Pt. 1 German Courts Prosecute Germans under Jewish Unconstitutional Paragraph 130-Haverbeck

  Paragraph 130 has been erected by the Jews in Germany to protect Jewish lies, foremost the Holohoax.


“Questions upon Questions” Holocaust German Courts violate Constitution – Third World People Invas


Alternative Link for “Questions Upon Questions” in case YouTube removed it



“Questions upon Questions” Holocaust – German Courts violate Constitution – Third World People Invasion – Ursula Haverbeck Sept 2015 Part 1 and 2. [“Fragen über Fragen”] with English Subtitles

[*comments by]

By Ursula Haverbeck

Dear comrades, dear friends!

I will present my talk in two parts [*one video]. In the first part, I will summarize what all you can do as an individual because in general we hear, “We can’t do anything anyhow!” or, “What can we do?!” And I want to make it clear from the start with this example that we can take action, because what is now coming at us demands that we really become active, and not only whine and lament, but look for ways to prevent what is closing in on Europe.

0:41 Concerning the first part, we are now producing a small brochure called, ‘He who knows the truth and does not openly confess it, serves the lie. And I do not want to serve the lie, for I know only the truth will set us free.’

After it was clear that no millions of Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, rather, no one was ever gassed at Auschwitz, this is why I have, for five years, written to all the appropriate authorities and asked, “Since it didn’t happen in Auschwitz – that’s now obvious – then where were the six million killed?” For in court this year, I have witnessed this twice in 2015, the judges still assert, “The six million murdered Jews are obvious, and anyone who doubts this becomes punishable by law.”

1:46 And a good friend has just been sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, without probation, because he doubts this. Because based on official documents, he asked himself, is this even possible? As in the case in Lüneburg, with Mr. Gröning, who supposedly contributed to killing 300,000 Jews within 57 days. And so my friend, who is very good at calculations – he was a financial officer – has computed that this would be roughly 6,000 per day. And this in the fifth year of war, when we all had nothing left anymore!!! That’s very adventurous. [*it takes coke (coal) to cremate corpses.]

2:23 And he was accused of presenting unscientific and tasteless calculations. Of course, he reacted to this and responded that he had never heard that calculations could be tasteless. His were always either right or wrong. But nevertheless, it [*the prosecution] continuous, and so far it is in the District Court.

2:50 After I have written and received no answer from anyone, namely the Central Council of the Jews, whom I wrote at least three or four times asking the question, then the Ministries of Justice, the Attorney Generals’ Office, and the President of the Courts, then I wrote to the Federal Minister of Justice and told him, “This is the situation. Now please arrange for a public debate with those who still assert it [*the Holocaust], and those who believe they can prove that it is not true. And if you do not give me an answer, then only one conclusion remains, the Holocaust did not exist. And I’ll publish this on the Internet.”

3:35 I received no answer from him and then published it on the Internet. There it remains already for eleven months without an objection from any side. Not from the Central Council of the Jews, either, because there is no answer from them to this question. An answer does not exist. They know it because it did not take place.

3:57 And that is why they are now afraid of us. And clearly, by all means they want to prevent a public trial with me because then their embarrassment that they cannot say where the six million were killed would be exposed to the public. They can’t just come up with anything because to this end we have much too much investigation by friends who have indeed completed exceptional preliminary work. And for that we can really be grateful. They are basically the reason that I can now stand here so confidently and state that the Holocaust does not exist.

4:37 And the fear is now with the opposition, and they are trying to let the issue disappear in a conspiracy of silence. This, however, must not happen, in my opinion, because I want to topple that Paragraph 130 [*illegal Jewish law put over the German Constitution]. I have determined to do this already years ago because this is the only means – in my opinion – to prevent World War 3, that they are seeking to bring about with all their means.

4:57 This is really not to be overlooked. They even talk about the use of Atomic bombs, and we know that we have American atomic rockets, etc., stationed in our country, and that the Americans, quite unashamedly – as stated in our newspapers – are working on modernizing them and making them operational.

5:20 So we can conclude that if Russia loses her patience and will no longer allow to be provoked – and just now the situation is very alarming in Syria – then we [*Germans] are the first victim. Middle Europe will then disappear. And I do not want this and agree with Mr. Steiner, who says that “Europe, and most of all Germany, still has a role for the future that has not been completed.”

