WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 5 |

«by Dr. Karl Bergmeister Notes from the editor of this e-book: • The original scanned version of this book was downloaded from nazi.org.uk in July ...»

-- [ Page 2 ] --

At the end of October 1934, the 16 witnesses called by the Jewish plaintiffs were heard, and on the 14th of May 1935 judgement was entered to the effect that the Protocols were a forgery and demoralising literature. No other decision was possible, because on the one hand the Marxist judge accepted the falsehoods of the Princess Radziwill and of the Comte du Chayla as correct, and consequently was bound to accept the expertises of Baumgarten and Loosli, which were founded upon these falsehoods; and on the other hand because he refused to listen to the objections raised by the expert Fleischhauer against these falsehoods. Quite apart from this, the judge went so far in his preconceived opinion that the Protocols were a forgery, and in his lack of objectivity under undisguised pressure from Jewry, that he did not even stop at deliberately setting aside the conditions laid down in the Swiss Civil Code for the carrying out of legal proceedings. Thus he only allowed the witnesses brought by the Jewish plaintiffs to be heard, whereas of the 40 witnesses brought by the defendants, not a single one was allowed a hearing. The proceedings were accordingly carried on solely upon the testimony of the Jewish plaintiffs. And further, although Swiss law demands that in the case of every lawsuit, shorthand minutes of the proceedings be taken by an official of the court, the judge did not adhere to this condition, but permitted the Jewish plaintiffs to appoint two private stenographers to keep the register of the official proceedings during the hearing of their own witnesses. As therefore no legal record of the proceedings was kept, it follows that the whole procedure, and the verdict itself are both null and void.

In other ways also bias may be said to have celebrated triumphs. Thus the expert Fleischhauer was hindered by a variety of expedients from making use of his legal right to examine the documents of the other side; and whereas the two Swiss experts were allowed a good eight months for the preparation of their expertises, the judge demanded that Fleischhauer should prepare his expertise within six weeks. It was only after a protest, that he agreed to extend this period by the insufficient term of one month.

In consequence of all this, the principal defendant Silvio Schnell lodged an appeal through his counsel Hans Ruef.

After a lapse of two and a half years, the case was reopened in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Berne on October 27th 1937.

Messrs Ursprung and Ruef, counsel for the defendants, demanded that the verdict given in the court of first instance be quashed, and their clients acquitted. Mr. Ruef submitted that the evidence taken down during the original proceedings had not been submitted to the witnesses for signature, and argued that little credibility could in any event be attached to their statements. He pointed out moreover that all the Russian documents which had been submitted to the court by M. Loosli were uncertified copies of the originals, and that a number of mistakes had been discovered in the different translations.

Mr. Ruef finally declared that it was not possible to apply the Bernese law to the incriminated document, because its contents were of a political, and not of a moral nature.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor Loder recognised that the manner in which the official record of the proceedings had been kept in the court of first instance had not been correct, and he further recognised that a whole series of errors in the sense of the Penal Code had been committed.

On the 1st November 1937 the Appeal Court pronounced judgement in the following terms:

"The accused Sylvio Schnell is acquitted without indemnity, all elements which might constitute a basis for the charge being absent."

In summing up the President declared that any expertise on the authenticity or nonauthenticity of the Protocols was superfluous. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a political pamphlet of a polemical order, the Bernese law did not apply. For this reason a complete acquittal had been pronounced. The President declared with emphasis that the judge in the court of first instance had no right to set on foot enquiries as to the authenticity or the non-authenticity of the Protocols for the reason that the matter was irrelevant to the consideration of whether an immoral publication was to hand.

In this important lawsuit therefore Jewry have not attained their object.

When in spite of this the Jewish press announce that all that was decided by the Court of Appeal was that the Protocols are not demoralising literature, and that the declaration of the judge in the court of first instance that they are a forgery retains its validity, this amounts to no more than a gross misleading of public opinion.

In the Court of Appeal the judgement of the first court was quashed in its entirety, and the considerations upon which the first judge based his faulty judgement, and more especially his assumption that a forgery was to hand, were deprived of all weight.

4. The supposed proofs of forgery.

Of the evidence brought by Jewry against the authenticity of the Protocols already in 1921, and in Berne in 1934/1935, the following may be said to be the substance.

