This document is part of a periodical (Journal of Historical Review).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
Many of you, I am sure, know who I am, where I've been, and what I've done. Today I'm here to tell you what has happened to me since I addressed the Tenth International Revisionist Conference in Washington, DC, in October 1990.
One of my jobs as an engineer of execution technology has been to "post mortem" executions from a technical standpoint, that is, to determine if anything went wrong and, if so, to determine just how the execution was botched. This normally entails reviewing eyewitness accounts of how the executees were tortured, mutilated, or otherwise dehumanized in society's name.
I will do that here today, except that, in this case, it is myself that I post mortem – and the cadaver isn't dead! Much to the dismay of my executioners, the execution was so badly botched that I am able to stand here before you to speak the truth, and to tell the world that it is not myself, but the olocaust story that is dead. I repeat for the record: I was condemned for maintaining that there were no execution gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Dachau, Mauthausen, or Hartheim Castle. There's no proof for the charge, only innuendo, lies, and half-truths. Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zuendel and others said this first. They, too, live as victims of botched executions, but nevertheless free to speak the truth in a strong and growing voice that repeats: No gas chambers, no gas chambers, no damn gas chambers!
This address, then, is not a post mortem on my cadaver but rather a post mortem by my cadaver.
As you know, I was sent to Poland in 1988 by and for Mr. Ernst Zuendel to investigate the alleged execution gas chamber facilities at the three concentration camps of Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek. I was chosen for this task from a field of experts numbering one, and recommended by those states in the USA where lethal gas chambers are used to execute convicted criminals. My forensic analysis and subsequent report prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that there were no gas execution facilities operated by the Nazis at these sites. I also entered these findings (which are also detailed in my published report) into the court record in sworn testimony in Toronto as a court-qualified expert.
Because I was somewhat naive at the time, I was not aware that by so testifying I was offending the organized world Jewish community. By providing final, definitive proof that there were no execution gas chamber utilized for genocidal purposes by the Germans at these wartime camps, I established the simple fact that the Holocaust story is not true. What I did not know was that anyone expressing such beliefs is guilty of a capital crime: that of thinking and telling the unspeakable truth about the greatest lie of the age.
I would have to pay for this crime. While I innocently told the truth in Toronto, plans were made, and subsequently implemented, for a major effort to destroy me. If I could be destroyed and discredited – so the reasoning went – no one would accept my professional findings, no matter how truthful.
Since April 1988, when I testified in the second Zuendel trial in Toronto about my inspection of the alleged gas chambers in Poland, my life has been turned upside down.
I have been vilified both privately and publicly in all forms of the media. My clients have been cajoled and threatened into not dealing with me. High-level law enforcement officials, acting for personal reasons, have lied about me and have prevented clients from dealing with me. My person and reputation have been defiled by lies and innuendo. My family and I have been repeatedly threatened.
Behind this campaign to punish me and suppress the truth about the gas chambers, have been several Jewish organizations, which have publicly vowed to silence me by destroying my ability to make a living.
Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
At the forefront of this effort has been Beate Klarsfeld of the Paris-based Klarsfeld Foundation. In the United States, the campaign has been orchestrated through the US-based "Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice." Associated with these two organizations have been the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith and the Jewish Defense League.
At Klarsfeld's initiative, these groups first carried out an extensive one year investigation. After they were unable to turn up any impropriety or wrongdoing on my part, they began to threaten prison wardens with political consequences if they dealt with me. This first came to light when the ABC television news program, "Prime Time," decided to do a network television piece on myself and my work. This involved filming at various prisons. Prison wardens advised the "Prime Time" personnel of the threats and problems that resulted from my presence at the prisons for the filming. ABC news was told not to air the program. It refused to succumb to the pressure, and consequently suffered vilification by the organizations involved.
To sum up here, this campaign has consisted of the following:
- Threats against prison officials who dealt with me.
- False and slanderous vilification through private channels, as well as publicly in newspapers and magazines.
- Legislation to prevent me from working at my profession.
- Criminal prosecution for working at my profession.
- Lies by public officials spread both officially and privately.
- Restriction of my personal freedom and right to travel by effecting my illegal arrest and imprisonment in England, from where I was finally deported.
- Interference with my right as an American citizen to help and protection from the US State Department, which refused to assist me during my illegal imprisonment in England.
As a result of this campaign, my livelihood has been destroyed, and my career has been ruined. All this for telling the truth under oath.
The organizations cited above also interfered with the execution in Illinois of a certain Mr. Walker by threatening to pass legislation to prevent that state from allowing me to complete an ongoing contract. As a result, Director McGinnis ultimately yielded to this pressure and proceeded with the execution using equipment known to be defective. Under pressure from these groups, and through the efforts of Alabama Deputy Attorney General, Ed Carnes, the State of Alabama did not purchase a new electric chair. Carnes wrote a lying memorandum to all Departments of Corrections around the United States claiming that I was dangerous and held unorthodox views on execution. He caused the State to breach its contract. According to his office, this means I support only humane and painless executions. Carnes actually lied to me to get me to testify that a prior execution was humane.
As a direct result of interference by these groups, at least one man was tortured to death in Virginia. Purchasing agents and wardens have been mendaciously told that my equipment failed during an execution, which is not true. It has never failed. Delaware Deputy Attorney General Silverman breached my contract, which was already underway, because I wrote the Zuendel trial euchter Report. This contract was for maintenance on their lethal injection machine and gallows, previously fabricated by me, and for training of their execution personnel. Delaware has refused to pay me for the work I completed, and has instructed me to keep the control module of their lethal injection machine. However, the protocol I wrote for execution by hanging was submitted by them and approved by the court system. In Massachusetts, legislation specifically designed to put me out of business has been filed for four years running.
Finally, and also at the insistence of these same Jewish groups, a spurious criminal complaint was filed against me in the Massachusetts court system with the intent of destroying my reputation by putting me in prison for three months.
I was charged with practicing as an engineer without a license. In point of fact, a license is not required in Massachusetts, or any other state, unless the engineer is involved in construction of buildings, and is certifying compliance with specifications. There is also a statutory exemption for engineers who do not deal with the general public.
As confirmation of the spurious nature of this charge, it should be pointed out there are more than fifty thousand practicing engineers in Massachusetts, of whom only five thousand are licensed. Although the state's licensing law has been in effect since 1940, there has been no record of any prosecution for this offense.
The charge was improperly brought. Nevertheless, if it had been successful, and I had been convicted, I would have been imprisoned for three months.
The Massachusetts state Engineering Board, under pressure from Klarsfeld and her "olocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice," filed this criminal complaint in Middlesex County. The name of the complainant was denied me, and was not made available until the matter was brought before the court. Before the complaint was issued, and several times thereafter, I was given the chance to recant in return for non-issuance or dismissal of the complaint. I also would have been obliged to give up my profession, in order to discredit my Report. I refused, and responded to the Board's threat with a denial that any law had been violated. The original clerk magistrate who issued the complaint apologized for bowing to Jewish pressure in prosecuting me under a statute that was being mis-applied. A representative of the ADL tried to force her testimony on the hearing, but was denied access because she had no evidence to offer that was pertinent to the matter. The District Court judge, in an excellent imitation of Pontius Pilate, summarily dismissed our motions for dismissal, allowed my court-appointed attorney to withdraw, and instructed Kirk Lyons, Director of the Cause Foundation and my out-of-state attorney, to re-file our motions for dismissal, because they all had merit. After it became clear that there would be no justice for us in the Malden District Court, we moved the case to Superior Court for a jury trial.
With this charge hanging over my head, it was impossible for me to consult, supply equipment, or even act as an expert witness in American courts, as I had often done.
The district attorney's office, under heavy pressure from various Jewish organizations, selected its best prosecuting attorney to handle my case. In the belief that he would be the person most likely to bring about a conviction, he was pulled from a murder trial. In June, just prior to the trial, our motions for dismissal were heard. The judge, also under heavy pressure from Jewish groups, told the district attorney that this case was not properly a criminal matter, and strongly suggested that the case be resolved short of a trial. With the ever-present possibility of conviction and jail (faced by most political prisoners) we negotiated a settlement.
A very special consent agreement was signed [on June 11, 1991] that made legal history in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The agreement was not a promise by the defendant to the court, as is normally the case, but an agreement between the State Engineering Board and myself. The board which, on two previous occasions, had refused to accept my application for registration because they do not register people who practice my discipline, was required to become a party to the agreement. [For more on this agreement, see the IHR Newsletter, July-August 1991, p. 3.]
