is Toben at it again?’, wherein the Applicant is quoted as stating that some of the material on the website may warrant attention – and no legal consequences flowed therefrom – I could justifiably assume I was not contravening the FCA Orders of 2002.

5. 3     Annexure 2 – Newsletters, February-March 2008:  No 372 , 373, 374

5.4         Annexure 3 – Newsletters,  April 2008:  No 375, 376, 377, 378

5.5         Annexure 4 – Newsletters,  May 2008:   No 379, 380, 381, 382, 383  

5.6         Annexure 5 – Newsletters,  June 2008:  No 384, 385

6. That I again make reference to my Affidavit, sworn on 19 February 2008, wherein I make reference to a letter written by Alan Goldberg, QC, to Mrs Joyce Steele, OBE, on behalf of his Jewish community, and of an article written by the Applicant about Mr John Bennett whom the Applicant accuses of misrepresentation. Both matters are outright political in nature and this reflects again the political nature of these current proceedings before this court.

Sworn by Deponent

at Adelaide

on the 30^th day of April 2008  

                                                                                                                                          …………………………….                                                                                                                      

                                                                                           Deponent’s Signature                                                         

Before me:…………………………