The assumption made by P r i n c e s s R a d z i w i l l that the Protocols were drawn up in the year 1906 after the Russo-Japanese War and the first Russian Revolution may be said to be false if only on the following grounds namely, that the text of the Protocols can be proved to have been in the hands of Stepanoff already in 1895, that in 1901 it was in the hands of Nilus, and that in the year 1903, it was published in the "Snamja". It can further be proved that in 1905, and some years previously, both Ratschkowsky and Golowinsky were no longer in Paris. Thus does the whole catena of lies contrived by Princess Radziwill fall to the ground.





This woman moreover falsely gave herself out as a princess in her interview with the Press in 1921, whereas already in 1914, after her divorce from Prince William Radziwill, she married an engineer called Karl Emil Kolb, from whom she was again shortly afterwards divorced, and in 1921 following upon of a new marriage became Mrs. Danvin. It was in vain for the expert Fleischhauer to point out to the court during the proceedings that the evidence of this woman could not be taken seriously, if only for the reason that she was a proven forger and crook. The court refused to make any investigation of her previous career. It might therefore be fitting at this point to mention some of her shady actions in the past. About the year 1900 she attached herself to the diamond mine owner C e c i l R h o d e s, at the time he was going to South Africa. On the grounds of pure vanity apparently she published in a paper called "Greater Britain", which she edited there, what purported to be an interview with the late M a r q u e s s o f S a l i s b u r y on the political situation in South Africa. In this interview Lord Salisbury is supposed to have expressed the view that Rhodes should be advanced to the position of Premier of Cape Colony. To put the matter beyond all doubt, the Princess showed Rhodes' private secretary the text of statement purporting to be signed by Lord Salisbury, and a telegram which she stated she had received from him inviting her to an interview. It came out afterwards that the telegram was not genuine, as it was not Lord Salisbury, but the Princess who had sent it to herself, that the interview had never taken place, and that moreover Lord Salisbury's signature had been forged.

During the year 1901, she passed cheques to the aggregate amount of £ 29,000, signing them with the name of Cecil Rhodes. Following upon this she was arrested and sentenced to eighteen months hard labour. A full account of this affair, and of other exploits of this forgeress and adventuress may be found in the memoirs of two of Cecil Rhodes' private secretaries entitled "Cecil Rhodes, his private life by his private secretary Philip Jourdan" London, 1910 and "Cecil Rhodes, the man and his work by one of his private and confidential secretaries, Gordon le Sueur". London

1913. Both books may be seen at the library of the University in Göttingen.

After leaving South Africa this woman did not alter her way of life. In 1921, she was arrested at the instance of two hotels in New York for having piled up bills for meals, and then disappeared without paying them.

A suitable witness indeed to prove that the Protocols are a forgery!

The patently false statement that the Protocols were first drawn up after the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 was very awkward to the C h i e f E x p e r t L o o s l i, s o h e i n h i s t u r n proceeded to falsify the evidence and with the object of adding verisimilitude to the statement made by Radziwill, he in his e x p e r t i s e u n o b t r u s i v e l y a l t e r e d t h e y e a r 1 9 0 5 t o 1 8 9 5. He was compelled by Fleischhauer seven months later to own up to this before the court. Even this incident produced no effect upon the biased judge. There are moreover definite grounds for the supposition that Landman laid before the Princess what was definitely a text, the main contents of which had been prepared beforehand, and which was afterwards ornamented by a few personal comments of her own. It is also stated that she was paid the unusually high sum of 500 Dollars for the interview by L e w i s M a r s h a l l, the B'nai Brith Mason and leader of American Jewry. This of course was no honorarium, but hush-money.

The second in the this unholy alliance was C o m t e d u C h a y l a, who was shameless enough to insist before the court upon the correctness of his article (previously referred to).

It was only after the lawsuit was over, that I succeeded in discovering the whereabouts o f S e r g e j S e r g e j e w i t s c h N i l u s, the son of the late S. A. Nilus, deceased in 1930, and the first publisher of the Protocols. In a detailed statement dated March 24 th 1936, Nilus junior states that Comte du Chayla published his report in "Dernières Nouvelles" being fully aware that it was untrue, and thus h e i s a p e r f i d i o u s l i a r a n d s l a n d e r e r. Nilus junior declared moreover that he himself was the legitimised son of S. A. Nilus, and of the latter's lifelong friend. This lady however was not Madame Natalia Afanassiewna, nor as stated by du Chayla, a Madame Komarowsky, but N a t a l i a A f a n a s s i e w n a W o l o d i m e r o w. She had never at any time been in touch with Ratschkowsky. She had moreover never had anything to do with the Protocols. Nilus junior declared himself prepared to state upon oath that he was himself present when in the year 1901, Major Suchotin, also a friend of his father's, had handed the manuscript over to him. He cannot remember having seen at the time the ominous inkstain upon the front page.

