October 27, 2018

Short report from the first day of trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer (Updates in the comment section)

Translated to English from http://die-heimkehr.info/

Published by: Kurzer on: July 02, 2018

Here is the report of a comrade who was present for the hearing:

On the first day of the trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer, Alfred Schaefer was arrested in the courtroom today, on 2 July 2018, presumably because he showed on the demo in Nuremberg last Saturday how tall the little dog Pawlow can jump.

At the end of the trial, Monika Schaefer's lawyer submitted that the siblings Monika and Alfred Schaefer should at least be allowed to talk and greet in the courtroom, and that courtesy should be more appropriate to Monika Schaefer. When this request was denied by the prosecutor, Silvia Stoll exclaimed indignantly from the auditorium that this was outrageous, whereupon she was given a 2-day custody and was subsequently arrested in the courtroom.

A process observer, who comes from central Germany, remarked that such behavior would not have been possible even at the deepest GDR times.

Although the negotiation in the auditorium was hard to understand initially, the use of microphones was vehemently rejected by the judge. Only when the protests from the auditorium became louder and Monika Schaefer asked whether it should now be a public hearing or not, the microphones were turned on.

The court responded to remarks by Alfred Schaefer, saying that this was not a "Muppet Show".

There were about 20 process observers in the auditorium, so that, unexpectedly, a few more seats remained available.

Tomorrow it continues from 12:30 clock.


Lady Michèle Renouf was present outside the courthouse to promptly inform the English-speaking world, in which the event receives the utmost attention. Immediately after the trial, she talked to the solicitor of Monika Schaefer about the course of the negotiations. The result of the conversation she shared promptly with her audience on several English-language World Network sites.


WWS said...



From the Right End of the Horse

Paul and John, 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) warned 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 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 years' 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 when they 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 anyway if witnessing the process behind enemy lines.

WWS said...

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 Hafenmeyer 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 RA Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show "International affection for the Schaefer siblings" she agrees that my making a report to include this advice as given by my own attorney in fact serves to strengthen the drama of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this Alice in Wonderland anti-National Socialist non-Sovereign German legal-land where - 'first we have the verdict then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants' evidence' - is the nonsensical norm for historical sceptics.

Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his awakening via the videos he has made. I am only anxious that the judge may manage to forbid this exposee 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 from the horse's mouth.

Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by Attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them and while Alfred gave the Roman salute ( a harmless gesture ludicrously outlawed in still Allied / all- lies occupied Germany. 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.

WWS said...


In the "curiouser and curiouser" world of occupied-German law, the 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 fittingly Alfred added that the court was but a clownish "Muppet Show".

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 wilfully 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 Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland wherein these nonsensical trials precede via "first the verdict then the evidence". 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 with normal 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 instead of the standard Hollywood version of WW2 history.

Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassimer and Hoffman-Reim called for the repeal of the "Holocaust"-denial laws there have been numerous valiant attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today's Germany. Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zuendel, Dr Herbert Schaller, RA Rieger, Gerd Honsik, - and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Henry Hafenmeyer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Gunter Deckert, Herr Froerlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Sven L and Christian H to name but a few. Today's opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the tide to call 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 6-8 which included two comrades from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.

"No surrender"!
Michele Renouf

Anonymous said...

Michele Renouf - Bravo!!! Such fair and truthful journalism. Hat's off to you.

"Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his awakening via the videos he has made." - Will they deny him to present his evidence??? - If they do, the judge should be immediately executed for Treason.

"Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers' position with normal debate and rational argument"! - Why?? Because it's the Biggest F'N Lie in History?, and the (((LIARS))) must keep the truth about their extortion, fraud, and deception sham called the Hollow-Hoax in the closet???? That's against justice and fair law. If the jew judge agrees with this, then he must recuse himself at this time so that he can be arrested and when found guilty of Treason, hanged until dead.

Next is for the jewish court to impose the death sentence for anti shemitism, as they did as bolsheviks? Murder peaceful people that happened to notice a mosquito attached to them, sucking their life blood from them, and saying something about the noticeable parasite?. Don't normal people slap the mosquito to death, as an involuntary reaction to the (((parasite))) biting them, and sucking their blood????? YES, THEY DO. The definition of Anti-Semitism should be: One who realizes truth and notices a parasite in the soup.

"Why Can't We Question the Holocaust?"... Since 2008???????? - 10 years of pure lies and keeping the truth suppressed can have quite an affect on the mass populace - the sheeple.... getting plump for their slaughter. lol

Dear People of England - and I do mean "people" - Your time for taking one of two paths has come. One of the paths will lead to your incarceration, as well as your whole family's incarceration, before your's and their execution by the jewz. If you take the right path, it will lead you and your family to prosperity and freedom. The choice is easy, if you know the truth. Please begin to take truth and justice back into your own hands. The people making up all the fairy tail Alice in Wonderland bull shit, needs to be stopped, before they kill you first. They judges and lawyers running your jewish bullshit shitshow need to be arrested, instead of the Schaefer's. Wake up "people" - wake up!

Bless you all, and a special blessing for you Michele Renouf. Thank you so very very much, and may God Speed. :)

WWS said...


FROM LADY MICHELE RENOUF: This morning, Tuesday July 3rd 2018, on day two of the Schaefer sibling's trial, we learn that the two days' punishment for Alfred who was taken yesterday into police custody is over already and after today's session he will be permitted to return home. He now has this further trivial case to face later for making a Roman salute in court yesterday during the pre-trial moments when he had been given the chance to hug his handcuffed sister Monika while the Press were permitted to film. Alfred, ever-fisty, has now been offered the option of bail of 5000 euros to secure his release, though he will have another action taken against him for this harmless historical gesture!

The trial resumed this afternoon at 12.30. 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 obstructive aspects to the due basic rights which gives 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 protected exceptionalism.

Michele Renouf

KnownUnknown said...

Treating them like concentration camp detainees... How apropos for the "we're the victims" Jews

zapoper said...

Short report from the third trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:July 04, 2018in: Reports from Absurdistan

The third day of the trial did not begin at 12:30 as announced, but at 13:15. The subject of today's negotiations were lectures by the two siblings Schäfer about their previous lives, where they were born, where they grew up and what they have done in their lives so far. Both grew up in Arctic Canada in completely intact family relationships and were only allowed to speak German at home. When the grandparents wrote from Germany, the mother read the letter to the family. For each child there was also a separate letter, which the children then had to answer in German again. So they were forced to learn German, which they did not want as children.

As long as the parents were still alive, they often came to Germany during the long school holidays in Canada over 9 weeks to visit their relatives in North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria am Ammersee. Staying at the Ammersee was always like paradise, as they were able to live there very close to nature - as in Canada. Their love of nature has kept the two their whole life. So Monika Schäfer studied biology and later also worked as a park attendant in a national park in Canada before she became a music teacher for violin. In the National Park, she was often out and about with her horses for days in the wild.

Alfred Schäfer has led a decidedly adventurous life. He cycled for 5 years, cycled around America, cycled in the Orient or as a hang-glider in the air. He was often exposed to considerable dangerous situations, such as a crash with the dragon, which he believes he has survived only because he has a guardian angel. He has never stayed in hotels on his travels, but only in the open air.

The father of the two siblings, a survivor of the Rhine meadow camp, was active in Canada as a doctor in the Eskimos. From him they learned that a nature-related survival in extreme climates and with primitive peoples is only possible with a completely sincere and true attitude.

After the death of the father, the attachment of the siblings became closer together to maintain the family traditions. For Christmas, the sister visited Alfred and his wife on Lake Starnberg in Tutzing several times, so they could celebrate the celebration together as they have always celebrated with their parents in Canada.

When the defendant's speech was interrupted by the prosecutor, the lawyer pointed out that only the chairman could interrupt, but not her. It was unusual at all that another prosecutor was present at this trial day than at the first two days of the trial. It suggests that today's rendition of CVs could be completely irrelevant to the outcome of the trial if prosecutors are arbitrarily interchangeable.

Finally, a short excerpt of a video was shown, in which a Jewish star and a swastika were compared with each other described. This is obviously the subject of the indictment. Alfred Schäfer was interviewed about this video. The lawyer questioned the lawfulness of the interview because the image sequence was taken out of context, without asking why these two symbols were described in the video.


zapoper said...

Short report from the fourth trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the district court of Munich

Published by: Kurzer

Today started quite turbulent. After the appearance of the Inquisition Court, the Chairman asked the audience section who Mr. X was. When he reported he was confronted with the accusation that he had insulted a prosecutor in the anteroom the day before, saying to her that he wished her that she would also see a jail from the inside, what the judge - except aggravated with excitement - with 4 days in good order. Immediately after this proclamation, Mr. X was led out of the room by police officers. His advice that his car was still out there was answered by the judge angrily, saying that he did not care. He literally shouted to Mr. X, "Go harsh, I do not want to see you here anymore." Abruptly he also turned to Alfred Schäfer with the question what he think of it. Alfred Schäfer replied that he did not want to comment on this because words in this court were always reinterpreted and therefore a comment on it was too dangerous. The session was subsequently suspended for a short while because the judge said he needed 5 minutes to calm down.

When the session reopened, Alfred Schäfer's lawyer filed an application to refuse the judge for bias. As a result, the session was suspended for 2 hours, but the motion was rejected by the prosecutor after the beginning of the resumption of negotiations because of "sequence of assumptions".

Subsequently, the continuation of the already begun the day before video screenings. Again, two icons were pointed out that are juxtaposed in the video. On the left side of the picture a star of the Jews is shown and as a counterpart on the right in the picture a swastika, which is represented in the video by Alfred Schäfer as a symbol of evil, because at that time he still believed that the swastika symbolized evil. This juxtaposition of the two symbols is evidently the subject of the indictment.

In the video, whose widespread use caused great astonishment in court, Prof. Noam Chomsky is interviewed by a university in America on 9/11. Prof. Chomsky explains in the interview that there is no evidence of involvement of the US government in the terrorist attack. Alfred Schäfer had written to Prof. Chomsky on the basis of this interview and read in the video his letters to Prof. Chomsky and his answer letters. Although Prof. Chomsky has answered the letters of Alfred Schäfer, without actually answering the questions asked by Alfred Schäfer, which led Alfred Schäfer to formulate his letters more rigorously.

When the judge complains of an "aggressive tone" in his correspondence with Prof. Chomsky, Alfred Schäfer explains that one finally has to understand that Prof. Chomsky is "a guru" in the English-speaking world and his remarks on 9/11 are a great disappointment why he called him a "cowardly traitor" and "Zionist fascist". Prof. Chomsky missed a big chance because he could have rehabilitated himself. Instead, he put his good reputation at risk for his "brothers in faith" and destroyed himself with this admission even his full size, although he presented him with a clear factual situation.

The judge also accused Alfred Schäfer of having made a threat to all "Jewish friends" of Prof. Chomsky, saying in the video that they would be complicit if they kept silent about the 9/11 truth. Shot like a pistol, Alfred Schäfer explains to the judge the difference between a threat and a warning on the basis of a practical example. He also explained that this video was his first video and more or less represents the beginning of his recovery process. When he realized that some people could get more money by fraud and manipulation than by hordes of workers through honest work, this triggered a political process of thought.

zapoper said...

The second video shown is an interview with Henry Hafenmeyer on the theme "The masterminds of our present situation". The commentary on this video has been postponed to the following week.

Subsequently, a witness was heard, who claimed that Alfred Schäfer had been hounding with his speech at the commemoration ceremony in Bretzenheim on 25.7.2017. In addition, Alfred Schäfer completed his speech with a Roman greeting for 2 or 3 seconds. The judge questioned the witness whether the speech had been acknowledged by the audience with applause, but the witness could not remember. The court was shown a photo from the video.

Alfred Schäfer then explains to the court that in this speech he simply reproduced what his father had told him about the Rhine meadow camps and that he did not object to slandering his father as a harlot. His father, a prisoner of war in the Rhine meadow camps, had observed how prisoners were brought in healthily, but soon fell ill due to intentionally induced life-threatening circumstances and how daily trucks were transported away with the corpses of the deceased prisoners of war without anyone knowing where to go. His father had survived the Rhine meadow camp unscathed only by happy circumstances.

The request for detention by Monika Schäfer was rejected on the grounds that the charge had not changed.

Even today, the conduct of the negotiations in the auditorium was sometimes very poor.

The dates for the further negotiation days are the 12th and 13th of July, starting at 9:15 am.


Urgent cause! For immediate presentation!
Because of unjustified liberation
Official and public letter of publicity
Read HERE:


zapoper said...

Subject: Schaefer again arrested/ unsung Frau
Date: 2018-07-06 13:33
From: Michele Renouf

Cc: Michele Renouf

Greetings all, today at 2pm at the home of Alfred Schaefer - (he and I
had just finished watching and discussing matters re his videos he was
succeeding to screen in full in the Munich courtroom ...and then his
wife laid table for lunch after I removed my Laptop ...and so I went to
wash my hands). I then Heard Police knocking on my bathroom door
announcing their arrival. It was as if one was suddenly in a nightmare
hollywood movie about a police state action! At first I thought maybe
high-spirited Albert was playing a joke. On opening my bathroom door,
there stood 2 armed officers awaiting me. Gave my passport; said they'd
come to arrest Alfred. Saw 5 of them handcuff Alfred (and with the
little packed cheese lunch his experienced wife swiftly made and handed
to one officer for her husband) Albert was hauled away about something
he had perhaps said perhaps when yesterday ( as he has to do) he had
duly turned up at the police station twice per week since he is out on
bail. Whatever this "crime" was, he's again in a police cell now. His
wife advised that I and HH should disappear asap in case police returned
knowing now that we two were there, easy to haul in for good measure.
Vot a business. Cat and mouse but at least valiant Frau Schaefer made
sure we each took with us our lunch cheese!

"No surrender"!

Sent from my iPhone

Noor al Haqiqa said...

Thanks for this service Zap. This is hard information to find. Lady Renouf is a paragon of elegance and eloquence. I have had the pleasure of meeting her and she is a sterling human being.

As for the Schaeffers, they are in trouble. Germany is not for Germans any longer; it is for migrants and cucks. Just how occupying America (((serving as a branch of the future Pax Judaica) wants it to be.

zapoper said...

Dear All,

It is my understanding that Ms. Schaefer is being prosecuted in Germany for statements made in Canada. I'm a baffled. I don't understand how a statement made in Canada can be prosecuted in nation other than Canada. Do the Germans have worldwide criminal jurisdiction. I really doubt that.

If I committed a crime in Germany, the U.S. and Germany could extradite me and put me before a German court. But the U.S. court would not be able to prosecute me.

Do I have it wrong. Did some part of what is charged occur in Germany? Or have the Germans declared themselves the cops of the world?


From: Lady Michele Renouf
Date: Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 2:10 PM

Subject: Re: CBC NEWS STORY ON MONIKA AND ALFRED SCHAEFER: German law and UN Human Rights re Faurisson clarification

Dear All,

To answer the question:

Monika’s “crime” ie the video “Sorry Mum I was Wrong about the Holocaust” was committed on German soil. In 2016, Monika Schaefer posted two videos to YouTube, one in English, one in German, outlining her Revisionist-reliant arguments for why the omnipotent “Holocaust” narrative is flawed.

Concerning your question of jurisdiction:
The Germans do claim “extraterritoriality”, in other words, the right to put people on trial in German courts for “crimes” committed elsewhere in the world. This type of claim of extraterritoriality is not unique to Germany eg a few years ago a Spanish judge brought an action against the former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet for alleged crimes committed on Chilean not Spanish soil.

In my forthcoming report on the Schaefer Siblings’ current trial in Munich I shall be giving the Scientist of Law Sylvia Stolz’s explanation of the extraordinary constitutional position in today’s Germany. As well, I shall be referring to the Para 49 of UN Human Rights Committee 2011 of which Robert Faurisson sought clarification concerning "general prohibition” versus specific instances.

Concerning your question re the “cops of the world”: ‘safe’ (!) to say the pro-Zionist USA hold that chuzpah title (having jettizoned their superior Jeffersonian ideal of “no meddling in other countries”).

Best to All,

zapoper said...

Monday update, July 9th 2018

Readers might expect that Alfred and Monika could seek protection from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – adopted by the United Nations in 1966 and supposedly in force since 1976, protecting basic human rights such as freedom of expression. Article 19 of this Covenant states “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.” It continues: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

The third paragraph of Article 19 then qualifies these rights by accepting that they can be restricted, but only by laws which are necessary “for respect of the rights or reputations of others” or for protecting national security, public order, public health or morals. Article 20 goes on: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

There are obvious problems and potential contradictions here, and it is not surprising that there have been attempts to clarify the Covenant’s meaning. The UN’s Human Rights Committee has periodically issued commentaries for this purpose, and in 2011 the Committee’s “General Comment 34” offered some hope to criminalised dissident historians and others by stating: "Laws that penalise the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.” A footnote referred specifically to the case of the French revisionist historian and expert on documentary analysis Professor Robert Faurisson.

