Porter Carlos Whitlock - Germany v. Porter
Porter Carlos Whitlock - Germany v. Porter
Porter Carlos Whitlock - Germany v. Porter
PORTER:
PUNISHMENT FIRST,
TRIAL AFTERWARDS
http://www.cwporter.com
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................... 4
Part I: Order of Punishment ............................................................... 5
Part II: Reply to Lower District Court................................................ 9
Part III: Subpoena – Revisionism .................................................... 13
Part IV: Translation of Judgement:
Revisionism, Failure to Appear.......................................... 17
Part V: Opinion of German Defence Attorney ................................. 20
Part VI: Answer to Subpoena of 22 May 1997................................. 24
Part VII: Replies to Subpoena of 22 August 1997 ............................ 27
Part VIII: Replies to Court Judgement of 23 October 1997 .............. 30
Part IX: Holocaust Museum of Stupidity: Now Opening
at a Location Near You...................................................... 34
Part X: Holocaust Museum of Stupidity Moves to New Location..... 36
Part XI: Final Statement to the Court............................................... 42
Final Disposition of the Case........................................................... 44
Annex I: Graphics, Germany v. Porter ............................................. 45
Annex II: Official IMT Record of Pedal-Driven Brain-
Bashing Machine – Cause of Defendant’s “Severe
Cranial Injuries”, Rendering Him Unable to Appear ........ 56
Annex III: Official IMT Record of German WWII Atomic
Bomb Used in “Secret Experiment” at Auschwitz
– Cause of Defendant’s “Severe Radiation Burns”,
Rendering Him Unable to Appear................................... 59
Annex IV: Covers of the Author’s Books ........................................ 61
3
INTRODUCTION
On April 25, 1995, a former member of the Wehrmacht (not the SS),
Reinhold Elstner, burnt himself to death at the Feldherrnhalle in
Munich to protest what he called the “Niagara of lies” engulfing
Germany.
Astonishingly, the Munich police had the shamelessness to
arrest people for placing wreaths on the spot, and to remove all the burn
marks with a blow torch. In protest, I sent over 200 copies of NICHT
SCHULDIG IN NÜRNBERG, a German translation of NOT GUILTY
AT NUREMBERG, a brochure authored by myself, accompanied by a
protest letter, one to every important newspaper, magazine and
politician in the country, to Helmut Kohl, Richard von Weizsäcker and
five others by registered mail, to make sure they got it.
The Mayor of Munich, a certain Christian Ude, got his knickers
in a twist and the result was 17 months of so-called “legal proceedings”
during which I told them more or less to bugger off. Of course, I was
polite about it: I said, “I defy your authority and I refuse to comply with
any order to do anything.”
For 17 months, the German courts ignored everything
introduced by the Defendant, i.e., myself, in reply to the avalanche of
subpoenas, summonses, certified letters, certified translations, demands
for payment, etc. Jokes, insults, sarcasm, refusals to appear, demands
for the production of evidence, irrefutable legal arguments, refusals to
pay, etc. were all ignored – like a computer continually displaying the
same error message.
Goaded beyond endurance, his back to the wall, the Defendant
took drastic, perhaps unprecedented action...
4
PART I
ORDER OF PUNISHMENT
ORDER OF PUNISHMENT
5
– “Ziereis’s ‘confession’ continues to be taken seriously by
Reitlinger, Shirer, Hilberg, and other itinerant peddlers of Holo-
Schlock” (page 43);
– “Schirach and Streicher were both taken in by a ‘photocopy’
of a Hitler document in which he ‘confessed’ to mass killings (XIV 432
[[476]]; XII 321 [[349]]).
Since Hitler was a genius (X 600 [[671-672]), and since
geniuses do not kill millions of people with Diesel exhaust and
insecticides which take 24 hours to kill moths (Document NI-9912), it
appears that the significance of this document has been overrated. In
fact, it is typical Hitler: full of violent language, but short of factual
content. Nor is it certain that Hitler was of sound mind in 1945 (IX 92
[[107]])” (pages 59-60);
– “Actually, Zyklon presents a similar problem, in that the
liquid must evaporate, and does so slowly unless heated. German
technical wizardry and industrial advancement in general renders
ridiculous any notion of a ‘Holocaust’ using insecticide or Diesel
exhaust” (page 62).
The passages from the cover letter [a letter of protest sent to a
public official in a so-called “democratic” country – C.P.] is worded as
follows:
“The fact is that the so-called ‘Nazi gas chambers’ (which serve
as a pretext for the present system of tyranny) never existed. The
impossibility of their functioning in the manner described has been
repeatedly proven in expert chemical and engineering reports to which
our slave masters have no answer. The ruling classes in Germany (as
elsewhere) cannot prove the existence of any ‘Nazi gas chambers’; they
do not even try. All they do is fine and imprison all those who dare to
defend the honour of the German people.”