Further enquiries revealed the fact that Comte du Chayla in the year 1921, was Chief of Propaganda on the Staff of the Don Cossack Corps of General Wrangel's Army. During his employment in this capacity, he was discovered to be acting as a Bolshevist agent, and as such was arrested and condemned to death for high treason. General Wrangel however, acting under pressure from the French Ambassador quashed the sentence, and had to content himself with expelling the treasonable officer from the army.

Upon this matter and upon the previous career of the Count, State Councillor G r e g o r P e t r o w i t s c h G i r t s c h i t s c h, formerly in the Judge Advocate General's Department of Wrangel's army and at present living in Tunis, has furnished exhaustive information in a report dated the 30th April 1936, such information having added importance in view of the fact that Girtschiisch himself conducted the case against du Chayla.

Already at the beginning of June 1936, D r. B o r i s L i f f s c h i t z, a Russian Jew practising at the bar in Switzerland, and acting as counsel to du Chayla, was informed of the existence of these declarations, both of which were handed to the court. Du Chayla however omitted to bring any action for libel against S. S. Nilus. He apparently considered discretion to be the better part of valour, and that it was preferable in this instance to take the insult that he was a perfidious liar and slanderer sitting down, rather than take the risk of bringing an action against S. S. Nilus which would expose him to the danger of Nilus proving his contention true.

Yet a third witness has recently come forward in the person of A n d r e j P e t r o w i t s c h R a t s c h k o w s k y in Paris. He is the son of State Councillor Ratschkowsky, whom incidentally, Du Chayla falsely described as a general, a rank which he never held. In a written statement dated 13th July 1936, he states that he has searched through all the archives of his late father, which are in his possession, that is to say not only through his private correspondence, but also through all drafts of reports sent to the authorities in St. Petersburg, and that nowhere has he been able to detect the smallest trace of his father over having had anything to do with the Protocols. He had moreover never had so much as a hint from his father that the Protocols were known to him. His father had never been an Anti-Semite, he had had Jews as friends and collaborators, and more particularly at the time of the publication of the Protocols, his Secretary was the Jew M. G o l s c h m a n n. Finally his father was never acquainted with the fabulous Madame Komarowsky, who was supposed to have handed the document over to him.

Through the reports of those who might be described as the most telling witnesses in the case namely Nilus junior, Girtschitsch and Ratschkowsky junior, light has finally been brought to bear upon the forger's den. The statements of the crook and ex-Princess Radziwill, now Mrs. K. Danvin, and of the Bolshevist Agent and traitor Comte du Chayla are in all essential points untrue. State Councillor Ratschkowsky had never on any occasion anything to do with the Protocols. Nilus's lifelong friend who according to du Chayla was the go-between who handed him the Protocols, was not called Komarowsky, but Wolodimerow, and was never in contact of any kind with Ratschkowsky.



Pages:     | 1 || 3 | 4 |   ...   | 5 |


Similar works:

«WHOSE LAW & ORDER? Aspects of Crime and Social Control in Irish Society Edited by Mike Tomlinson Tony Varley Ciaran McCullagh Studies in Irish Society 1. Are They Always Right? Investigation and Proof in a Citizen Anti-Heroin Movement Don Bennett Introduction Up out of a sea-misted Dun Laoghaire side-street emerges a solitary figure muffled in a long olive great-coat. He has spent his night tracking the movements of a number of men and women. He has gathered reports from regular contacts who...»

«INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT ON THE LEGAL NEEDS OF STREET YOUTH June 16-17, 2015 | London, England The Law Firm of Baker & McKenzie American Bar Association Commission on Homelessness & Poverty and Section of Litigation Children's Rights Litigation Committee Baker & McKenzie Partners: ABA Center on Children & the Law ABA Commission on Youth at Risk ABA Section of International Law ABA Rule of Law Initiative The Abdoulah Family Fund—A Donor-Advised Fund of the Denver Foundation The Anchor Fund of the...»