On 22nd December 2011 Prof. Faurisson wrote to the Office of the UN High Commissioner asking whether the so-called Gayssot Act of 1990, a French law specifically designed to target Prof. Faurisson by criminalising sceptical enquiry into “Holocaust” history, contravened Article 19. He pointed out that France was "a charter signatory to the 1966 Covenant but a country which, nevertheless, sentences peaceable citizens to imprisonment for their writings on history.”

In particular, Prof. Faurisson drew attention to the admonition in the UN Human Rights Committee’s “General Comment 34” that "a law may not confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution.” He suggested that French law had done just that:
"With respect to paragraphs 35 and 36 I submit that France, in its checks on public expression of views on history under the Gayssot Act, has failed to “demonstrate in specific and individualised fashion the precise nature of the threat” to the rights and reputation of persons or to public order (Covenant, article 19) purportedly constituted by utterances and writings contravening the said Act, and has failed as well to demonstrate “the necessity and proportionality of the specific [restrictive] action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.””

zapoper said...

Almost seven years later Germany’s courts continue to ignore this human rights Covenant. Though Monika Schaefer has been held in prison for the past six months, there has been no attempt to demonstrate any precise threat, or any incitement of violence. Monika’s video is entirely non-threatening and pacific in its presentation, whatever one’s estimation of the “Holocaust”. Instead the German courts (in their customary fashion) rely on an “unfettered” general prohibition of certain historical opinions, in complete disregard of the Human Rights Committee’s warning.

The UK courts are by no means perfect (as we have seen in the recent prosecution of Jeremy Bedford-Turner), but the German law and German courts are far worse. In the UK it would be necessary to demonstrate either that the “criminal” words were “intended” to stir up racial hatred, or that “having regard to all the circumstances” they were likely to do so. Additionally the words must be found by the court to be “threatening, abusive or insulting”.

In Germany the courts hold that in and of itself “Holocaust denial” is a criminal incitement. There is no requirement to prove intention or likelihood to stir up hatred; and no requirement to prove that the words used were “threatening, abusive or insulting”. The expression could be entirely mild: so long as the content involves “Holocaust denial” it is deemed criminal in Germany – despite the failure of courts or legislators to define exactly what they mean by “the Holocaust”.

In the case of Alfred Schaefer, prosecutors in the present trial are seeking to bundle together a series of videos and present Alfred as “aggressive” and threatening. So far he has succeeded in playing the entire “9/11 Gatekeepers” video to the court, which cannot reasonably be viewed as aggressive, but prosecutors are persisting with their strategy of piecing together rhetorical expressions excerpted from different videos and speeches. This is an effort to criminalise a broader range of dissident political expressions, some of which are not covered by the “catch-all” prohibition of “Holocaust denial”.

The outcome of the Schaefer siblings’ trial will have vital implications for the liberties not only of Germans but of all visitors to European Union countries.

“No surrender”!
Michèle Renouf

Voltman said...

Santa Monika's Revelation

She suffers in her cell unjust incarceration
Her jailers come from hell with vile indoctrination
The muppets from the court won't have exoneration
Those puppets kill for sport and love extermination

Her fiddle holds the keys of inmate celebration
She speaks and sings with ease, a source of inspiration
She uncovers the truth of her generation
And discovers the root of her liberation

She played Don Messer's breakdown
Candles glowing in the wind
And danced me to the end of love
With her plywood violin

First she took Alberta
Then she took Berlin



Monika Schaefer: Letter from a German Prison
Lasha Darkmoon February 27, 2018


Dance me to the end of love

WWS said...


Dear Barbara, thank you, dear sister, for your long and wonderful letter and envelope with Elvis stamps in a heart. I notice details. Well that one would be pretty hard to miss -- haha – unless I was a dullard. And if I was a dullard, I guess I wouldn't be in prison for speaking words.

I must tell you, so you don't think I'm a slacker, that your letter took exactly 8 weeks and a day to reach me from when it was postmarked! I used to say that the average time for mail one way in and out of prison was about a month but now I would put the average at 6 weeks. Pretty bad eh? It leads to slow conversations. Maybe that's the equivalent of the slow food movement and I like the slow food movement so maybe the slow conversations are a good thing? Having just reread your letter before responding I'm kind of in free flow here, inspired by you.

Me too, I am totally into organic real food and have always grown veggies wherever I could. I grew up in a family of seven, five children, in a big city, but we were like Urban Farmers. Huge vegetable garden, fruit bushes, some small apple and cherry trees in the yard. The family would go berry picking in the river valley, we could walk there right from our home and pick saskatoon's, chokecherries, rose hips and I can't remember what else. We live really near the Storyland Valley Zoo. You should ask Alfred to tell you the story of how he used to talk with the seals. It was funny. Speaking of funny, you can probably imagine this without me telling you, Alfred had us in stitches a lot when we were growing up. (In case that is just a local expression, “in stitches,” that means we laughed a lot. Very fun and funny.

I love the image of you and Dolly singing to the dudes (?). That is just Priceless. Speaking of images, although that was a mental image, yes you can send me a few pictures but not too many. There is a limit of 20 pictures in the cell and I have my limit but when people send me a few more, then I can trade them out and send the excess into storage. So if you sent three or four pictures in a letter nobody gets in a sweat. I wonder what the storage looks like. Stuff keeps getting sent there, that people try to send me and I cannot have. I will need a few wheel barrels or a pickup truck when I leave here. People send stuff and I can't have it, how sad. It's pretty strict around here. Oh and you mentioned internet, definitely not! I wonder if people are trying to send me emails. Oh dear, I dread trying to wade through thousands of emails when I get out. I will probably just have to delete all and start over as it will be too overwhelming. [more...]

WWS said...


Very interesting that you got persecuted by the doctors for breastfeeding. When I had my daughter, breastfeeding was encouraged but the actual support to do so was not that great. I became a La Leche League leader and did that for a number of years in my town. I learned a lot about the industry of baby food, formula, etc. Boycott of Nestle ever since.

The hot water just got delivered through the little hatch in the door. I feel so special here, getting room service like that! Now I am going to enjoy my cup of coffee, knit and listen to music on the radio for a bit. That is my early morning routine I'll be back.

An hour later... I love that part of the day. Come to think of it, there are many parts of the day that I really enjoy. So you see, they are not getting me down. I am sure that you would be the same. You wouldn't waste very many minutes or seconds on self-pity and you would get right to work on becoming creative and using the time well.

On the subject of being well, I want to add that I certainly couldn't do it alone! Just like you said about the karaoke coming from God, I too feel I am being guided and helped by spirit and that includes all the loving energy thoughts and prayers coming from many many people including yourself. Thank you also for the Bible verses, and the Elvis lyrics. We used to sing the German folk song Muss I Denn, around the campfire when my dad's best friend came over from Germany and visited us one summer with his wife and two of his many children, they did that twice with different children the second time. He belted out those folk songs and we sang along and just loved it.

Well, my dear, it has been lovely spending part of my morning with you. Let's do it again sometime, yes? I'll put the kettle on... We are the birds flying free in this picture love Monica.


blake121666 said...

Have you seen this video, zap?


Alfred Schaefer appears to be advocating: "It's time to exterminate the kikes".

And he is tossing around Nazi salutes.

What's the point in this? Is he trying to be a clown?

zapoper said...

Yes I have seen it. I wouldn't post that here. What the hell is he thinking??? It makes me a bit paranoid about which side he is on.

No update on Renouf from yesterday's trial yet. Only one from a German site.

zapoper said...

Short report from the fifth trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:July 12, 2018in: Reports from Absurdistan 4 comments Share printing by email

After the failure in the morning , the trial resumed at 13:30.

The security controls on today's fifth day of the trial were aggravated, as they now had to take off their shoes.

In the afternoon both Monika and Alfred Schäfer were led into the courtroom. The trial began with the screening of the film "Brainwashing 911 & the Holohoax" in English. Subsequently, the interpreter of the text, which was spoken in the film, was presented in German. Alfred has said that the interpreter has done well with the translation. This film is based on the charge of the sixth charge. A film with Russian subtitles is based on charges 7 and 8. However, this film could not yet be addressed because the translation was not yet ready.

Alfred Schäfer then explained the context he sees between 911 and the holo religion. The same pictures were repeatedly shown in the media and in schools about the terrorist attack in 911, so that the representation disseminated via the media would have burnt into the brains of the people, just as they had done with the HC. The schools are therefore no educational institutions, but Indoktrinationsanstalten. But the truth about 911 must be different than the presentation spread over the media. For how could it be that two airplanes had flown into two towers, but a third building had collapsed without an airplane flying into it? In connection with 911 he had met Christopher Bollyn, who at that time held a senior position within the American FBI. He told him that the same backers were behind 911 and the holo religion. Together with Christopher Bollyn he then made the film series "Brainwashing". Christopher Bollyn had to flee with his family from the VSA to Sweden. Alfred Schäfer also supported Christopher Bollyn financially because the truth-tellers are always trying to make them financially ready.

zapoper said...

Asked if he had ever been charged with these films elsewhere, Alfred said that this was the case only in this "free country", Germany. The only ones who reported were the Hasbara . "Hasbara" is a Hebrew word for "explanation". They had made their "statements" in the comment section on the videos at the lowest level to discredit the videos. The Hasbara but had become less over time, because the Enlightenment scene had grown exponentially. No matter if you were imprisoned or not, the truth could not be locked away. She will now spread unstoppable everywhere.

The film, which is charged with Monika Schäfer, was shown on today's day of the trial. However, Monika said nothing today because she was asked by her lawyer to say nothing because he does not feel well today. The motion to dismiss the lawsuit against Monika Schäfer was rejected by the Chamber with a litany of paragraphs justifying the conditions for the prosecution.

The court also took a look at a postcard that Alfred Schäfer sent to his relatives with the text "The devil loves betrayal, but he hates the traitor." Alfred Schäfer explains that he sent this postcard in disappointment over his own relatives to this, because it was she who had reported him. But it would not do them any good if they continued to rely on the Holoreligion's dead horse because they believe that they are dependent on their salary, for the truth will inevitably find its way into the light. He did not send this postcard to threaten someone, but to express his disappointment.

At the end, Alfred Schäfer said that he could be in court early in the morning. It should be better to release him, so that you do not forget him again, because he would also appear on time by appointment on time.

The judge did not use his microphone today, so that his comments were very difficult to follow.



WWS said...

"In connection with 911 he had met Christopher Bollyn, who at that time held a senior position within the American FBI."

Did Mike Piper know, or suspect, this?

zapoper said...

Short report from the sixth trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:July 13, 2018in: Reports from Absurdistan 1 Comment Share printing by email

Monika Schäfer has read her statement today, which according to the judge is usually not allowed. Since Monika Schäfer does not speak perfect German, one wants to make an exception. She tells us that she has also been politically active and that she has felt deeply connected to green ideals. She also ran several times for a political office. This persisted until she found out that Israel's war had been justified by misrepresentations. Then she resigned from the party. She learned early to think for herself.

She did everything herself for the video. After completing and publishing it, she felt a happy relief and was relieved of a heavy burden because she had always put her parents under general suspicion, but now she knew that she did not have to blame you for the story had been a very different, as one has told since 1945. That's why they apologized to their mother in the video.

Due to the success of her video, many friendships had broken up and a ritual defamation campaign had begun against her. In a small newspaper in a place with 5,000 inhabitants, for example, read letters were published about them by readers from completely different areas who would normally not read this newspaper at all, but who only served the purpose of defaming it. In the beginning she had to force herself to go to her door at all. But if one broke such a taboo and did so with conviction, because one knew that the official statements about the period 1933-1945 were a shabby lie, then the targeted ritual defamations were easier to bear. Any attempt was made to intimidate her. So she had always ridden by bicycle. One day, at a traffic light, a car standing next to her drove away so that all the sand had been sprayed to her back. Also economically one tried to make them ready. Not a single student from her place had come to her to take violin lessons. There was a veritable witch-hunt against her, which split the place where she lived. While many had turned away from her, on the other hand many people had come to her who she did not know and who were completely stunned by what was going on. In addition, in July 2016, a law came into force, which made it possible to make music in public, even in the park in their vicinity. For this a license was necessary, which one had denied her however. After all, her brother Alfred had made her offer to come to Germany better if the situation in Canada became too dangerous for her.

Bartholomew Beauregard III said...

The Hoax is a circus, rising like a bagel in a bucket-a-grits to human consciousness these days, and fast. You can see that Alfred is very pissed at the situation of where the kikes have put all of mankind, with their incessant lying. If he is acting somewhat like a "clown" then so be it - Remember, he's performing in a jewish circus filled with lied and deception. Good for him to act, in their shoa.
Extermination is just one option. I would prefer a life sentence for those that spread venomous hate hate hate for innocent German people and the great man Adolf Hitler who happened to free Germany and the German population from the clutches of Satan's sperm all grown up. The Judge and court are a fraud. Germans should shut it down immediately and grant freedom to all current prisoners that have noticed the hollow-fraud, and said something about it. At that time, take the Judge outside the court house and escort him to a nice shady tree close by, and then hang the lying deceiving coward devil bastard from it.

A word to the wise.... Fish Swim, Birds Fly, and Jews Lie Lie Lie

zapoper said...

The judge asked why she made a video and did not choose the written form. He also wanted to know why she then pointed out where to find out about the topic, eg the video about Ernst Zündel or "Question about HC". Monika reports that the sources have been very helpful to her to understand everything. She wanted to invite everyone to learn more about it, to understand what really happened in the period 1933-1945. Asked by the judge why she found the lie shabby, Monika explained that the feeling of guilt should live on forever. The fact that she is here in jail is proof of that.

Alfred Schäfer adds that they therefore made a video and did not choose the written form, because a video would have a much higher range. People today would much rather watch a video than read texts.

He had also participated in videoconferencing, for example on a Jewish-operated, English-language block "Jews for Hitler", which is now also blocked. On this block he had talked to Jews who were also interested in an explanation because they feared that all Jews would suffer when the truth came to light. If the development here went on and we did not care about the truth, then there would be the danger that we would get the same conditions here as in Russia with the Bolsheviks, because here the same forces are working in the background as then.

To the video of Bretzenheim Alfred said he had not made the Hitler salute, but the Roman greeting. He said nothing to Hitler. The prosecutor asked Alfred what kind of flags were in the picture. Alfred explained that they were black-and-white-red flags, to which he could say nothing.

The hearing will continue on Monday, July 16, at 9:45.

From: http://die-heimkehr.info/berichte-aus-absurdistan/kurzbericht-vom-sechsten-prozesstag-gegen-monika-und-alfred-schaefer-am-landgericht-muenchen/

zapoper said...

In the mean time, Where is Michèle Renouf with her own English updates?

zapoper said...

Trial of Monika Schaefer at Munich, day 6 from Richard Edmonds

Today is:
Saturday, July 14th, 2018

Subject: Trial of Monika Schaefer at Munich, day 6.
From: Richard Edmonds
Sent: July 14, 2018 10:38 AM

On the sixth day of the trial of Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich court, 13th July 2018, Monika Schaefer gave her personal statement. Translation made by R. Edmonds.

Monika Schaefer read out her personal statement, which according to the judge is usually not permitted. But the judge accepted that Monika dos not speak German perfectly, hence he decided to make an exception. Monika related how she became engaged politically and how she felt herself deeply drawn to Green politics. She campaigned many times for political office. That had all continued till she had learnt that Israel’s wars were being justified by false claims. There-upon she left the party. She had learnt very early to think for herself.

She had made the video herself. Once she had made the film and put it in the public domain, she then felt a feeling of relief and felt freed from a heavy burden. She had always held her parents under a general suspicion, but now she knew that there was nothing to reproach them with, because History was quite contrary to what we had been told since 1945. This was this reason why she had apologized to her mother.

As a consequence of the success of the video, she had lost many friendships; and a campaign of ritual defamation commenced against her. For example, in a small newspaper of a town with five thousand inhabitants, readers‘ letters started appearing, written by readers from quite other districts, who would not normally read the news-paper. These readers‘ letters served the purpose of defaming her. At the beginning, she had to force herself to go to her front-door. However when one deliberately and with conviction breaks such a taboo, because one knows that the official claims regarding the period 1933 -1945 are a shabby lie, then such ritual defamations are easier to bear. Every attempt had been made to intimidate her. For example, she always rides by bicycle, and one day at the traffic lights a car had sped away from her throwing the sand of the street against her. Also attempts had been made to ruin her financially. Not a single student from her locality came any more to take instruction on violin-playing. A regular witch-hunt was organised against her. This witch-hunt had split the community in which she lived. Whilst many had turned away from her, on the other hand, many others whom she did not know had come to her; and they could not understand what was happening. In July 2016 a new local law gave permission for music to be played in the local park close to her. A licence for this was needed, but this licence was refused to her. Finally her brother had made the offer, that it was better to come to Germany, if the situation in Canada should become too dangerous for her.