5:45 So I wondered what can one do as an individual to prevent [*the destruction]. THOSE are in possession of weapons, the money, the media and surveillance services. They have practically everything. What do we have? In my opinion, all we have is truth and morality for we want to eradicate a lie.

6:10 And that is why I have made this my project and said that this lie [*the Holocaust] must be made transparent, for then the world will at least be more restrained in meeting the demands of “THOSE” (“JENE”). THOSE are, along with their henchmen, the ones who are called the Oligarchy in Russia, the Globalizers by us, and they call themselves the Chosen. And they do indeed have many henchmen because a great number of people have something of this Jewishness in them, as Gilad Atzmon [*a Jew] calls it, and they can be bought and have yielded themselves to mammon. And these henchmen also need THOSE and that’s why one needs to name them as one, and so I name all of them together “THOSE,” in capitals.

7:03 And THOSE want total world domination – they are on the verge of it – and the last big chunk is Russia. That’s not too easy to crack, so they threaten with the use of nuclear weapons. So it is high time that we do something, and it has been my reasoning that we can only do something regarding the unmasking of this great lie.

7:31 And that is why the Panorama Broadcast was titled, at least in the announcement, what I named it: “The greatest and most lasting lie in history.” And that’s what they broadcasted, and that’s what is written on it.

7:48 And after that I was asked how I came to this statement. So, all of that went on. Now they are sitting there and do not know what to do. And in order to prevent the issue from disappearing in a spiral of silence, I have held public events; in the meantime already three of them. I have invited the State Protection Agency, the Police, the respective mayors, the Minister of Justice, or the Interior Minister, or the District Council of the region where I want to hold a public event, with exact reference to what I want to do.

8:26 And so I decided on the date of the memorial day of the ‘Day of the liberation of Auschwitz’, on January 27, 2014, when shortly before that I had obtained excerpts from the Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle Auschwitz 1940-1945 (Local Orders and Commander Orders for Auschwitz 1940 to 1945), that for me was the missing capstone, for I had already experienced in 1993 how they took off the plaque from the memorial at Auschwitz, and suddenly it was no longer four million who supposedly were murdered there, but about a million.

9:00 And then comes Der Spiegel editor and says that no one has been murdered at the Auschwitz location; and if at all, then in a farmhouse outside of Birkenau. And he is very cautious and states presumably 356,000. And 356,000 deaths compared with the endless murdering in World War 2 is a very small number, and no longer a singular crime.

9:30 And then we filed a voluntary charge against ourselves, together with Horst Mahler, to test again, is this now really with impunity – because the editor of Der Spiegel was reported to the authorities for ‘trivialization of the Holocaust’ or ‘denial of the Holocaust’, but no indictment followed, (as in my first judgement) and where it read, ‘He did not qualify but verify.’ But ‘verify’ means nothing other than according to truth. And that is why he would not be prosecuted; that it would be all right.

9:95 And so we claimed the same [*judgment] for ourselves. And then I had received in 2013 forty pages of copies from the Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle Auschwitz 1940-1945, unknown to me before. It had already been published in 2000, again by an official office, the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for History) in Munich, by five people, at the lead Professor Frei, who had a tenure both at Erfurt and Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, that is, he was active on both sides, and has published a great deal on the subject ‘Holocaust’ and Jewish questions, etc.and was considered a specialist for this.

10:44 So this has become known to me, and so I read it, and in it is quite clear that it was only important to keep the workforce working, but there is no word to be found that it was a gassing and extermination camp. And it’s difficult to contemplate how, despite the limitations in the war, the prisoners there were still fed in a way so that they remained able to work. For example, there are strict regulations that they won’t get a watery soup, but it is prescribed that it must be a rich, thick soup. It’s also put forward how to collect wild herbs out in the open and sprinkle them over the soup to obtain vitamins.

11:34 In it is also said that the lunch break must be kept. Nothing else can be done at that time, and so on. And then one cannot say that on the one hand they do everything to keep them able to work and on the other hand they want to kill them. This is a contradiction in itself. A thinking person no longer takes this seriously. And it is remarkable that they managed to keep this 600-page comprehensive work secret from 2000 to 2013. It was, indeed, very briefly discussed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine [*newspaper], and also two other papers, and then it disappeared into the Bibliotheca, and none of us knew of it. And I have noticed that even the journalists did not know of it. They have only learned of it through me. So they succeeded to make this document disappear.