[Full text: “Dear Sirs, “I wish to protest the persecution of
nationalist sympathizers and Holocaust revisionists in the Federal
Republic of Germany, and Austria, including, but not limited to, David
Irving, Fred Leuchter, Otto Ernst Remer, Germar Rudolf, Hans-Jörg
Schimanek, Gottfried Küssel, Hans Schmidt, and Gerhard Lauck.
“The above mentioned persons were arrested and imprisoned
simply for exercising their internationally recognized freedom of
speech and opinion. If they had been Jews in the Soviet Union, of
course, worldwide outrage would have been deafening. Obviously, ‘All
Animals Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal Than Others’.
“It is time for the citizens of our ‘democratic’ Western slave
states to speak out whether the Jews like it or not.
“The fact is that the so-called ‘Nazi gas chambers’ (which serve
6
as a pretext for the present system of tyranny) never existed. The
impossibility of their functioning in the manner described has been
repeatedly proven in expert chemical and engineering reports to which
our slave masters have no answer.
“The ruling classes in Germany (as elsewhere) cannot prove the
existence of any ‘Nazi gas chambers’; they do not even try. All they do
is fine and imprison all those who dare to defend the honour of the
German people. The latest includes arresting people for laying flowers
or wreaths on the site where a 75-year old German expelled from the
Sudetenland burned himself alive in protest against a deluge of filth and
lies which has no parallel in history.”] [Reinhold Elstner, in Munich.]
You are therefore guilty [!] of dissemination, in the Federal
Republic, of texts (under Section 11, Paragraph 3), denying or
minimizing the evil of actions committed under the National Socialist
regime, in the manner referred to in Section 220a, Paragraph 1, thereby
injuring others in their honour, as well as slandering the dignity of the
dead through the same action; and punishable for:
“Popular Incitement” (or “Incitement of the Masses”)
[Volksverhetzung] [!] [?] identical in law to “Slandering the Dignity of
the Dead”, according to Section 130, Paragraph 2, Number 1a [copious
references, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah] of the Criminal Code.
Method of proof:
1. Confession
2. Printed text entitled NICHT SCHULDIG IN NÜRNBERG
(photo 3), with accompanying text (photo 2). Documents: Extract from
the Federal Central Registry.
Upon petition of the State Prosecutor’s Office, a fine of 150
“daily monetary units” is hereby applied. The daily monetary unit is
established at 40 DM. The fine, in total, amounts to 6,000 DM.
Failure to pay will be punished by imprisonment. One daily
monetary unit corresponds to one day’s imprisonment. You will be
responsible for the costs of the proceedings, as well as your own
necessary expenses.
Decision: We hereby order the confiscation of all copies of the
text entitled NICHT SCHULDIG IN NÜRNBERG, together with all
copies of the accompanying text, with return address “Carlos Whitlock
PORTER... [Address and telephone number deleted to protect present
occupants]”
[Note: What criminal leaves his return address and phone
number?],
insofar as such printed texts may be found in the possession of
persons active in their distribution, or aiding and abetting in such
7
distribution, or exposing the same texts to public view, as well as all
copies not yet distributed to the intended recipients by mail.
[Note: Are they going to arrest everybody in the post office?]
We further order the confiscation of the above mentioned
printed text, together with all plates, forms, typesetting material,
negatives, and stencils.
Under application of regulations: Section 74d of the Criminal
Code. Munich, 19 Dec. 1996 Zeilinger Judge, Lower District Court
Certified true copy [signatures, etc.] Information on legal assistance:
You may file an objection against the present order of punishment
[Note: Punishment first, trial afterwards!] within two weeks of delivery
of the present order of punishment. It may be limited to one specific
grounds for objection. If the legal objection is filed within the correct
period, a main trial [Hauptverhandlung] will be held [!] unless the
Prosecutor’s Office drops the case or you withdraw your objections.
You may protest against the decision to impose procedural costs and
necessary expenditure if the value of those costs does not exceed 200
DM, and IF [emphasis added] you file an objection with the Lower
District Court of Munich, IMMEDIATELY, within ONE WEEK of
delivery of the present order of punishment, in writing, with the Office.
The objection or complaint may be made in writing, at the
Lower District Court of Munich or filed with the office. The written
declaration must be in German.
With regard to written declarations: mailing the declaration
within the stated period is not sufficient for purposes of compliance.
The Court must actually receive the declaration prior to expiration of
the stated period for you to comply with the above stated expiration
period. Important note: After effectiveness of the order of punishment,
you will receive a demand for payment of the monetary punishment
(fine), and the costs of proceedings, by means of a pre-prepared
payment transfer form, unless you have already paid a deposit in the
amount of the fine and costs [!]. Please [!] pay only after receipt of the
demand for payment, using the enclosed pre-prepared payment transfer
form!
8
PART II
REPLY TO LOWER DISTRICT COURT
Carlos W. Porter
Address [deleted to protect present occupants]
Belgium
7 January 1997
Judge Zeilinger
Lower District Court,
Justice Building
Nymphenburger Str. 16,
D-80097 MUNICH
Reference no.: 8430 Cs 112 Js 11637/96
Judge Zeilinger,
9
ON YOUR ORDER OF PUNISHMENT IN DETAIL
10
been done using some other method. The extract quoted above contains
no opinion as to WHETHER 6 million Jews were gassed.