The judge asked, why she had made a video rather than chosen to write an article. Also he wanted to know why she had given advice as to where information on the subject could be found, for example referring to the video about Ernst Zundel or “Questions about the HC.” Monika replied that she herself had found the sources very helpful in order to understand everything. She wanted to invite everybody to learn more in order to understand what had really taken place in the period of 1933 to 1945. In reply to the question from the judge, why she found the lie so shabby [threadbare, seedy, mean], Monika declared because the intention was that the guilt feelings should continue for ever. The fact that she was in prison proved that.

F I N I S.

zapoper said...

Saturday, July 14th, 2018

DAY 192 of Monika Schaefer’s loss of freedom
Day 70 of Ursula Haverbeck’s loss of freedom
Day 65 of Gerd Ittner’s loss of freedom
Day 64 of Jez Turner’s loss of freedom
Day 10 of Alfred Schaefer’s loss of freedom


Write to Monika at the following address:
Monika Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Schwarzenbergstr. 14
81549 München

Write to Ursula at the following address:
JVA Bielefeld-Brackwede
z. Hd. Ursula Haverbeck
Umlostraße 100
33649 Bielefeld

Write to Gerd at the following address:
Gerd Ittner
JVA Nürnberg
Mannertstraße 6
90429 Nürnberg

Write to Jez Turner at the following address:
Jez Bedford-Turner A5544EE,
wing E3-02,
HMP Wandsworth,
PO Box 757, Heathfield Road,
Wandsworth, London SW18 3HU.

Write to Alfred at the following address:
Alfred Erhard Schaefer
JVA Stadelheim
Stadelheimerstr. 12
81549 München

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech and Historic Truth,

Latest new on Monika Schaefer. Please share.

Mehr Licht!

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the issues since 1998”

zapoper said...

Short report from the seventh trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:July 16, 2018in: Reports from Absurdistan No Comments Share printing by email

The 7th trial day started late today at 10:10.

The subject of the discussion was the second Brainwashing video by Alfred Schaefer. However, since the computer refused to work after 10 minutes, there were further delays until the proceedings could be continued.

Alfred Schaefer brings in the video also quotes by Sefton Delmer, the British propaganda chief in WW2. They are intended to represent a thinking aid, a bridge, which should allow the listeners to follow the video mentally and to understand the contents in context.

Quotation S. Delmer in the video of A. Schäfer: "We've won this war through atrocity propaganda and we're just starting to do it right now. We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase it until no one is going to adopt a good word from the Germans until everything is destroyed that could bring them sympathy in other countries and until they are so confused that they no longer know what they are should do. When this is achieved, when they begin to pollute their own nest, not reluctantly but with zeal to obey the victors, only then is the victory complete. It will never be final. The re-education requires conscientious, undecayed care like an English lawn. Only a moment of carelessness and the weeds break through, this ineradicable weed of historical truth. "

Alfred Schaefer said that if the 1st and 2nd WK had not expired with this foul propaganda and this had not been accepted by the public as a historical truth, then there would have been no 911, because it could not have done so. Because there was always the same mastermind behind it. It was then a Jewish-Bolshevik gang who murdered the tsar's family and through this shock traumatized the people so much that they no longer had the courage to resist. The people would have endured everything because they feared for their lives because of the Bolshevik atrocities.

After reading the translation of the lyrics to the video, Alfred was asked why he did not just make a video about 911, but always made a connection to the Jews and to Israel. Alfred Schaefer explains that, of course, that is not possible any other way, because the Jews everywhere had their fingers involved in the game. On a sailing trip, he met several CEOs, engineers, and other well-to-do people, who surprised him a lot, because many of them knew that 911 had not gone down as it had been portrayed in the media. He also met an established, much-vaunted journalist who claimed she could publish everything. He had predicted to her that she could publish the truth about 911, but that she would be unemployed the next day. Probably it will be so that their research on 911 would not even be published. And indeed, it had come as Alfred Schaefer predicted, because they have never published anything in the doubt of the official version of the 911 events.

zapoper said...

The Fred Leuchter interview, he had only taken his videos because it was another puzzle piece, which would contribute to the understanding of the big picture. You do not have to know and know all the details to understand the truth. One has to understand only the biggest lies in order to realize, behind which mask the great things took place. The Jews, who were still silent now, who thought it was good that children were already being taught lies in the kindergarten about the HC, he could not understand because they made themselves complicit and had to reckon that the violence would turn against them when the truth comes to light.

The charge 5 is a sequence from an older video with a lecture by Ursula Haverbeck, because it was their common goal to shut down this madness.

The question of why he always speaks in his videos of the "Chosen", answered Alfred Schaefer to the effect that the chosen ones themselves could better explain what was meant by that.

The prosecutor was obviously not interested in the videos, because she was constantly busy with other things during the screening of the videos and did not pay any attention to the performance.

In the second Brainwashing video, Alfred Schaefer also used the following quote: " Wars are always the harvest of the Jews. "It shows that the Jews had always made good business with the wars and were now working to launch the third WK.

The third video was shown only as long as the translation was available.

The hearing will continue tomorrow, 17.7.2018 at 11:00.

Translated from: http://die-heimkehr.info/berichte-aus-absurdistan/kurzbericht-vom-siebenten-prozesstag-gegen-monika-und-alfred-schaefer-am-landgericht-muenchen/

zapoper said...

Short report from the eighth day of the trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:July 17, 2018

The hearing was opened on the eighth day of the trial with the judge's announcement that the evidence had been closed by August 16, 2018, and that the verdict would be announced on August 17, 2018, because the court did not intend to drag the case into September ,

It was followed by the continuation of the screening of the third brainwashing video at the point where the day before had to interrupt the session because the translation of the video was not yet complete.

The video explains that the slave trade, in which significant Jews would have been involved in the gas chamber stories, 911 u. a false flag operations the tactics were always the same. It also explains why Noam Chomsky's opinion on 911 is implausible and incorrect. Also the phases of how the goals of the dark ones are systematically enforced are described in the video. As with the Bolsheviks calculate 15 to 20 years for the first phase. Overall, the Marxist-Leninist indoctrination lasted three generations. Then democratization would be complete, ie the moral decline of society would be recognizable everywhere. For the last step, the complete destabilization of society up to the war, one would still need 2-5 years. Before the war, everyone would see each other on either side.

When asked where he got the quote used in the video of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Alfred Schaefer mentions the corresponding bibliography:

" Our race is the master race. We are holy gods on this planet. We are as far from the inferior races as they are from insects. (...) Other races are considered human excrement. Our destiny is to take control of the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leaders with a staff of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as slaves! "- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset. Found By: Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

Alfred Schaefer went on to explain that there was little interest in the videos at the beginning, but that there was exponential growth from recent reactions to the reactions and affirmative commentaries, as the listener and our audience recognized our present situation Viewers of the videos must be related.

zapoper said...

He had to do all the videos because otherwise he would have had to look on as an omitted assistance if he had not acted. But he never had bad intentions with his videos. All human beings would sooner or later be confronted with the excesses of the dark machinations. Everything we believe now will be swept away and all the teachers and professors would then have to explain why they had been silent for so long. It was our task to deal with reality and to no longer believe the fantasy stories we were presented.

The judge asked what the new world order would look like and Alfred Schaefer replied that it would not look like it would systematically destroy 60% of the working population. He also refers to another book which predicts that the invaders would make a friendly face in Western industrial nations as long as they needed us and were dependent on us. But as soon as they reached a certain percentage of the population, they would destroy our civilization. Then a situation would arise that none of us would want and that no one in the developed world would be prepared for. However, every people should regain their self-determination and not be controlled from the outside by separating us from our roots and making us sick by telling fairy tales. Everywhere in the world it would look just like ours and you come to the same conclusions.

The judge wants to know how he sees it, if someone has a different view and come to different conclusions and Alfred Schaefer explains that this is not a problem, only one can not solve the problem by imparting prohibitions. People are hungry for logical explanations.

The prosecutor wanted to know where he had the drawing for the comics in his videos and Alfred explains that she had drawn a girlfriend for him. She also inquires about the origin of the photos, eg of Gandhi or a quote from a rabbi, which can be read in various books, as Alfred Schaefer explains. The music was royalty-free or recorded by himself.

Alfred Schaefer goes on to explain that we were trained with symbols like a dog. The longer you had been at university, the harder people were reachable. That had not happened organically, but that had been made targeted. If you go to the doctor, then you must first know what you are sick, so that you can even initiate a healing process. His work should help to recognize the disease. The illness can not be recognized with evasive and false answers that have made Noam Chomsky himself unbelievable. He was not honest.

Subsequently, another video entitled "CODOH" was presented, in which three people were asked why they supported the open debate about the HC. The court wanted to know where Alfred and Monika Schaefer knew the interviewees and if there had been a script for the video. Monika Schaefer explains that there was no script, because everyone tried to describe his point of view and one had only want to give food for thought. The answer to the question of whether or not you got money for the video was "No, of course not!" This video was made for the English-speaking countries only and was intended for an open and honest debate to find the truth. Monika and Alfred Schaefer are also always ready to revise their views if they would provide you with valid evidence.

The application for detention in the Alfred Schaefer case was rejected by the court because the postcard that Alfred Schaefer had sent to his relatives was considered a threat.

The next hearing will take place on 26.7.2018.

Translated from:


zapoper said...

In the last few days, I've had to Joogle translate from German to English witch is mediocre but better than nothing.

As soon as I get proper English reports you can be sure that I will post them here too.

Thanks to WWS/Bob and John Kaminski for being "team players" in sharing this hard to come by information.

P.S. Ironically, while searching the internet for English updates today, I came across an article that was linking to this post.


zapoper said...

Fetcho just sent me an email From Michèle Renouf describing DAY 5,
July 12th and DAY 6, July 13th 2018 which I have read already. How I read this and failed to post it is beyond me.

Let's blur the timeline and go back to those dates.


A “Judicial Industry”? - terrorising free speech?

Are we seeing the emergence of a “Judicial Industry”, asks one
reader of these firsthand Court reports?

It is true that the Schaefer siblings’ trial was scheduled to commence
on the same day as the judgment in the big trial of the “National
Socialist Underground” (NSU) “terror trial” - a long-running
Process of seven years’ duration concerning the murder of nine
immigrants (mainly Turks) and one policewoman – first believed to have
been killed by ethnic-minority gangsters, now said to have been victims
of a “neo-nazi” conspiracy which somehow escaped the attention of
numerous state agents close to the alleged “terrorists".
(Incidentally, one of the defence lawyers involved in the NSU case, RA
Wolfram Nahrath, is also the lawyer for Monika Schaefer.)

On Day 1, July 2nd, on my way to the courthouse, I stopped to ask a
technician sitting in one of the many media vans, lining the street
alongside the Courthouse, whether they were there to cover the Schaefer
trial? Turns out, all those TV vans were there to cover the great
media scandal of the NSU, interestingly timed, as in the UK, where the
big scandal of the “Right-wing terrorist” conspiracy trial was
playing out.

One might say, the Jeremy Bedford-Turner trial for “racial
incitement” (carrying a custodial sentence of potentially seven years,
like the Schaefers’ potential five years) was underway at a parallel
period when a series of trials, leading to the present trial for
“conspiracy to murder” a Member of Parliament was underway in the
U.K.. Perhaps is there a certain attempt to conflate the idea of actual
murder cases with “thought-crime” cases in which there is no crime
but only a Prosecution argument to make out an “aggression” case out
of rendering simple opinion as equally culpable to actual crimes? Yet as
Alfred Schaefer well exclaimed to the Munich court judge - and similarly
one might say as did Jez Turner to the London court judge - "there is a
difference between warning and threatening”.

As I happen to know both these two defendants, I can say that - while
each has a tendency to use naturally excitable rhetoric at demos and in
videos - that is again quite different to “aggression” and
“incitement” to commit an actual crime. Both men are of proven
“exemplary character” as evidenced in their civic-minded actions in
performance of their duties towards their communities and spirited
defence of free opinion and open debate. Each is convivial, neither
debate-hateful nor malicious towards criticism, and both are
conscientious intellectually in their separate endeavours to inform the
public of issues in the interests of public-need-to-know, as warnings to
“the Powers That should not Be” (to quote Jez)! Neither man has
given cause for any corruption charges or any dishonesty in their
dealings. In both cases, only the fear of “political-correctness”
could lead a jury to judge otherwise. A great pity that jurists have no
chance for a secret final ballot to overcome the pressure of peer and
political fear.

zapoper said...

I experienced firsthand what a difference this secret vote can make to
the behaviour of a jurist. In London’s top private club, the Reform
Club on Pall Mall, two internal ‘trials’ were held to adjudicate if
I, as a long-standing member, by inviting to the Clubhouse the pariahed
British historian David Irving, had offended the “sensitivities” of
the "jewish cabal" within the Clubhouse and owed them an apology. The
pariahing of Irving was in consequence of his lost civil action in
London’s High Court against Professor Deborah Lipstadt. This case in
2000 was the subject of the 2016 Hollywood movie _“Denial”_.
Incidentally, my unintimidatable presence on Irving’s otherwise empty
courtroom bench - “your kamakaze leap” asked Professor Art Butz,
"into historical Revisionism?”(!) - is factually depicted in the
movie, for I did attend daily throughout the several months of that
revelatary civil trial (a rare fact, actually) in that thoroughly
mis-depicting movie. The point I am making is this: When the head of
MORI Polls, the admirable American, Professor Robert Worcester, acted as
my McKenzie’s friend in my defence at the Club, he asked, naturally,
that the 12 Club ‘jurors’ be permitted a secret vote. They then
voted for no expulsion. But later on, when the same charge was re-run,
and my new McKenzie’s friend failed to ask for the jurors to be
permitted a secret vote, in casting their open votes those same ‘
urors' called for my expulsion. Thus, proving my point that under peer
and politically-correct pressure jurors are left subject to the
"terror” or call it “heresy” vote. (The ‘judge’ in charge of
the Club’s expulsion proceedings on each occasion being a Jewish lady
lawyer!) Many in the London courtroom public gallery, following the
persuasive defence by Jez’s barrister Adrian Davies, felt that had the
jurors voted in a secret ballot, they might well have acquitted the
non-aggressive Jez of “malicious incitement”. Yet in an open
ballot those jurors would certainly fear exposing themselves to the many
personal and professional dangers involved in revealing
"politically-incorrect" opinions.

A great pity is that German law has had no jury system since 1924, when
juries were abolished supposedly as a money-saving measure, at a time
when the German economy was under great pressure due to the onerous
reparations payments imposed at the end of the First World War.
(Interestingly, as these trials are occuring in Munich, for a very short
time from 1948 to 1950 this city and the rest of Bavaria reintroduced
jury trials, but they were scrapped again once the Federal Republic of
Germany was established.)

Relatedly, as mentioned earlier in these reports, I witnessed that
Munich citzens do feel a terror of attending the Schaefer siblings’
trial. Having to show their passports for entry to the public gallery
makes them fearful of being placed on a watch list for simply showing
their “anti-semitic” or “ Nationalist tending” curiosity in such
political issues.

zapoper said...

Day 5 of the trial, Thursday July 12.

The morning session was farcical! It had to be recessed until 13.30.

This late start was because the Court had failed to inform the
Stadelheim Prison that Alfred had to appear in court that day! They
were only told about it after Alfred did not show up in the morning when
all other actors in the proceedings had duly arrived on time at 09.15,
including Monika.

It was just the kind of slack incompetence that Alfred draws on when
saying his opponents keep making “own goals”, for when eventually he
was brought to the court not until the afternoon, he declared: “Had
you let me sleep at home instead of prison I’d have arrived perfectly
on time!” - (as per his estimation of the competence of conduct in his
preferred era under Deutsches Reich discipline!).

In the afternoon Alfred’s video _"Brainwashing 9/11 Part 1“_, was
shown. Since it has no German version, an official interpreter had made
a translation and this German text was read simultaneously during
regular pauses while the video was being screened. Frau Schaefer told
me the translations were good and fair.

Alfred was asked by the judge, how he had reacted after he had "found
out about 9/11"? Alfred said, that at first he had sleepless nights,
then he started doing a lot of investigation and research. He reached
the conclusion that we are in big trouble, like noticing your house is
on fire yet the people inside the house do not notice or dare to deal
with its disquiet, disturbance, or danger. So he felt the obligation
to warn and awaken everybody.

He knew that life would be more comfortable in the short-term if he
would not care about it. But this was not an option for him, even if it
meant, as indeed it does, his being, right now, in jail even during the
remainder of his own trial.