12:31 And when I suddenly received these 40 pages [*from the commander’s orders Auschwitz] as a copy from a historian, who mentioned that he did not know what to do with it, it became completely clear to me, that this [*document] was the deciding factor for the removal of the plaque [*at Auschwitz] and the non-prosecution of the Spiegel editor. And even the Gedenkstätte [*private memorial for the Germans killed in WW2] has never been prosecuted for supposedly playing down the Holocaust. I told myself this is where I draw the line and will step out into the public.

12:54: And then, in Karlsruhe, where the Federal Constitutional Courts are, I have invited them and all the others to a panel discussion on the subject of these Commander Orders for Auschwitz, pro and contra. That was shortly after the event in Paris regarding Charlie Hebdo. We wanted to test whether the presidents of the countries, seriously mean what they said, “Freedom of the press, freedom of opinion are the supreme principle of the democratically constituted state, and that is why we march here, and even if there are deaths, [*as is the case in Paris], then we will nonetheless advocate freedom of expression.”

13:36 And I sent it to all the newspapers, the big ones and the regional ones, and so on. And then it became public in one swoop. Then on the 30th, I think it was, the weekend shortly after the 27th, I held the event, made a press release thereafter and sent it again to all of them.

14:00 And then something surprising happened. Three months later, there was in the Stuttgarter Zeitung, [*newspaper] a full-page interview with the head of the ‘Central Office for the Prosecution of National Socialists,’ the Attorney General, Kurt Schrimm. And so in this interview it became clear that this place is now active again, and that they had also located 50 presumed perpetrators, that is, then 22 and 23-year-olds active at Auschwitz – of course all of them over 90 years old – and they were now going to be prosecuted.

14:43 And then the reporter asks, “Okay, but why are you proceeding so late? They have dementia by now!” Or they then died very quickly, and only 30 were still alive. And he said, “You should have done this much sooner!” And then Mr. Schrimm says, “This was not possible before because the Federal Court of Justice ruled in 1969 that guard teams and employees in concentration camps can only be brought to justice if they were personally involved in misconduct, murder, and so on.”

15:40 And then he says (And this is written in a German newspaper, and we Germans did not stand up and protest. I am probably the only one who sent a protest letter.), “With the judgment of Demjanjuk that was no longer the case, but this law has been removed. Now it is enough that they just were in Auschwitz.” Just like that. And then he added, “And now we have never imagined possibilities.” And these “never imagined possibilities” they have used.

16:04 And I am under the impression that this Kurt Schrimm – now that suddenly everywhere it is known that in the Commander Orders for Auschwitz there were no gassing mentioned at all – was commissioned with, “You must now prove this, by these, alleged witnesses, that this is not the case.” And then with all his might he tried to find those, at least one, that they can badger real well. And then came this strange phenomenon.

16:32 On October 3, 2014, I put on the Internet, “Based on official reports, the Holocaust did not exist.” And three days later, Gröning was charged. They went to Lüneburg. And Gröning was also a case like Demjanjuk, who had once before been summoned to a trial in 1985 that had to be stopped because of lack of evidence. At that time the law [*of 1969] of the Federal Court of Justice was still valid.

17:07 And on October 6, I wrote to the Federal Constitutional Court and made this demand: “Since the Holocaust does not exist, I request that paragraph 130 be finally removed. This paragraph can no longer be sustained.” And in 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court had already presented, in connection with the Wunsiedel judgment, known to all of us, basically already given in paragraph 77, that this paragraph [*130] can not be sustained because it is not compatible with Article 5 of the Constitution, ‘Freedom of Opinion.’

17:45 And that is what I have asked for, to finally depose this [*Para. 130], to push it back at the Federal Government with the stipulation to eliminate it. And at the same time, I asked for them to please close Kurt Schrimm’s Central Office in Stuttgart because it would be irresponsible to continue such procedures. And then I heard nothing for a long time. And then I presented a public event again this year; this time in Naumburg.

18:15 Then twice I got banned [*from speaking] two days before. But, Mr. Püschel, I don’t know if the name means anything to you here, assisted me. He was a long-time SPD [*political party] mayor in Saxony-Anhalt, and he once wanted to know whether the people at the NPD [*political party] were really so terrible, visited an NPD event in the region, and after that carelessly remarked to his SPD colleagues, “Look, they have the same problems as we do; I have not found there any differences from us.”

