The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter


Germany vs Porter:




Germany vs. Carlos Porter


What would happen in an American criminal court if you asked for a new trial date on the grounds that you had previously been unable to appear due to radiation burns suffered while experimenting with an atomic bomb? If you were on trial for murder, a psychiatric examination would most certainly be ordered. In any other case, the result would be a severe reprimand: "Objection denied on grounds of obvious frivolity; any further undue levity on the part of the defendant will be severely punished".

Not so in Germany. The weakness of the so-called Holocaust is that it is a fundamentalist religion, not a jot or tittle of which may be taken away. Every aspect of it must be defended with deadly seriousness, no matter how absurd or insane. The defendant was indicted, in part, for denying the existence of the "steam chambers" at Treblinka. He said, OK, so get me a steam chamber and bring it to court.

Objection ignored. All legal arguments, all demands for evidence or clarification of the charges against him, were simply ignored. The court continually insisted that it would accept only the defence of inability to appear on the grounds of injury, accident, etc.

Goaded beyond endurance, the defendant then claimed inability to appear due to cranial injuries caused by the pedal-driven brain-bashing machine at Sachsenhausen, as described during the Nuremberg Trial.

Objection denied; date of injury not stated [!].

He was given one week in which to object. He then claimed to have suffered "radiation burns" on 9 October 1997 while experimenting with the German WWII atomic bomb used in a "secret experiment" at Auschwitz and described during the Nuremberg Trial by Robert Jackson [!]. This objection was taken seriously [!!!] by the State Court of Appeals of Munich, which stated, in a unanimous opinion written by a panel of three judges [!!!]:

Objection denied: received late [!!!] The reason (or excuse) for this was that the postman left a notice of registered delivery with return receipt in the defendant's mail box on 22 December1997. The defendant did not actually sign for delivery, or receive the judgement, until New Year's Eve [!]. The return receipt was therefore dated 31.12.1997, as the court very well knows, and as the defendant can easily prove.

He was given one week to object "from date of delivery" [!]. He objected by fax on 5 January 1998, as he can easily prove, by production of his itemised telephone bill. The State Court of Appeals, with mock seriousness, also got the date of the objection wrong, which is given twice as 2 January. Presumably this was done to make it more difficult to prove wilful falsehood as to the date of delivery. The delivery date of 22.12.1997 is mentioned 3 times. The text contains no mention of pedal-driven brain-bashing machines, atomic bombs, or the defendant's claim to be "still radioactive". It is obvious that, while the judges may be willing to perjure themselves as to the delivery date, they are reluctant to make themselves look ridiculous.

The decision was written in German.
Certified True Copy
Nymphengergerstrasse 16,
80097 München 2 Ws 98/98 18 Ns 112 Js 11637/96 StA b.d.
LG München I III BerL 117/98 StA b.d.
OLG München

The 2nd Panel of Criminal Judges of the State Court of Appeals of Munich [blah, blah, blah] after consultation with the State Prosecutor, hereby REJECTS defendant PORTER's immediate objection, [etc. etc. blah, blah,blah]
objection REJECTED with imposition of costs [blah, blah].
The 18th Chamber [blah, blah] REJECTED the defendant's appeal in a decision dated 10.10.1997 [blah, blah]. This decision was delivered to the defendant at his address in Belgium on 22.12.1997. The decision and information as to legal remedies were translated into English. The defendant's immediate objection was received on 2.1.1998, it was written in German [!]. The immediate objection is inadmissible, because it was received late [!!!]. [Blah, blah, blah.] Delivery on 22.12.1997 was therefore effective [blah, blah] The one-week objection period therefore began to run on 22.12.1997 [blah, blah]. Receipt of the immediate objection on 2.1.1998 [!] was therefore late [!]. The legal remedy is to be rejected as inadmissible. [Decision as to costs, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah].
Dr. Glück,
Sole Presiding Judge
Judges of the State Court of Appeals
[Certified True Copy, etc.]
Münich, 10.02.1998 ---

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, on 2 February 1998, the publisher of the German translation of NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG received the following letter by registered mail with return receipt: ---
[LETTERHEAD]: THE CHAIRWOMAN [Vorsitzende, female]
Federal Examination Centre for Texts Dangerous to Youth [!]
Post office box 26 01 21
53153 Bonn

To: NINETEEN-EIGHTY-FOUR PRESS [a name most aptly chosen, it would seem to appear] [address, etc.]

