The German Court vs. Carlos Porter

Note: On 3 November, the defendant received a judgement from the State Court of Munich dated 23 October 1997 acknowledging receipt of the defendant's demands for evidence and for clarification of the charges against him, accompanied by his express refusal to appear, but without comment.

[Excerpts]

…The subpoena was then delivered to the defendant on 29.08.1997, accompanied by a translation into English [Note: this is not true: the translation was not accompanied by any original document] by registered mail with return receipt, at his residence in Belgium. He signed for the contents in his own hand. The accused then sent the Court two letters written in English, dated 01.09.1997 (received by the Court on 29.08.1997) [Note: this is not true; it was sent by fax at 40 minutes past midnight on 31 August/1 September, and again at 9:18 in the morning] and 05.09.1997 (received by the Court on 04.09.1997) [Note: sent by fax at 4:06 P.M. on 4 September.] In both letters, the accused referred to the merits of the case [!] and ended his letter dated 01.09.1997 stating among other things that he would refuse to appear. [!]

On October 10, 1997, when the case opened at 2:16 P.M., neither the accused, nor any defence counsel for the accused, was present. [!] No excuse was received from the accused before opening the case. Even during the main trial, which lasted until 2:45 P.M., no such excuse was received by the Court, either in writing or by telephone. This was confirmed by the Court's Office of the 18th Criminal Division upon subsequent inquiry…

[The judgement then describes the Court's great consternation and astonishment at the defendant's failure to appear, providing lengthy information as to legal remedies relating to justified absence, erroneously asserting the jurisdiction of the Court under article 52 paragraph 1 of the Schengen Implementing Agreement, and giving the defendant 1 week in which to assert the defence of justified absence, in which case the whole comedy would start all over again!]

Legal Remedies
(StP 137)

I.

1. You may, within ONE WEEK of delivery of the judgement, apply for restoration of the previous situation, if you were unable to appear at the proper time through no fault of your own…

[What can one do with such stupidity? There was only one thing to do, and the defendant did it.]

Richter Kunert
Landgericht Muenchen I
Justizgebaeude
Nymphenburger Strasse 16
D-80335 Muenchen

Spa, 5 November 1997

Landgericht Muenchen
Az. 18 Ns 112 Js 11637/96
Fax: (089) 55 97 43 54

BY FAX

Judge Kunert!

May it please the Court:

I was unable to appear for trial on October 10th 1997 due to severe cranial injuries and concussion sustained while experimenting with the pedal-driven brain-bashing machine used in the murder of 840,000 Russian prisoners of war at Sachsenhausen prison camp, as described in the Nuremberg Trial transcript (IMT VII 376-377 [416-417 of the German transcript]).

We know that the “pedal-driven brain-bashing machines” existed, because they are described in the “confessions” of SS man Paul Waldmann (Document USSR 52).

The document is a type-set “War Crimes Report” written by the Soviets. The “confession” is type-set in Russian, with a type-set “signature” by Paul Waldmann, also in Russian.

We know that the “confession” was voluntarily given, because it says so. We know that the document is authentic, because it is “certified” by the Russians as a “certified true copy”.

My injuries are attested to by a “doctor's certificate” re-typed by myself. The signature is typewritten because it is a “certified true copy”, certified by myself.

If this kind of thing is good enough for the Nuremberg tribunal, then it is good enough for you.

Please notify me of my next trial date, so that I may appear as soon as you have assembled the evidence required to prove your case, as described in my letters of 1 September and 5 September 1997.

Faithfully,

Richter Kunert
Landgericht Muenchen I
Justizgebaeude
Nymphenburger Strasse 16
D-80335 Muenchen

Spa, 7 November 1997

Landgericht Muenchen
Az. 18 Ns 112 Js 11637/96
Fax: (089) 55 97 43 54

BY MAIL

Judge Kunert!

Having recovered from the cranial injuries referred to in my fax of 5 November, I have the following statement to make:

If you think you can intimidate me by asserting your jurisdiction with reference to article 52 paragraph 1 of the Schengen Implementing Agreements, you are very much mistaken.

I have the complete Schengen Implementing Agreements right in front of me. They contain no mention whatsoever of any of the crimes for which I stand accused. They contain nothing which supercedes articles 6 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Schengen Implementing Agreements contain nothing restricting freedom of expression in any manner whatever.

There is no mention of the “crime” of writing a protest letter to an elected official in a so-called democratic country. There is no reference to the “crime” of “incitement to racial hatred”.

I am not an escapee from a German jail (article 41 paragraph 1). You are not engaged in the “cross-border hot pursuit” of a person detected in the act of committing “murder, manslaughter, rape, arson, counterfeiting, aggravated theft, receiving stolen goods, robbery, extortion, kidnapping and hostage-taking, slavery, narcotics dealing, firearms and explosives violations, causing explosions, illegal traffic in toxic or hazardous wastes”, or even “hit-and-run driving resulting in death or serious injury” (article 41 paragraph 4 a).

Article 40 of the Schengen Implementing Agreements permits you to enter Belgium and place me under observation, with written permission from the Belgian authorities, upon suspicion of an “extraditable felony”, particularly “murder, manslaughter, rape, arson, counterfeiting, aggravated theft, receiving stolen goods, robbery, extortion, kidnapping and hostage-taking, slavery, narcotics dealing, firearms and explosives violations, causing explosions, illegal traffic in toxic or hazardous wastes” (paragraph 4). You are not permitted to enter my dwelling, or to interrogate or arrest me (paragraph 1, e and f).

The Schengen Implementing Agreements contain no provision for extradition for political offences (see article 63, article 50, and 59).

The “offence” was committed in Belgium (article 6 paragraph 2 of the Benelux extradition treaty. There has never been a trial for this offence in Belgium; see article 8). I have an absolute right to a jury trial in Belgium, and to do the time in a Belgian prison. There is no international treaty dealing with revisionism or “Holocaust denial”.

I defy your authority and I refuse to comply with any order to do anything.

A “trial” in which the court has no jurisdiction; in which the prosecution offers no evidence, and refuses to clarify the nature of the charges (particularly, point 3 of the indictment, which is a complete mystery to me); in which the defendant is permitted to offer no evidence; in which defence witnesses are routinely arrested and all defence evidence routinely burnt, is not a trial at all. It is a form of social, political and legal terrorism.

The Schengen Implementing Agreements, to which you refer, are intended, in part, to combat international terrorism. Perhaps you should take a look at yourself.

Faithfully,

[to be continued…]