My friend Monika Schaefer has been locked up in a German maximum security prison since December. Her crime? Making the above video. It is well into the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of views; but we’ll never know, since YouTube took down the counter and is doing everything possible to bury it.
Her brother Alfred is now also on trial…like attorney Silvia Stolz, prosecuted for the crime of defending her clients! Apparently any lawyer who defends a witch, indeed anyone who opposes a witch hunt, must also be a witch. After all, why else would they defend witches?
Every real American lives by the motto: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The Stalinist show trials underway in Germany are a disgrace.
Press correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, Lady Michèle Renouf,
REPORTS FROM MUNICH on the SCHAEFER TRIAL, July 2-5, 2018
Please know I report only from the horse’s mouth i.e. from Alfred Schaefer and the legal team. I do not report hearsay or half grasped tidbits.
Subject: SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1+2, July 2-3, 2018 – Update
SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1,MORNING SESSION July 2, 2018 – From the Right End of the Horse
Press correspondent for The Barnes Review and the American Free Press, Lady Michèle Renouf writes:
I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-born brother Alfred).
Upon my arrival at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) advised me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom ) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika ( while she attended the former attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018).
This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery.
Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation, having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five-year custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration. Wiser, our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe.
The parties provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings in any case if witnessing the process. I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmayer, as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker (though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).
Though Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “international affection for the Schaefer siblings”, she agrees that my making daily reports to include this advice, as given by my own attorney, in fact serves to strengthen the dramatic resonance of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this bewildering “Alice in Wonderland” anti-National, non-Sovereign German legalese-land where – ‘first we have the verdict then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence.
How else but bewildering can one assess the nonsensical norm for WW2 historical skeptics where lawyers risk prosecution themselves if they defend certain clients’ opinions and findings “too well”?
During trials conducted in Mannheim Court, personally I have witnessed the lawyers acting for artist and publicist Ernst Zündel, and Plank Institute graduate and chemist Germar Rudolf, finding themselves charged for “acting too well” for their historical revisionist clients.
Indeed, some of those German lawyers have been punished with either crippling fines or incarceration for defending their clients “too well”
Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his political awakening via the suspect videos. I am only anxious that the judges may manage to forbid this exposé by him. The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these Processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings as provided to me from the horse’s mouth.
Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by valiant former-attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay/Schöffe judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schaffe judges, but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules, whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate, since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.
In the “curiouser and curiouser” Wonderland world of occupied-German law, the leading Judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water!
Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing, to which Alfred fittingly added that the court was but a “Muppet Show”. I concur for, in “The Great Muppet Caper” movie, I act as role model for Miss Piggy’s catwalk imposture!
Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction willfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the Judge demanded he give only a summary. At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges, whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full.
The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the playing-card Queen’s in “Alice in Wonderland” wherein these “contrariwise” trials commence with “Sentence first – then the evidence”….unless one’s lawyer attempts to defend his/her historical revisionist client “too well” and then the lawyer also is prosecuted for “defending the client too well”.
The “Holocaust” exceptionalist law presumes not only a bottomline of “obviousness”, but also that any attempt by the lawyer to offer his/her client’s evidential exhibits to prove the case will be “criminalised” as a heretic and suffer incarceration. Attorney Nahrath and others are always dancing on the wire.
No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics, since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the “Holocaust” on page 11 determine that:
“Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument”!
Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since 2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service broadcast under the title “Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests, on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented (by Renouf, much loathed by Lipstadt) instead of the omnipotent Hollywood version of WW2 history.
Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws, there have been numerous attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. These ex-Constitutional Court Judges argued that the “Holocaust” denial law was in contrary to the Federal Constitution of the Bundesrepublik!
Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zündel, Dr. Herbert Schaller, RA Manfred Roeder, RA Jürgen Rieger, Gerd Honsik – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Henry Hafenmayer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Günter Deckert, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Arnold Höf, Sven Lobeck and Christian Haeger to name but a few.
Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the global tidal wave for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.
Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed, and I await further news from the right end of the horse. Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 8-15 which included two reporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa whom they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild, the popular scandal sheet.
