Civil Rights/Human Rights

Ernst Zündel and the Politics of 'Gotcha'
By Bruce Leichty, Immigration Attorney for Ernst Zündel
Jul 27, 2007, 14:40

On January 24, 2007, I was arguing before three judges in Cincinnati, on behalf of my German-born client Ernst Zündel and his wife Ingrid Rimland Zündel, when a curious thing happened.

Out of nowhere, it seemed, the presiding judge in the case, Judge Deborah Cook, a George Bush appointee of 2003, asked me coldly whether my clients were playing "gotcha" with the government.

"Gotcha" with the most powerful government on Earth - now that was a strange thing to be hearing in this marble-accented chamber. But don't get me wrong; I knew what the judge was suggesting.

For over a year, I had been relishing the opportunity to stand in front of a panel of judges at the 6th Circuit and essentially challenge them to find any error in my airtight legal argument - that Ernst Zündel, a [controversial] Holocaust revisionist who was awaiting U.S. permanent residence through his U.S. citizen wife Ingrid, had been arrested and whisked out of the United States illegally in 2003 based on premises that could not possibly hold up under impartial judicial scrutiny.

I was frankly elated that I had discovered the government's Achilles heel - that when federal agents had arrested and deported Ernst Zündel in 2/03 they had done so based on a false premise about Ernst Zündel's last entry into the United States. That turned Ernst Zündel's case into an extra-judicial rendition - and it had all the earmarks of one, because Ernst's fate was to be confined in Canada for two years and declared a national security threat under a law that allowed secret evidence - a law that the Canadian Supreme Court has now declared unconstitutional. After doing its dirty work, Canada then deported Zündel to Germany, where he was convicted of inciting racial hatred and sentenced to five years in prison - for nothing more than his political speech.

It all started with the U.S. federal agents in 2003. These agents postulated that Ernst Zündel had waived all his rights to due processing the United States under a program called the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. But I knew this was impossible, and I could explain it to anyone willing to put aside their prejudices for a few minutes: Ernst Zündel had last entered the U.S. in May 2000 when the Visa Waiver Pilot Program had already expired, and before Congress had belatedly authorized a permanent visa waiver program in October 2000.

When the pilot program expired, so did the authority of then-Attorney General Janet Reno to admit anyone from Germany without a visa. She didn't get her "visa waiver" authority restored until October 2000. Attorney General Reno decided that, while Congress mulled over the fate of the program, German visitors expecting to enter with visa waivers instead would be allowed into the United States under a program known as "parole."

So I was gratified that it didn't matter what Ernst Zündel thought when he crossed the Canada-U.S. border that night in May 2000, namely that he might need to flash his outdated visa waiver program authorization, but that what really mattered was the actual state of federal immigration law at the time. After all, in this country we don't hold people accountable to laws that they might have believed existed, but rather to laws that actually do exist.

I was gratified that, contrary to the opinion of the folksy District Court judge who had kicked Ernst's case out of his Knoxville, Tennessee court, this expert panel would have to agree that Ernst Zündel's own expectations were irrelevant.

Rather, the question would have to be: in May 2000, did Ernst sign away his rights to a court hearing, or didn't he?

I knew that he had signed nothing in May 2000. So did the government. Of course, the government claimed that he had signed a waiver of rights earlier, in March 2000, while the visa waiver pilot program was still in effect. But -- didn't that earlier waiver bind him only so long as the Attorney General herself still had the power to waive visas for Germans?

It was obvious as a matter of law that it did. Come May 2000, Ernst Zündel couldn't use the program and Janet Reno couldn't use it either. Janet Reno couldn't enforce a waiver of due process rights if her agents let Ernst into the country without a visa after her authority to do so had been withdrawn.

Therefore I knew that honest judges would have to find that Ernst Zündel had not waived any of his rights in order to enter the U.S. and that Reno's agents had instead targeted Ernst Zündel for his controversial opinions; they couldn't simply arrest Ernst Zündel in 2/03 and whisk him out of the country before considering his marriage. Our immigration laws have always had a high view of marriage to a U.S. citizen! Hundreds of Mexican nationals exercise those marriage-based rights every year before immigration officers -despite illegal entry!

Ernst knew that, too, soon after he entered the U.S. in May 2000. Tired of all his legal struggles in Canada, he and Ingrid consulted with a Tennessee immigration attorney in the summer of 2000, and they decided to get married then, and not later. In October 2000 they began life together in Tennessee assured in the knowledge that, like others who marry U.S. citizens after entering for some other reason, Ernst's status would be resolved through his marriage, without need for him to leave the United States. Their Tennessee attorney told them so.

And now Judge Cook was effectively challenging me in not so many words to admit that I had outmanoeuvred the government - that if my argument were accepted the United States government was backed into a corner with no way out, that I had somehow trapped the government by its own words or acts. That the United States government had been outsmarted.

The term "gotcha" was not exactly neutral and dispassionate judicial language. It implies something devious, something substantively unfair. It evokes images of gamesmanship - of legal scholars or canon law experts or rabbis sitting in their parlors seeing who can one-up the other with their logic. I bridled at the suggestion.

And while I knew what prompted the question, I was also startled at the candor of the judge. Even considering the coded implications of her slang, to pose the question so openly smacked of desperation. The desperation itself was not a surprise, but the revelation was. (Was Judge Cook thinking of her own public humiliation, two weeks earlier, as a "gotcha" moment? On January 12, 2007, after an investigative reporter had uncovered two illegal campaign contributions she made after she had taken office as a federal judge, she apologized and backtracked from an earlier explanation that these contributions had been made by her lawyer husband. She explained instead that she hadn't been aware of the prohibition, since she had not attended federal judges' school.)

My answer to Judge Cook's question, formed hastily and framed in as dignified a tone as I could muster, was that we were not playing "gotcha" at all, but rather just urging the court to follow the law. It was very true. But in retrospect that was too prosaic an answer, too defensive to have been the best answer.

The gall! What I wish I would have declared to Judge Cook and her colleagues was that if there was any "gotcha" involving Ernst Zündel and the United States, the judge had it backwards - big time!

This certainly wasn't a case where Ernst Zündel and his sling shot-armed lawyer should stand accused of "putting one over" on the United States, but rather a case where the United States had pulled a Goliath-style "gotcha" on Ernst.

Ernst Zündel knew that thousands of people like him had remained in the U.S. and adjusted status based on their marriages to U.S. citizens; that it was the policy of the INS to respect those marriages EVEN IF they had entered with visa waivers. Now he was supposed to know that INS reserved the right to change course suddenly because this was just "policy" and not "law?" Gotcha!!

Ernst Zündel and his Tennessee attorney knew that once notified of an appointment date, if either of them had a conflict, it was the policy of INS to honor an initial rescheduling request and to automatically reschedule the appointment. Ernst Zündel was supposed to know that when his Tennessee attorney had to ask for rescheduling in 2001, this policy did not have to be honored? Gotcha!!

Ernst Zündel was supposed to know that the two letters about there scheduling sent by his attorney (one certified) would turn up missing in his INS file, thereby establishing a pretext for federal agents to say that Ernst had "missed" his adjustment interview? Gotcha!!

Ernst Zündel was supposed to know that instead there was a letter in his file issued by INS in January 2002 stating that he had been deemed to have abandoned his permanent residence application for failure to appear at his interview, when this letter was not even sent to him or his attorney until a full year later, after he was arrested? Gotcha!!

Ernst Zündel was supposed to know that after his wife found an attorney to ask for an emergency writ of habeas corpus in Knoxville, the judge would summarily deny the request without a hearing, while Ernst was still confined in Blount County Jail, where he was terrorized with dogs and their black-clad handlers? Gotcha!!

Or that when his attorney first sought a stay of that abrupt order from the Sixth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit would communicate with his INS adversaries by ex parte fax (without disclosure to his attorney) in order to confirm that Ernst was a "visa waiver" entrant (a falsity)? Gotcha!!

But of course there wasn't time to make all these points either. Under Judge Cook's glare and with the merciless clock ticking, I finished my argument. Judge Cook and her colleague, Judge Martha Daughtrey, had already taken up most of the time with hostile questions. It was left to me to entreat them to read the expiration provisions of the Visa Waiver statute and regulation very carefully. When she was on the Ohio Supreme Court prior to becoming a federal judge, Judge Cook had the reputation of being a "strict constructionist." That was fine by me. Would she strictly construe this statute and regulation, too, even though it favored Ernst Zündel?

Would Judge Daughtrey, said to be one of the appeals court judges most sympathetic to the rights of habeas petitioners, recognize that Ernst Zündel had his liberties stripped from him without due process?

Would the silent Judge Herman Weber, a WWII veteran who had made difficult decisions respecting First Amendment rights as a district court trial judge, understand the implications of this case for the free speech rights of Ernst Zündel protected under the First Amendment? That the illegal actions of the U.S. government had set in motion a disastrous chain of events resulting in Ernst Zündel being handed over to countries whose repressive laws are the same as those that Americans fought and died over?

Would these three Cincinnati judges, perhaps feeling hemmed in and compelled to do something by law that they found repugnant based on their own emotions and conditioning, still honor the law?

Curious indeed. Was it not fair instead to expect these judges to realize that it was the outspoken dissident Ernst Zündel, and not the federal government, who was the victim of a diabolical "gotcha" in the bizarre saga of his botched extra-judicial rendition, forced separation from his wife and cruel interruption of his longed-for repose in the land of the free and home of the brave?

Could I not expect these judges to probe even more deeply, and to ask: "Why?"

Why was Ernst Zündel snared in a perverse game of "gotcha?"

After all, this is not a game to Ernst Zündel.

It is not a game to any person of conscience.

Received via e-mail at Axis of Logic from Ingrid Zündel




From: stewart beattie -

Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2007 10:16 AM
Copy sent to The Mercury – Letters to The Editor 29.07.07 at 0914hr EST

An open letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Tasmania


Dear Sir,


The revelations that have emerged in the last few days with regard to the Federal DPP’s case against the Gold Coast-based doctor Mohamed Haneef reveal just the tip of a very rotten the iceberg I believe, indicating the depths to which our system of community policing, justice and politics has sunk – quickly I may add, over the past 12-14 years.


The breathtaking speed at which Haneef was arrested by nation wide actions of the Australian Federal Police, aided by various state police forces, and via the vociferous applaud springing from the Member for Benelong (some may know as “the Prime Minister” – for there is no such office in The Constitution), all thinking Australians must have found offensive at least and more than likely quite abhorrent.


However, and thankfully, even under the foreboding shadow of the newly enacted and draconian anti-terrorism laws, journalists began to probe for explanations as to evidence sufficient to warrant the blackening of this man’s character nationally and globally before the accused had even come to trial.  The raucous chatter pre-empting the guilt of the accused was arguably loudest from Members of the Commonwealth Parliament, such as Phillip Ruddock, John Howard, Kevin Andrews and their ilk, not to mention Mick Keelty the AFP head.  But the wheels soon began to fall off the wagon conveying the outrageous moves and countermoves to keep the accused detained despite a Magistrate’s order to the contrary!


First politicians and Keelty told of a lone specimen of empirical evidence, claimed to positively enmesh Haneef in a partnership (even when considered carefully a tenuous link at best I should think) with alleged terrorists in the UK.  It was claimed a SIM card used in a mobile phone had been allegedly given to one of his relative, and that that card had been recovered from the burn-out car at an airport, thus proving the terrorist link.


The magistrate sitting for Haneef’s preliminary hearing apparently was not convinced that the accused posed a threat to the community as he was released on surety of bail.  Though in a move which demonstrated peremption, Kevin Andrews, a Minister of The Crown acting in the portfolio of Immigration, had his agents indict Haneef at the courthouse door.  As I pointed out, this detention could only be justified by a presumption on the part of Kevin Andrews of Haneef’s guilt before the fact!


It was at this point, the whole miscarriage of justice collapsed for those who have usurped the freedoms Australians, freedoms incidentally we all once took for granted as inalienable.


For then it was revealed, the charges against Haneef regarding the SIM card were based on a bare-faced lie.  The SIM card was not recovered by UK police from the burnt-out car, “instead, the SIM card had been found in the home of Kafeel's brother, Sabeel, in Liverpool several hundred kilometres from the attack scene.”


This revelation had the monkeys climbing the wall!  Howard has put an ocean between himself and his two bureaucrats; Bugg and Keelty.


"Bearing in mind that the detention of the man was undertaken by the police and not at the request or direction or encouragement of the Government, and that the case was prepared and presented by the Director of [Public] Prosecutions, I think that the right thing now is for those two men to explain the process and explain the reasons," John Howard is reported to have stated.  Has not the organ grinder put the organ handle in the hands of his monkeys?


This situation reminds me immediately of the 1996 case prosecuted by none other than the same public servant Damien Bugg QC – then the DPP for Tasmania – against Martin Bryant, like the SIM card which was “…several hundred kilometres from the attack scene.” 


Martin Bryant was about 58 km away from Seascape Cottage taking coffee, when David Martin was murdered there in the forenoon of Sunday 28th April, 1996.


When is the present Director of Public Prosecutions for Tasmania going to reopen the Crown’s case against the intellectually damaged and incarcerated for life Martin Bryant?


I remain,


Yours Sincerely,


Stewart Beattie






Top | Home

©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute