Friday, April 30, 2010

The Accounts of Two Witnesses at the Bishop Williamson Trial

The reader is invited to read two summary accounts of the trial of Bishop Williamson, April 16, in Regensburg, Germany. An independent writer and reporter, Gunter Deckert, (not an SSPX member), provides us with his description and impressions of the event. Deckert sat in the courtroom and witnessed all that happened. His summary can be found on a number of websites. So also, another individual, Marcus Haverkamp, was there. I know little about him. He wrote up another eye witness summary of the Williamson trial, which is posted immediately after Deckert's. His account is also posted on other websites....

Der Ketzer-Prozess gegen Bischof Richard Williamson
The Heresy Trial of Bishop Richard Williamson

By Günter Deckert

Translated by J M Damon

The County Court is in the same courthouse as the District Court, connected to the jail for suspects who are under investigatory arrest.

At the entrance to the courthouse, security is the same as that of the Mannheim Heresy Trials {the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Sylvia Stolz and others} with magnetic archways and searches of pockets, purses, briefcases, etc., like at the airports.

Only two officials are on duty, a man and woman, and the searches are somewhat lackadaisical.
There is another security check as we enter the main courtroom, again a male-female team.
The representatives of the Establishment media are not searched, however.

There is room in the courtroom for only 19 visitors, in the very back. The rest of the space is reserved for the Establishment media. As the trial gets under way there are several empty seats in the media section and visitors are allowed to take them.

Around 90 persons are present in the courtroom including 35 visitors, interns and trainees.
Present are Lady Michelle Renouf from London, Frau Ursula Haverbeck, Markus Haverkamp, Andreas K. from Berlin and Gerd W. from Zossen / Brandenburg, another a victim of Section 130 {the section of the German Penal Code dealing with “Incitement of the Masses.”} There are no other prominent persons to be seen; if anyone is here from the Munich branch of the NPD (National Party) or NATIONAL-ZEITUNG (its newspaper) I do not see them. There is only one bailiff and he is unarmed.

There is a partition between the section for visitors and media and the Prosecutor’s staff, who are sitting on the right, and the Defense, sitting on the left. The table for the witnesses is between the other two. Two court translators, one English and one for Swedish, are sitting near the partition.

There is only one judge, an attractive blond woman in her thirties who speaks with a Bavarian accent. She is sitting on an elevated podium.

Proceedings begin a little after 9 O’clock. Even though it is known that Bishop Williamson is not coming, media interest is high – even the Südwestrundfunk (Southwestern Broadcasting Corporation) has come from Mainz, both radio and TV. After a few minutes of filming and photographing the media leave, except for a few newspaper reporters.

Judge Karin Frahm (this is not a Bavarian name!) (ed. note: What kind of a name is it, then?) opens the proceedings and invites a bearded, grey haired senior prosecutor to read the rather short indictment. The attorney, who appears to be in his late 50s, informs the Court that three Swedish journalists who were involved in Bishop Williamson’s interview and broadcast were summoned as witnesses but have not responded.

Bishop Williamson’s attorney, Matthias Lossmann of Coburg in Upper Franconia, states that his client would have gladly come but his ecclesiastical order, the Pius Brethren (ed. note: Why SSPX is translated as "Pius Brethren, I haven't a clue), did not give him leave. Judge Frahm declares that the trial can proceed without the accused, and Attorney Lossmann reads a statement of the bishop to the effect that the bishop feels he has been betrayed by Swedish television. Lossmann says his client clearly gave the Swedish reporters to understand that part of their discussion (the part concerning “Holocaust”) should not be broadcast, on account of the proscription expressing such opinions under German law.

The interview, which lasted a little over an hour, had concerned questions of religion, dogma and the Church (1).

FOOTNOTE 1: Bishop Williamson had come to Zaitzhofen, where there is seminar for priests of the Pius Brethren, for the consecration of a Swedish convert from the state church. The leadership of the seminar had allowed Swedish TV to cover the event.

At the very end of the discussion, “out of a clear blue sky,” the interviewer, Ali Fagan (ed. note: definitely not a Swedish name), a BEUTE-SCHWEDE (? “predatory Swede”?) suddenly brought up remarks that Bishop Williamson had made to a Canadian newspaper more than 20 years ago. The reporter had obviously investigated Williamson very closely. Fagan’s questions about Williamson’s past remarks developed into questions and answers, in English, on the subject of “Holocaust,” “Gas Chambers,” “Third Reich,” “Adolf Hitler,” etc.