COVER LETTER
11
I FURTHERMORE OBJECT TO IMPOSITION OF THE
PROCEDURAL COSTS
[signed]
Carlos Porter
12
PART III
SUBPOENA – REVISIONISM
Lower District Court, Munich Division for Criminal Cases and Fines
Reference no.: (please indicate in all correspondence!) 8430 Cs 112 Js
11637/96
Lower District Court, 80097 Munich
SUBPOENA
13
stating any facts with regard to which any evidence is to be adduced.
You may also bring any witnesses and experts whom you wish to be
examined, along with you to the main trial; you must, however, notify
the Court of their names and addresses immediately. Should you be
able to show that you are unable to pay the travel costs out of your own
funds, you may apply for an indemnity for travel costs, and file it with
the above mentioned court, or, in urgent cases, with the Lower District
Court with jurisdiction over your place of residence. Respectfully,
[name, signature]
Public transport connections: underground, streetcar; stop at
Stiglmaierplatz. AG No. 788c/E AGM Abt. 8-113.5 (9.93) StP 206:
subpoena for a defendant who has objected to an order of punishment
(Sections 411, 412, 329 of StPO) (2.88).
[reverse page]
Indication of evidentiary material:
1. Witnesses
2. Experts
3. Documents
4. Other evidentiary material
[third page]
[letterhead, addresses, etc.] Certified True Copy 80097 Munich, 28 Jan.
1997
In matter of: Trial of Carlos Porter for “Popular Incitement” (or
“Incitement of the Masses”) [!] [?]
DECISION
GROUNDS
14
the defendant is incapable of acting in his own defence.
***
Judge Zeilinger
[address] [references]
10 March 1997
Judge Zeilinger,
15
as in any other sentence which may be quoted against me, so that I can
know exactly what is being alleged against me in order to enable me to
prepare my defence.
I demand to be supplied with all documents, evidence, and a list
of all witnesses upon which/whom you intend to rely in proving your
case.
I demand a continuance of the trial date so that I can study
German law.
I demand to appeal your decision to deny me a lawyer.
I demand to be supplied with any and all exculpatory evidence
in your possession.
I refuse to accept any burden of proof in this matter whatsoever.
The burden of proof is on you, not me.
I am not familiar with the legal systems of Third World
dictatorships.
Faithfully,
Carlos Porter
16
PART IV
TRANSLATION OF JUDGEMENT:
REVISIONISM, FAILURE TO APPEAR
Copy
Reference no. 8430 Cs 112 Js 11637/96
(Please indicate reference in all correspondence!)
JUDGEMENT
of the Lower District Court of Munich
[reverse page]
Grounds: The defendant raised objections in due time against the order
of punishment indicated in the statement of judgement.
17
The subpoena for the trial, held today, which contained
information as to the consequences of absence, or absence without
sufficient excuse, was duly delivered on: 3 March 1997.
The defendant was absent without justification, or with
insufficient justification, and was not represented by a lawyer with
signed power of attorney.
The objection must therefore be rejected under Sections 412,
329 of StPO [Criminal Trial Regulations].
The cost of the proceedings is based on Sections 465 of StPO.
Signed,
Zeilinger
Judge of Lower District Court
Certified True Copy
Place, date: Munich, 3 April 1997
Urmann Legal Secretary Clerk of the Court [stamp]
18
either Appeal or Review, according to your choice.
II. 5. If you have filed for appeal, you are free to state your
grounds for so doing within TWO WEEKS of delivery of the
judgement. The grounds must be stated in writing to the Court, or
orally to the Clerk of the Court, to be taken down in writing.
6. If you have filed for Review, delivery may be made to you
by means of public delivery through proclamation by publication in the
newspaper, or by posting on the notice board of the Court, especially
when delivery of sentence is not possible where it was last made, or at
the last address indicated by you.
7.1. If neither you, nor, in the cases in which this is permissible,
a lawyer with power of attorney, is present at the beginning of the main
trial, and if such absence is without sufficient justification, the Court is
fundamentally bound to reject the Appeal without a hearing.
7.2. If, in the circumstances indicated above, the prosecution
has filed an appeal, proceedings may take place in your absence. The
prosecution may also, under such circumstances, drop the appeal, even
without your consent.
7.3. If proceedings are not taken under 7.1 or 7.2, the Court
may order your appearance or arrest.
8. If you have filed for Review, you MUST state the grounds.
This requires a statement as to:
a) whether the judgement is being disputed as a whole or only
in certain parts, and whether application is being made to reverse it in
whole or in part (applications for Review), AND
b) whether the judgement is being disputed on the grounds of
violation of substantive (material) law, or on the grounds of violation of
the procedural regulations (grounds for Review); In the latter case, the
application must state the facts which are alleged to have resulted in
impermissibility of the rejection of your objection.
