On 30 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 submit herewith my final Affidavit for the hearing of the matter at 10:15am on 5 August 2008 in the Federal Court of Australia, Adelaide.

2. As all my Affidavits are on public record I submit for the court’s consideration Newsletters No 403, No 404 and No 405. I refer to Annexure “A” as being copies of Newsletters No. 403, 404, 405.

3. I shall make reference to Newsletter No 403 in relation to the Applicant’s constant defaming of Germans by propagating the many Jewish Holocaust-Shoah lies, thereby continuing his attack on Germans and anyone of German origin.

4. I shall make reference to Newsletter No 404 where the criminalisation of contesting matters Holocaust-Shoah leads is alluded to, in particular in Germany, and where now moves are afoot to reconsider such policy. It is the Applicant’s endeavours to introduce into Australia’s legal system mechanism that will criminalise anyone who contests the lies of the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah. There is also the Dr Gerard Henderson, of the Jewish Zionist funded The Sydney Institute, among others, who in an article makes reference to the Respondent and to the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah topic. Anyone who disagrees with the narrative propagated by Henderson is labelled a ‘Holocaust denier’, thereby making civilized dialogue impossible, this also being the self-proclaimed aim of the Applicant’s efforts in having brought this action into the FCA, thereby illustrating his anti-intellectual and pro-ideological mindset.

5. I shall make reference to Newsletter No 405 where the matter of “Australia’s powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby”, alluded to in various Affidavits and other material on Adelaide Institute’s website, is presented in detail. I also make reference to the Applicant’s rejection of most material contained in the various Affidavits, thereby proving that it is his aim to introduce via this court case the legal corruption that currently prevails in Germany where material offered as a defence in open court is used by the public prosecutors to launch new legal prosecution. The Common Law Principle of absolute privilege attaching to any material presented in court as a part of the defence is thereby subverted by the Affidavit’s written submission to the court.

6. To the Applicant’s credit he is quite open about his intentions of introducing into Australia’s Common Law system of justice the German legal perversion where absolute privilege does not attach to what is aired in open court, the German justice system not being a court of record.

6.1 In the Applicant’s ‘Updated Objections To Respondent’s Affidavits’ of 18 July 2008, he stated:

“Limited Basis = may be used as evidence of material on the website but not of the truth of any assertions or imputed assertions to effect that

1. There is serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred;

2. It is unlikely that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz;

3. Jewish people who are offended by and challenged Holocaust denial are of limited intelligence;

4. Some Jewish people, for improper purposes, including financial gain, have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed.”

6.2 The important phrase: “…may be used as evidence of material on the website but not of the truth of any assertions or imputed assertions…”, is the exact pattern of thought used in German ‘Holocaust’ show trials involving barristers such as Sylvia Stolz and Horst Mahler, and Revisionists such as Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel, among others, who now serve years in prison because they refuse to believe in the ‘official version’ of the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah story. These German trials are modelled on the Soviet show trials where freedom of expression had become a matter of extracting public confessions from those who refused to believe in the Marxist ideology – just as the Applicant seeks to establish through this legal action that his belief in the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah is absolute, beyond dialogue, beyond dispute. It is not this court’s role to establish such a dogmatic view of an historical event.

7. It will now be up to His Honour to decide whether the Applicant, via this matter before the court, succeeds in stifling debate on an important historical period of world history, namely the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah. That an historical matter should enjoy legal protection is itself a perversion of justice, especially if truth is not a defence because truth is the pillar on which our civilization rests.

Sworn by Deponent

at Adelaide

on the 30^th day of July 2008  

                                                                                                                           ..........................                               

                                                                                                                                                          Deponent’s Signature 

Before me:..................................

________________________________________________________________________________

Filed by Dr F Töben                                                                               Tel: 08.83310808

23 Caloroga Street                                                                                                             Email: toben@adelaideinstitute.org

Wattle Park 5066                                                                                  Mob: 0417088217  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________  

Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute