The Battle of the wills continues - from prisoner XF 9993  

 Dear all,

1) After 20 days imprisonment my personal upheaval is stabilising into familiar patterns of routine - the whole affair is becoming a repeat of my 1999 German imprisonment. With a few novelties thrown into it.

 2) There is always the need to adapt to stark reality, to the physical imperative that I have lost my freedom to move about at will. I cannot get up after a night’s sleep and go about my daily routine of checking emails for example. I cannot use the phone at will, nor can I just jump into the car and visit friends - all because I am not currently living in my own home.

 3) In 1999 it was Peter Rackemann who’s 30 years as a quadriplegic in a wheelchair, taught me to be a real revisionist and adapt to the physical reality of imprisonment instead of dreaming of having psychic superpowers with which to escape from this physical prison. To date I have escaped the mental prison of the holocaust – shoah

 4) So, having accepted the current reality as a given fact, I can without hindrance, here at Wandsworth prison - with over 1600 prisoners one of Europe’s largest - use my mind to make sense of my situation.

5) Why am I locked up, or as they say here, banged up? I was arrested on Wednesday 1st October 2008 at 11-30 am on AA98 by the Heathrow police. The newspaper report of my attempting to evade arrest by hiding in the plane is nonsense. I had left my aisle seat and with permission settled down into a 5-seater centre row for a 7 hour sleep, that is the time it took to fly from Chicago to London.  When we docked, an announcement came through there was an incident and a person walked to my original seat, which someone else by then had taken.  When the announcement was made for Dr. Toben to identify himself and to come forward that is what I did! When I reached the entrance door I saw the police standing there.  I stopped and retrieved my camcorder from my coat pocket with the comment: I'll have to make a record of this!  Then I was pulled out the plane - and the rest is history.

 Just last Sunday a United Airlines pilot was luckier because after the police breath-tested him in the cockpit, he was taken to the Heathrow police station and bailed to appear in January 2009 on a drunk while flying charge! It appears ground staff had alerted the police that something was not quite right with the pilot.

 Of course I did not get police bail, nor was I granted court bail.  In both instances, on 1st October and 17th October, district judges Nicholas Evans and Daphne Wickham did not grant me bail because of 'fear of flight'.  It did not help my saying to Evans that the world is my prison.

 The prosecution pointed out that I had in my passport visas or stamps from the USA, Iran, China, Indonesia, South Africa, Zimbabwe etc.  Little did she realise by stating this fact she was also indicating where it is still safe for me to travel.

 6)  That the USA is still a safe haven for dissenting minds must hurt those individuals within the British establishment who wish to adopt the European Arrest Warrant so as to establish 'Holocaust denial' as a criminal matter in Britain without it having specifically been enacted in law.

 7)  And that is the problem with which the prosecution has to grapple - how can 'thought crimes' be absorbed into British common law where thoughts are not yet criminalised.

 8)  During the 1970's this dichotomy - the physical and the mental - was clear to me when I grappled with the philosophical difference between French Rationalism, German Idealism and British Empiricism.

8.1) For me, as far as Revisionism is concerned, the clarity of French nationalism has produced Robert Fausisson, Georges Theil, Vincent Renouard, et al, who are all feared by the French judiciary. Hence a French judge will rarely, if at all, hand down a verdict that also records in detail what actually transpired in court.  They also shy away from imprisoning dissenting individuals because that would negate what the French Revolution was all about - to be enlightened through rational debate.

 8.2) The German judiciary does not hesitate to imprison dissenting minds, such as Germar Rudolf who by the way was arrested in the US this month on 19/10/05.  There is also Ernst Zundel, Sylvia Stolz, and perhaps again Horst Mahler, who have for a long time been legally persecuted by individuals who claim to be merely following the law.  I need not stress that Austria's judiciary is a mirror image of Germany's because it too happily imprisons Revisionists such as Wolfgang Frohlich, Gerd Honsik and others.

 8.3) However, when someone like Horst Mahler comes along, who is philosophically schooled in Hegel and Kant, then the German judiciary miserably fails in justifying the imprisonment of dissenting minds.  All of Mahler's many court appearances have pushed German judicial thinking to its logical absurdities.  It has reached the critical stage that also broke down the 16th-17th century witch trial mentality.

8.4) Basic civilising legal principles have been thrown overboard.  Factual evidence is irrelevant when a judge makes his determinations and formulates his judgment.  This means that anyone brought to court under Section 130 of the German Penal Code is already guilty of the alleged offence.  No proof, no evidence is required by the prosecution, something that is so elementary that even in summary offences some proof needs to be offered to the court.  What a judge has to do is assess an accused’s level of remorse or contrition.  The question is not whether the accused is guilty or innocent but rather whether he is sorry for having thought about and expressed his opinion over certain matters.

8.5) My own Mannhein November 2004 planned re-trial speaks volumes on this German judicial farce.  It did not proceed because:

 a) My choice of defence counsel, Horst Mahler, was rejected by presiding judge Adam.  It happened on the 20th May, just before Mahler received a mandatory requirement to sit an exam to practise law! - Coincidence? I think not.

 b) Judge Adam ordered Mr Michael Rosenthal to represent me. Rosenthal refused this court appointed role by stating to judge Adam that were he to insist on this appointment then he, Rosenthal, would remain silent throughout the proceedings, as had done my legal counsel Ludwig Bock on November 8th and 10th 1999. [see: www.adelaideinstitute.org/Australia/025.htm]

 c) Rosenthal stated to me, and to Judge Adam, that at the factual stage of the proceedings it is not possible to effectively mount a defence because he would be making himself liable for prosecution as no absolute privilege attaches to matters aired in open court as it does in common law courts.

 d) My German re-trial did not take place in November 2004 because under such circumstances I refused to attend. In any case since 8th January 2004 I had formally been banned from entering the European Union and was I to travel to Germany, then I would immediately have been arrested-and that is not an ideal way to prepare for a defence.

 9) It appears from the above that the British Common Law system radically differs from the French and German system, while both use the civil law or Napoleonic legal legacy. The common Law system does not criminalize thoughts- not yet! and so the Holocaust - Shoah topic has been side lined, at best formally, and legal technicalities of a factual nature are moved to the forefront of any proceedings, which for some is quite boring especially if they seek to publicise their held views during such proceedings.

 9.1) The problem in my case is whether the European Arrest Warrant is sufficiently detailed to fulfill basic legal procedural principles. the prosecution claimed this was not necessary because I well know what I am alleged to have done. This is saying in effect that an accused need not be proven guilty-it can be assumed. That is how it is done in Germany.

 9.2) Another problem is: Can common law criminalize thoughts? If statute law also remains silent on this issue, can another nation impose its censorship of thoughts on the British People? This problem raises the sovereignty issue, something the European Union advocates would dearly like to eliminate.

 9.3) The simplest issue is whether the alleged crime has been committed in the UK. It has not, but that is just the point in categorising my "crime" as a cybercrime.