Alfred explained that his video-viewing audiences at that time were
mainly the Americans. So he did not bother translating this video into
German. Alfred stressed several times, that his biggest wish is to solve
this whole problem peacefully. That is why he feels the duty to do what
he is doing, to warn and to inform people. (Indeed, he does use the term
“lesson” and performs like a firm but patient school teacher in his

Alfred said, "what our judicial system is doing now, is wrapping duct
tape around a steaming pressure cooker while turning up the heat on and

zapoper said...

Another question from the judge was, how did Alfred make the step from
"9/11" to the “Holocaust”? Alfred answered that it was the TV
interview with Michael Chertoff, which Alfred presents in his video,
where Chertoff states that denying the official story of "9/11" is like
denying the “Holocaust”.

This led to the conclusion depicted in the video, which seems to be one
of the points of the accusation, that Alfred now saw "with the help of
Chertoff that the Official "9/11" story = bullshit, likewise that the
official “Holocaust" story = bullshit".

Alfred also described how he at first started blogging on the internet
and encountered the “Hasbara" - (a Hebrew word for “Erklärer", an
explainer, though Israeli sources define it more fully as a propagandist
i.e. Hasbara "refers to public-relations efforts to disseminate, abroad,
positive information about the State of Israel and its actions”.)

Alfred said a Jewish friend from Palestine told him this when someone
had made very obscene and offensive comments under his Blog, instead of
reacting in a factual (objective) way and manner.

Alfred‘s final statement on this day was that "many people now are
waking up, especially the young people in the USA. Truth is marching on,
even if they throw us into jail, for now".

In the afternoon a German version of Monika’s Video "Entschuldige
Mama, …” (Sorry Mum…') was shown, but was not commented upon, as

“No surrender!”
Michèle, Lady Renouf

zapoper said...



Heresy is holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted -
Monika’s case is just that. She no longer believes in her own earlier
accusation against her mother of having been complicit in what Monika
once assumed was a evidentially-backed “crime". “Denial” is not
part of the method of “Holocaust Revisionism” for the method (not
being an ideology) only asserts its scientific findings drawn from
search into new evidence which comes to light in the course of
historical documents being released from archives, new geological
technology for examining the alleged crime scene and so on. The
Revisionist method is objective and is not balked by “sensitivities”
to the investigation of sacred sites and sacred memories. Indeed it is
the opposite of the International Guidelines for Teaching the Holocaust
in which, on page 11: “Care must be taken not to give a platform for
deniers [ie sceptics] or seek to disprove their position through normal
hstorical debate and rational argument”. These Teaching Guidelines
seek to treat the “Holocaust” in the manner of religious
instruction. See BBC World Service link to “Why Can’t We Question
the Holocaust?” - an hour-long, worldwide phone-in radio programme in
which the two main guests were Jewish history Professor Lipstadt and
Bishop Williamson-supporter Lady Renouf, when these Guidelines were
aired, though ‘never again’.
see http://www.heritageanddestiny.com/lady-renouf-to-speak-at-sw-forum/

As usual in the public gallery there were five persons in the morning,
then three by the afternoon. Fewer in the Press gallery.

Concerning the media, I had observed on the day of the release of (the
now late) Ernst Zündel from Mannheim Prison that only one single
reporter, from the Associated Press, turned up with a single
photographer, thus proving how the internationally syndicated Press
relies on one story and one take on how that monopolised story will be
presented. There seems to have been no story of note about the Schaefer
trial in the German media to date. Yet one would think news proprietors
would estimate that German citizens would be interested to buy
newspapers about this dual siblings’ case with its international
aspects. Not least, a general public interest could be expected,
bearing on how their country’s laws are seen to be perpetrated on
Canadian citizens.

The case against Monika was instigated by the Toronto tentacle of _
B’nai Brith_ ( Sons of the Covenant) with the motto: "The Global Voice
of the Jewish Community” - an international organisation - "the
oldest" it extoles - in Canada. One wonders, as it is "committed to
the security and continuity of the Jewish people and the State of Israel
and combating antisemitism and bigotry” why it has not (since the
existence of the Jewish Entity in Palestine) seen fit to be
headquartered in the “State of Israel”?

zapoper said...

Strange to onlookers too, is how the prayer “Next year in Jerusalem”
(though being one of the oldest prayers), still leads so few Jews
literally to go live there, even to help build up the demographic Jewish
presence in their second Jewish homeland. At a famous socialite's
garden party in London, I happened to ask, quite cordially, that very
question to two very prominent and amusing Jewish personalities - the
columnist and Booker Prize-winning novelist Howard Jacobson; and Maureen
Lipman, columnist and comedienne (very popular for her “Beatie” role
in TV commercial endorsements). Each ran home to file their column
items of their accounts at being asked an “anti-semitic question at a
garden party”! Had one asked an Australian cordially at said garden
party: “still dragging your ball and chain?”, would there be media
mileage in exclaiming criminal “anti-Australia” questions were being
entertained? Since then, our hostess reluctantly has had to distance
herself from ever inviting me again, though she has maintained loyally
and generously that such a jolly presence at parties is
“life-enhancing”. Our hostess, like for certain Robert Worcester my
able McKenzie’s friend did, has likely got her spoonful of social
punishment for that! There are many such provable evidences of the
terrorising of free opinion. We shall soon see how that pertains to
Canadians when visiting Germany nowadays.

In 1875, Canada’s B'nai Brith lodge - global Lodge No. 246 - was
established in Toronto [1], and soon after in Montreal. Its parent
company, International B’nai B’rith (which preserves the original
hyphen in B’rith), was founded in NYCity in 1843). Interestingly, the
“emancipation of Jewry” into the newly unified Germany had only
taken place about the same era in 1871.

These international Jewish lodge activities are said to reflect the
organization's (racially-exclusive) commitment to "People Helping
People” - fundamentally acting as a “Jewish State within other
States” is surely a factual statement. This is a statement made by
Chaim Weizman, Israel’s first President, in adherence to the ideology
of Judaism though its brethren are scripturally obliged to "disperse
among the nations”. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 made provision
for both - Herzl’s Jewish State as well as the option to remain a
state within states. In two millennia there appears to have been no
quest (other than the saying “Next Year in Jerusalem”) for jews en
masse to congregate in their entirety in a homeland carved out of
unconquered territory, say in Australia or Canada before ‘gentile’
settlers came and did so. The first Jewish Homeland, and now a Jewish
Republic of Birobidjan, was only established (by Stalin) in 1928 and
remains the first homeland option which did not displace any indigenous
people to this day in its peaceful inception. This existence of this
peaceful first homeland option is kept very quiet even in the Hebrew
language media.

zapoper said...

It so happens that in 2000 I undertook a post-graduate academic interest
in the “Psychology of Religion” at the University of London’s
Heythrop College (a Jesuit college).

Interestingly - given the 'state within states’ complaint coming from
B’nai Brith Canada against Monika - in January 2004, Shahina Siddiqui,
executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association, filed a
formal complaint against B'nai Brith Canada under the "discriminatory
signs and statements" section of the Manitoba Human Rights Code. The
Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC) accepted the complaint and began
an investigation that would last five years. In 2009, the MHRC issued a
report that dismissed the complaint due to a lack of evidence. Not
enough is made available about this complaint, but safe to say, only
jews are permitted to install “eruvs” (wires on poles around
neighbourhoods) and run a “Shomrim" police force (a specifically
Jewish “community"/some call it “vigilante” police patrol). This
Jewish police force has the same powers as the UK’s genuine police
force, as identified by Jez Turner in his recent public-need-to-know
trial - and for this he sits punished in a prison cell for the next 12
months. Is this terrorising free opinion the public are entitled to

The formation in the 1930s of a B’nai Brith lodge in Shanghai
represented the organization's entry into the Far East. This
international expansion came to a close with the rise of National
Socialism. At the beginning of that Nationalist era, there were six
B'nai B'rith districts in Europe. Eventually, the NS stopped all B'nai
B'rith expansion in Europe.

B'nai B'rith Europe was re-founded in 1948. Their sources inform us that
members of the Basel and Zurich lodges and representatives from lodges
in France and Holland attended the inaugural meeting. In 2000, the new
European B'nai B'rith district merged with the United Kingdom district
to become a consolidated B'nai B'rith Europe with active involvement in
all institutions of the European Union. By 2005 B'nai B'rith Europe
comprised lodges in more than 20 countries including the former
Communist Eastern Europe.

In response to what later was conceived as the “Holocaust", in 1943
B'nai B'rith President Henry Monsky convened a conference in Pittsburgh
of all major Jewish organizations to "find a common platform for the
presentation of our case before the civilized nations of the world".

B'nai B'rith was present at the founding of the United Nations in San
Francisco and their source say it has taken an active role in the world
body ever since. In 1947, the organization was granted non-governmental
organizational (NGO) status and, for many years, was accorded full-time
representation at the United Nations. It is credited with a leading role
in the U.N. reversal of its 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism
[2] (an extraordinary disdain of fact since Zionism relates directly to
founding principles of the racially Jewish State!).

B'nai B'rith's NGO role is not limited to the United Nations and its
agencies. B'nai B'rith also has worked extensively with officials in the
State Department, in Congress, and in foreign governments to support the
efforts of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [3]
(OSCE) to combat anti-Semitism. With members in more than 20 Latin
American countries, the organization was the first Jewish group to be
accorded civil society status at the Organization of American States [4]

Up against all this colossal influence and powers, German courts must be
deafened by B’nai Brith's global clamour to stand a chance of hearing
the siblings who are trying to get an unarmied citizen's plea for an
unbiased hearing! Their cases call for international eyes and ears.

zapoper said...


The session began at 09.45 and the whole day was devoted to viewing
first Monika’s then Alfred’s videos.

The entire morning was spent on Monika’s case.

This time Alfred was brought from his prison cell to the court on time!

In the morning the English version of Monika‘s video "Sorry Mom …"
was shown and a professionally prepared German translation was read
simultaneously by the interpreter in regular pauses during the video.

Monika was asked questions about her video “Sorry Mum I was Wrong
About the Holocaust” by the leading Judge.

Why did she make the film? What was her intention in doing so?

Monika read her Statement (Einlassung), which was considered by some in
the public gallery as "very impressive”. Some of the public hope a
full version of it will be made public.

In the afternoon the video "Dissidenten sprechen Klartext" (Dissidents
Speak Out) was shown. This is an Interview Alfred had with the
political firebrand Gerhard Ittner (who is himself now locked away in
Nuremberg prison). Incidentally, Gerd Ittner was the organiser of the
Dresden Commemoration, February 2018, who was permitted to organise the
demo yet conditionally disqualified from speaking at it himself because
of an earlier conviction for “incitement”. It was at this
Commemoration as a visitor that, though an unscheduled speaker, the
crowd called for me to speak. That impromptu 10 minutes’ address,
after which I was arrested for “incitement”, was used to close down
that Commemoration, yet to the “own goal” satisfaction of Alfred!
He was one of the scheduled speakers, who gladly said "closing down the
demo with Lady Renouf at the microphone meant worldwide mainstream media
coverage of an event which otherwise would have gone unnoticed”.

The judge asked Alfred: Why this time in this video he does not
differentiate between Jews as a whole and the jewish “Großkapital”
(Jewish big business), which he had in his “brainwashing" video, shown
the day before? Alfred pointed out that, "if it is okay all the time to
blame all Germans for the nazis, why is it that we do not get the same
right when referring to the Jews?”. Why the exceptionalism for some
generalisations and not for others?

Finally before close of day the video was shown which was filmed by the
German police from Alfred‘s speech in Brezenheim - at the Rhine-Meadow
(Rheinwiesenlager) Memorial, part of where post-war ca. one million
German POW soldiers were herded there to starve to death in those
densely crowded, open muddy fields under the orders of the “Allied
victor” General Eisenhower who denied Red Cross access). At this
atrocity-mourning Commemoration in Brezenheim, Alfred is since accused
of having made the "Hitler-Gruß“ (the Hitler greeting) at the close
of it. Alfred said he never mentioned Hitler, instead he had shown the
"Roman Salute”. It seems appalling to an observer that the “Basic
Law” could possibly care more about a greeting gesture than the
barbaric murder of post-war soldiers of all stripes. The weight of the
scales of justice are off the ‘Richter’ scale in terms of human
versus emblem values. Relatives of the Schaefer family were at these
barbaic Rhinemeadow open air death ‘camps’. Yet the Law may sooner
protect the public from an historic greeting gesture than acknowledge
the advance to barbarism exhibited by the post-war “victors” under
whose auspices the Basic Law was planned.

zapoper said...

Frau Schaefer, Alfred’s wife, asked to have a word with her husband,
but the Prosecutor said she, not the Judge, would be the judge of that
as it was her job to say yea or nay. Eventually, Elfriede Schaefer was
granted 10 minutes to speak with Alfred. She wanted to ask if he had
received the clothes she had taken for him to the prison. He had not.

The court session closed quite early at 15.00.

On the matter of UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION (since in the case of Gerd
Ittner, in the first instance he had been extradited from another
country to face the charges made against him in Germany), one reader

A) "Does Germany claim extraterritorial jurisdiction for all acts that
are illegal under German law and committed in other nations or just for
issues related to the authenticity of the “Holocaust" narrative?

On the question of jurisdiction:

The Germans do claim “extraterritoriality”, in other words, the
right to put people on trial in German courts for “crimes” committed
elsewhere in the world. This type of claim of extraterritoriality is not
unique to Germany. For example, a few years ago a Spanish judge brought
an action against the former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet for alleged
crimes committed on Chilean not Spanish soil.

An informal reply comes from an English barrister:

"Most European countries claim universal jurisdiction over their own
citizens, whereas common law countries don’t for most crimes.
Ironically the idea of universal jurisdiction over nationals came in as
part of the nationalist revolutions of the 19th century. It has
certainly turned around and bitten nationalists on the butt . . . there
is a moral here!

So, if a Frenchman picks an Englishman’s pocket in the streets of NYC,
the French courts assert the right to try him, though recognising the
right of the state of New York to try him too.

Double jeopardy is avoided by the application of the principle of the
Roman law called _ne bis in idem_, [literally ‘not twice for the same
thing’] which means that if our French pickpocket has been tried in
New York, the French courts will not try him for a second time, whether
the verdict was guilty or not guilty.

So it’s not only Holocaust revisionists.”

A reader’s question B):
" Did some part of what is charged occur in Germany? Or have the Germans
declared themselves the cops of the world?"

Concerning your question re the “cops of the world”: ‘safe’(!)
to say the pro-Zionist USA hold that _chutzpah_ title (having jettisoned
their superior Jeffersonian ideal of “no meddling in other
countries”). Due to the technological changes brought about by the
Internet, various legal systems have been struggling to work out whether
an online posting can be judged to have taken place in any jurisdiction
in the world. A similar position has often applied in civil cases,
where plaintiffs go ‘shopping’ for a favourable jurisdiction, for
example Americans sometimes bring a libel action against British
newspapers in a London court while ignoring the same allegations written
in American publications. This is because the burden of proof is very
different in the UK.

Monika’s attorney adds, "Not all. But especially for denying the
“Holocaust" and other so-called political crimes. The best examples
would be the cases of the late Gerd Honsik, the late Ernst Zündel,
Sylvia Stolz and Dr. Fredrick Töben. They all did not commit anything
in Germany."

On Monday, July 16th 2018 from 09.45 the whole day is scheduled for
screening the rest of Alfred’s videos. And an additional day is
scheduled for Tuesday July 17th. An extra date in August is to be

“No surrender!”
Michèle, Lady Renouf

Bartholomew Beauregard III said...

I think that the court and judge know that they are being judged at this trial. That's why they don't want it to run any longer. Thousands of people per day are seeing this jewshit for the first time. The longer the trial, the longer the rope is what I say... A nice long drop and then "Snap" - . Hey jewjudge, are you having second thoughts? Thoughts of letting truth bust through, or the continuation of the fraudulent lie that YOU represent? Are you ready for that nice walk under the shady tree? Good luck with your circus - The shoah is at its "last act." We'll have a picnic under the tree... in your memory. After-all, you don't think continued lies and deceit to mankind is going to win again, do you?

WWS said...

"Translation from Germany: Alfred Schaefer’s trial:
Alfred made the judge furious! (Jewish?)
Prosecutor needed medical attention!!"


This includes material which may parallel previous.

Onward !!

Voltman said...

I propose a toast to the great Alfred Schaefer.

"Alfred is doing a FANTASTIC JOB in Germany! He’s daring to do what nobody has tried."

"I am delighted that Alfred made the judge so angry that he needed a recess in order to compose himself! He has clearly never met such an “insolent” (read: FREE & PROUD German) in his life before. He’s expecting Alfred to grovel like a DOG, which Alfred clearly will not do.

We don’t know if the prosecutor bitch is Jewish or not, but it seemed the stress caused her to need MEDICAL ATTENTION – which is plain fucking awesome! Alfred is the victim here. Alfred doesn’t have a gun; but Alfred is already causing CASUALTIES – which is fantastic.

What’s not mentioned here is that Alfred did the NAZI salute 3 times on the first day AND Alfred told the court that he does not recognise their jurisdiction because only the Third Reich is the valid and legal govt of Germany! I think that was plain fucking FANTASTIC! That must have caused blood vessels in the judge’s head to pop. (Fuck him!).

I think Alfred has done a marvellous job. I see that the Lioness Sylvia Stolz was herself arrested. That poor woman and her husband, Horst, have been through hell. I think its fantastic that they’re standing up for themselves knowing full well that they cannot win and that the system will punish them more and more. There are thousands of Germans who’ve gone to jail for standing up for the TRUTH.

The truth is critical for all whites everywhere and you will still see why it is critical that we even be prepared to DIE for the TRUTH. The TRUTH is everything. I’m waiting for more info. But I really like the way Alfred has handled things. He’s done a superb job. He’s forced them to watch his videos and listen to him. I think that’s a BRILLIANT MOVE.

I think finally, the information that new Germans are coming to the trial; listening and AWAKENING – I think that’s the best thing of all. I think Alfred has done a MARVELLOUS job by going on the attack. I think its fantastic. Its time that whites just stand together and begin spitting in the face of the Jews and the Elite and stand up for the TRUTH regardless of what happens. The TRUTH will heal so many wounds in our race. The truth is EVERYTHING. We must stand by it and fight for it, and if need be, die for it. 14/88 Jan]"


"Only after vigorous invitation by Monika Schaefer, The Jewish ventriloquist dolls felt compelled to use the existing microphones in the hall to allow the spectators of the public hearing to hear the spoken word as well."


Yes sir, General Alfred Schaefer showed these court muppets the meaning of Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing BUT The Truth. These overrated and overpaid posers have been begging to have their bullshit shoved all the way back up where it came from!

Bravo Monsieur Alfred Schaefer!!

La prochaine fois, faites-leur le signe de la quenelle à la Dieudonné!


1776blues said...

Monika's release is long past due. I hope and pray she's able to win her case against the Jewish inquisition, Germany's tyrannical government, and its kangaroo court. Same applies for Alfred.

zapoper said...

Small addendum to the eighth trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:July 21, 2018 Translated from:


In retrospect, our process observer has come up with a small detail on the eighth day of the trial, which we do not want to withhold from the reader.

The short

Referring to his brainwashing video series in court, Alfred Schaefer had reported extensively in court on how much our opinion has been conditioned by images and symbols in a particular direction by the media for many years. He named, for example, the WTC7 building, which collapsed in the September 11, 2001 attacks, even though no plane had flown in, and then the WMD lie was constructed to legitimize the Iraq war, followed by Libya, then Syria, etc.

Finally, Alfred Schaefer also mentioned the moon landing, which should also have been a lie, because the films and pictures about the moon landing were produced in a studio. The American director Stanley Kubrick produced the films about the moon landing. He said that in an interview , which was recorded three days before his death and was released after his will only 15 years after his death. Stanley Kubrick was a science-fiction specialist. From him comes the movie " 2001: Odyssey in Space" from the year 1968, which was awarded four Oscars. "The film is now considered one of the best and most influential films of all time and the American Film Institute voted it the # 1 best sci-fi movie of all time." (Source HERE )

Stanley Kubrick had not interviewed for years. But he wanted to give this last interview because he did not want to take this lie about the moon landing to the grave.

This message about the Kubrick interview and the studio recording of the moon landing by Alfred Schaefer must have impressed the two judges, esp. The adjudicating judge, because you could watch how they threw each other but quite astonished looks in the sense, as if esp. at the judge at least the thought flashed that Alfred Schaefer actually says the truth with his statements.

Kubrick interview: https://youtu.be/U0kNwvZm_9Q

1melahat said...

It's too bad he mentioned the confession video of Kubrick since it's fake.

Tim said...

1melahat kike

Nona said...

But what did this woman expect? She din't read about Zundel and how he was treated?
Didn't she know the workings of the German gov.?
She does a vid on the "Holocaust", then, goes to Germany, not expecting anything to happen?
She's a retard.
I would NEVER have gone to that vile country!

Adanac said...

Well Allat, some people actively try to bring things to the surface. Zundel is a hero even though he paid a price that most would not. If we all had 50 percent of the courage we might not be in the shape we are as nations of debt slaves, ruled by contract law.

1melahat said...

Tim, Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Moon landing=fake
SK confession video=fake

Scorpio said...

1 Mealahat is correct. The SK 'confession' was a fake and proven to be some actor that looked kind of like Kubrick.
....and yeah, so was the moon landing.

zapoper said...

I'm trying to be objective in reporting this but...

With Alfred making a Heil Hitler salute and saying exterminate the jew and poisoning the well with the fake Kubrick interview, you have to question his motives.

Like the jew Billy Joel said:"you may be right, I may be crazy".

1776blues said...

@zap, holy crap, that's retarded. Has he lost his friggin mind? Looks as though he's on a suicide mission.

zapoper said...

From: Gabriele
Date: 2018-07-25 18:02 GMT-04:00
Subject: German-English: Brief von Ursula Haverbeck

You all ask how I'm doing? All right. The cell faces west; I look at green trees, now already for 2 months with the most beautiful blue sky and sunshine - often 30 degrees Celicius.

I have much undisturbed peace and now there is the announcement of a new trial in Hamburg, on Wednesday, 12 September starting at 9.00 a.m.

The judge wrote in the summons:

"The presence of the accused is necessary to establish the truth."

That's unusual. So far there has only been the "obvious fact" and when and where it was allegedly denied in a magazine! If this should really be about finding the truth, a few things could change.

"What is truth"? Pilate once asked. There is my truth and your truth and then there is "the truth". It is not our property, for us it is always a matter of striving to be truthful.

In court we meet on the side of the prosecution and the judge, only the opinion of the victorious powers, read and believed. How are the folks born after the war know better? Of the average of 2,000 trials per year since 2000, according to official figures, the voice of the accusers is represented in the media, but rarely, even only slightly, statements by the accused.

I will prepare myself, as best as I can, without being able to refresh my memory on the basis of my documents, and hope that a spiritual power will give me the right words.

It's also high time. My eyes are diminishing, my hearing is getting worse - all can be very clearly perceived in the past 3 months. The body now adapts to the age. For a very long time, thankfully, it went along with all the overexertion.

So many people called out to me:

"Please endure, remain strong, the truth will soon prevail."

Thank you all very much. You have realized it is a spiritual battle we must endure.

The “Century of the Lie” must finally give way to a century of truth.

hank you also for the idea of the card: "It's about the price you're willing to pay."

The Panorama interviewer in 2015 thought this was a good slogan for the conclusion and used it.

Now you can add a second card with the question we can all ask ourselves:

without picture.

Why have I been through this for so long?

Your Ursula Haverbeck

Bielefeld correctional facility, July 13, 2018

zapoper said...

Short report from the ninth trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Translated from: http://die-heimkehr.info/berichte-aus-absurdistan/kurzbericht-vom-neunten-prozesstag-gegen-monika-und-alfred-schaefer-am-landgericht-muenchen/

Published by: Kurzer on:July 26, 2018

The trial on today's 9th trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer was continued with only one interruption of 45 minutes as a lunch break from morning 9:15 clock to 17:00 clock. After the representative of the lawyer Monika Schaefer, Mr. Böhmer, was welcomed, the video "Question about - Why we believed it" was shown in English. At the request of the prosecutor, the two attending young trainee teachers were then asked to leave the room because they were not supposed to attend the subsequent reading of the German-language translation by an interpreter.

In this video it is reported that Steven Spielberg had used for his film "Schindler's List" footage of dead and corpse mountains , which in truth, however, did not come from slain Jews, but from people who had been killed in the Allied air raids on Nordhausen , This has been confirmed by a Jew who himself was in KL Mittelbau-Dora north of Nordhausen. According to him, the dead were not from the Nazis, but from the Royal Airforce and the Americans, who after the bombing even with low-flying on the people had shot.

The video asked why they had hospitals in the concentration camps if they wanted to kill the Jews? Apparently one had been interested in keeping the prisoners in good health in order to use them as workers. Also, the number of victims over 6 million have been continuously revised downwards. The figure of 4 million is allegedly derived from Rudolf Höß and has since been corrected down to 1 million. Even decades before the 2nd Worldwar rumors circulated that 6 million Jews were in mortal danger, which has been reported in various newspapers . But the story of the HC would change because many claims have now turned out to be mere propaganda. When in America they questioned an alleged witness whose story had been exposed as fictitious, why he had spread such lies and how he could wrongfully accuse others of this, he answered: "But in my imagination it was true!"

Manipulating artists wanted us to believe that a shower room could be used as a gas chamber. In fact, there were four vermin killing cells. The clothes were hung after the vermin treatment outside for ventilation. But we were sold, the prisoners should have gone naked in a gasification chamber. Investigations of alleged gas chambers have also shown that not a single line would have been able to transport gas anywhere.

On the occasion of a national HC Day of Remembrance, a 90-year-old HC survivor was reported to have claimed that in November 1944 Himmler had all the gasification equipment dismantled in order to destroy evidence. The award-winning journalist who brought this story and whose father had influential contacts, but was himself a Jew and therefore no credible source.

zapoper said...

Another video in English titled "Gerd Ittner - A Dissident Speaking Out" was presented in which Gerd Ittner vehemently complains that criminal offenses of opinion in the BRiD are trivialized on the other hand, but criminal offenses of accused criminals , It must be allowed to express his own opinion, for if the system could only be upheld by the suppression of free opinion, one day it would not shrink from the death penalty if the political master so demands. Everyone knows that the truth is unstoppable. You do not have to be ashamed if you once believed the lies. One must be ashamed, however, if one is the last to understand that they are lies. Alfred Schaefer commented on this video by pointing out that it was not meant to be aggressive, but that it should alert us to the seriousness of our situation. The RA added that the focus of this video was not on the HC, but on freedom of expression and was mainly distributed in English-speaking countries.

A third video shows a conversation between Monika Schaefer, Alfred Schaefer and Brian, who is also a video maker in English-speaking countries. In it, Monika talks about the lies propaganda, which is already being spread in the school and kept on films everywhere present. The deadliest weapon they used against us was the lie. But once you understand that, you also understand why Jews have always been thrown out of every country in the past. Now they wanted to extend their business model to the whole white race and prevent us from spreading the truth, calling it fake news, fake news.

Following this film screening, Alfred Schaefer asked why the Jews in Canada wanted the police to pick up his equipment here in Germany? A Jew, Noel Egnazia, has clearly stated that the white race is the cancer of humanity. So if you have a white skin color, be in the crosshairs of the Jews today.

The judge asked again if there was a script for the video. Alfred Schaefer denies this question and adds that he participated in 3 to 5 talk shows a week, because he felt this form was more effective for dissemination. The videos had been distributed on various platforms, not only on Youtube, because they would have been blocked there again and again. However, it is always characteristic of a system to ban everything when it is about to collapse. But the question must be allowed, who actually protects the Jews from the Jews? It had always been the case with the Jews that they were prepared to sacrifice lower Jews in order to achieve a great goal for Jewry.

At the end, a video with Ursula Haverbeck was shown, to which Alfred Schaefer said she had become an icon worldwide, which only increased her detention because in Western countries one could not imagine being a 90-year-old woman because of her Opinion would go to jail, which would not happen in any other country in the western world.

Afterwards Alfred Schaefer reads out his defense plea for all charges. He quotes from command orders, from court rulings and from scientific reports which prove, among other things, that Yad Vashem confirmed on 27.4.1990 that soap was never made of Jews or that on 22.10.2015 in Naumburg in case Püschel the number 6 Million was downgraded to 3 million. He requests an expert on all charges, who would testify to all the points and underline his credibility. Also, that it was true that there were no extermination camps on German soil. Difficult is the reversal of the burden of proof. Every defendant is already punishable in his defense. This procedure is a convenient way to silence everyone.

The judge inquires with Alfred Schaefer whether he has written his request for evidence himself, which Alfred Schaefer affirms with a view to his RA. The RA responded to the judge's question as to whether he had anything to say that he preferred not to comment on this because it was too dangerous for him and he did not want to be punished.

Unknown said...

I'm reading this book. I reached page 309 a couple of days ago.

menuhin-gerard_tell-the-truth-and-shame-the-devil.pdf Page 309

In 2007, Germany made a bid to make “Holocaust” denial a crime across the EU. The last such attempt failed in 2005, after objections from several governments which apparently felt uncomfortable about imprisoning people for saying what they think. Justice applied selectively is a form of injustice. “Denial” laws prohibit dissident opinions about only one subject, from which it must be clear who is agitating for such laws.

Presently, German authorities claim the right to prosecute anyone anywhere for expressing dissident views on “the Holocaust” that can be accessed online in Germany, even when such expressions of opinion are entirely legal in the country where they are posted, and regardless of the language in which they are written. Before she left for Israel, Merkel said that, because of its history, Germany was committed to the state of Israel.

“The Shoah was something that is unique and which calls to us always and again to learn the lessons of the past. “And for me that connects directly with Israel’s right to existence as a raison d’état for Germany.”

(www.bundesregierung.de, February 25, 2014) Apart from the repulsive nature of such grovelling, the Oxford dictionaries define “raison d’état” as “a purely political reason for action on the part of a ruler or government, especially where a departure from openness, justice, or honesty is involved.” The Oxford Reference states: “Raison d’état (much less frequently in the English ‘reason of state’) dates from arguments in international law

WWS said...

Monika Schaefer to Jim and Diane (June 28, 2018) July 10 Response [Part 1]

Dear Jim and Diane, thank you so much for your letter of June 28th, which I received at lightning speed, it's all relative, -- ha ha, on July 10th. Today happens to be my 200th day of incarceration, a good day to write you a letter.... I wonder who is giving you up-to-date news now that they have imprisoned Alfred. You know that first week of Court they imprisoned three people -- Alfred and two others who were attending just to watch, for saying one wrong word at the end of day #1. Sylvia Stolz got 2 days at My Lovely Hotel. We (Alfred and I) did not see each other here of course, but we did ride the bus together, separated by Plexiglas, soundproof windows and on a door upon which we pressed our hands against each other and poured love into each other through our eyes. Another fellow got four days jail, given to him on that Thursday morning of week one, for having said something after court date 3 to the prosecutor outside of the courtroom. Something like - "shame on you. I hope you get to see the inside of a jail one day." They tacked on something more, that he did not say, but they invented it and off he goes to jail. I have not seen him since, so he may have been banned from the courthouse, I'm not sure. It is a dangerous place to be, whether you are in the dark or not.

You probably know what happened to Alfred, but in case not I'll tell you. First day he was arrested for insulting the court. Second day out on bail. Then I believe it was Friday of that week, but I'm not sure, they came and picked him up from home and he has a similar address as mine ever since. They say, "verdunklungsgefahr," but I think they are afraid of the opposite which is "verhellungsgefahr." Gefahr means danger and Verdunklung means darkening, and other words hiding or destroying evidence. Verhellung means brightening or shedding light upon, which is what Alfred really does, so they have turned that one upside down and true Orwellian fashion.

I did not find out about his arrest until the following Thursday, the 12th, when he didn't arrive in court and they said something about forgetting to transport him. Me, toll the question mark on my face, what are they talking about? My lawyer turns to me and gasps, "What, you didn't know? Alfred has been arrested!" That was the week before!

Last time I told you a bit about the story of mail. Well I don't know if it's their revenge on me for having straight-talked with the boss here about the world watching, but now the jail boss said I needed Court approval before getting a copy of my own birth certificate, which they have right here in this building. I needed it for some other thing which is not relevant to the story here, other than to say there was a deadline which of course becomes impossible to meet as they try to make me jump through hoops like a trained monkey. She really has it out for me, the jail boss.

Most of the guards now treat me with great respect. I had to work for that though, as it was not always so. When I arrived back in January, I was the Nazi on the Block, and then subservient, condition Germany, you can imagine what that means. I got "special treatment."

WWS said...

Monika Schaefer to Jim and Diane (June 28, 2018) July 10 Response [Part 2x]

The trial continues. I won't say much about it other than a couple of terms which just float right into my mind. Kafka and kangaroos. Nevertheless, we are having a good time. They seem to be eating themselves up, not just in court but in the world. Alfred mentioned an example the other day, and maybe he has already spoken with you about this, I have no idea since I am so out of off from internet. He said that more and more American universities are disallowing antisemites entry into their programs of indoctrination I mean oops, into their programs of study. Wonderful! That protects those people from indoctrination, oops, there I go again, sorry. Relating to something you said Diane, I guess those universities would have disallowed Jesus Christ entry into their hallowed institutions. (I don't have a proper a dictionary, I hope I have used the word "hallowed" appropriately.

