The Jew in Court

As wire-pullers and mouthpieces of the criminal and political
Underworld, Jewry leads a concentrated attack upon the law and order
of the people. The Jewish fence helpfully stands by the Jewish thief,
the Jewish psychologist and expert stands by the Jewish sexual
offender, and the Jewish attorney stands by both; the judgement is not
in doubt if a Jew is also sitting on the judge’s bench, as was so
frequently the case in the German System. As if this were not
enough, Jewry got ahold to the furthest extent even of the science,
interpretation and execution of criminal law.

It moulded and undermined the law in order to render it an impotent tool against
Jewish criminality. To whatever extent these methods fell short, the
goal was accomplished through the corruption of the procedures of
criminal law and through Communist propaganda. The President of the
Senate, Professor Dr. K. Klee, justly emphasized in his lecture
concerning Judentum im Strafrecht [Jewry in the Criminal Law]:
“Everywhere they (the Jews) were fighting in the front most ranks
when it was a matter of blunting the sword of punishment in the
struggle against crime.” Professor Klee mentions a small selection of
Jewish ‘penal law theorists,’ such as Moritz Liebmann, James
Goldschmidt, State Counselor of Law Löwenstein, the Prussian Justice
Minister Kurt Rosenfeld, Kantorowicz, Gumbel, Freymuth, and others.
Among these corruptors of criminal law, the known Communist
Werthauer assumes a remarkable place. He denies that the State has
any right at all to punish. Naturally he demands the
decriminalization of all offenses against morality, of abortion and
homosexuality and finally escalates his shamelessness so far as to
demand the decriminalization of fraud.

The working hand-in-hand of the Jewish criminal world, the Jewish
‘criminal jurisprudence’ and ‘administration of justice,’ and the Marxist
propaganda jumps immediately to the eye. The Jewish theorists
demand freedom from punishment primarily in the areas which are the
domain of Jewry: sexual offenses, fraud, and treason, high and regional-
level.

If, as defenders of common criminals, the ‘celebrated’ Jewish advocates
of republican Berlin stepped to the bar, it was the same ‘attorneys-at-
law’ who, in the ‘sensational’ trials of the Weimar system, defended the
Communist functionaries and terrorists . Especially notorious were
the ‘attorneys’ Löwenstein, Löwenfeld, Rosenthal and Rosenfeld, the
Werthauer who is already known to us, and Felix Halle, the specialist
for sexual offenses, and also Litten and Appel. Concerning the role of
Litten in the notorious Felseneck trial in the summer of 1932, which
had as its center the murder of several National Socialists during a
Communist attack in the north of Berlin, Professor Siegert reports in
his lecture about Judentum im Strafverfahrensrecht [Jewry in Criminal
Law Proceedings] in the following manner:

“In the Felsen trial. . .by means of influencing witnesses and co-
defendants, a defense counsel, the Jewish attorney Litten, was guilty of
preferential treatment of his followers. The Court expelled him for this
from the Office of the Defense Counsel. Instead of now joining the
Court in the interests of justice, the Jewish state’s counsel Siegfried
Löwenstein addressed the legal [profession] public in the Deutsche
Juristenzeitung [German Legal News] published by the Jew Otto
Liebmann with an essay, Verteidigernot [Defense Counsel’s Dilemma],
and requested opinions in favor of his racial comrade Litten, the man
who gave preferential treatment to the Communist accused. One
hundred seventy-eight (178) members of the Berlin bar proposed in his
favor an extraordinary meeting in chambers. The chamber — occupied
for the most part by Jews — under the leadership of the Jew Ernst
Wolff — thereupon unanimously decided in favor of the allegedly
endangered independence and liberty of the defense and thereby aided
and abetted the Jewish Communist Litten. Now, the Jew Max
Hachenburg, as author of the Juristische Wochenschau [Legal
Newsreel], appears as the last in line in the German legal newspaper.
He praises the “calm objectivity” of his racial comrade Ernst Wolff and
supports the safeguarding of the independent attorney class. As if not
the Jewish Communist Litten, but on the contrary, the impartial Court
had imperilled the legal profession in the present case. Thus the racial
comrades from the apparently most disparate political camps met in common struggle against good administration of justice.”

When a Jew appears before any court whatsoever, he is secure in the
sympathy of Jewry and of the Jewish ‘public opinion.’

Until the take over of power by National Socialism, the German press
stood under decisive Jewish influence.