9. A document signed by yourself is NOT sufficient for
statement of the grounds for Review. Applications for Review, stating
the grounds for the same (no. 8), must be made orally to the judicial
officer to be taken down in writing, or filed in a document signed by a
defence attorney or lawyer. This must take place within ONE MONTH
after expiration of the appeal period (no. 4).
III. 10. For written declarations, it is not sufficient, for purposes
of compliance with the appeal period, that such written declaration be
posted within the appeal period. Compliance with the appeal period is
only present when the declaration is actually received by the Court
before expiration of the period. Application for legal remedy must be
filed in the German language.
19
PART V
OPINION OF GERMAN DEFENCE ATTORNEY
3 June 1997
As agreed, I have examined the files in your case and am able to report
my general opinion as follows: On 16 August 1996, you sent a letter
written in Nigerimanian – whether you were actually the author may
remain open – to the Mayor of Munich (among others?), enclosed with
the brochure “Not Guilty at Nuremberg”. From the file, it appears that
the Mayor of Munich, Christian Ude, by letter dated 20 August 1996,
forwarded both your letter and the brochure to the State Prosecutor,
with the request “to examine both for their criminal content and, if
applicable, to take suitable steps”.
It doesn’t take much intelligence to see that both, i.e., your
letter and the brochure, are in violation of present Nigerimanian law (it
is obvious that I need not undertake to evaluate the contents
personally). The responsible State Prosecutor, in any case, applied for a
corresponding Order of Punishment (in practice, this is an indictment
which, if no objection is filed, then becomes the equivalent of a legally
effective conviction. Orders of Punishment are used chiefly in cases of
minor importance). This Order of Punishment was duly delivered to
you in Belgium, accompanied by the proper information as to legal
remedies.
By letter of 7 January 1997, you filed an objection within the
proper period, and further demanded the appointment of a court-
appointed lawyer. The court rejected this in a decision dated 28 January
1997. It appears doubtful to me whether this rejection was correct; in
any case, you are a foreigner, and it is doubtful whether such a
foreigner possesses sufficient knowledge of Nigerimanian law to be
20
able to defend himself properly.
The question of whether the above mentioned decision was
technically correct may, however, remain open. For your part, at any
rate, you made no use of the opportunity to file a complaint against that
decision. [!]
One might also state here that the situation is now out of date,
due to the further progress of the matter.
Unfortunately, I cannot spare you the reproach that, even after
learning of this decision, you did not bother to consult a Nigerimanian
lawyer – which was obviously still possible later, in the form of my
intervention. If this had occurred, the further progress of the matter
would have been as follows: the defence lawyer would have informed
the Court that he was representing you, and then applied for and
received permission to look at the file.
The subpoena to the Main Trial on the grounds of your
objections – which you filed within the required period! – would have
been sent to your attorney as well as to yourself. This would therefore
have excluded the possibility of what has, in fact, unfortunately
occurred due to inaction on your part: namely, that you missed the
court date, without an appearance by yourself or your defence attorney,
resulting in the rejection of your objections (which must follow under
Nigerimanian law).
In a letter dated 10 March 1997, you nevertheless (interestingly,
in English) acknowledged the contents of the subpoena, and disputed
the jurisdiction of the court. At this moment, at the very latest, you
should have attempted to engage a Nigerimanian lawyer in the case
(this was obviously still possible later, otherwise the matter would not
have landed with me). On 25 March 1997, however, neither you nor
your attorney was present; the Court was therefore required by
Nigerimanian law to reject your objection – which was filed within the
required period! – by corresponding judgement under Sections 412,
329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This decision was delivered to you on 7 April 1997. By fax on
13 or 14 April 1997, you filed for appeal and/or review against the
judgement – within the required period. According to Nigerimanian
law, you also had the possibility, within one week of delivery of the
judgment, of alleging that you were unable to appear in court on 25
March 1997 through no fault of your own (for example, illness, car
trouble, etc.), i.e., application for “restoration of the previous situation”.
You didn’t do this either. No grounds for any such claim are to be
inferred from your letter to the Court, nor your correspondence with
me, nor the fax from Mr. Zündel, dated 13 April 1997, which lies
21
before me.
On 28 May 1997, I received a subpoena for an Appeal Trial on
Friday, 1 August 1997, at 12:30 A.M. in Munich (see enclosure). The
question arises of whether it makes any sense for us to take advantage
of this court date. This must, in my view, be answered in the negative.
In particular, the Appeal Trial will not examine the matter itself – that
is, whether your written statements actually violate the applicable
provisions of law – but rather, only whether the Court, in session on 25
March 1997, rightfully rejected your objections. Unfortunately, this
must be answered in the affirmative. I therefore see no sense in taking
advantage of the appeal court date, thus producing further costs which
could be avoided.
Rather, I recommend that you withdraw your appeal.