18:45 And that was enough to dismiss him from the mayor’s office as an SPD spokesman. And I had corresponded with him and asked him to find a room for us, so that I did not have to take an extra trip there, and he arranged it. And when I said to him on Thursday, “I now have a gag order but only for the city of Naumburg, and that is not very large. So we’ll just meet outside of the city and I come anyhow,” he precautionary announced a New Year’s Reception on the Internet – only for invited persons.

19:17 And then I got there, and on Friday – Saturday was to be the lecture – again, two police officers came, again with a large brown envelope, and told me that it was now forbidden for me to talk not only in Naumburg but in the entire Burgenlandkreis [*county]. And then the Police arrived [*at the meeting], and the State Security, and a whole bunch of higher officials. And so Mr. Püschel announced to them, because they could not forbid a New Year’s Reception party, “First we’ll conduct the official part, where you can gladly participate, and afterwards, when we have our personal exchange, I will show you to the door.”

19:95 And since we had such an interesting conversation already, about what I will attend to in the second part, regarding the foreigner problem, all of us, including Mr. Püschel and I, forgot to ask them to leave. They stayed. And there were at least five senior officials, Police, State Protection; we have never had such an illustrious audience. And Mr. Püschel used this opportunity to reprimand them regarding the foreigner and asylum seeker policy, and then he said, “Now it’s Mrs. Haverbeck’s turn.”

20:28 And then I held my speech, despite the two bans. And they listened to all of it. For three hours. We had two camera teams, one came all the way from Hamburg, the Norddeutsche Rundfunk (NDR-TV station), with a Camera Man who wanted to hold an interview with me, but I declined saying, “I do not want to hold this now because I’ve got a [*public] speaking ban; but if you like, I’ll be available at a later time.”

21:00 So they have taken note of all that was said. And I think the most convincing item was – I do not know if you are aware of this – what actually Elie Wiesel wrote in his book, as well as another author – in the meantime also Professor of Modern History in Israel, Israel Gutman. And Elie Wiesel wrote in his book, “…Terrible conditions in Auschwitz, how they were tormented and thrown into the gas, etc.,” and then he writes, “And as the Red Army came nearer and nearer, the SS guards came and said, ‘Okay, we are now departing for the Reich [*German empire]; you are free to choose: Do you want to come with us, or do you want to be liberated by the Red Army?’” And the majority, writes Gilad Atzmon, and Elie Wiesel also, decided to go with the German prison guards to Germany!!!

22:00 Gilad Atzmon, who read this in Elie Wiesel’s book, was completely at a loss and said, “That’s impossible!” And what he is blaming us Germans for, and not just he but other reporters, too, is  that we did not research this. We simply believed. We simply took it on [*the Holocaust]. But Gilad Atzmon started researching, and he looked for people who were also in Auschwitz and asked whether they could confirm this or whether to treat Elie Wiesel’s assertion as a lie.

22:27 And then he finally found an Israeli, Professor Israel Gutman, who is now a historian, and he went to see him and asked him, “That can’t be true what Elie Wiesel says here, what can you say to this?” And Gutman hesitated for a moment and then said, quietly laughing, “I was also in Auschwitz. I’ve also been asked, and I’ve also let them take me back to the Reich.” And then it was perfectly clear for Gilad Atzmon, all that has been said before cannot be true. For no normal man goes by free will into the Reich with his murderers if he has liberation at his doorstep.

23:10 So from then on, he started to think about it more and he wrote his book The Wandering Who? It’s available in German now. (Der Wandernde Wer?) This book was the reason why Horst Mahler was put back into prison for he has then dealt with it intensively. He brought a wealth of very critical Jewish quotations that he philosophically worked through [*in his book]. And so this was turned around and said that ‘he had offended the Jews’, even though the Jews wrote this themselves.

23:46 So this book by Gilad Atzmon, where he turned away from being an enthusiastic Israeli and became a critic – he served as a soldier of Israel for a long time – was the cause [*for Mahler’s re-arrest], and you should know that. And so this had all those who were present very perplexed, especially the officials, and also many of our friends, to whom all this was new.

24:18 I asked the gentleman from the Deutscher Rundfunk afterwards, “Tell me, was all this known to you: Removal of the plague, Spiegel editor, these Commander Orders?” And then Mr. Bongen says, “I have heard this all for the first time from you.” And he was, after all, a respected Chief Editor for the Panorama Broadcast.

24:40 And I had been very much warned about him that he is very dangerously Left, and he would always demonize all Rights, etc. And afterwards I was very glad that I did not let myself be influenced by this. It seemed to me that when I saw him, he did not quite match this picture anyway. And the confirmation that he is a man who at least still thinks I have found in this, that after three days, after I had been put out by Monier, a Right, he called and told me that he wants to do the interview with me. And we settled for three days later.

25:23: I was a bit stunned by the short notice. And he came, and he had the whole 600-page book [*commander orders Auschwitz] and had worked it through completely, noticeable by the manifold page markings. That was remarkable, I thought. Then I asked him, “Where did you get the book? It’s out of print!” “That was in our station library, but nobody had read it yet.”

25:40 And then he said, “I have picked out two quotes here, if you would present them please.” Then I look at them, and they were exactly the same quotations I would have chosen. So that speaks well of him! Firstly, that he has worked through this book completely; and secondly, he picks quotes that speak against the other side and for me. And then there was something else quite remarkable.

26:08 On the same evening after the interview I wrote a 1.5 page summary of what I considered essential from what I had said and sent it to him via Fax because I wanted to make him aware that this is what I want him to write, and that he cannot write anything else.

26:28 And then I wrote, portraying him as just another human being, also to our friends, “A Hamburg representative of the NDR, and a family father of two children who are not yet of school age.” And that was actually something positive, in other words, not that he was an anarchist but a very normal family father, etc.

26:52 And then he called the next day,  “Well, his wife would have such concerns, and he would very much want me to take this sentence out.” I say, “Why that? I think that’s positive for you.” “Yes, but my wife is afraid that we will then be attacked by the Antifa.” That’s how far things have gone already. So, that really stunned me, that a reputable reporter, with a nice family, or an intact family, is afraid that the Antifa would attack him if he is recognized as a normal citizen. So I could easily strike that and deleted it.

27:30 So now comes the closure point: On July 20, I get a letter from the Federal Constitutional Court telling me that they now have my letter with the request – but that was more than half a year ago, I already have completely forgotten – and that they now have handed it over to the appropriate Judges’ Committee for a decision, and here is the new record number for further correspondence.

27:59 So, suddenly after half a year they accepted it for a decision. And then I told this to Dr. Schaller, and he then called me twice, enthusiastically exclaiming, “That can only mean they want to seriously take this into consideration. For if they did not want to use it in any way, they would have just made it disappear in a spiral of silence.” It had been sitting there half a year, and no one, not even myself, thought about it any longer.

28:20 So, there it sits now for further correspondence, and I took it seriously and sent them some more documents; for example, I have sent them a letter that I had sent to the editorial staff of various newspapers, including Focus, in connection with the Gröning trial in Lüneburg. So I wrote to the reporter – Mr. Bongen told me that they were suffering from the fact that they are now being called ‘Lügenpresse’ (press of lies) in the public, “If you want to get away from being called ‘press of lies’ you now have a chance. Please conduct an exact research as to what is going on in the German courts.

29:04 Please ask why it is that someone can abrogate a judgement from the Upper Circuit Courts and who that is, so that suddenly, someone, whom one cannot prove any personal wrongdoing, can be put before the courts and then even tried and sentenced; because Demjanjuk had been sentenced ‘for life’ – who died, however, because he was already very old and sick. And Gröning had received three or four years of prison. But it was immediately said that it’s not known if he will actually have to go into a prison because of his health condition.

29:37 After all, a judgment of the Federal Court of Justice cannot simply be annulled without informing who has ordered this, when, and with what competence. Please research who actually did this. We citizens know nothing about it.

29:57 And then further, there is a Constitutional law, article 103, wherein it says quite clearly one can not bring someone before the courts for the same offense twice and sentence him. I also asked them because with Demjanjuk this was done who had been acquitted [*in the first trial] for lack of evidence. And then the Federal Republic extradites him from the USA, after he had lived there 10 or 20 years, and prosecuted him again in the Federal Republic for the same thing. This is contrary to Article 103! Impossible! The Israelis had even acquitted him; that is not to be overlooked.

30:28 And further it states in it: ‘No one may be prosecuted for an alleged crime that took place at a time when there was no law that treated it as a crime.’ And this is true for Gröning. There was no law that declared it a crime when a young SS man, age 22 or 23, educated as banker, was commanded to work in the Accounting Department in Auschwitz. Then one cannot just put him before a judge and sentence him without having any personal evidence against him. But this was done. So please research whether this article of the Constitution has been annulled, and by whom, and how! The German people know nothing about this, either.”

31:18 And I sent this to them. And I sent it along to the Federal Constitutional Court so that they could see that larger circles are involved. And I always wrote to them that in the end it is about reputation, dignity and honor of the German judiciary. And since I am the Supreme Sovereign as a citizen, according to our Constitution, I am also responsible for it and make use of this responsibility.

31:45 And that’s why I’m filing this proposition that they’ll put this in order now. And I have already done this two or three times, also in connection with Horst Mahler, because this is political murder what they are doing. I have also written to the Minister of Justice of Brandenburg, and I have received a personal answer from a number of these gentlemen; also to my earlier correspondence.

So, they know who I am.

32:14 And this must really be initiated systematically. I first made a constitutional complaint then I did this. And then in the first proceedings in Karlsruhe against Voßkuhle, I invited the President of the Federal Constitutional Court, and because it went back and forth – I had only 7 or 8 days time and Pentecost came in between – I told him, “If you want to get an answer to me, then please get this to me via the police in Karlsruhe with whom I collaborate, otherwise you can not reach me.”

32:44 And then the Police Deployment Director came indeed and delivered the message from Mr. Voßkuhle, where I could discern that he read my letter, and he also honored me with an answer. And that was exactly the case for the Minister of Justice in Brandenburg, who in the meantime has been superseded.

I am telling you all this to make evident that a single person, as I, can do quite a lot if the person does it politely and friendly and does not address people as criminals – does not even think that, let alone say it.

33:13 Because it is psychologically quite unambiguous that when one approaches a person with such negative feelings, he will also react negatively. And I have always avoided that. I have always said, and made it known to them, that I know in what difficult situation they are.

However, I am in a much more difficult situation than they are as judges, as they have a fundamentally guaranteed independence.

33:41 They are only responsible to the law and their conscience. Against me, there stands a law, Paragraph 130 [*illegal Jewish law conflicting with the German Constitution].

And then I wrote them in my last information that I had thought through this Paragraph 130 once more precisely and have noticed that therein was written, “A committed act, according to so and so statements, in international law, is punishable if…, etc.”

And then I told them, “A ‘committed’ act, that is actually a doubling. An action that is punishable, can only be one that has been committed, so why again ‘committed’? The judges or lawyers also knew this at the time when they formulated this.”

34:23 And then I let them know that it is obvious that they were very uncomfortable, and this must of course be admitted, when passing this paragraph 130 at the same time as the law in Switzerland. There were many members of the Bundestag and attorneys absolutely against it.

So in the First Reading it fell through because they said, “This is incompatible with Article 5, ‘Freedom of Opinion.’ We can not do this.”

34:49 And then THOSE have badgered them until in the Third Reading they accepted it; not unanimously, but in the majority. But there were always voices of descent, especially when people were retired, also by Federal Constitutional Court judges, indicating in writings in the Juristische Wochenzeitung (judicial weekly), etc., that this is actually untenable.

35:14 And so I wrote to them, “It is possible to deduce from this, since they have still put this ‘committed’ term in there, that this could be a hidden hint that it was not certain that it had been committed, and that it still needs to be explored. And then it states further in this law, ‘That something has been said or written in a manner that is likely cause for the disturbance of the public peace.’

35:43 The Federal Constitutional Court had already stated in 2009, ‘This is a presumption. Who says if the manner is ‘cause?’ Why is it ‘cause?’ By what criteria is it ‘cause?’ And what is actually the ‘public peace?’ So the judges said at that time, ‘This is about an assumption. An assumption is not justiciable, and if it is the only indication that a statement is alleged to be punishable, then that is untenable.

36:18 For upon something that is not justiciable, there cannot be constructed a litigation nor a judgment.’” That’s what I wrote them. And I also put that on the Internet and have drawn the conclusion with two points: “First, a ‘fact,’ a terrible crime, without a crime scene, cannot be a fact.