Naturally this press was gentle in its judgement of Jewish criminals.
Had any sort of poor devil stolen a bicycle, perhaps out of need, his full
name was printed in the paper: “a certain Fritz Schulze”; when,
however, some Kohn committed a fraud and injured other people
without scruple, it read shyly “a merchant, K.” — why should his name
be trumpeted about?
That was the sympathetic atmosphere in which the accused Jew
appeared before the Court; judges, state’s attorneys, jurors, witnesses —
all were more or less — often unconsciously — influenced by the Jewish
‘public opinion.’

The fact is significant that, of the Jewish judges — their names read:
Ruben, Glücksohn, Hirsch, Jacobi, Katzmann, Manasse, Schlome,
Schmoschewer, Peltasohn, Kohn, Seligsohn, Mensch, Nothmann,
Rosauer, Loewy, Moses, Noah, Bukofzer, Citron, Schuftan, etc. —
three quarters of them had as their fathers Jewish businessmen and
dealers. Already, in their parental house, they breathed in the
atmosphere of doing business and of the Jewish ‘notion of right’;
understanding and solidarity with the Jewish law-breaker was already
in their blood.

And then the witnesses: witnesses from whom the truth often was in no
way to be gotten, witnesses who could speak for hours at a time
without saying anything, witnesses who commit any perjury with iron
brow and sell their testimony to the highest bidder — Jewish witnesses.
Then the Jewish ‘experts.’ At all universities, at all academies, in every
focus of economic and cultural life, Jews had encysted themselves,
always they monopolized discourse and occupied the best places: 42%
of Berlin physicians were Jews, they had gotten control of 68% of the
positions in school and welfare institutions. Naturally the experts cited
by Jewish defendants were themselves Jews, who boldly sprang to the
aid of the threatened racial comrade.

Their own publications throw a glaring light upon the mind-set and the activity of these Jewish ‘experts,’ as for example the ‘monographs’ from
the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin, Sexus, published by the
notorious Magnus Hirschfeld, the evilest sexual Bolshevist of the
Weimar epoch. Volume 4 of these ‘monographs’ is filled with “critical
contributions” for the “reform” of the law concerning sexual offenses.
With the exception of a Herr v. Treskow, who reports on the topic of
blackmail on sexual grounds, the contributions originate from the pens
of the following Jews: Werthauer, Kronfeld, Juliusburger, Alsberg,
Kurt Hiller and Hirschfeld, the very notables of the Weimar epoch. It
fits the whole picture that Herr Hirschfeld was lodging the Communist
Reichstag Deputy and major businessman Willy Münzenberg in the
building of the Sexual Institute at number 10 In den Zelten, Berlin. The
‘State Counselor’ Dr. Werthauer, incidentally a friend of the Jewish
black marketeer Kutisker and known as defender of Communists, was
later sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of 80,000 RM on
account of tax evasion. This character had the brazenness to give his
opinion for the benefit of the ‘reform’ of German marriage law, while
Herr Hirschfeld, in his accustomed manner, offered his dirty hands for
the protection of every perversity. The Jew Hirschfeld, who was
allowed to bear the title of “Counselor for Public Health,” and whose
‘Institute’ was financed by the Prussian state, was for years the
recognized “scientific expert” for the German courts. The
inconceivable nerve of this Jew seduced him into appending, in his
contribution to the already mentioned monographs, the following
sentence: “The thing that matters (particularly in the disposition of
sexual crimes) is the proof furnished, after the most careful study of the
offender, of his previous life, his antecedents, his motives, his entire
metaphysical personality, that the accused has no guilt.” In this,
therefore, the Jew Hirschfeld saw his “mission” before the Court: to
furnish the proof that the criminal is no criminal.

His colleague and co-director of the Sexual Institute, Doctor of
Medicine and of Philosophy Kronfeld, expressed himself in great detail
in the same monograph, concerning the “job of medical expert before
the Court.” He sees the single mission of the “medical expert” in Court
to be the obtaining of freedom for every criminal by means of the
corresponding application of “psychology,” “medical science,” and
“knowledge and conscience” and thwarting any use of the penal law.
To what a sublime art of pseudo-scientific abetting of crime the Jewish
“experts,” “scientists,” and “psychologists” have gradually brought the
criminal law, the infamous “psychoanalytic method” of a Sigmund
Freud is sufficient proof and example.

 

The results of the court proceedings? ‘Public opinion,’ attorneys,
witnesses, experts, and defendants supported one another in the effort
to confuse the whole affair and to construct an inextricable tangle out
of distortion and lies. That the non-Jewish state’s attorneys and judges
seldom succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused under such
circumstances, is clear. This means that it was incomparably more
difficult to convict a Jew than a non-Jew: the number of acquitted
Jews was always disproportionately great. In other words: the Jew
could break the law without being convicted.