The result of the above would be that the Order of Punishment,
which has already been issued against you, would become effective in
law (and would therefore be equivalent to a conviction). This would
mean that you would have a prior conviction under Nigerimanian law
for the acts for which you stand accused, and would have to pay the
fine mentioned in the Order of Punishment, in the total amount of 6,000
DM [plus costs]. The normal procedure in the matter is that, some
months after legal entry into effect, you would receive a demand for
payment from the State Prosecutor of Munich.
Let us assume that you are not prepared to pay the fine, and
furthermore, that the fine cannot be forcibly collected in Belgium.
Then, at best, a demand would be issued to you in Belgium by the
Nigerimanian Prosecutor’s Office to appear in Nigerimania to serve the
alternative period of imprisonment (150 daily monetary units, i.e., 150
days imprisonment). It is not known to me whether you would be able
to serve the time in a Belgian prison.
[Note: I would.]
Should you disobey the subpoena and fail to appear for
imprisonment, a warrant would be issued for your arrest, which would
mean that if your identity documents were to be examined upon
crossing the border into Nigerimania, you could be arrested to serve the
prison sentence.
Whether the Nigerimanian authorities could apply for your
extradition to Nigerimania under international law to serve the prison
sentence in Nigerimania, I don’t know. You could, of course, avoid this
risk entirely by paying the fine, which would naturally be possible in
instalments (upon sufficient showing of need for this purpose).
As you may gather from the above remarks, the problem is not
whether you filed an objection against the judgment of 25 March 1997
22
with the required period – you did so. The problem is rather, whether
such an appeal could examine the grounds for the Order of Punishment
itself. This must be answered in the negative, since you didn’t appear
for trial. If you should argue that you lacked a sufficient understanding
of the Nigerimanian legal documents, it must be remarked that the
indicted letter to Mayor Ude was written in Nigerimanian, as well as
your lengthy letter to Judge Zeilinger dated 7 January 1997 (I assume
that you didn’t write it). In view of the above, it appears remarkable
that you should attribute any misunderstandings or failure to appear to
defective knowledge of the Nigerimanian language – as you did in your
letter to the court dated 10 March 1997.
For purposes of completeness, I must furthermore state that, in
concluding your letter to the court dated 7 January 1997, you mention
the question of the statute of limitations – if this has any application at
all [Note: So does it, or doesn’t it?], this would apply only to the book,
but not to the letter to Mayor Ude. You may however “console”
yourself with the thought that I would have estimated your chances of
acquittal – even if you had appeared on the court date on 25 March
1997, i.e., even if there had been no negligence on your part – as
extremely slim (you must, of course, be aware of Nigerimanian practice
in similar cases).
[Note: I am. That’s why I didn’t appear, and that’s why I didn’t
bother with a lawyer.]
As a result, I can only recommend that you withdraw the appeal
in order to save further costs. In the event that you wish to become
acquainted with Nigerimanian justice personally, and wish to appear in
Munich on 1 August 1997, I will be glad to appear as well.
I am sorry to have nothing further to report to you, and hope
that you have no further contacts with Nigerimanian justice, or, if you
do, that you have at least learned from this case to bother with a
Nigerimanian lawyer within the required period. [Note: What for?]
Please let me have your instructions as to whether you wish to
withdraw the appeal or not. If you decide to withdraw, you should, of
course, not do so a few days before the court date, but rather, within the
required period. [deletions]
Postscript: As you may see from the enclosure, which just
reached me by fax, the court has ordered your personal appearance on 1
August 1997. Enclosures: subpoena, etc.
[Nigerimanian bright spark then resigned as defence attorney. A
new subpoena was received dated 22 May 1997.]
23
PART VI
ANSWER TO SUBPOENA OF 22 MAY 1997
Richter Ulrich
Landgericht München I
Justizgebäude
Nymphenburger Strasse 16
D-800335 München
Spa, 1 July 1997
Landgericht München Az. 18 Ns 112 Js 11637/96
Fax: (089) 55 97 43 54
Judge Ulrich,
24
plying its trade in a foreign totalitarian dictatorship.
If you fine me, I will not pay it.
If you put me in prison, I will go on hunger strike like Bobby
Sands.
I shall speak and write the truth as I see it whether you or
anyone else likes it or not.
Faithfully,
Carlos Porter
***
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION
FROM GERMAN INTO ENGLISH
[deletions]
25
however, you have to inform the Court immediately about their names
and addresses
[Note: No doubt so the court can arrest them and burn their
books].
If you should not be able to pay for the travelling expenses out
of your own resources and furnish proof thereof, you may submit an
application for a travelling allowance to the above-mentioned Court or,
in urgent cases, to the Local Court competent for your place of
residence.