The consent agreement requires the board to accept my application and process it with "due diligence." Until the application is approved, or until two years are up, I have agreed not to use the title "engineer" or issue an engineering opinion in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is, in effect, a temporary gag order imposed to satisfy the interested Jewish groups.
By removing the case from consideration by criminal courts, the possibility of my imprisonment has been eliminated. If the Engineering Board fails to process and issue a license to me within a reasonable period, and in due course, the matter should then move to the civil courts. Attorney Lyons is presently preparing the necessary application. However, a new problem has arisen. All applications must be accompanied by the recommendations of three state-licensed engineers, but none is willing to risk the wrath of the Jews in my behalf.
The de facto gag order, imposed by the settlement, applies only within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and I am free to pursue my profession anywhere else.
Most of the execution equipment in the United States is either worn out, obsolete, or improperly fabricated, and is in need of repair or replacement. I am the only person who does this work, and states are being denied the right to deal with me. Although wardens and commissioners are afraid to even speak with me, they often do so anyway through intermediaries. One state has a leaking gas chamber, but will use it, endangering the lives of guards and witnesses, rather than risk discovery in dealing with me. How many more inmates will be tortured, or lives lost, through the callous interference of these Jewish groups?
Owing to the successful conspiracy of these Jewish groups, I am completely out of business, unable to find work to feed my family. In spite of everything, though, I am still here, and I am still telling the truth. Furthermore, I intend to continue to tell the truth. If the organized Jewish community wants to stop me, it will have to try much harder.
Moreover, attempts to discredit the euchter Report have failed, most notably with Pressac's inept analysis. Since the release of the Leuchter Report [in 1988], independent evidence has shown that the six million death figure has been grossly exaggerated, and an investigation by the Polish state forensic institute [among others] has corroborated that no gas was utilized in the alleged execution chambers at Auschwitz.
In the spring of 1991, David Irving asked me if I would consider a speaking engagement in England later that year. I said that I would, and I was advised in mid-summer that this would take place during the second week of November.
Irving apparently announced the speech sometime later. This apparently enraged Jewish groups in London which protested to UK Home Secretary Mr. Kenneth Baker in an effort to prevent me from traveling to London. This is a clear infringement of the rights of British people to hear me speak. This certainly also curtails my right to travel to England as any other American citizen.
As a result of pressure by these Jewish groups, Mr. Baker apparently promised to take action. The Jewish Chronicle, a London weekly paper, reported in its issue of October 4, 1991, that Home Secretary Baker had banned my travel to the United Kingdom. This was the only mention of the ban in the British media, and was not a particularly reliable source.
A week or so later, my father, Fred A. Leuchter, Sr., received a letter, ostensibly from the Immigration and Naturalization Department of Her Majesty's government, informing him that, by direction of the Home Secretary, he was not permitted to travel to the United Kingdom. My father communicated this letter to me.
Because my father had no such travel plans, my first assumption was that this letter was meant for me. However, a closer reading of it suggested that it might be a fraud. The signatory, Mr. "G.P.J. Catt," had no title, and part of the date was written by hand. Certainly, the Home Secretary and Her Majesty's Immigration Office would not be so sloppy and unbusinesslike as to send off an amateurishly prepared letter to the wrong person. My address is publicly known, and is easy to ascertain.
I turned the questionable document over to my attorney, Kirk Lyons, to authenticate. He, in turn, formally protested the letter to the UK Consulates in both Houston and Boston. In each case, the Consulate advised him that his protest was unfounded because there was no ban on travel to the UK by me (or my father, for that matter). He was informed that the letter must be fraudulent, and that it did not prohibit my travel to Britain in any way. Lyons was also informed that all Home Office documents must contain a reference number, which this did not. Based on all this, I confirmed my travel plans to London.
Because I also had also arranged to visit Germany, I combined that trip with my visit to London. Accordingly, my wife Carol and I left for Germany on November 2, 1991. We planned to drive to Calais and take the ferry to Dover from there on or about November 11, 1991. We also planned to return to Germany on or about November 15, immediately following my scheduled speech in London. Because our visit in Germany would be very hectic, we intended to arrive in England several days prior to my speech, giving us a few days to relax and see some of that country.
As planned, we arrived in Dover on the ferry from Calais late on November 11, and spent the night in Dover. The next morning we drove to London, where we met with Irving. We then left to see the country, leisurely driving south to Salisbury to see Stonehenge. We returned to London by way of Wimbledon on November 15.