«SAFE HAVEN Sheltering Displaced Persons from Sexual and Gender-Based Violence CASE STUDY: KENYA MAY 2013 HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER | SEXUAL VIOLENCE PROGRAM University of California, Berkeley, School of Law This four-country study was conducted as part of the Sexual Violence Program at the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. It was written by Dr. Rebecca Horn, with contribution from Kim Thuy Seelinger. The Human Rights Center at the University of California,...»

«First Principles for Addressing the Competing Interests of Common and Preferred Stockholders in an M&A Transaction When engaged by a Delaware corporation with a common and preferred stock capital structure to provide advice in an M&A transaction, counsel should expect to face a complicated array of legal issues posed by the potentially competing nature of the interests of the common and preferred stockholders. Among other issues, counsel will be expected to advise the board on (i) how to...»

«Formal Petition PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE Canonical & Tribunal Services Diocese of Austin 6225 Highway 290 E, Austin, TX 78723-1025 PETITION I hereby petition the Tribunal of the Diocese of Austin for a Declaration of Nullity of my marriage according to the canon law of the Catholic Church. Please PRINT: 1. I, the Petitioner [full legal name],, a member of [name of religion or church] _, and the Respondent [full legal name], _, a member of [name of religion or church],,...»

«1 Freedom of Thought 2013: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists, and the Non-religious was created by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). The Lead Author is Matt Cherry, the Editor is Bob Churchill. The International Humanist and Ethical Union is the world union of more than 120 Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, and freethought organizations from more than 40 countries. Its mission is to represent...»

«NOTE EXAMINING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE THROUGH THE LENS OF THE INDIAN COMMERCE CLAUSE Nathan Speed INTRODUCTION I. EARLY LAWS GOVERNING INDIAN TRIBES AND THEIR JUSTIFICATIONS A. Early Uses of the Treaty Clause B. Early Uses of the Indian Commerce Clause C. Conclusion to Part I II. LATER REGULATIONS OF INDIAN TRIBES: THE MAJOR CRIMES ACT. 479 III. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE MAJOR CRIMES ACT: KAGAMA AND THE RISE OF THE PLENARY POWER DOCTRINE A. United States v. Kagama B. The Plenary Power...»

«I assume that one thing most lawyers know about is coffee, so here's my Friday afternoon question: 12 Cup Coffeemaker with a Drip Basket, like a Mr. Coffee You only want to make 2 cups You have a standard size coffee scoop I guess you use 12 16 oz water How many scoops of coffee to make a good cup of coffee? Help! I'm sleepless in St. Louis! Ah, what an interesting question. Well, as all good lawyers know, it depends. Some coffee makers have a special setting for under 4 cups of coffee. Others...»

«JURISDICTION OF CONTROL Judgment and Procedural Forms in Thomas v Mowbray Edward Mussawir Reading judgment and case law is a typical exercise within common law scholarship. Yet, although the interpretation of judgment forms a central mode of legal science in the common law tradition, a theoretical account of the authority that attaches to the aesthetic of judgment within this tradition remains more marginal. This article argues that the authority of judgment can be assessed less productively...»

«Hour of Power vom 28.10.2012 Begrüßung (Bobby Schuller) This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. Turn around to those who are standing next to you. Shake their hands and say God loves you and so do I. Let’s pray: Father, we come to You in the name of Your son Jesus and we thank You for this gorgeous day. We thank You Lord that You are here present with us, that You never left us, and we ask God that You would bless us, teach us, forgive us and restore us, in the...»

«Argument & Critique January, 2015 Public Family Law cases in the context of Miscarriages of Justice By Dr Lauren Devine & Stephen Parker Article submitted to: Argument & Critique 19.11. 2014 Bibliographical notes: Dr Lauren Devine LL.B(Hons) LL.M MA Ph.D PGCertHE FHEA Barrister, is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the West of England, Director of the Interdisciplinary and Expert Evidence Network (IEEN.org.uk) and Principal Investigator for the ESRC funded project Rethinking Child...»

«ALPARGATAS S.A. CORPORATE TAXPAYER’S ID (CNPJ/MF): 61.079.117/0001-05 COMPANY REGISTRY (NIRE): 35 3000 25 270 Publicly-Held Company Excerpt from the Minutes of the Annual and Extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting held on April 23, 2015.I – DATE AND TIME AND VENUE: The Meeting was held on April 23, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., at the auditorium of the Company’s headquarters, at Avenida Doutor Cardoso de Melo, nº 1.336, 3º andar Vila Olímpia, in the city and state of São Paulo. II – LEGAL...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.