Michèle Renouf www.jewishrepublic.com
The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH, Day 1, AFTERNOON SESSION Monday July 2nd, 2018.
The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias against the Defendant Alfred Schaefer.
The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th, when the matter would be weighed. The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handing Alfred an arrest warrant, which meant he must be taken into police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the new case of para.86 against him.
Monika Schaefer achieved her commonsense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate. By now already the day’s session was half over!
Alfred gave a four-hour, well-documented presentation on why the Federal Republic is illegitimate. The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included. His 77-page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his honourable sister.
At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his suspect gesture, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed (but not to the judge) that the Process was unbelievable:
“This is terror”.
After all, Alfred’s disdain of Federal Republic law was of the essence to his own defence! When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge (to whom she had not directed her outrage) about what, perhaps, she meant by inquisitional terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”… as were the stunned public gallery, who had never before witnessed such surreal “criminal” events.
By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe, since the Judge had ended the day’s session. Yet the Judge insisted Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings, rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end.
Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court. Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine. Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s perspicacious presence during the coming days.
The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaefer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye. But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathically the moving pathos they would witness passing naturally between these truly loyal siblings. The trial continues at 12.30 on Tuesday 3rd July.
Michèle Renouf www.jewishrepublic.com
The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH, Day 2, AFTERNOON SESSION
Tuesday July 3rd, 2018.
This morning, Tuesday July 3rd 2018, on Day Two of the Schaefer sibling’s trial, we learn that the period of punishment for Alfred (under para 86a), who was taken yesterday into police custody, is over for the time being. After today’s session, he will be permitted to return home.
Alfred now has this further trivial case to face later in the lower court. Alfred, ever-feisty, has now been offered the option of bail of 5000 euros to secure his release, though he will have another ludicrous action taken against him for a suspect gesture! He also had to surrender his passports – quite as if he could ever be a ‘flight risk’ as a man completely determined to face down what he considers are his country’s traitors and those swindle-speakers responsible for the “contamination” of its citizens’ capacity for rational, healthy hatred of sociopathic depravity and corruption.
The trial resumed this afternoon at 12.30. Monika’s veteran attorney Wolfram Nahrath will be presenting his 22-page argument against Para 130 of the law Volksverhetzung/populace incitement, in which he will raise the precedent of the two ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffmann-Riem who, in 2006, called for the Repeal of this “Holocaust”-denial law based on heresy values versus scientific attitude (our Hellenic scientific attitude versus the “Holocaust” anti-rational argument Teaching Guidelines).
Tomorrow we shall learn whether the lead Judge Hofmann will have to step down because of his evident bias towards the defendants. The disdain of this Judge for withholding due microphone use so both defendants and the public gallery could hear the proceedings, and the ruling over the norm of a ready glass of water for defendants, is but two of the contrarian, obstructive aspects to the due basic rights of all citizenry.
These mocking obstructions give further surreality to the conditions under which Germans and foreigners must encounter under the Basic Laws in favour of prosecuting the expression of free opinion among citizens and right to discuss normal historical source criticism without legalese protected exceptionalism.
Michèle Renouf Www.jewishrepublic.com
The SCHAEFER TRIAL in MUNICH, Day 3, AFTERNOON SESSION Wednesday July 4th, 2018.
An update follows of yesterday afternoon’s session (Wednesday July 4th). Not so incidentally, today it has been an ordeal simply locating another venue with both electric outlet for my Mac plus WLAN (since yesterday, one of our legal team sensed I was being observed by a recognised police woman who might just decide to do the usual and seize my laptop – “so leave now!”).
Conditions and situations for me to go on reporting from here are unpredictable. All reminiscent of when I was advised to leave swiftly after participating at a “holocaust” conference at the UN parliament building in Brussels … having informed the assembly that the document Netanyahu likes brandishing before the UN General Assembly is the one Professor Robert Faurisson discovered and published circa 1976, which is simply a diagram of a small WW2 clothing disinfection gas chamber.
The Schaefer Siblings are “out to break all the thought crime rules since the penalty is the same” they say! Their resonant question here is “Do we live, or are we lived?” Before court proceedings got underway, Alfred’s attorney Frank Miksche learned that Judge Hofmann was not to be removed for bias, for he was judged (from above) neutral, since all judges are presumed to uphold his attitude when serving this exceptionalistic law.