On Friday evening, November 15, we arrived at the Town Hall in Chelsea where I was to give my speech. After Irving opened the program, Dr. Robert Faurisson spoke. I was then called to the podium, and began my presentation. At approximately 9:15 p.m., some five minutes into my speech, I was interrupted by Irving, who told me that a "gentleman" wished to speak to me in the anteroom to the stage. I did not know it then, but I would remain in illegal police custody, without interruption, until I was expelled from England, and would not see my host, Dr. Faurisson, or the audience again.
In the anteroom I was greeted by Chief Inspector Philip Selwood and three metro police officers. I was asked to identify myself, which I did by presenting my passport (which Selwood kept) and my driver's license (which he returned). I was told that two male technicians with the Thames television news team had quietly spoken with him outside, and had insisted (as citizens) that I be arrested as an illegal alien because I had sneaked into the country contrary to a ban by the Home Secretary. I responded by pointing out that my passport was properly stamped, and that, as the two British Consulates in the United States had indicated, there was no such ban.
I further informed Selwood that if it was indeed determined that was in the country illegally, I would leave immediately. I told him that I had no wish to stay where I was not wanted, and that did not want to violate the law. Selwood told me that Thames television was trying to make news instead of reporting it, and that my cooperation would be very much appreciated. He asked me to accompany him to the Chelsea police station, without talking to the media, whilst he made an investigation. If I refused, I would be arrested on suspicion of illegal entry. I agreed. After he spirited me out of the building and into an unmarked van, away we went. Selwood was also afraid of violent Jews, who might attempt to break up the speech, and that was the reason for the presence of himself and his large contingent of men. I asked him to bring my wife, who was at the back of the hall. He stopped the van, ordered his men to take me to the station, and personally returned to collect my wife. I arrived at the station, and he soon followed with Carol. We were placed in a visitors' room.
Selwood advised me that I was not under arrest, and that if the Home Office determined that I was in the country illegally I would be permitted to leave. I was told that I was free to call the American consul, if I wished. I did not.
At this point I asked to leave. I was informed that I would have to wait for my status to be determined, because it would be necessary to escort me out of the country if I was there illegally. Selwood further told me that persons who were in the country illegally must be permitted to leave, if they so wished, providing they had the means. (In fact, we had ferry tickets.) Chief Inspector Selwood and the other police personnel were cordial and accommodating, providing us with a toilet and refreshment. We advised the police that Carol was diabetic. After first introducing us to his second-incommand, and leaving instructions as to our treatment, Selwood left before midnight.
At approximately 12:05 a.m., early Saturday morning, November 16, the Deputy Chief Inspector received a call, apparently from the Home Office. We could not hear very much, but we did hear him say that we should leave by way of Dover. A few minutes later, shortly before 12:15 a.m., he again received a call, to which he replied "Yes sir." He then came to speak to me. "I'm sorry," he said. "I have been ordered to arrest you." He informed me of my rights, and told me that I could talk with the US Consul, or the Duty Solicitor (Public Defender), or both. When I asked if it had been determined that I was in the country illegally, he said that he did not know for sure. I then asked to leave, and he told me that this was not possible. At this point I asked to speak with the US Consul, and was told that this would be arranged. I was then searched, booked, and locked in a detention room with someone else, also under arrest.
About an hour later I was removed from the detention room, and told that the American Consulate was on the telephone. I spoke with Under Consul Christopher Randall who informed me that the Consular Corps was not there to help US citizens. He totally refused to help. I asked to talk with the Duty Solicitor, and was told he would be called. I was taken to a cell (instead of a detention room) for lock-up. When I asked why I was being moved to a cell, I was told that the other occupant of the detention room was there for assault, and that I was being moved for my own protection.
I now found myself in an isolation cell with one other occupant who turned out to be there for theft. Because I make execution equipment (and criminals know this), I should never have been put in a cell with others. To do so might put my life in danger.
Moreover, the cell was freezing, and I had no coat. The other inmate had a blanket and mattress. In an effort to keep warm, I wrapped my arms around myself, but this didn't work. I was unable to sleep.
Some time later I was let out to accept a phone call from the Duty solicitor, who told me he was unable to help because I had not committed a crime. He told me that I should call my Consul, who ought to be able to help. When I told him that my consul had refused to help, he urged me to call back and insist, because he was obliged by law to help. I was returned to my cell.