Yours faithfully,
signed: Weingart
Court employee Clerk of the Court’s office
LIST OF EVIDENCE
26
PART VII
REPLIES TO SUBPOENA OF 22 AUGUST 1997
Richter Ulrich
Landgericht München I
Justizgebäude
Nymphenburger Strasse 16
D-800335 München
Spa, 1 September 1997
Landgericht München Az. 18 Ns 112 Js 11637/96
Fax: (089) 55 97 43 54
Judge Ulrich,
27
– 1 pornographic picture painted on canvas of human skin (IMT
XXX 469);
– 1 book bound in human skin (IMT VI 331);
– 1 saddle, 1 pair of riding breeches, 1 glove, 1 house slipper,
1 ladies’ handbag, all of human skin (IMT V 171);
– 1 torture box disguised as an ordinary wardrobe (IMT XVI
561, 546, 556-557);
– 1 chair stuffed with human hair (IMT XIX 506);
– 1 pair of booties of human hair (IMT XXXIX 552-553, XX
353
– 1 jar of human soap (IMT VII 597-601);
– 1 piece of tanned human skin (IMT VII 600);
– 1 gas van (IMT VII 571);
– 1 doormat of human hair (NMT V 1119-1152, Trial of
Oswald Pohl).
Faithfully,
Carlos Porter
***
Richter Ulrich
Landgericht München I
Justizgebäude
Nymphenburger Strasse 16
D-800335 München
Spa, 5 September 1997
Landgericht München Az. 18 Ns 112 Js 11637/96
Fax: (089) 55 97 43 54
Judge Ulrich,
28
In addition to production of the physical evidence mentioned in
my fax of 1 September (for example:
1 “steam chamber” for the extermination of human beings,
1 German “atomic bomb” for the extermination of Auschwitz
inmates,
1 “pedal-driven brain-bashing machine” for the extermination
of Russian prisoners of war, etc),
I demand production of the following documentary evidence:
a) all data in your possession relating to Hitler’s I.Q. (Point 3 of
the indictment);
b) a clarification of whether you agree with Wilhelm Keitel’s
assessment that Hitler was a genius (Point 3 of the indictment), and that
mass murder with Diesel exhaust and insecticide is therefore the act of
a genius; or, alternatively, a clarification that you consider Hitler to
have been an idiot, which would explain the use of Diesel exhaust and
insecticide for mass killing;
c) the original of the “Hitler mass murder confession” (Point 3
of the indictment), since you object to my statement that the document
is a “photocopy”;
d) a clarification of whether or not you agree with Field
Marshal Milch’s assessment that it is unclear that Hitler was of sound
mind in 1945, accompanied by all data in your possession relating to
Hitler’s mental health in 1945 (Point 3 of the indictment).
I must point out to you that denial of the existence of “steam
chambers for the extermination of human beings” (Point 1 of the
indictment) is not a crime under German law, since nobody believes
that they existed. If you wish to prove that the “steam chambers” did
exist (along with the German “atomic bombs” and “brain-bashing
machines” also referred to in the text which is the subject of the
indictment), I demand that you produce a “steam chamber” and bring it
to court, proving the authenticity and origin thereof.
When you have assembled the prosecution evidence which will
be required to prove your case, I shall consider preparing a defence. I
refuse to reveal the whereabouts of my witnesses, because you will
arrest them; you already burnt their books, remember?
Faithfully,
Carlos Porter
29
PART VIII
REPLIES TO COURT JUDGEMENT
OF 23 OCTOBER 1997
[Excerpts]
30
Legal Remedies (StP 137) [small print]
***
Richter Kunert
Landgericht München I
Justizgebäude
Nymphenburger Strasse 16
D 80335 München
Spa, 5 November 1997
Landgericht München Az.
18 Ns 112 Js 11637/96
Fax: (089) 55 97 43 54
BY FAX
Judge Kunert,
31
attested to by a “doctor’s certificate” retyped by myself. The signature
is typewritten because it is a “certified true copy”, certified by myself.
If this kind of thing is good enough for the Nuremberg tribunal,
then it is good enough for you.
Please notify me of my next trial date, so that I may appear as
soon as you have assembled the evidence required to prove your case,
as described in my letters of 1 September and 5 September 1997.
Faithfully,
C.W. Porter
***
Richter Kunert
Landgericht München I
Justizgebäude
Nymphenburger Strasse 16
D 80335 München
Spa, 7 November 1997
Landgericht München Az.
18 Ns 112 Js 11637/96
Fax: (089) 55 97 43 54
BY MAIL
Judge Kunert,
32
Paragraph 1). You are not engaged in the “cross-border hot pursuit” of
a person detected in the act of committing “murder, manslaughter, rape,
arson, counterfeiting, aggravated theft, receiving stolen goods, robbery,
extortion, kidnapping and hostage taking, trafficking in human beings
[Menschenhandel], narcotics dealing, firearms and explosives
violations, causing explosions, illegal traffic in toxic or hazardous
wastes”, or even “hit-and-run driving resulting in death or serious
injury” (Article 41, Paragraph 4a).