You mentioned how appalled you are at how anemic the Canadian officials are towards me. It gets worse. Did I tell you not only are they ignoring me, they -- as in Ottowa -- have forbidden the Canadian consulate here in Munich, to attend the trial. Did I mention that already? I mean let me be clear, their job would not entitle defending me or interfering in the laws of the land. They would simply be observers to observe if I am getting fair treatment. That's all forbidden!

Thank you for that bridge illustration. Also, thank you for the birthday greetings and all the funny jokes. I love that! I had to laugh out loud and God knows we all need laughter. I agree with you that are most dangerous adversaries are those Israel-first. judeo-christians in the churches, that have been so ugly and completely hijacked for the very purpose of destroying us and destroying God's work. It is through the church that some of the deepest deceptions have taken root. The very concept of judeo-Christian is oxymoronic. Is that the right word? Once again, I am missing the dictionary that I can check my choice of words. I want to say opposites are put together, that's oxymoronic right? Speaking of dictionary, now there's another story, but perhaps another time, or maybe you've heard my dictionary stories already. The saga continues...

That's all for now my friends. I hope you are well and healthy and keeping your heads high. God bless you, much love, Monica.

katana said...

Here's the transcript of a very good talk by Alfred Schaefer, given at the London Forum in Jul 2016.

London Forum – Alfred Schaefer – Psychological Warfare – TRANSCRIPT

[In this 42 minute video Alfred Schaefer, a Canadian of German origin, delivers one of the best talks ever at the London Forum, with no punches pulled in laying bare the jewish engineered plan behind the ongoing destruction of our societies. Alfred discusses the fraudulent nature of many sacred cows held dear by our psychologically manipulated societies, with special attention to the so-called “Holocaust” and jewish engineered 9/11.

He brings up how organized jewry is responsible for the European civil wars, known as WWI and WWII. And how, jewish monopoly over information has sought to control us through psychological warfare that uses “control words” that inhibit us from thinking outside their imposed frames of reference. — KATANA]

zapoper said...

Brief report of the tenth trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:August 14, 2018 in: Reports from Absurdistan

Today's litigation day started at 10:00 am, was very busy and immediately started with a little tumult in the ranks of reserved seats for journalists. The folk teacher sat behind the journalists complaining that the VL was just sitting behind them to copy or observe what they were doing. The VL said he probably had to close his eyes during the trial, but was not asked to sit down elsewhere. During the break, the VL asked the judge why he could not be accredited as a journalist. After the lunch break, he was then accredited and has sat down accordingly in the journalist bank. This obviously did not appeal to another journalist, because he jumped up and demonstratively moved on to a seat so as not to have to sit next to the VL.

Before the start of the negotiations, it was again pointed out the urgency to announce the judgment because of the upcoming vacation time on Friday, 17.8.2018. Nevertheless, Alfred Schaefer suggested to show all his videos, because they are self-explanatory, especially the content of the video of "Red Eye".

The hearing was then resumed with the reading of the last part of the translation of the film "Question about Holocaust", because this was not yet complete for the previous hearing. This part describes the war crimes of the Americans at German guards in KL Dachau 1945. These soldiers had been ordered to Dachau shortly before the Americans arrived. They gave up their weapons, were rounded up by the Americans, put on a wall and immediately shot. Such treatment of prisoners of war soldiers is a war crime that has never been punished.

Furthermore, the conditions in the camps Nordhausen and Bergen-Belsen were described at the invasion of the Allies. The KL Nordhausen was bombed by the Americans on 3 April 1945. Even trains in which prisoners were sitting were shot at. In the camp itself, there were 4,000 sick who were bombarded and shot at with cannons (machine guns) from airplanes. The water supply to the camp had previously been blown up by the British. A Jewish eyewitness reported that only with the Allied air raids and the incendiary bombs the camp would have become hell. After taking the camp with ground troops, they filmed this found hell and presented in a cynical way as German atrocities and used as evidence in the Nuremberg Trials.

zapoper said...

The lawyer asked for a revision of the translation. Alfred commented on the translation that the truth must be said and his present time in prison is very instructive for him, because it shows him that many young people already know about the true situation.

Subsequently, a video was shown about Ernst Zündel, which comes from an "American citizen", but not from Alfred or Monika Schaefer. Zündel reports in this video about how he had to flee from Canada to the VSA because of the increasing attacks against him. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the capitulation of the Germans on May 8, 1995, his house in Canada, among other things, had gone up in flames and been completely destroyed. When the validity of his passport expired in the VSA, he was arrested and deported to Canada on 19 February 2003 and extradited to Germany in 2005. It was supposed to prove that the ADL had secret agreements with three so-called democracies, which were supposed to have enabled the deportation of Ernst Zundel from Canada to Germany. The transfer Zundels to Germany was done with a private plane and 7 officials.

In an interview with Robert Faurisson Ernst Zündel says in this video: "I am happy in my role, if I contributed something for the truth and the freedom for our country. How many people in history have this opportunity? "

Following the screening of this film, Alfred Schaefer emphasizes that this film was very important to him because he helped him to understand a great deal.

The charges against Alfred Schaefer are "incitement to hate and contempt or slander". At 5 pm on the last day of the hearing, the Chamber requested that allegations Nos. 1, 5, and 8 against Alfred Schaefer and allegations 8 and 9 against Monika Schaefer be set aside.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, 16.8. continued at 9:15.

Note from the trial observer: Let's hope that the cases Monika and Alfred Schaefer not mutate into another patch of FRG justice .

zapoper said...

The two previous posts are translated from German to English:


zapoper said...

Brief report of the eleventh trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the district court of Munich

Published by: Kurzer on:August 16, 2018in: Reports from Absurdistan

Today's trial began with the reading of a court ruling in which Alfred Schaefer is accused of making incendiary statements at a demonstration in Dresden, for which he was sentenced to 100 daily rates of 50 euros. The judgment is not final yet, because Alfred Schaefer had filed the appeal against the appeal. An opinion on this judgment is not necessary, because the defendant Alfred Schaefer is trying only with an infinite pseudoscientific evidence to deny the obvious genocide of National Socialist tyranny.

Subsequently, they discussed about criminal standards in Germany. One of the two lawyers argued that the court must inform Monika and Alfred Schaefer esp. On the § 130 StGB, because both had spent most of their lives abroad and you can not assume that this is known to them, especially This is also a special law, which lawyers understand, but a layman may not necessarily know. The judge was of the opinion that the attorney could also explain the two defendants during the lunch break, what the RA rejected because he also had a break. Otherwise, he would like to file an application that the court clarify the two Schaefers about the § 130 StGB. The court's answer is still pending. One turned first to another video.

Shown was the video "End of the lies" in English, which was also distributed with Russian subtitles and on various video platforms, which was noted with some indignation from the court. The video covers many events in recent history, from the attacks on the WTC on September 11, 2001, to the Holocaust and the moon landing. The speakers in the video made it clear that all whites worldwide had been taken hostage and that they were very concerned that the Germans, who had produced a Hegel, Mozart and Schiller, would be terrorized by prohibitions. As Jewish witnesses, inter alia: Benjamin Freedman with his speech from 1961 and Barbara Lerner Specter with their statement about the planned multiculturalism in Europe.

Alfred Schaefer's lawyer pointed out that during the trial Alfred Schaefer had repeatedly stated that his allegations were not directed against all Jews, but only against those who had the intention of wiping out white people so that it would impossible for them to maintain their superiority and leadership in the world. According to Alfred Schaefer, one must defend himself against such statements, because he feels directly attacked with it.

zapoper said...

At the judge's order, process observers were no longer allowed to take notes in the afternoon after lunch. Only journalists were allowed to write during the trial. Policemen were assigned to watch the audience so that this instruction was followed.

In the course of the afternoon, a chief detective from Fürstenfeldbruck was interrogated, who had received an ad from the Human Rights Commission B'nai B'rith from Canada against Alfred Schaefer via Strompost and had arranged for Alfred Schaefer's apartment on the basis of these three house searches. She gave a detailed list of what items had been found in Alfred Schaefer's apartment, what had been there, how the apartment was, and how they had made two apartments into one.

Subsequently, an expert for IT and video presented an opinion on the videos shown, which rated the videos shown as not amateurish, but as a professional.

At the end of today's trial, which ended at around 8:00 pm, the prosecutor's office applied for more stringent detention conditions for Alfred Schaefer, because he spoke several languages, had traveled around the world and had money, so that there was an increased risk of absconding.

The alternative date for the announcement of the judgment was 14 September 2018 as a possible date, in the event that tomorrow, on 17 August 2018, from 9:15 am, the hearing could not be concluded.


Jew_ ron_im-o said...

Democracy,in Action

zapoper said...

Yeah. It sounds more like the old soviet union.

zapoper said...

Short report from the twelfth trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:August 17, 2018 in: Reports from Absurdistan

While all the audience in the courtroom sat down after entering the court, Sylvia Stolz stopped and asked the judge for the legal basis for the warning given the day before in the auditorium. The judge answered that he had decided this ban. Then the lawyer of Monica Schaefer took the floor and pointed out that there was an administrative court judgment in which it was stated that there was no note ban in public negotiations. Thus, if the judge did not allow listeners to take notes, he would like to make a request for this right to be heard by all listeners. The court then withdrew for consultation for ¾ of an hour and then announced that the audience was allowed to take notes but not to write any notes.

Subsequently, the Kriminalhauptkommissarin was again asked to the witness stand and questioned how they got to the videos shown so far, because at the given time the videos were already in Germany no longer abruffähig. This question could not answer the Kriminalhauptkommissarin and referred instead to a responsible colleague. One of the lawyers therefore made the request to question the aforementioned colleagues, since a video blocked for Germany could not be punishable in Germany. The court once again withdrew for advice and then announced that the colleague was on sick leave for some time, that he might not be returning to the service and therefore would not be available as a witness. The lawyer replied that the colleague was on sick leave for the performance of his duties, which did not mean that he could not be summoned as a witness in court. If five billion videos are uploaded worldwide in 2014 and 6 billion the following year, then the few videos from the Schaefers could pose no danger and are only owed to the Special Law § 130. He therefore relied on the summons of the Commissioner's colleague to determine, in agreement with a contemporary history expert, how the videos had been obtained, which were not officially abusive in Germany at the given time.

Alfred Schaefer stated that he saw no factual reason why his request for proof of 26.7.2018 would be stopped by the court. This is the reason why in magazines such as "look to the right" his train of thought would be portrayed as confused conspiracy theories. The public can not make a complete picture of the actual situation due to the suspension of evidence. He cited, for example, Noel Ignatiev, a Jewish professor from Harvard University, who concluded in his studies that all whites must be dismantled and destroyed because "we want it that way." He also said "racial traitors practice loyalty to humanity". The journalist Deniz Yücel said: "The early departure of the Germans is peoples dying from its most beautiful side. Your DNA is a hideousness. "Such statements are not isolated cases and cause for his emergency calls as his videos are to be understood.

The prosecutor said that a request for evidence was inappropriate, because the same views were repeated.

After further submission of new evidence, the presiding judge concluded that the lawyers apparently were not in such a hurry to come to a conclusion as the court, so he declared the hearing over and announced the following dates : 14.9., 21.9. and 26.9.2018.


zapoper said...

Short report from the thirteenth trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:September 14, 2018

At today's 13th day of the trial, Spiegel-TV was already waiting for the Volkslehrer in the morning and on several occasions pressed him to give them an interview, which he finally did. Then they made more films and in the courtroom. Other process participants were also filmed (partly against their will) and questioned about their motives for process observation.

At the beginning of the trial, the court said that the detective, who as a witness should be interviewed on how he had secured a video that was already closed at the time of the indictment for access from Germany, and its evidential value for an indictment in Germany therefore in Was asked, could not appear in court. The reason given was that the official suffered from a post-traumatic stress disorder and that a witness testimony in court severely affected the healing process.

The lawyers of Monika and Alfred Schaefer thereupon applied for the written submission of the refusal of the summoned witness, which led to a two and a half hour break in the proceedings. From the written version of the refusal of the witness's summons, the lawyers found some inconsistencies that suggested that the doctor might have been so influenced by the judge that her certificate had to prevent the summons. The Schaefers lawyers therefore filed a motion of bias against the judge, which initially led to the video being withdrawn as evidence for the indictment of Alfred Schaefer.

The prosecutor requested the refusal of Alfred Schaefer's evidence, because everything he put forward was based on assumptions, which could not be relied on in court, and the petitioner's application suggested a suspicion of a trial being abducted. It was said that this court was a bargain to negotiate and could not delay forever. After all, you have already claimed 14 days of negotiations.

One of the lawyers objected to the charge of trial because the prosecution had charged the prosecutor, and as a lawyer he only fulfilled his duty of defense, which he ultimately had to fulfill in the interests of his client.

As good news, one of the lawyers could announce that there are now many lawyers who would participate in his training courses, which would also deal with § 130 StGB. It used to be only a few lawyers who had dealt with this special law. Now it would be more and more, who were interested in the topic.

The trial days were extended to five days instead of the original two others. The new dates are:

21.9., 9:30 clock

24.9. 9:30 am

28.9. 9:30 am

10.18. 9:30 am

22.10. 9:30 am


katana said...

The Holohoaxing of Our Minds — The Schaefer Trials — Part II

[In Part II here, I give further introduction and background to Monika and Alfred Schaefer, who are defendants in trials currently underway in Munich, Germany. Their crime is “heresy” — refusing to accept the State mandated lie, known as the “Holocaust”. Here I discuss how they came to realize the fact that the “Holocaust” is a diabolical lie.

As Monika concluded, the “Holocaust” is, in fact, the:

“Biggest and most pernicious and persistent lie in all of history!”


Nona said...

So, ok. Why don't you update this ?

This is old....since before the Ancient Egyptians.



zapoper said...

Short report from the fourteenth day of the trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:September 21, 2018in: Reports from Absurdistan

Today's litigation day began with the reading of two letters written by Alfred and Monika Schaefer during their imprisonment. The prisons had "stopped" them, read them, copied them and placed them in the file. The letters were read despite the protests of the lawyers who had not been able to see the letters before. After the reading, the lawyers were given copies of the letters and, albeit reluctantly, granted a break to read the letters. Alfred Schaefer's lawyer explained after reading the text that Alfred's remarks in his letter were not a hate speech but irony about the distorted presentation of the media about the events in Chemnitz.

In her letter, Monika Schaefer had referred to a novel by Kafka and compared it to the present day, which, after explaining her lawyer, could not be considered anti-Semitism just because Kafka was a Jew. As the court suggests, at best it should have used revisionist literature as the basis for its thoughts.

Alfred Schaefer then has a 13-page request for evidencesubmit and present themselves, which had not been granted to him so far. In it, he demands from the judges an oath-assured statement that they are not bound by either the Jewish or any other Mosaic belief system because of a reasonable suspicion that all his evidence would be rejected on grounds of partiality or Talmudist commitment. The quotes he cites as proof of racial abrogation are not abstract, but very concrete. The word "parasite" was not used by him for contempt, but as a technical term for a legitimate emergency call. He also requested the involvement of an expert to examine his requests for evidence, which would be rejected by the Court as "not process relevant because of presumption". There is no objective reason why the court would interpret his claims in a distorting manner, giving the impression that the court is applying double standards. So it is incomprehensible that quotes such as "The white DNA is disgusting" to him as a hate speech are charged, where it is obviously after all, a call of the Jews to extinguish the white race. It was neither derogatory nor reprehensible to use Jewish citations. The abolition of the Germans is not an invention of him, but in Jewish circles for a long time topic (see Coudenhove-Kalergi, Morgenthau, Kaufman, Hooton, Nizer, etc.).

After another pause, the court announced that the chamber had taken evidence, and one of the lawyers inquired whether the court would have received a longer letter from co-defendant Gerd Ittner. The assessor confirmed the existence of such a letter, whereupon the lawyers requested access to the file. When they found that the letter was 50 to 70 pages long, they requested a four-hour break to review the letter and make the reasons for their rejection of the court. The court adjourned the lawyers' comments on Gerd Ittner's letter on Monday and demanded that the petition be rejected by 12:00 noon on Monday. In addition, the court anticipated and without prior request of lawyers Gerd Ittner's hearing as a witness next Monday.


zapoper said...

Short report from the fifteenth day of the trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the district court Munich

Published by: Kurzer on:September 24, 2018 in: Reports from Absurdistan

On today's trial day, Gert Ittner was heard as a witness who filed a letter of discharge for the accused Alfred Schaefer in court on 8 August 2018, which the lawyers have withheld so far and only informed you on their request last Friday, 21 September 2018 had been. The lawyers had announced a request for bias on suspicion of evidence suppression by the court, which they filed today at 11:02 am on time. The court then ordered the summons of Gert Ittner as a witness for today's trial.

