Arbeit macht frei: - Fredrick Töben

Adelaide Magistrates’ Court, especially when a witness, asked to identify the
accused, pointed to a man in the public gallery. Unfortunately the man
identified himself as an American tourist! The witnesses, upon their return
to the Ukraine, soon began to build themselves lovely two-storey homes.
The Adelaide War Crimes Trials’ failure still rankles those who would like
to entangle the Australian judicial system in war crimes precedent cases. To
date Australia has resisted this push but its legal system has been perverted
through the Human Rights Commission’s actions against Mrs Olga Scully
and me. I can only say with some pride that I valiantly resisted the legal
push against their attempt to silence me, I did last just on 13 years of this
legal persecution and resisted the nonsense coming my way. However, I
had to face the music and concede defeat on 13 August 2009, after an
exhausting day in Adelaide’s Federal Court of Australia. It was not at the
hands of the Jews who brought the action into court, but the judges who
bent to Jewish pressure.
Such cases are not exactly new. Centuries ago, it was the same for Galileo
Galilei. It was not the Catholic Church that prosecuted him, but the civil
authorities; as was the case with Giordano Bruno, and the most notable of
all, Jesus Christ, whom the Pharisees handed over to the Roman civil
administration – and then both washed their hands of the matter claiming
they were only following what the law required of them.
Legal counsel for Jeremy Jones specifically informed Justice Bruce Lander
when the trial began on 5 August 2008 that it would not make any
submissions as to penalty but leave it up to the court. I can still hear
Lander’s words ringing in my ears: ‘You will get justice in this court!’.
When on 13 August 2009 the Appeal Court’s presiding judge, Spender (a
larger and more bulldog-like version of Lander), executed the arrest warrant
at 5 p.m. two Federal Police were waiting for me. I was pleased to see them
dressed in civilian suits. This was unlike the dramatic scene that Lander had
hoped for when my barrister, David Perkins, had thrown a spanner in the
works of Lander’s histrionics. Visibly shaking, Lander was furious for
Perkins had stolen his thunder by announcing that we were going to appeal
both the sentence and penalty. Lander remarked that Perkins’ reasons for
an appeal to be ‘a late invention’.
101