Article 40 of the Schengen Implementing Agreement permits
you to enter Belgium and place me under observation, with written
permission from the Belgian authorities, upon suspicion of an
“extraditable felony”, particularly “murder, manslaughter, rape, arson,
counterfeiting, aggravated theft, receiving stolen goods, robbery,
extortion, kidnapping and hostage taking, trafficking in human beings,
narcotics dealing, firearms and explosives violations, causing
explosions, illegal traffic in toxic or hazardous wastes” (Paragraph 4).
You are not permitted to enter my dwelling, or to interrogate or arrest
me (Paragraph 1, e and f).
The Schengen Implementing Agreement contains no provision
for extradition for political offences (see Articles 50, 59 and 63). The
“offence” was committed in Belgium (Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the
Benelux extradition treaty. There has never been a trial for this offence
in Belgium; see Article 8). I have an absolute right to a jury trial in
Belgium, and to do the time in a Belgian prison. There is no
international treaty dealing with revisionism or “Holocaust denial”.
I defy your authority and I refuse to comply with any order to
do anything.
A “trial” in which the court has no jurisdiction; in which the
prosecution offers no evidence, and refuses to clarify the nature of the
charges (particularly, Point 3 of the indictment, which is a complete
mystery to me); in which the defendant is permitted to offer no
evidence; in which defence witnesses are routinely arrested and all
defence evidence routinely burnt, is not a trial at all. It is a form of
social, political and legal terrorism.
The Schengen Implementing Agreement, to which you refer, is
intended, in part, to combat international terrorism. Perhaps you should
take a look at yourself.
Faithfully,
C.W. Porter
33
PART IX
HOLOCAUST MUSEUM OF STUPIDITY:
NOW OPENING AT A LOCATION NEAR YOU
18 Ns 112 Js 116737/96
Regarding: Criminal proceedings against Porter, Carlos
For “Popular Incitement” (or “Incitement of the Masses”) [!] [?]
[Short excerpts only]
…[The defendant] stated that he had been unable to attend the main
trial on 10 October 1997 due to “severe cranial injuries and
concussion”. With regard to the other statements, reference is made to
the letter of the defendant dated 5 November 1997, which was
translated.
[This means: the letter of 7 November will be ignored.]
[…etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.]
…The mere assertion of severe cranial injuries and concussion
is insufficient to constitute justified failure to appear because there is no
indication of the date [!!!]. In addition, the claim was not substantiated
[!]. The doctor’s certificate mentioned by the accused in his letter of 5
November 1997, was not presented [!]. Nor was this failure made good
in the letter of the defendant dated 7 November 1997 in which the
accused stated that he had recovered from his cranial injuries [!].
Furthermore, the accused, in his letter to the court dated 1 September
1997, had [already] stated at length that he would refuse to appear.
[OK; so why bother with the trial?]
[…etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.]
Kunert
Presiding Judge Regional Court
[certified true copy, etc., etc.]
34
[The defendant was then given one week in which to protest the
rejection of his defence of justified absence due to pedal-driven brain-
bashing-machine-induced injuries.]
…The objection must be in German.
***
OBJECTION
Judge Kunert,
Carlos W. Porter
35
PART X
HOLOCAUST MUSEUM OF STUPIDITY
MOVES TO NEW LOCATION:
STATE COURT OF APPEALS OF MUNICH
[OBERLANDESGERICHT MÜNCHEN]
36
The reason (or excuse) for this was that the postman left a
notice of registered delivery with return receipt in the defendant’s mail
box on 22 December 1997. The defendant did not actually sign for
delivery, or receive the judgement, until New Year’s Eve [!]. The
return receipt was therefore dated 31 December 1997, as the court very
well knows, and as the defendant can easily prove.
He was given one week to object “from date of delivery” [!].
He objected by fax on 5 January 1998, as he can easily prove, by
production of his itemised telephone bill. The State Court of Appeals,
with mock seriousness, also got the date of the objection wrong, which
is given twice as 2 January. Presumably this was done to make it more
difficult to prove willful falsehood as to the date of delivery. The
delivery date of 22 December 1997 is mentioned 3 times. The text
contains no mention of pedal-driven brain-bashing machines, atomic
bombs, or the defendant’s claim to be “still radioactive”. It is obvious
that, while the judges may be willing to perjure themselves as to the
delivery date, they are reluctant to make themselves look ridiculous.
The decision was written in German.
***
DECISION
37
[Blah, blah, blah.] Delivery on 22 December 1997 was therefore
effective [blah, blah]. The one-week objection period therefore began
to run on 22 December 1997 [blah, blah]. Receipt of the immediate
objection on 2 January 1998 [!] was therefore late [!]. The legal remedy
is to be rejected as inadmissible. [Decision as to costs, etc. etc. blah,
blah, blah].
Dr. Glück,
Mallwitz
Sole Presiding Judge
Judges of the State Court of Appeals
[Certified True Copy, etc.]
Münich, 10.02.1998
***
38
Dear Sirs,
Faithfully,
Monssen-Engberding Ltd.