The prosecutor commented on the evidence submitted by Alfred Schaefer to the effect that the first application was settled very quickly, because the required in a marriage declaration on the membership of the judges to a Mosaic belief or otherwise a Talmudistische obligation in the criminal procedure order is not provided. The other applications, with the exception of the application for bias, were rejected by her, inter alia, on the grounds that there was a gross discrepancy between Ittner's statements and the subject matter of the case, that it was a "variegated miscellany" and finally the Chamber must abide by the laws and that Ittner's statements would obviously be misused only for purposes foreign to the proceedings. Concerning Alfred Schaefer's references to the planned extermination of the white race by the Jews, which are also part of the indictment of him for popular incitement, the prosecutor stated that these were irrelevant as evidence for the decision.

The defenders pleaded again for the hearing of the witness Ittner, because it was important to find out the reasons why Gert Ittner had urged Alfred Schaefer to make a video.

zapoper said...

Gert Ittner, after being called to the witness stand, stated that he did not want to testify because he did not receive a summons to witness. He was awakened in the morning at 6:30 am and informed that he had to appear in court. It was only because of his objections this morning that he was given a written summons in prison, which did not bear his name. He was then presented with a second charge, but had not been handed out, on which again something wrong had stood and then forcibly removed him (in handcuffs) for witness examination. Since Gert Ittner could not present a witness summons, he was questioned about his personal data, with Gert Ittner time and again pointed to his incorrect charge, which he could not prepare himself until the presiding judge rightly rebuked him for asking otherwise, he must move to compulsory order. In the record, the presiding judge dictated that Gert Ittner constantly interrupt the presiding judge. When Gert Ittner explained that the creation of the video was related to his kidnapping in Portugal in 2012, he was constantly interrupted by the judge, saying that this did not interest the judge, that he should not lie and that he could be discharged as a witness. Finally, it was discussed whether to give Gert Ittner a witness to the side, as he was not good health. When the judge again interrupted Gert Ittner, one of the lawyers intervened and criticized the way the witness was being questioned by the judge. One could guide witnesses, but one should not interrupt them permanently, which also has a Geschmäckle and the witness would be emotionally more and more enraptured. Gert Ittner was expelled from the witness stand during this dispute between the judge and the lawyer because the judge did not want to execute them in front of the witness.

After Judge and lawyer had talked about the nature of the witness interview, the judge said: "Then we can continue now as I imagine." "What's that?" It sounded from somewhere and again a session break was ordered.

Gert Ittner then explained that he was no longer able to give a testimony because he was still suffering from a toothache that had not slept in the last few nights and had been brought to today's hearing completely unprepared. His ability to concentrate was completely exhausted. The witness hearing was thus on the coming Friday, 28.10. moved from 9:30 clock. However, the idea was not to bring Gert Ittner back to Nuremberg, but to Stadelheim near Munich, where he again had no documents available to prepare for the trial next Friday.


zapoper said...

Short report from the sixteenth day of the trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:September 28, 2018 in: Reports from Absurdistan

Today's litigation day began at 9:30 am with the witness hearing of Gerd Ittner, who had been summoned by the court to give a testimony regarding his letter of discharge in favor of Alfred Schaefer. Since Gerd Ittner's witness summons had not been duly issued in its correct name (instead of Gerd Ittner, it bore the name Gerhard Ittner), Gerd Ittner interrupted the judge, pointing out that he had to make a statement for clarification Richter ordered a 5-minute trial break. When the judge wanted to resume the witness interview, Gerd Ittner again attempted to make a statement about his person, which the judge again refused with the remark to be interested only in a testimony. During another process break Gerd Ittner tried to contact people in the auditorium, the lawyers and the accused, which led to him being harshly attacked by the judicial officers and being taken out of the courtroom. After this further interruption, the judge continued the trial with the conviction of Gerd Ittner to 100 € administrative penalty or substitute order detention over two days. The witness examination was terminated and Gerd Ittner dismissed for transport to the JVA Stadelheim near Munich. He had already been sent there after the last day of the trial, without making his documents available to him, which are still in the Nuremberg Prison, where he had been imprisoned for non-violent, dissident statements.

Lawyer Nahrath stated that he insisted on hearing Gerd Ittner's testimony because it was expected to relieve his client, Alfred Schaefer, but the judge rejected this request by stating that he could overturn this interrogation for the appeal.

Alfred Schaefer requested the reading of a 13-page evidence request, which was also rejected by the court. He was allowed only the written submission of such an application.

After another short break in the proceedings, another request of bias by Narath, a lawyer, led to a lengthy break of more than one and a half hours.

At the end of the 16th day of the trial, further dates were announced and the hearing was declared over at 12:15. The next hearing date is Thursday, the 18.10.2018, 11:00 clock.


zapoper said...

Short report from the seventeenth day of the trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:October 19, 2018 in: Reports from Absurdistan

The beginning of the trial of yesterday's 17th day of the trial - unexpectedly for the trial observers - was postponed from 9:00 to 11:00 and then, with some delay, finally started at 11:45. The hearing was opened with the question to the defense lawyers, whether they had used the time to make their proof requests, which was denied by the lawyers on the grounds that they had only found out 3 days ago that your application for bias was rejected are.

Lawyer Nahrath then asked for a short break to talk with his client and then announced that he wanted to submit the following two applications:

1. The completion and completion of Monika Schaefer's file with substantial parts of her circumstances in Canada that are not currently listed or omitted.

2. The summons of Fred Leuchter - subject to his undertaking - from America, who at the time served as appraiser at the Zündel trial.

The lawyer was then granted a period of two hours, ie until 14:00, to make those requests, to which the lawyer replied that normally three weeks would be required to file such requests and that he felt that the Court had given the Want to go through negotiation in fast-track proceedings. This is a gross violation of a fair trial. The prosecutor replied that the time allowed should certainly be considered appropriate, because he could already have formulated the applications in the past three weeks. Again, the lawyer subsequently filed a motion of bias, but now against the entire board, stating that he was prevented from adequately documenting and justifying the reasoning of his requests.

After the chamber had withdrawn for consultation, she then announced a deadline to 15:00 clock for submitting the announced applications. Lawyer Nahrath now offered to file the motion to accelerate the proceedings also by hand, which was rejected by the prosecutor, because it is already clear to her that there was no reason for a bias of the Chamber and therefore there was no basis for a renewed request for bias , Lawyer Nahrath then asked the court to thoroughly rethink the decision just announced, because there had already been many days of negotiations with several weeks of breaks in between and now he would only have two hours to formulate two requests for evidence and (!) A request for bias. That really is great! He now had to decide as a lawyer whether to file a request for bias or a request for evidence, because the time allowed would certainly not be sufficient to complete all announced applications on time. This short-term deadline was a gross violation of the Rules of Procedure. Repeatedly, the prosecutor pleaded not to extend the deadline, because the circumstances had been known and the deadline for making applications by 15:00 o'clock the same day had therefore been generously granted. While the court wants to continue the negotiation according to the acceleration principle, the lawyer complained of such a quick procedure and refers to § 244, Abs. 6, sentence 2 StPO. Finally, the lawyer's processing of the petition was discontinued, which should now be submitted by 17:00 (ie within 2.5 hours), given the advanced negotiating time.

zapoper said...

After resumption of the trial, lawyer Nahrath said that he would petition the witness Fred Leuchter earlier this Monday. (Note: When filing such an application, the lawyer must be very careful not to make himself punishable under § 130 StGB, as the experience from the Zündel trial have shown.)

In the case of Gerd Ittner, the lawyer explained that the court justified the rejection of his testimony by stating that the witness was inappropriate because he could not incriminate himself. Gerd Ittner, however, had made it clear in his letter to the court that he was the initiator of publishing the video concerned in German, which had happened without the knowledge of Monika Schaefer. This statement has a significant relevance for his client. It is clear that Gerd Ittner is a difficult witness, but it is quite possible to come to terms with difficult witnesses, if the judge aligns the manner of the witness questioning according to the difficulty of the witness. Instead, the court repeatedly prevented Gerd Ittner from being able to explain his personal affairs, even though they were relevant to his client's case.

As to the evidence submitted by Alfred Schaefer in which he cites publicly available sources on the planned destruction of the white race, the court expressed the view that it could not follow the arguments and that it merely intended to comply with § 130 StGB and the HC, which is why these applications should be rejected.

The trial yesterday, Thursday, 18.10. ended unusually late until 20:20 clock and will continue on Monday, 22.10.2018 at 9:30 clock. The scheduled for Friday, 19/10/2018 negotiation day has been canceled.

To the events outside of the courtroom, it should be noted that a process observer was not allowed to take a pen into the courtroom, because this was the "AfD". During the break, he managed to scrape off the imprint "AfD" from the ballpoint pen, so that he was allowed to carry it along afterwards.


zapoper said...

Brief report of the eighteenth trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the district court of Munich

Published by: Kurzer on:October 22, 2018 in: Reports from Absurdistan

At the beginning of today's trial, Lawyer Nahrath made the following two requests:

The submission of a copy of the handwritten letter from Gerd Ittner 8.8.2018 to the court in which he explains that Monika Schaefer knew about the use of the video and knew him until then not personally, which would relieve his client considerably.
In addition to the request for evidence No. 3, the exclusion of the public for the hearing of the witness Fred Leuchter and the execution of the witness hearing of Fred Leuchter in audiovisual form, including direct translation into the German language. As a reason for the demanded exclusion of the public, he stated that the seriousness of the proceedings could be impaired, because the public could be carried away to displeasure.
He went on to explain that he had considered making that request for a long time, especially as many colleagues in the past had suddenly faced prosecution for filing applications in court. In the case of Monika Schaefer, however, he had decided to file an application for summons of the witness Fred Leuchter, because his report in the Zündel trial had been the initial spark for her to revise her opinion on this historical event.

After a short period of consultation, the court gave its assent to the first application, but rejected the second application, the exclusion of the public, because it was not clear why the seriousness of the procedure could be compromised when interrogating witness Fred Leuchter.

During the following break, the two judges hearing the case heard a copy of the letter from Gerd Ittner. Subsequently, the court refused to hand over a copy of Gerd Ittner's letter to the lawyer because it was of no significance to the trial, and the charge of the witness Fred Leuchter, because it would not add anything significantly new to the lawsuit.

Thus, the evidence was taken by the court for closed and before addressing the plea, the presiding judge admonished the trial observers of dissatisfaction during the subsequent prosecutor's statements, because otherwise he would intervene according to the principle of order.

The prosecutor said in her plea to call the Holocaust in doubt, not ignorance, but hostile ignorance. It is completely incomprehensible, how to put so one-sided videos on the net, because, if you look at the topic, you can not get around facts. In all charges, the offense of § 130 StGB is fulfilled because the videos are all suitable to disturb the public peace by incitement to hatred of Jews. The videos would also meet the facts of the sedition against the refugees and are suitable to disturb every month more public peace in Germany. Monika and Alfred Schaefer had made it their intention to incite hatred. Alfred Schaefer was found guilty in 11 and Monika Schaefer in 4 times.

Monika Schaefer is to be held that she has not appeared criminally so far. She is rather a follower, but does not show in the end result. Therefore, the prosecution for Monika Schaefer 13 months imprisonment and continue the detention, because they would risk absconding and she could possibly find accommodation with sympathizers in the audience.

zapoper said...

Alfred Schaefer was also to be credited with the fact that he had hitherto not been prosecuted. He was guilty on all 11 counts and imprisoned for a total of 3.7 years. It also requested the confiscation of items mentioned in the security record after the search warrant (camera, computer, etc.). She felt it was a threat that Alfred Schaefer had repeatedly said that at some point the court would have to answer to an ordinary court. The question of Alfred Schaefer to the court, what they wanted to tell their children, was a particularly simple, but effective propaganda. Also for him there should be no detention, especially as there would be a risk of absconding and there would be a shelter for sympathizers in the audience.

After a break, then lawyer Nahrath made his plea: He explained that it was basically about utterance offenses, which was completely incomprehensible to Monika Schaefer, since she grew up in a so-called "Land of the free". She had robbed no one, she had hurt no one, she had done no harm to anyone. She had only decided at some point to announce her changed opinion. The Holocaust is not a terminology of jurisprudence. He comes mainly from a movie that was produced in Hollywood. The term Holocaust is actually a religious term.

A law is incomprehensible if it can not be analyzed. § 130 of the Criminal Code is a special standard and he would like to recall that former constitutional court judges had expressed considerable doubts about the legality of this paragraph. If someone else was not so familiar with the legal history of the FRG, one had to be extra careful. The republic had survived without this paragraph for more than 40 years, without prosecution for this fact. Monika Schaefer is thoroughly a peaceful person, a philanthropist. She takes care of the preservation of nature. To subject such a woman to malicious hatred lacks any foundation. He quoted Monika Schaefer with the following words: "I started checking other occurrences for their truth. I started to regret. Today I am firmly convinced that my mother is innocent. I have come to know a new term, the "ritual defamation". To regard hatred of Jews as an unfair and infamous insinuation. "Where did this obviousness come from? He asked. Katyn was also once obvious and now the truth is known. The Russians would have apologized for that. If you know nothing about an act, you have no intent. The videos are only niche products. If the publicity were so rock-solid, then the video would have no chance to disturb public peace. He was of the opinion that one should tolerate such videos, as it once was for 25 to 30 years in Germany. He therefore requests to speak freely to Monika Schaefer.

zapoper said...

The defender of Alfred Schaefer explained in his plea that the public prosecutor's office had drawn a picture of a human enemy by Alfred Schaefer. As a German child, he was always confronted with collective guilt in Canada, from which an adventurous lifestyle developed and fear overcrowding had become a life-content. But he still successfully completed his engineering studies. He had studied electronics and thereby internalized the scientific, exact working method, so that no way for him to lead past the truth. Only the occupation with 911 had made him aware of the fact that he was interested in the historical truth, namely the taboo of truth, because the official story has nothing to do with the truth. Alfred had attacked the Zionists, he was not concerned with the Jews in general, as Zionists had a significant influence in the Western Hemisphere. The videos, which would have been intended only for the English-speaking area, could not disturb public peace in Germany. He also wanted to enter into discussion with Jews, as long as it was an honest dialogue. Concrete positive or negative reactions to the videos would not even exist, so that one could not speak of a disturbance of public peace. With regard to charge 9 he referred to a judgment of the Higher Regional Court Naumburg. He emphasized that it was all about political criminal law and requested the acquittal of Alfred Schaefer.

The court thanked for the remarks and announced as the next hearing Thursday, 25.10.2018, at 9:30 clock with the last words of Alfred and Monika Schaefer.


zapoper said...

Brief report from the nineteenth day of the trial against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the district court of Munich

Published by: Kurzer on:October 25, 2018 in: Reports from Absurdistan

At the beginning of today's trial, Rechtsanwalt Nahrath requested that the arrest warrant for Monika Schaefer be set aside, because it was completely disproportionate to continue detaining her. Afterwards Alfred Schaefer started with his graduation plea. First, he thanked all listeners for attending the trial, which he called "Inquisition." He was grateful for the role he held, because otherwise he would never have believed how such a process would take place in Germany. Because it would be about views and opinions. He has such an unyielding attitude because there are situations where only the right thing can be done. For example, he once ran across the frozen Ammersee and met a man who had been able to save himself from the broken ice with his last strength, but who was no longer able to move away from the break-in point. The man had already been in the mode to fall asleep and thus to face certain death. From his experiences in Canada he knew exactly what that meant. In such a moment, you just have to do the right thing. In such a situation, one should by no means go to the man himself, but must induce him to move away from the burglar, otherwise there would be a danger that both would break into the ice. He had yelled at the man that he had to come to him, that he could not say he had cold hands or could not go on. It had remained relentless and so he had someday succeeded that the man with his last power yet still moved to him himself. If he had spoken in this situation a silent prayer, as suggested by the judge as an alternative to the production of the videos, instead of urging the man to move further towards him, then the man would be dead now. So he was the Convinced that you have to do what you think is right, if you have the basis for it. He had wondered in Germany at the beginning very much that the Germans were always silent on certain topics. He grew up in Canada in a democracy that even tells you to say what you think and what you think is right. He is immune to attacks and would never give up this immunity, but stand up for what he thinks is right.

He then commented on individual charges. He is accused of having shown a swastika in a video. However, he used this symbol only because he had learned everywhere, at school and from the media, that this symbol symbolized absolute evil. As a symbol of evil he put it opposite the Star of David to make it clear that not 19 carpet knife terrorists, but any Jews organized the 911 terror. He did not choose the cross as the glorification of National Socialism, but as an expression of evil. Although the swastika was a core symbol of National Socialism, the video was an explanation of the terrorist attacks of September 11 because the official story about 911 was nonsense.