Registered Mail with Return Receipt Bonn, 19.01.1998 [note dates - it took 13 days to arrive]
Pr. 208/97-I/AK
For information to: The Federal Ministry for Family, the Elderly, Women, and Youth
Rochusstrasse 8-10 53123 Bonn
Application of 13.08.1997
File no.: 415-2434-I/204
Regarding: Brochure of Carlos Whitlock Porter "Nicht Schuldig in Nuernberg" Enclosure: Application for indexation from the BMFSFJ [They are too stupid to realise that it was already prohibited a year ago; what do Germans pay taxes for?]

Dear Sirs,
The application is to be decided in the simplified procedure according to section 15a GjS. The address of the author is not known at this office. It is left to your discretion to send him a copy of this letter upon request. You may, however, notify us of his address as well, so that delivery may be made immediately (section 12 GjS, section 4 paragraph 4 paragraph DVO GjS).

You [i.e., the publisher] are being given an opportunity of notifying us, within ONE WEEK of delivery of the present notice, whether or not you have any objections to the present application and to the processing of the same in a simplified procedure. [!]
Monssen-Engberding Ltd.
Reg.Direktorin [female director]
Kennedy Allee 105-107
53175 Bonn
Telephone (0228) 37 66 31
Fax: " 37 9014 ------
Ref.: (please mention in all correspondence): 415-2434-1/204
[address again, blah, blah, blah]
Telephone: (0228) 930-2756 Or 930-0 [sic]
Fax: (0228) 930-930-2221
Bonn, 13.08.1997
Processing: Dr. Scholtz [Doktorin, another idiot female]
Federal Examination Centre for Writings Dangerous to Youth
Kennedy Allee 105-107
53175 Bonn
[stamp: Federal Office, etc. blah, blah blah, received 18 August 1997]

Application for Indexation] [Note that they are actually shameless enough to borrow the term "Index" from the medieval inquisitors] [!!!]
The application is hereby made to index the brochure "Nicht Schuldig in Nürnberg" by Carlos Whitlock Porter according to section 1, paragraph 1 sentence 1 of the law on the dissemination of writings and media content [sic] dangerous to youth. [!] [It must be pure coincidence that Germany produces the filthiest pornography in Europe, falling behind the Dutch in child pornography only.]
Reason: The mere title of the text mentioned above gives rise to the conclusion that its content is likely to disorient children and young people. [!] PORTER's brochure is a revisionist publication in the broadest sense of the word, but nevertheless contains a few passages denying the Holocaust. The intent of the text is, first of all, to slander the International Military Tribunal [!] from a one-sided point of view [!] and to rehabilitate the condemned war criminals. Germany is thus to be discharged from its responsibility.
A general attempt is made, through the alleged innocence of the chief defendants, to prove that there was no extermination of the European Jews. The well-known Holocaust denier Robert FAURISSON receives positive mention (see p 36) to this end, among other things. The meaning and intent of this text is, therefore, partially, to discredit the Military Tribunal [!], and, secondarily, to deny the Holocaust. The author attempts to suggest to the reader that no crimes of the kind imputed to the defendants took place in Germany between 1939 and 1995 [sic]. The points of the indictment against the defendants are attributed solely to falsification on the part of the Allies. PORTER continually presents the criminals indicted at Nuremberg as the real victims, who were in no way guilty.
[This is not quite true. The introduction clearly states: "This book contains a great many references to page numbers. They are not there… to prove the truth of the matter stated [!], but to help interested people find things." The author makes no pretence of knowing the exact location of the Gneisenau on 1 September 1939, for example, or whether it carried any ammunition supplies; that is for others to verify.]
An attempt is made to suggest levels of scientific research which the text in no way reflects. To shore up the credibility of his statements, the author gives the references to the Nuremberg trial transcript at all times. The sources and quotations used by him are given unsystematically and taken out of context [i.e., they are defence statements instead of statements of the prosecution.]
He is not successful in creating a connection to the arguments intended by him. [OK, so where do YOU say the Gneisenau was on 1 September 1939?]. It is remarkable that the author neither quotes correctly, nor gives correct references.
[None of the author's mistakes are cited against him as examples; perhaps they have gotten the human soap "recipe", USSR-196, mixed up with the human soap "exhibit", i.e., the soap itself, USS-393, and think that the latter is a "mistake".]
Media with similar content have already been indexed by the Federal Examination Centre. [The author is waiting for a hole to be bored in his tongue with a red-hot iron.]
With relation to the above mentioned brochure, we are asking you to examine whether or not there is an identity, or identity of content, between this text, and texts which have already been indexed, or texts for which an application has been made for listing [in other words, whether the same thing may also have been published under some other name] [!].

Upon behalf of. Dr. Scholz [Inquisitrix] [to be continued]

Continue with Germany vs Porter Part XI

Return to Germany vs Porter Part IX



Soviet propaganda image stolen from