At approximately 3:00 a.m., I was removed from my cell for interrogation by two Immigration Department personnel. I was taken to an interrogation room with recording equipment, and advised that my statement would be taped. I was also advised that I did not have to make a statement if I chose not to. I agreed to speak with them, but they first had to give me time to warm up so that my teeth would stop chattering and I would be able to speak normally. I gave them the same information that I had given hours earlier to Chief Inspector Selwood. I affirmed that I was a legal entrant, and once again requested permission to leave. I was refused. I was told that I should call the American Consul and/or the Duty Solicitor. I was also informed that charges might be brought. At this point I was served with Immigration form IS 151-A. I was also told that I would not be allowed to leave by way of Dover, but would instead be sent out though Heathrow airport (where they were from), and that my wife and our rental car would have to stay behind.
I asked about my wife, concerned that she had not eaten in over twelve hours, which could be a problem because of her diabetes. I was told that they would make a decision later about my legal status, and that in the meantime I would have to remain in the cold cell. I asked to be allowed to warm up, and to see my wife. They agreed to this. Carol had also asked to see me.
I met with Carol. After talking with her, I once again asked to talk with my Consul. The Consulate official again gave me a hard time, but after I told him of my discussion with the Duty Solicitor he said he would at least inquire into the matter. The guard rushed me to complete my phone conversation. Carol subsequently found out that the Under Consul had inquired late that morning. Carol had been removed while I was on the telephone, and I was rushed back to my cell. I froze again, but at about 4:30 a.m. I was given a blanket.
The day shift personnel who arrived at about seven o'clock proved more difficult to deal with. At 7:00 a.m., the other inmates were awakened to be taken to court. They were given coffee; I was not. My cellmate asked the guard to give me some coffee, which he did. By 7:45 a.m., all the inmates were gone, and new inmates began to arrive.
I repeatedly asked about my wife to make sure that she was well. I inquired at 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, and 1:00 o'clock, but no one would tell me how she was. Later I found out that just one officer had checked on her. She likewise had been asking about me, and was told nothing. At noon I was given a breakfast that consisted of cold eggs, sausage, and toast left over from hours earlier. It was inedible. It certainly would have made my ulcer worse. Carol had been given nothing to eat, even though she had been required to stay there by the Immigration officers who knew of her medical problem.
At about 1:20 p.m., I was again taken from my cell, this time to see Mr. Phillips of the Immigration Department. He met with Carol and me together. Phillips told us that it had been determined that I was in the country illegally, because I had entered in violation of the ban by the Home Secretary. I was told that I would be held until I was deported.
He acknowledged that he could not understand why I had been arrested and imprisoned after I had asked on three occasions to leave. Once again I asked to leave, but Mr. Phillips told me that this was now not possible because I had been formally arrested. This should not have happened, he said, but, because it did, I would now have to be deported. Carol asked how it was possible for me to be in the country illegally if I had entered legally at Dover and had a valid passport stamp. Phillips replied that I was not actually in the country illegally, but that an official determination had been made that I was, and that was the law. I asked why those immigration officials who had interviewed me had made this determination, and Phillips responded that they had not. He further said that the "decision has been made very high up in the Home Office," higher than he would ever reach in his career. He added that I could legally be held for up to five days after my arrest, even though I wanted (and should have been allowed) to leave earlier.
Phillips also told us that the Immigration Department had contacted French immigration about my possible deportation to France, but that I had been refused entry there. I responded by commenting that this is not surprising, because no country would want a deportee unless it is one of its own citizens. Phillips agreed.
He said that his next step would be to ask Belgium, and, if I was refused there, Germany. He did not expect Belgium to accept, but if Germany did, I would be sent on the Hamburg Ferry that ran only twice a week, the next time being on Tuesday [three days hence]. If I were to go this way, I would have to remain incarcerated until that time.
However, I was asked, in view of my desire to leave, would I consider going to the United States? Phillips informed me that if I officially told him that I wished to return to the United States, he could not stop me, and would put me on a flight that very evening. I then formally asked to be returned to the United States, and Phillips said that he would begin making the necessary arrangements. We would have to leave the rental car in England and make some arrangement for its return to Germany (other than by our driving it). Furthermore, we would have to forego our remaining commitments in Germany because time would not permit our return.
