HOLOCAUST denier Fredrick Toben faced accusations of criminal contempt of court yesterday after he claimed the Federal Court was part of worldwide conspiracy against him.
The call to lay criminal charge against Dr Toben came from counsel for Australian Jewish leader Jeremy Jones, in a long running Federal Court case aimed at removing Holocaust-denial material from Dr Toben's Adelaide Institute website.
In a document lodged with the Federal Court yesterday, Dr Toben, 62, claimed the court was a part of a plan to silence his controversial views on the Holocaust.
"This matter before the Federal Court of Australia is a Jewish conspiratorial matter designed to protect an historical lie," Dr Toben says, in notice of motion filed yesterday.
Going further, Dr Toben identifies two Jewish judges, Federal Court Justice Alan Goldberg and NSW Supreme Court Justice Stephen Rothman, and questions the integrity of the courts.
"Both (judges) have been heavily involved in propagating the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah, gives rise for concern that any kind of justice can emerge from proceedings that directly impact on a contentious interpretation of an historical event," he says.
Counsel for Mr Jones, Robin Margo SC, told the court that Dr Toben's comments were so serious as to attract a criminal action.
"This matter has passed from a civil contempt proceeding to serious criminal contempt," Mr Margo said.
Mr Margo told Justice Michael Moore, sitting in Sydney, that after six years of litigation from Mr Jones, it was time for criminal action to be taken by the court against Dr Toben.
"There must come a point in which a private litigant doesn't have to keep pushing the barrow for ever," Mr Margo said.
German-born Australian, Mr Toben, 62, spent seven months in a German prison in 1999 for breaching Holocaust denial laws on his website.
He represented himself yesterday in Adelaide, connected to the Sydney court by video link, responding to a civil contempt of court complaint by Mr Jones, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
Mr Jones is attempting to have Dr Toben honour a court undertaking, made in November last year, to remove references to Holocaust denial material on his website.
Mr Jones also wants Dr Toben to re-issue his apology, made last November, for breaching the terms of the 2002 decision by Justice Catherine Branson to remove the Holocaust-denial material.
Justice Moore adjourned the case to a date in April, ahead of a possible hearing in June.
He should demand that the damaged party appears to state the claim against him.
Quote:
"Both (judges) have been heavily involved in propagating the Jewish Holocaust-Shoah, gives rise for concern that any kind of justice can emerge from proceedings that directly impact on a contentious interpretation of an historical event," he says.
That's a good discovery on his part. The judges must not have any interest in the matter in order to be impartial. According to his research they should be recused immediately.
Recusal:
"Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer."
Quote:
Counsel for Mr Jones, Robin Margo SC, told the court that Dr Toben's comments were so serious as to attract a criminal action.
"Criminal contempt", that's a new one. I wonder how they think that contempt could possibly be criminal? Legal stuff is so bizarre, it is truely the Wonderland that Lewis Carroll wrote about. Where is the damaged party in a crime of "contempt"? Anyway, his rebuttal should be something along the lines of:
Whereas a ‘statute’ is defined as ‘a legislated rule of society given the force of law’,
and whereas a ‘society’ is defined as ‘a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal’,
and whereas consent must be freely given and not a result of coercion or duress,
and whereas I have not given my consent, nor may you presume that I have given my consent,
I hereby claim that the statute that you accuse me of breaking does not apply to me.
Quote:
He represented himself yesterday in Adelaide, connected to the Sydney court by video link, responding to a civil contempt of court complaint by Mr Jones, a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
Good, he's smart enough to represent himself, instead of letting an attorney represent him, which would reduce his standing to "ward of the court" ("infants and persons of unsound mind"). See the below link for an explanation.
Mr Jones is attempting to have Dr Toben honour a court undertaking, made in November last year, to remove references to Holocaust denial material on his website.
Sounds like a court order. He should get his fee schedule filed ASAP and charge them for any more of them. (A fee schedule is a list of orders and your corresponding charges, just like a menu at a restaurant. File this with the court so that when they "order" something from you, you can "charge" them for it.) "What's that, you want me to take my website down? That will be $5,000,000 payable in gold or silver, due at the time the service is provided, with a 5% increase per day as penalty for being late on the payment."