Attorney Lossmann states that in addition to presenting Williamson’s statement, he intends to call Attorney M. Krah of Dresden as a witness. Krah is the confidential attorney of the Pius Brotherhood in Germany, who recently took over the Williamson case. (ed. note: Krah is no friend of Bp. Williamson, believe me) The judge then asks several questions for the record.

After this, the Court views the broadcasts of Williamson’s statements on Swedish state television as well as re-broadcasts on German television. The complaint against the bishop had been filed by an official in the Criminal Police Department acting on behalf of the Regensburg District Attorney. The visitors are unable to follow all of this because of technical problems – there is no TV screen on the wall. The interpreter translates the English text of the interview word for word.

(As the Jewish media master Michel Friedman cynically remarked in Issue 16 of ZEIT Magazine: “You can say anything you want in Germany, but you must be prepared to pay consequences.”) (ed. note: Apparently a gratuitous parenthetical remark by Deckert)

“Defense Attorney” Lossmann then states his own opinion. He is careful to make perfectly clear that he believes in “the historical actuality of Holocaust” and that he wholeheartedly approves of Section 130 of the Penal Code and believes that it must be retained. His tactic is obviously to cover his derriere while raising doubt as to whether Williamson’s remarks are punishable, due to the unique circumstances surrounding this particular case.

The Swedish reporters have submitted written statements to the effect that they had no agreement with Williamson regarding parts of the interview that should not be broadcast.
Thus it is their word against his.

The fact is significant, and mentioned even in the “Establishment” media’s coverage, that the Swedish government and Swedish TV are refusing to assist the Regensburg prosecutor because this trial violates Swedish concepts of freedom of speech and opinion.

Then there is a prolonged procedural back-and-forth argument between the Defense, the Court and the Prosecution as to whether these written explanations should be included as evidence.
The judge rules that the material is includable.

There have been numerous short breaks; now the judge calls a longer intermission at 11:10.
Afterwards Attorney Maximilian Krah, a witness for the Defense, is called to the stand.
He is a civil rather than criminal attorney from Dresden but not a Saxon.

He describes in detail how he became involved on the evening of 19 Jan. 2009, after reading about the incident in SPIEGEL. He was authorized by Father Franz Schmidtberger, the leader of the German Pious Brethren, as well as the central office in Switzerland. He says he immediately attempted to contact Williamson, who was still in Argentina. Finally, after considerable difficulty, he was able to get in touch. Williamson immediately understood what was happening and remarked, “Well, that’s just the way journalists are.”

Attorney Krah says that it was immediately clear to him that the TV broadcast could not be intercepted and so he concentrated on reaching an understanding with the Swedes to avoid a posting on the Internet site of the Swedish TV station. His attempt was unsuccessful, however.
Then he requested an injunction with the District Court at Nuremberg/Fürth, which was successful.

Basically the key sentence of the ruling stated:
If there is no intent (in this case, no agreement!), then criminal prosecution is not called for, and there is no need for prompt action. That is why he did not seek legal recourse (lodge an appeal.)
Because of his heavy workload he recommended Attorney Lossmann.

Judge Frahm has a great many questions for the witness, such as: How did Bishop Williamson react? Was he surprised? What did he want to have done? Krah says it is very clear that the Bishop did everything he could to avoid the broadcast, which happened in spite of his request at the end of the interview. The judge’s questions become quite specific when she asks about the inner life of the Brethren. She asks how many priests there are worldwide. Krah answers around 600, or 700 including those on the periphery. How many are there in Germany? - About 25. And how many active followers are there? Krah says there are around 600,000, mostly in France, Switzerland (the French part) and the USA. And what was Williamson’s position at the time of the “offense?” Krah answers that he was the head of a seminary in Argentina.

Surprisingly, and in my opinion pointlessly, Krah blurts out that Williamson is considered marginal within the Brethren. (ed. note: I think it is safe to say at this point that lawyer Krah reflected the attitude of Society's main leadership towards Bp. Williamson, and that the remark was not meant in any way to be pointless or gratuitous) He is a genteel and cultivated but eccentric outsider who radiates great personal charm. Krah says the leaders of the order have ambiguous feelings about him.

FOOTNOTE 2: My impression is that it was Krah’s mission to “talk up” the Brethren and “talk down” Bishop Williamson. (ed. note: Exactly!) This became even more clear during the intermission when he repeatedly exclaimed to Lady Renouf: “This is not their case!” meaning that the Brethren are not involved here, or do not want to be involved.

Both the judge and head prosecutor conducted themselves in compliance with the System.
The question of whether the existing law is legitimate is never asked. The question of whether the judge believes in her own verdicts is another matter. If one wants to enjoy a career and live in peace in Germany, one cannot behave any other way. The judge and prosecutor have “done their jobs” and kept up appearances in “saving our democracy.” We have to consider that very few individuals have the courage to resist “the throne” (established authority)!
There are very few heroes in our time.

I personally doubt that Bishop Williamson’s defending attorney has done him any favors, however. I shall try to find out what his political orientation is. It would be pointless to attempt an appeal and change of verdict in Williamson’s favor under the present “BRDDR” regime. If the attorneys favor an appeal, it will be for the sake of their fees. If Bishop Williamson should appeal, it would be for the sake of publicizing Jewish “Holocaust” dogma and “grabbing it by the throat.”

It would be helpful to demonstrate how undemocratic our little present day Germany is, “the freest state that ever existed on German soil” according to the present propaganda. The fine is of course purely symbolic since it cannot be collected in England. Nothing can happen to Williamson as long as he stays in England, even if the “BRDDR” issues an international warrant for his arrest.

Krah goes on to say that there are four bishops among the Brethren (SSPX) whose position is not comparable to that of a bishop in the Catholic Church, and furthermore Williamson is not a member of the General Assembly. He is more like a “traveling representative for the consecration of priests,” a kind of independent agent. (ed. note: Like, he was never really one of us)

The judge then wants to know about Bishop Williamson’s financial situation. Krah replies that when he is traveling, he receives a travel allowance as well as re-imbursement for expenses and spending money of 250 Euros per month. In addition he receives room and board. He says that Williamson is not a wealthy man but neither does he have to beg in the streets. Then Judge Frahm asks whether Williamson has access to the assets of the Pius Brethren and Krah answers with an emphatic “No!” After that, the judge has no more questions.

Additional Observation

Despite the persecution and pervasive judicial terror directed against Revisionist researchers and experts, the Enlightenment insistence on empirical evidence cannot be reversed.
Even Zionist Inquisitor Friedman has to admit: “The older I get, the more I doubt that legalistic measures really help combat Revisionism. At any rate, the number of Holocaust Deniers has not grown smaller, and we must consider that.” Michel Friedman of the Jewish Central Committee as quoted in ZENIT, Issue No. 16, 2010.

Attorney Lossmann then continues questioning his witnesses. He asks whether Williamson is inclined to believe in conspiracy theories as “Wikipedia” suggests. Krah replies that yes, Williamson has peculiar views concerning the “Holocaust” story, and he always says what he believes to be true. He is confident in his opinion, as is shown in his conversation. He is very concerned about the truth. Krah says that Williamson’s problem is with acknowledging official truth; the bishop’s problem is a defective ability to perceive it.

There is a brief intermission, then the proceedings continue. The subject is now a report on Ali Fagan in a leading Swedish newspaper. Lossmann says the report was initiated by Italian newspapers who perceive that the Williamson trial is a plot against the German pope. Lossmann insists on a translation of this report on Fagan, saying the whole affair is comparable to Washington’s “Watergate.” He observes that the proceedings against Bishop Williamson have not only gained Fagan a great deal of publicity, they have made him rich.

After another brief intermission, the head prosecutor begins speaking. Predictably, he has no doubts about the validity of the trial. He has no doubts that the conditions of Section 130 (“Incitement of the Masses”) have been met, and a crime has been committed against the public. He says Germany’s peace has been disturbed and the bishop has acted with BEDINGTEM VORSATZ or intent, since he realized and accepted that the interview would be broadcast. He says it was Williamson’s goal to publicize his proscribed views among the people. He says that people like Williamson have a “pathological compulsion” to spread false and unlawful opinions, therefore he is guilty on all points. On the basis of the bishop’s income of 3000 Euros per month (!?) he calls for a sentence of four months’ incarceration at 120 Euros per day. He says this is appropriate in view of Williamson’s position within the Brethren, even though it is his first offense.

In his summarization, in which he pleads for acquittal, Attorney Lossmann disputes the state attorney’s demand. As for Williamson’s income, he points out that it should be set at a maximum of 1000 Euros and in case of a guilty verdict would call for 30 to 60 days in jail, certainly less than 90. He says that in view of the circumstances, which have become clear in the taking of evidence, acquittal is the proper verdict. He says that Bishop Williamson’s conduct was unbecoming to be sure, but he simply acted in a naive manner. He says that Williamson had been misled and waylaid, but he had made every attempt to limit the damage he caused. He says there can be no question of the bishop’s “accepting the consequences.” He points out that, had it not been for the overall situation concerning the Pius Brethrens’ readmittance into the Catholic Church, the media would not have played up the incident. (ed. note: Lossmann pleas leniency, the kind of defense that would be normally used in trying to mitigate the sentence of a confessed ax murderer.)

Lossmann concludes with the opinion of a professor of law who was quoted in SPIEGEL as saying that if Bishop Williamson did not intend for his views on “Holocaust” to be broadcast, he could not be punished. He emphasizes that Williamson obviously lacked this intent; he was not aware the Swedish journalists would broadcast his remarks until they had done so.
Therefore he should be acquitted.

Shortly after 1 O’clock the judge calls a 30-minute intermission and retires to consider her verdict. She returns after 45 minutes and everyone stands to hear the verdict “in the name of the People.” Which people, one wonders. She finds Williamson guilty and sentences him to 100 days in jail at 100 Euros per day, 20 days less than what was demanded by the state attorney.
She takes a half hour to explain her verdict and agrees with every point of the state’s attorney, emphasizing that “Holocaust is an acknowledged fact” and the number of Jewish victims “established by the highest court.” Needless to say, she does not bother to give her sources for this “acknowledged fact.” Perhaps she will give them in her written verdict.

The courtroom gradually empties. Attorney Lossmann is the only one who is surrounded by the reporters. They ask if there will be an appeal. He replies that Bishop Williamson must make that decision. Presumably the State might appeal the verdict, since it considers the sentence too lenient.

Now read Markus Haverkamp's summary of the same event:

The Trial of the Bishop who wasn’t there

A Tragicomedy in a Few Acts and Many, Many Scenes

On Friday, 16 April 2010, Pope Benedict XVI 83rd birthday, the trial against Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) took place at the Local Court Regensburg, Germany. All in all roughly forty journalists arrived as well as twenty-odd supporters of Williamson, who had to make do being seated in the back row of the absolutely packed court room. Amongst the supporters were Lady Michèle Renouf (ed. note: An historical revisionist advising Bp. Williamson, I believe, whose association with HE aroused sharp vocal criticism from Bp. Fellay ), Günter Deckert (ed. note: whose account appears above and with whom obviously Haverkamp is acquainted at some level. Deckert must be well known.) and Ursula Haverbeck, as well as many other well known faces. Sadly, there were no members, followers or supporters of the SSPX present that could be identified as such.

After the usual security checks, which for a change were handled in a rather civilised manner, the trial started at 09.00 a.m. sharp. The dramatis personæ were: Judge Karin Frahm, a fairly pretty blonde, allegedly twenty-nine years of age (!); Senior State Prosecutor Edgar Zach, a grey-haired gentleman probably in his late fifties; and Defence Counsel Matthias Loßmann, a bloke possibly in his mid-forties whose air and appearance were eerily reminiscent of a gravedigger. The minor parts were played by an all-female cast: a stenographer, an interpreter for English, and another for Swedish. Her Honour was seated in front of a strange yellowish backdrop, the kind familiar from modern Wagner productions. Seating and legroom were satisfactory, the acoustics excellent.

The proceedings began with an explanation by Herr Loßmann that Williamson would not be appearing since the SSPX had forbidden him from doing so. Next it was recorded that not one of the three Swedish witnesses had turned up, and that they had neither excused themselves nor given any reason for their absence. (ed. note: Wouldn't one think that the presence of these three "Swedish TV journalists" should have been an absolute requirement in order for the prosecution to makes it case? That without them, it was nearly impossible, even under German law, for justice to have been done?) Herr Zach then began reading out the indictment. The contents were comprised of the usual stuff familiar to all: Williamson has denied and belittled the Holocaust, has done so aware of the fact that such heresy is a grievous violation of modern dogma, has furthermore committed this heinous act intentionally in a manner suited to disturb the public peace, and must therefore be dealt with accordingly. To his credit it must be said that Herr Zach was calm, collected, read the indictment without any aggressive or hateful undertone, and made a generally polite impression.
In the scene that followed, Herr Loßmann gave a fairly detailed account of what had transpired and how the various events had come about. The judge asked many a probing question, of which a few were simply superfluous. Some questions Herr Loßmann was unable to answer, but a great deal of these gaps were filled in later during an exciting scene in which Loßmann’s witness, and lawyer for the SSPX, Maximilian Krah – a smarmy Nick Griffin effigy – took the stand. All in all Herr Loßmann left a rather dubious impression: his account was repetitive, unstructured, and his idiom sloppy and unbefitting of his role.

Here now a summary of a few lesser scenes, in no particular order: The court ordered a viewing of the infamous final five minutes of an originally hour long interview, the very five minutes that got Bishop Williamson into this mess. Then the matter of the absent witnesses was taken up again: two documents were read out, one by the legal department of the Swedish television station SVT1 which stated that they would not help the court due to lack of trust in the German legal system, and the other by the Swedish Ministry of Justice, who wrote that they would not be rendering the court mutual judicial assistance since freedom of speech is guaranteed in Sweden but not so in Germany. Furthermore, an article from a Swedish magazine, which had no real bearing on the case, was translated off the cuff fluently into high quality German – that was really cool. Plus, a segment of a German television programme showing the interviewer of Williamson (Name: Ali Fagan; Status: absent witness) make the comment that he would gladly stand as a witness in a German court of law, etc., etc. Another delightful scene starred the interpreter for English. Asked by Judge Frahm whether she could translate a letter extemporaneously or whether she needed time to prepare, this lady requested and was granted “five minutes”, whereupon she ambled over to her Swedish speaking colleague, chatted with her for fifteen minutes, went back to her seat and translated the text in one go. It was surreal. – All these and the following scenes were interrupted by “five minute recesses” that were fifteen minutes long each. The trial lacked any real coherence, haphazardly jumping from one matter to the next, not even the many “five minute recesses” being synchronised to the action on stage. The only thing that kept everything together, were the endless, totally superfluous repetitions. It was weird.

A real highlight was the act in which Herr Krah, whom we first encountered two paragraphs ago, was called as a witness for the defence. As lawyer for the SSPX, Herr Krah had a great deal of knowledge as to what had transpired having witnessed the events unfurl himself. Of this he gave an informative account. In answer to the judge’s questions, he drew a detailed picture of Williamson’s standard of living, describing not only his home but also which tube to take in order to get there! He then told of Williamson’s position within the fraternity, that the bishop wields little or no power in the SSPX, and that Richard Williamson is considered and considers himself “an eccentric Englishman”. Herr Krah went on to speak of the Bishop’s personality, characterising him as refined, polite, erudite, well-spoken, and an excellent teacher. He then informed the court that if the bishop questions the Holocaust then only because he is utterly convinced that his opinion represents the truth. The bishop, so he said, is absolutely bound to truthfulness and would never lie. As such Williamson is certainly convinced of what he had stated in that interview. The problem, according to Herr Krah, is that Williamson’s ability to perceive the truth is seriously impaired (“ein nachhaltig gestörtes Erkenntnisvermögen”). As an example of this condition Herr Krah told the court that Bishop Williamson does not believe in the 9/11 story, and on having been asked by the judge continued by explaining to the court all about how some, if not many people doubt the veracity of the official 9/11 account. To summarise, Herr Krah was nothing short of a waffling windbag basking in the cold glow of that yellowy neo-Wagnerian backdrop. He gave a heap of information that nobody really cared about, including details likely to harm the bishop. But he enjoyed himself, and that is probably what mattered most.

