Arbeit macht frei: - Fredrick Töben

MR MARGO: Continuing on that paragraph, you refer to the fact that
you have deleted material from the Adelaide Institute website, and you
ask whether – the rhetorical question – whether you’ve compromised your
integrity by doing that. And then you say, ‘Will his action,’ that’s your
action in deleting material, ‘be honoured by those charged with enforcing
the court orders.’ Now, could I ask you first, who do you understand to be
charged with enforcing the court orders?
Dr Töben: The legal person. The judge. The judges who look into this.
MR MARGO: Thank you. And you say in that sentence – you ask the
question, will your action in taking material off the website be honoured
by the judge enforcing the court orders. Is that the meaning of the
sentence, I take it …?
Dr Töben: Indeed, 2000 and 2002 and now on the day of the judgment,
when the judgment was made. 16 April, the website was deleted.
MR MARGO: And what, in your understanding, did you mean – what
did you understand would – I withdraw that. What would be required, in
your understanding, for the judge to honour your action?
Dr Töben: I would go back to the other comment here, do I tell the truth
or do I obey the law. It will reflect whether it is merely legalistic, the
Talmudist, Zionist, legalistic mindset, or the Hegelian telling the truth and
obeying the law. In other words a weighed thing; blind justice, so to speak.
Blind justice, that’s how I see it.
MR MARGO: So if we could go back then to the words which appear
under Do I Tell the Truth or Do I Obey the Law? It’s your position, is it,
that if the judge takes the view that you should obey the law, obey the law,
obey the law, that he is falling in with the program of Zionists and
Talmudists?
Dr Töben: That would be the case. The purely – no judge has an
objective, the way I understand the judges acting. And we see this with the
Pratt and Einfeld case where there is that element of the moral dimension.
Every judge has that moral dimension. It’s all there. I see no conflict here,
except I know that in what’s happening in Palestine and so on, that the
mindsets are uncompromising, and it flows. All this flows into the
Australian judicial system, how they handle this case. It’s a reflection –
there’s nothing sinister about this. It’s an observation.
MR MARGO: And after you said – you asked the question, will your
action be honoured by the judge. That’s at the end of the second last
paragraph. You then say: Anyone who propagates the Holocaust Shoah is
levelling allegations against Germans – etcetera. And then we come to the
words: Meanwhile, think of the 9/11 lies. By ‘meanwhile’ you’re referring
back to the words: Stay tuned and find out on 28 April 2009. Aren’t you?
Dr Töben: Well, we’re …
MR MARGO: Why are we waiting for that?
75