Reg.Direktorin [female director]
Kennedy Allee 105-107
53175 Bonn
Telephone (0228) 37 66 31
Fax: 37 9014 ------
[Enclosure] FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR FAMILY, THE ELDERLY,
WOMEN, AND YOUTH
Ref.: (please mention in all correspondence): 415-2434-1/204
[address again, blah, blah, blah]
Telephone: (0228) 930-2756 Or 930-0 [sic]
Fax: (0228) 930-930-2221
Bonn, 13.08.1997
Processing: Dr. Scholtz [Doktorin, another idiot female]
Federal Examination Centre for Writings Dangerous to Youth
Kennedy Allee 105-107
53175 Bonn
[stamp: Federal Office, etc. blah, blah blah, received 18 August 1997]
[Note that they are actually shameless enough to borrow the term
“Index” from the medieval inquisitors! – C.P.]
39
pure coincidence that Germany produces the filthiest pornography in
Europe, falling behind the Dutch in child pornography only.]
Reason: The mere title of the text mentioned above gives rise to
the conclusion that its content is likely to disorient children and young
people. [!] PORTER’s brochure is a revisionist publication in the
broadest sense of the word, but nevertheless contains a few passages
denying the Holocaust. The intent of the text is, first of all, to slander
the International Military Tribunal [!] from a one-sided point of view
[!] and to rehabilitate the condemned war criminals. Germany is thus to
be discharged from its responsibility.
A general attempt is made, through the alleged innocence of the
chief defendants, to prove that there was no extermination of the
European Jews. The well-known Holocaust denier Robert
FAURISSON receives positive mention (see p. 36) to this end, among
other things. The meaning and intent of this text is, therefore, partially,
to discredit the Military Tribunal [!], and, secondarily, to deny the
Holocaust. The author attempts to suggest to the reader that no crimes
of the kind imputed to the defendants took place in Germany between
1939 and 1995 [sic]. The points of the indictment against the
defendants are attributed solely to falsification on the part of the Allies.
PORTER continually presents the criminals indicted at Nuremberg as
the real victims, who were in no way guilty.
[This is not quite true. The introduction clearly states: “This
book contains a great many references to page numbers. They are not
there… to prove the truth of the matter stated [!], but to help interested
people find things.” The author makes no pretence of knowing the
exact location of the Gneisenau on 1 September 1939, for example, or
whether it carried any ammunition supplies; that is for others to verify.
– C.P.]
An attempt is made to suggest levels of scientific research
which the text in no way reflects. To shore up the credibility of his
statements, the author gives the references to the Nuremberg trial
transcript at all times. The sources and quotations used by him are
given unsystematically and taken out of context [i.e., they are defence
statements instead of statements of the prosecution. – C.P.]
He is not successful in creating a connection to the arguments
intended by him. [OK, so where do YOU say the Gneisenau was on 1
September 1939? – C.P.] It is remarkable that the author neither quotes
correctly, nor gives correct references.
[None of the author’s mistakes are cited against him as
examples; perhaps they have gotten the human soap “recipe”, USSR-
196, mixed up with the human soap “exhibit”, i.e., the soap itself, USS-
40
393, and think that the latter is a “mistake”. – C.P.]
Media with similar content have already been indexed by the
Federal Examination Centre. [The author is waiting for a hole to be
bored in his tongue with a red-hot iron. – C.P.]
With relation to the above mentioned brochure, we are asking
you to examine whether or not there is an identity, or identity of
content, between this text, and texts which have already been indexed,
or texts for which an application has been made for listing. [In other
words, whether the same thing may also have been published under
some other name! – C.P.]
41
PART XI
FINAL STATEMENT TO THE COURT
BY FAX
42
I retract nothing. I regret nothing. I fear nothing.
I stand by the contents of my letters to the court dated 7
January, 10 March, 1 July, 1 September, 5 September, and 7 November
1997.
I stand by the contents of my letter to Christian Ude.
If you fine me, I will not pay it. If you put me in prison, I will
go on hunger strike like Bobby Sands.
I defy your authority and I refuse to comply with any order to
do anything.
I am not afraid of you; I fear the future if I do nothing. That is
all.
Faithfully,
Carlos W. Porter
43
FINAL DISPOSITION OF CASE
Finis Germaniae.
44
ANNEX I:
GRAPHICS, GERMANY V. PORTER
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
ANNEX II:
OFFICIAL IMT RECORD OF PEDAL-DRIVEN
BRAIN-BASHING MACHINE – CAUSE OF
DEFENDANT’S “SEVERE CRANIAL INJURIES”,
RENDERING HIM UNABLE TO APPEAR
56
57
58
ANNEX III:
OFFICIAL IMT RECORD OF GERMAN WWII
ATOMIC BOMB USED IN “SECRET EXPERIMENT”
AT AUSCHWITZ – CAUSE OF DEFENDANT’S
“SEVERE RADIATION BURNS”,
RENDERING HIM UNABLE TO APPEAR
59
60
ANNEX IV:
COVERS OF THE AUTHOR’S BOOKS
61
62
63
64