Let us now turn to the final act of this tragicomedy. In the first scene Herr Zach gave his closing arguments. He stated that Bishop Williamson had known exactly what he was saying, knew full well that this is against the law in Germany, was counting on the fact that this interview would be made public, and that the bishop had by these means hoped to spread his twisted views on the Holocaust. Considering the fact that Williamson had done this intentionally, a fair sentence would be a fine of 12.000 Euros (i.e. 10.500 GBP or 16.000 USD).

Now it was time for the summation of the defence. Herr Loßmann proceeded to recapitulate the entire story as it had slowly unravelled before our eyes through a profusion of irrelevant repetitions, tedious tangents, and futile five-minute recesses. In short: On occasion of the ordination of a Swedish deacon who had converted from Protestantism not merely to Catholicism, but to one of its most traditional branches (which caused a stir in Sweden), a Swedish camera crew went to Zaitzkofen, near Regensburg, and asked the ordaining bishop, Richard Williamson, for an interview which he granted them. They spoke about religious matters for over fifty minutes, and then, once they had gained the bishop’s trust, suddenly asked him about a comment he had made about the Holocaust twenty years ago in Canada. The interviewer, Ali Fagan, described this question as “a shot from the hip”, and the evidence clearly showed that the interviewer had deliberately set a trap for the bishop. After Williamson had answered the question in depth, he pointed out to the interviewer that such comments are illegal in Germany and asked him not to publicise them. The Swedish television station STV1 then approached the leading German news magazine Der Spiegel with this story, which the Spiegel proceeded to publish three days before the interview was to be aired on Swedish television. As soon as the SSPX had gotten wind of this they had their lawyer, Herr Krah, get in touch with Williamson, the latter asking that the interview not be broadcast, something that was realistically not going to happen, and insisting that this interview not be made available over the internet. When Matthias Krah contacted Bishop Williamson, he was immediately aware of the gravity of the situation saying something along the lines of “typical journalists, you can’t trust them.” STV1 nonetheless made the final five minutes of the interview available on their website, from where it was downloaded onto YouTube and went viral. By itself this was all fairly inconsequential, for who had ever heard of the SSPX, or Bishop Richard Williamson for that matter? Unfortunately, however, this was exactly the moment the Vatican welcomed the SSPX back into the fold of the Church, and to the viciously anti-ecclesiastical, i.e. Jewish, press, the idea of a Holocaust heretic having his excommunication revoked must have been like curry to a pisshead. As such the matter was blown out of all proportion, causing desired damage to the Church. All this, Loßmann argued, was not the bishop’s fault. In fact Williamson is simply a victim of foul play, and must therefore be acquitted.

The court took a thirty minute recess, during which Her Honour decided on the verdict, the grounds for which were eight pages long. The court reconvened at 03.00 p.m. for the final scene, and Judge Frahm read out the verdict: guilty, fine: 10.000 Euros, i.e. 9.000 GBP or 13.500 USD. She gave the following reasons for the verdict: Williamson had denied the Holocaust, and though he may be convinced that it had not taken place, this is irrelevant since history has shown the Holocaust to have taken place, and furthermore even the highest courts have knowledge of this subject. Richard Williamson was also aware of the fact that his opinion would reach the public, but had nonetheless continued to express it. His crime was therefore a deliberate action. The fact that the interview had gone viral on YouTube was ignored since this was certainly not the bishop’s fault and went against his express wish. However, §130 Penal Code stipulates that incitement of the People (Volksverhetzung) is only given if the crime is perpetrated publicly and is suited to disturb the public peace. But: nowhere does it say that the public must be a German public! By having the interview broadcast in Sweden, millions of Swedes could see it. These then could feasibly contact their friends and relatives in Germany and thus endanger the German public peace. Therefore, the bishop is to be found guilty and fined 10.000 Euros. – And that’s the end of that.

Finally, it must be said that this trial was of no value to the struggle for freedom whatsoever, since the defence counsel defended neither his client nor truth but merely the SSPX. (ed. note: Both Deckert and Haverkamp made essentially the same observations) Then, the idea of having an allegedly twenty-nine year old female judge is, considering that judges ought to be male and at least forty years of age, a total joke, a joke topped only by the ridiculous (if talmudically exquisite) argumentation of the lady. At the end of the day, this trial showed us what happens when the System is left to itself, without anybody struggling against it. And as Michèle Renouf pointed out: “by reducing the fine they reduced the bishop.”

Markus Haverkamp

No comments:

Post a Comment