After taking our airline tickets, he contacted Lufthansa to reschedule our flight. The only available fight that day was at 3:30 p.m., which was too soon for us to get to the airport. He returned our tickets, and promised to make arrangements at the UK government's expense. He booked us on a British Airways flight to New York (not Boston) that departed at 6:30 p.m. We were escorted in two cars. Phillips' car went first, and we followed in another police car, under guard. We stopped for our luggage at our car which was parked behind Selfridge's [in London], at a parking meter, and proceeded to the airport in rush-hour traffic. If we did not make it on time, they would have to return me to my cell.
After a stop at the Immigration office to pick up the necessary forms, we arrived at the airport, passed through security, and reached the gate just as the plane was being loaded. The police officer had left us at the entrance to the terminal. After returning my passport (which noted my detention on form IS 151 A), Mr. Phillips watched us enplane. The people at the ticket counter had been told that I was being deported, as were the gate attendants.
We took our seats, flew to New York, and arrived at about 9:45 p.m. We had to purchase air tickets to Boston at our own expense. After barely making this flight, we arrived in Boston at approximately 11:45 p.m., exhausted and hungry.
In summary, I was detained and held in custody for some twenty one and three-quarters hours, fourteen of them in an unheated cell. I was given a breakfast at noon, and was given one cup of coffee only at my cellmate's insistence. I was given no water, and there was none in the cell. My ulcer did not fare well under these circumstances, particularly because of my anxious concern for Carol.
For her part, Carol fared even less well that I did. After my arrest, she was given no food or water, even though she was not free to leave, and the police knew that she was a diabetic. After my arrest, she was allowed to see me only once. By the time we left, we were both cold and ill. The conduct of both Chief Inspector Selwood and Mr. Phillips, as well as that of the police personnel on the evening shift, was exemplary. By contrast, the conduct of the day shift personnel was poor and careless.
During the time that I was being held, Dr. Robert Faurisson went to the US Embassy in London to see if he could obtain help for me. He was informed that neither I, nor any other American, had been arrested that evening. That the US Embassy would lie about the illegal arrest and imprisonment of an American citizen is inexcusable. Faurisson also went to the police station where I was being held. He was told there I had been arrested and was being held in a cell in the station, but that I was not permitted any visitors. The police later told Faurisson that I had been deported on Saturday at 6:30 p.m.
As shown by the statements of the two British consular officials in the United States, and the fact that my name was not on any list and was legally permitted to enter at Dover, it is clear that no order barring me from entering the UK was ever officially given.
It is likewise clear that the difficulty started only when the Thames television people lied about me to Chief Inspector Selwood, apparently in order to make a "better" news story.
It is also clear that the Home Secretary (or someone acting for him) illegally ordered my arrest, imprisonment and deportation, knowing full well that I had entered the country legally and should have been left alone or, if later determined to be there illegally, at least permitted to leave. This plain violation of international law by the Home Secretary's Office was undoubtedly done to please the complaining Jewish groups which bear the ultimate responsibility.
By failing to uphold one of the prime responsibilities of the Consular Corps – that is, to protect the rights of Americans abroad – the United States Embassy in London, and Under Consul Christopher Randall in particular, clearly failed in their responsibility to me as an American citizen, as well as their responsibility to the nation as a whole. It is a shameful disgrace that the British duty solicitor and UK Immigration Officer Phillips cared more for my rights than my own embassy.
A formal protest to State Department, and requests for help from our Senators and Representatives, have resulted in nothing but lip service.
Unfortunately, my clients – the state governments – are still intimidated by my Jewish persecutors. This continues to deprive me of my income, and it is not at all clear whether this will ever end.
I have been unable to apply for my state engineering license because no engineers have been willing to sign papers recommending me (which is a requirement), out of fear of retaliation. Without some official change in my status, such as a license, even the friendly state governments are afraid to deal with me. The major lawsuit we had planned against my persecutors is stalled, perhaps permanently, because of a lack of funds.
And, although my findings will ultimately be accepted by all, I still have no contracts, have been unable to find work and have no income. It does not seem that this will improve in the near future.
Additional information about this document
|Author(s):||Fred A. Leuchter|
|Title:||Is there life after persecution? The botched execution of Fred Leuchter, Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992|
|Sources:||The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 12, no. 4 (winter 1992), pp. 429-444|
|First posted on CODOH:||Nov. 18, 2012, 6 p.m.|