When Alfred Schaefer wanted to comment on the charges, accusing him of further poisoning the general political climate and disrupting public peace by expressing himself in a video about the HC, the judge interrupted him by pointing out that he is not entitled to commit further offenses in his statements, whereupon his public defender assured that Alfred Schaefer will try to formulate more moderate.

zapoper said...

Alfred Schaefer continued to report on the video in question

about an encounter with a well-known journalist who did not know anything about building WT7

he asked why the Leuchter expert was called "so-called", because one should take it seriously, because it was made according to scientific principles,
he mentioned Benjamin Friedman, whose speech was a must-read for anyone to grasp the things that were going on and that the court had thankful to see
he does not understand what the court understands by legal certainty, eg if his sister is said to have endangered the legal security in the FRG because she apologized in a video to her mother,
he calls the video "Zeitgeist" a snapshot showing where the journey went, as unstoppable as when two tectonic plates moved against each other.
We would have failed, he goes on to explain, because we thought that everything was good, but we had to ruthlessly deal with the truth, whether it tastes good or not. The 11.9. was not a car accident. We need to understand what happened, because it has consequences for all of us, see Afghanistan, Iraq, the war on terror, and so on. All these falsehoods would fly up slowly. More and more clearly a picture with higher resolution is to be seen, that the truth would let us know. In the end, if you interfere with the people who would understand, the problems would only get bigger for everyone.

In between, the prosecutor complained to the election of Alfred Schaefer, who repeatedly referred to the court as Inquisition and the judge also interrupted Alfred Schaefer in his remarks, but the lawyer Nahrath explained that the last word of the accused was already important, especially as the indictment just before indefinable Terms burst. Alfred Schaefer adds to this the question, if one went into a burning house and called "fire", if that was then also incitement?

Regarding charge 11 regarding his gesture at an event in Bretzenheim, he said that the global zeitgeist is changing. We would have to recognize this new zeitgeist. His father had always been upset that only fifty years later, at the Zündel trial, would one have addressed how deliberately 100,000 Germans were killed, in which food was confiscated. A look into our cities would be enough to see where the journey went. If we continued to be abused, we would have to apologize later to our children. The Trump administration say today, trade or die! In fact Trump makes America white again: "We or she!" Must mean.

zapoper said...

The court made a misinterpretation, because he had never mentioned Hitler, but he had shown only the Roman greeting. How can you deal with people like that and put an old lady at the age of 89 into jail? It all happens on behalf of the human rights organization B'nai Brith. He also did not understand the purpose of silencing his sister Monika. Their fame was about ten thousand times higher, so that they achieved the exact opposite of what they had probably intended. It would be alarming if so much effort were put into hindering people who had come to knowledge other than the official view of historical events.

He also asked why the whole infrastructure was always the same people who could censor or not. However, all those involved in the proceedings could never again claim that they had no knowledge of asylum-related issues. We would have to talk about content, not about prohibitions. Where is the crime, if one had taken a different direction by gaining new insights? His decisions were based only on scientific principles and not on the prohibition of thinking that existed only in totalitarian systems. Everyone has to decide on which side he wants to stand. On the solution page or on the problem page. The Schaefers are persistent, because they just could not give up the truth.

When Alfred Schaefer addressed the subject of migrants, he was warned that his statements could be punishable. His defense attorney points out that this could also be due to concentration problems. The judge therefore offered a break, in which you can bring Alfred Schaefer and coffee. Lawyer Nahrath then intervened and explained that this was now too much for him and that he would not let this go with his client. The public defender, who had taken over the defense for Alfred Schaefer for the first time on this trial day, further stated that further dates were already fixed, then one would not have to force the defendant to conclude his plea and thereby expose him to danger. to expose themselves to the prosecution with careless statements. After some back-and-forth and two consultation breaks, the court finally ruled that the closing remarks of Alfred Schaefer should be continued on the following day of the hearing, 26.10.2018, limited to a maximum of four hours.

The short report for Friday's trial will presumably follow on Saturday, 27.10.2018.


zapoper said...

Short report from the twentieth trial day against Monika and Alfred Schaefer at the Munich district court

Published by: Kurzer on:October 27, 2018 in: Reports from Absurdistan

The 20th and last day of the trial of Alfred and Monika Schaefer on Friday, 26.10.2018 began at 9:05 am and was intended for the continuation of the final pleading by Alfred Schaefer, which should be limited to four hours, and the last words of Monika Shepherd.

The hippie movement was part of the demoralization, explained Alfred Schaefer at the beginning of his remarks, what he and his sister had not yet recognized. But the discipline and the requirements of their German parents would have enabled them to graduate anyway. If you are lucky and have a position where you can change something, you have to act accordingly, if you have recognized something as right, otherwise the luck would be gone to be able to act properly. Without the dialogue with Prof. Chomsky, who was an icon for them all at the time, the video would not have been created. Because he had betrayed everyone. What would German philosophers like Hegel, Kant, etc. think about today's society? The re-education had destroyed the independent thinking. The only winner is international Judaism. Anyone dependent on the Jewish monetary system loses his job. That would also explain why scientists do not seem to understand that the official account of 911 is a lie. Artificial means would create thought patterns. Kant had already established that human consciousness perceives an object as it is presented to it. Consciousness receives messages such as "Schindler's List" presented time and time again as facts, but they are pure fiction. Jewish financial crimes are far beyond the law and would never be charged. If people in public would have to use a language other than home, that would always be a sure sign of totalitarian structures. But to prevent our civilization from being destroyed, we would have to return to an honest monetary system. Kant and Hegel would be horrified if they had to realize how deeply we had sunk and had completely forgotten their offspring to think independently. With § 130 StGB one had first created a Denkverbotsgesetz, then the Atemverbotsgesetz would come as the next step. But he would rather die than be reduced to the level of a laboratory rat. A regime that introduced anti-thought laws will go down like all similar regimes in history.

He wanted to tell the following story about how a company could be decomposed within 40 years. "In a job interview, can you imagine being asked if you could work with a transvestite, as if qualifying for the job you were applying for?" He asked. That is the zeitgeist. Today things are normal that used to be completely impossible. But if our story were reduced to anal intercourse and HC, we would have no future. If we were not able to apply an operating system with our cultural characteristics under scientific aspects, then we would eventually have to bear the consequences. Our situation is comparable to a boa who wants to eat a small boar. The Boa must increase its pressure on the boar ever more, continue to tighten it as long as the boar is still breathing. This increasing pressure is comparable to all the prohibitions that have been created today for things that would have represented no problem 20 years ago. Such a pressure was also the intention of this court to confiscate his savings, which he had honestly earned in his life.

However, at some point everyone will be judged by what he has learned from 911. But we should deal with this and look at what we could learn from nature. We would have to learn that eg 911 was not a car accident. We would have to understand what actually happened because it has consequences for us all. All subsequent wars in the world were justified with it. But everything that is going up against us now creates the energy that will bring down the lie.

zapoper said...

Finally, Alfred Schaefer thanked everyone for listening to him for so long and for learning everything.

At 12.35 pm Monika Schaefer started with her graduation program, which she wanted to announce while standing. When she was arrested here in this building on January 3, 2018, she said she was a free person. She was then told that she should have thought it over in Canada. Nevertheless, she feels free.

It was at your home in Canada very "German" and outside of course "English". Already on the first day of school it started with the mockery. She quickly learned that her German background was not good. At home you spoke German, for which she was very grateful. Your braids could also be an Indian hairstyle. Injustice had always felt her deeply. It had shaped her life very much, as she had been traveling alone with her three horses in the wilderness, sometimes three weeks at a stretch. At some point she was involved in the green party. She had been a very good and active member of the Green Party. In spring 2011 she ran for office and at the same time occupied herself with 911. She then sent her insights to Parliament by registered letter and received no reply. It was never again spoken about the contents of their discs, but only about the "how". In 2014 there was again a choice to which she wanted to make herself available as a candidate. She said that when the next election comes, she wants to talk about 911. For more than an hour they had phoned the party leader, with whom she had been friends. While she had been hugely popular throughout, that changed quite suddenly. She was first asked to take back the letter she had written about the attack on Israel in the Gaza Strip and publicly apologize for it. She should have apologized for the truth. She had not been able to do that because she could only be guided by the truth and that is why she declared her withdrawal from the party. At that time she still believed that they had a free press, that they had democracy and that they were allowed to say everything they thought was right. But then the big disappointment came. But once you understand that, you feel better. Many wars had been built on these lies. But if she understood that, other people would understand it, she thought. But many people did not want to know anything.

She once had a connection with a veteran. His motive had been: "Never trust a uniformed authority." When they talked about 911, about the use of explosives and falling speed, he accused her of being anti-Semitic and probably denying the HC. But even at school they learned that the victor was writing the history books. After a time of understanding, she became very sad because she could no longer apologize to her parents. That's why she made the video "Sorry Mom ...". After that she really felt really liberated. She has thus learned what happens to people who break a taboo. How they would be defamed, friends partitioned off and his economic circumstances destroyed. She has experienced a "ritual defamation". It was a real community, a network of people working together on such defamation. The nearest town was 80 km from the place where she lived. She was also known as a musician. She had played at weddings, in schools or volunteer in nursing homes. She was thankful for her experiences as a musician. For the light in the eyes especially things in the old people. The violin is her faithful companion, also in Stadelheim.

Precisely because she was such a well-known person, she had to be so deeply overthrown. In the year the video was released, there was something in the newspaper every week that was meant to defame her. Letters to the editor had been written by people who lived hundreds of miles away, where they were based, so they could not have known them. Friendships were terminated without asking a single question about the allegations against them.

zapoper said...

She was charged with alleged incitement. The question here, however, should be: "Who is inciting against whom?" Everything had been purposefully made to exclude them everywhere, so that if they would once be accused, they would find nowhere support. But she also learned that in every village and every city there are people who have known the truth and who are sacred to the truth, who are also not intimidated.

She had suffered the whole defamatory situation, but it hurt too. She also had no grudge against the relatives, who would have indicated, because they are also victims of the transformation, for example, to Sefton Delmer.

Alone B'nai Brith wanted to appear as a trigger for the process. But the government in Canada was also jointly responsible, because it had intervened that the consulate was involved. There would be no political prisoner in Germany, it is said. But if this is not a political process, why not write about it? The treatment in prison had changed over time with the positive. All the letters she received were like a lifebelt for her.

During the remarks of Monika Schaefer, five additional officers suddenly came into the courtroom. All present were irritated and on the question of RA Nahrath, what that means, the judge answered only that he had no influence on it.

Monika Schaefer went on to say that she has recently been thinking about her 9-month prison term, which lasted exactly as long as her pregnancy. This time she had therefore felt like a jail pregnancy. She had been shocked that one should not have been allowed to write in the auditorium. She had never believed that this was possible in a Western country. You accuse her of criminal energy. She had to confess that she had actually already crossed the traffic lights at red. We are at the head of an ancient battle. She is no longer ashamed to be German. She was proud of her parents, proud of her ancestors. Instead of a world based on lies, we would need education.

After a break until 17:30, the judge announced the following verdict:

The defendants are guilty of speaking. Alfred Schaefer was sentenced to three years and two months and Monika Schaefer to 10 months in prison. In the verdict, the judge states that a process has been experienced where poetry and truth are so far apart and videos have been made with great criminal energy and pseudo-scientific evidence capable of upsetting legal peace and inciting hatred against minorities. All the statements made by the two defendants, as in an endless loop, have nothing to do with facts. In the defendant Alfred Schaefer hatred must have already eaten the soul. If he pretends to be interested in German history, it does not have to degenerate into such hatred. In the case of sentencing, both defendants argued that they had not yet been prosecuted. But that does not change the fact that the videos were made professionally with a high level of criminal energy, which was shown by his closing words, in which he gave no insight. But everyone could believe what he wanted. This is covered by the freedom of expression, as long as you did not make a criminal offense. In the word "sedition" also put the word hate and that could not be done with pseudo-scientific arguments from the world.


Albert said...

As Monika Cannot TRULY Be FREE: While Alfred Still Remains-Locked-Up For BRAVELY-"Kicking-Up-a-Stir"-to-TRY-to-FREE-Her!...
We MUST Now Re-Double Our Efforts to FREE: Alfred, Ursula, Jez, Gerhard, and ALL Our Many Other GREAT HEROs (((Imprisoned))) for "Thought-Crimes" !!!
-- This Seems to Be Primarily in the Form: Of WAKING-UP: as Many GOOD-WHITE-Folks as Possible! -- We MUST Be RELENTLESS !!! (-- "Weaponised-Autism"...)
-- And Not Only Believe that the TRUTH is On Our Side! - But that ANY and EVERY: Sincere WHITE-Person - When SHOWN that (((Their))) EVIL-Plan Really Really IS to: "Replace" / GENOCIDE us ALL...
-- MUST, Indeed, Now KNOWING: the Un-Gilded-TRUTH: Become as Determinedly-ENRAGED and "Desperately"-AWAKE as WE Each Have Become, and Even MORE-So !!!

-- Like Alfred Explained in His GREAT-Talks: Once One AWAKES to This VITAL-TRUTH: Upon Knowing THIS TRUTH, and Becoming Awakened to FIGHT for Our-People:
Life, For-the-FIRST-Time-in-Our-Whole-Lives! Takes-On: A NEW VITAL: Purpose and Meaning: Far Far Beyond: the Small-Weak-"Selfishness" of: "Learned-Helplessness"-MINDLESS-Soulless-"Con-suming" !!!
-- It IS a GREAT-Time to BE Truly-Alive! :-)
-- And Though WE-Ourselves May-Not YET: Fully-Feel / Understand: Alfred's Strong-Un-Cowered-Desire to NOT: "Run-Away"-into-Asylum-in-USA, but Rather to STAND-UP: and Boldly-Tell-the-TRUTH...
(even Though: NO: Court-Audio-Recordings / Transcripts or Even Hand-Written-Notes were ((("Allowed")))!!!)

---- I DO Believe that Alfred IS RIGHT: That Our GREAT White-Folk-AWAKENING is NOW Happening EXPONENTIALLY !!!
-- And EVEN IF it TAKES the FREEING of the ENTIRE-WHITE-RACE!!!: -- We WILL HAVE Alfred RELEASED: WAY BEFORE: His (((3-Year-Sentence))) is Completed !!!
-- We are EACH Part of Far FAR GREATER: Non-Physical-Ancestral-Group-BEINGS [and This is NOT "Just" ONE -- Rather it is more Like: Multiple-Trees and Their Many-Branches] !!!
-- THIS is WHY: (((They))) HATE, Despise, and FEAR: ALL WHITES in the Entire World! :-)
-- It is an Honour, Privilege, and JOY to BE: a Part of This Wonderful: TRUTH-is-Our-SOUL-Greater-Group: ---- (as) OPPOSED To: The LIES-and-DARKNESS-of-the-Devil-EVIL-Cabal !!! :-)

-- In a Sense: The LIGHT / TRUTH has Already WON -- As DARKNESS / LIES - Being only-the-Negative CANNOT even "Win" !!! :-) (As They Cannot even EXIST-in-and-of-Themselves!)
(The World, at the Present Time: IS a "World of Duality"... -- BUT, Indeed, There CAN, Once-More BE: a World of ONLY the-GOOD !!! "Natural-Law" TRUTH! -- Parasites Are-NOT: "Needed" At-All !!! :-)

Jews are LIKE: Twisted-Insane-Selfish-Weak-Bullies-Children [But With the "Power" to DO Great-HARM!] who, out of Weakness / Inability to PLAY [and Win] By the FAIR-Good-FUN-Rules of the Game: Seek to "Win" By "Playing-by-Other" / "Smarter" / Different[Selfish]-Rules: -- But, of course, Even Though (((They))) may CALL it: "Winning" - It is, in TRUTH, Only-Actually: CHEATING!!!
(What the (((Judges))) Wrote was Retarded-Twisted-CRAP !!!)
-- Great-Societies CANNOT Be: Built-Up-With / Upon LIES! -- Indeed LIKE: A Deadly-Poison "Cleverly"-Injected By a Feeding-Parasite -- LIES WILL Quickly Twist / Transform: Our Strong-GOOD-Societies into: Broken-Decaying-DEAD-Wastelands!
(Like: "Throwing a Spanner in the Works"... Parents Spend-Decades: Carefully-Lovingly-Nurturing/Uplifting/RAISING-UP Their Precious-Children -- A RAPEfugee can Destroy-This in Minutes!
And "Grown-Ups" Step-By-Step Carefully BUILD a GREAT-House / Business over Months / Years -- Yet an (((Arsonist))) can DESTROY All-THAT-Intricate-STRUCTURE within Hours with a Few-Pennies-of-Fuel+Lighter!)

Og said...

saved to pdf