The question is: Is this law in accord with the Constitution? The case must go up to a higher court in hopes of addressing this.
Even so, RA Miksche caught Judge Hofmann out, as the latter had made a wrong statement. That is, Alfred had not given him permission to accept a shorter version of his Defence presentation to a mere 20 pages from the original 77. Nor was Alfred prepared to permit cherry-picking from his videos rather than have the court watch his videos in full. Alfred is to have his videos duly viewed in full in the courtroom tomorrow (Thursday).
During the morning session, it was Monika’s turn to tell of their family dynamics. In the afternoon session, Alfred endorsed his sister’s closely shared upbringing and adventurous hang-gliding, near-death experiences which served, as such brushes do, to stir one to do or die the way one goes henceforth. The threat of blindness served to embolden him. A fertile civic-minded atmosphere in which the sibling’s sense of fairplay and loyalty thrived is indeed the prompt for their forthright approach conscientiously to live their lives.
The Process, as public gallery eyewitnesses remarked, had turned to matters emotional. And when the State Prosecutor criticised Monika’s attorney RA Nahrath for introducing an emotional tone, surprisingly the Judge chastenened her (whose name we are not told), not Nahrath.
Eyewitnesses in the public gallery say they felt the siblings spread an aura of uplift in the courtroom.
Alfred says he wished to convey this by his various telling of personal life-threatening experiences, for instance, how his doctor brothers acting to save his impending blindness in the left eye. From such frequent tests, Alfred believes he has “got guardian angels” which make him fearless in the face of all adversity, a formidable opponent to those who rely on their identity from a group sense of god-awesomeship. Alfred, the Siegfried who knows no fear! Just the chap Wagner had in mind when he said in 1871 that German unification already needed fearless emancipation from such god-awful influences.
For Alfred and Monika, nature and thoughts are to be explored, not tyrannised. He said his father had received the Order of Canada for his services as a medic to the welfare of the Arctic people in recognising the way they live their lives affects their health. One might say, Alfred and his community-spirited sister do the same in their way with the influences prevailing over what he calls “the gate keepers”. The Gate-keepers is the chief video he plans to screen for the court today. I have just this very moment received a call from Alfred alerting me to rendezvous at yesterday’s venue, where I shall find out for you, all that has transpired today!
Yesterday at end of the day’s session, separately Alfred and Sylvia set off to meet me in the Löhenbräukellerbeer garden to discover – to each other’s surprised delight – that each has been released! They had last seen one another being taking into police custody directly from the courtroom.
Suddenly, to their mutual satisfaction (see pic attached), they find out they had been unexpectedly freed. Having committed no actual harm whatsoever, (i.e., no crime which is an act not a thought!), why would they be treated as criminals at all? We all here hope this outcome today for civic-conscientious, harmlessly intelligent, good-natured Monika – release from Munich’s high security prison after six months’ abuse for a benign, videoed apology: “Sorry Mum I was Wrong about the Holocaust”.
As it happened, Sylvia and Monika had traveled in the same police transfer van to the prison, although they had little chance to speak, owing to the noise of the others surrounding them. However, Sylvia found, during the hour when inmates can make their walk, that fellow prisoners told her “how much they all love Monika.
At the close of today’s court session, I have arranged to record an important interview with Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz. I will be asking her to explain in a nutshell, why the Federal Republic itself is illegitimate.
Ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassemer and Hoffman-Riem are quoted in my 2006 “Ernst Zündel Unbowed” telling film that the “Holocaust” denial law is even contrary to the Constitution of the Federal Republic! This is surely the cornerstone of Alfred’s case and the world needs this chance to grasp it …before it can fall…. for he and Monika are intend on emboldening that day.
The 4 days of trial sessions held this week will pause and return for the concluding dates of 12, 13, and 16 of July. Beforehand I shall be making available the feisty interview with Alfred in his garden, and the interview I am about to make with Sylvia the Scientist of Law on the key to Germany’s sovereignty, a graspable cornerstone.