36:42 Where supposedly did this happen? Such a huge ‘crime’ with 6 million murdered without a place in this world can not be a fact. Therefore, the logical consequence is that it did not exist. And secondly, Paragraph 130, faced with this fact, is a law for the protection of a lie. And a law to protect a lie is the end of a state ruled by law.

37:00 Therefore, once again, my urgent request is, annul this Paragraph.” And now they are ruminating over it. And it would be helpful, of course, and I told this many friends – I do not comprehend that people do not take this up – if they all would ask; and that is not risky for them, “We also want to know now what has happened. Please tell us, can Paragraph 130 be upheld? This information has been on the Internet for such a long time. What is the truth?”

37:36 You can also have your grandmother ask. I made a template for young people they can have their grandmother use; something like this: “I’ve always thought that there was a Holocaust, and now my grandson asserts it is not true. So please tell me, is he right, or am I?”

37:55 Sort of in this style. One could do quite a lot, and if many would do this, I am firmly convinced we no longer would have Paragraph 130. And when we no longer have 130, people no longer need to be afraid because they can no longer be put before the judge because of their opinion. So more is possible today than 4 or 3 years ago. Really! And that’s because they are now tormented by these commander orders.

38:32 Mr. Frei has also had an interview on the same day as I. It was broadcasted by Panorama. And there Bongen asked him everything I have told Bongen, and Frei is always evasive because he can not answer it. But that is so obvious and makes him look ridiculous. But that’s what he did. So we can now take a hit into the notches, hook into them, and we could succeed.

38:53 And all this is actually proof that we also have now the opportunity to do something, if we really want to prevent a Third World War, and if we really want to prevent the destruction of all national states in Europe, and especially of Germany.

39:12 One just needs to do it. One person can do much more than considered possible. I think I have proven that. One must, of course, be informed. And one has to get to the point and does not need to have all the details handy. But one must study the basics, the essence of the whole method of THOSE.

And then one realizes things. And I have also found this to be true in many serious people who were on the other side, when one makes plausible to them, “Why do we need a law in history research that prohibits us from publishing certain historical results? That is completely contrary to all scientific methods, for in all scientific knowledge, one begins to compare pro and contra and tries to find out what is true.” And then many say, “Yes, you’re right.”

Okay, let’s start here.

>>>To Part 2

Translated from Ursula Haverbeck’s speech by



Click to read!



Kommandanturbefehle – In this particular document, must go into „read mode“ and then into “full screen” view to download as Pdf:

Dies ist nur ein Auszug-ca. 40 Seiten:

Das volle Buch:

Standort-und Kommandanturbefehle KL Auschwitz 1940-1945


Auschwitz – A judge looks at the evidence-Staeglich

The Hoax of the 20th Century-Butz

J.G. Burg – Sündenböcke:

Germany must perish – Theodore Kaufman:

What to do with Germany – Louis Nizer:

Nizer Louis-What To Do With Germany_1944_110P.Scan

Deutsch: Der Hooton Plan

Video: Ursula Haverbeck Panorama Interview w/English Subtitles

Historische Tatsachen No. 22 Alliierte Kriegspropaganda – In this particular document, must go into „read mode“ and then into “full screen” view to download as Pdf:

Historische Tatsachen-Nr.22-Alliierte Kriegspropaganda 1914-1919-40S.text

Das-Ende-der-Wanderschaft-Horst Mahler 07.01.2013.pdf

NS Bewaeltigung – Deutsche Schreibtischtaeter

Truth for Germany – Udo Walendy.pdf



Das Recht in dem wir leben HT 12 – flyer

Behoerden Contra Historiker HT 13 – flyer

Strafsache Wissenschaftliche Forschung HT 21 – flyer

Macht Plus Prozesse = “Wahrheit” HT 25 – flyer

Amtliche Luegen straffrei – Buergerzweifel kriminell HT 29 – flyer

Ein Prozess der Geschichte Macht HT 36 – flyer

Revision des Geschichtsbildes durch Deutschland verboten HT 101 – flyer

Kein Voelkerrecht statt dessen Luegen fuer Deutschland HT 108 – flyer

Lebensluege um Deutschland HT 109 – flyer

This entry was posted in FRG-Bundesrepublik, Government Terror, Holocausts, Jews-Juden, Judiciary-Justiz, Ursula Haverbeck and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.