Since the Jews, by means of selection and type of crime, by their own
slyness and the cunning of their attorneys, knew how to diminish the
points of suspicion and the circumstantial evidence before the Court so
much that these were often no longer sufficient for a conviction, the
actual criminality of the Jews is considerably higher than emerges from
the statistics.

In summation, one can say that, although 1. the Jews not of the Mosaic
confession [i.e., Jews not espousing Judaism as their religion] were not
covered in the criminal statistics [as Jews], 2. a portion of the Jewish
criminals were not included at all, 3. a significant portion of the
accused Jews knew how to hinder a conviction — the statistics of the
crimes yield a clear picture: fraud, usury, bankruptcy, receiving
stolen goods are typically Jewish crimes. The percentage of Jews is
disproportionately high in perjury, adulteration of foodstuffs,
offences against decency, high and regular treason.

 

In conclusion, as an example of the behavior of Jews in Court, the Caro-
Petschek trial might be mentioned.

Nikodem Caro, a Jew born in Lodz, was a chemist by profession. At 50
years of age, he was Privy Councilor, President of the Bavarian
nitrogen works, honorary citizen of seventeen Bavarian cities and
towns, several times over honorary doctor and honorary senator, consul
of a Balkan state, professor, 23 times member of boards of trustees — in
short, a typical example for the brilliant ascent of a poor but miserly,
clever, and unscrupulous Jew. Caro was naturally a passionate
“German patriot” and all his inventions he placed at the disposal of the
Reich. Such nobility of sentiment did not go unrewarded, and in the
three years of the war, the idealist Caro earned 1.5 million Marks. Half
was lying in the bank (whether and how much he had designated as
war loans is unknown), but 700,000 Marks he held in cash at home —
safe and secure.

 

Caro’s opponent, Ignaz Petschek, was a Czech Jew who had known
how to bring the Central German brown coal industry under his
“supervision.” His son, Dr. Ernst Petschek, loved his Austrian
fatherland no less fervently than Caro did the Weimar Republic. He
was active during the war — that is, in Karlsbad. There, he got to know
and love a young lady with the poetic name of Vera, Caro’s daughter.
“I never gave any thought to a dowry” — he claimed in Court, to which
the opposing counsel called upon all the rabbis of the world as
witnesses that a Jewish marriage at which the dowry was not
addressed, was an absurdity. . .

The two married, begat children, argued, separated, the poor Frau Vera
had to content herself from then on with a paltry 70,000 Marks a month
— an everyday sort of tale. This story took a peculiar turn on the day on
which the question of the dowry of 400,000 Marks was brought into
play. Caro swore by the God of his fathers that he had paid the dowry
in cash — from his house safe. The Petscheks, however, sneeringly
asked where the receipt was, then, for this — after all — not
inconsiderable sum.

But the receipt wasn’t there. At first Caro claimed that he had
accidentally destroyed it in 1924, when he was clearing out his desk
and burned a great deal of trash.
[31] The Petscheks flatly refused to believe this story. Then the story
suddenly changed to: the receipt probably existed, but it was in
Warsaw (!) with a racial comrade, the lawyer Löwenstein. Thereupon —
so Caro claimed — the Petscheks promptly sent a man to Warsaw, who
struck up an acquaintance with Löwenstein’s secretary in a café, and
wanted to get her to steal the receipt — it was all as if from a crime
novel.
Meanwhile, the receipt presumably was located not in Warsaw, but in
Caro’s safe: the Petscheks had obtained a temporary decree, by whose
provisions the receipt was supposed to be delivered to the district court.
When the bailiff appeared at Caro’s, the Privy Councilor explained
triumphantly: “I have just torn up the receipt and thrown the pieces into
the toilet. It is now on its way to the sewage fields!”

At the later question of the Court, why Caro had torn up a document
which represented a value of 400,000 Marks to him, Caro replied in a
most convoluted manner — he had acted in excitement, and anyway the
whole matter had been a trap for Petschek, to lure him into perjury (!).

The baffled President of the Court could only answer in the following
way: “I am making an effort to comprehend your motives, but I must
say that such a thing is unimaginable to me.”

To shelter himself from new visits of the bailiff, Caro found simple
means. First of all, he moved his consulate to his villa in Dahlem
(where the Privy Councilor otherwise could have lived) and thereby
became ‘extra-territorial.’

On the other hand, he ‘leased’ his villa to the Bavarian nitrogen works.
But when a summons from the Court arrived, Caro had himself
certified by the district physician as terminally unfit — and then drove
to Gastein or to Rießersee for a few months. . .

The Petscheks continually harassed Caro, and in the year 1931 it
became clear that they would not be shaken loose at any price. Caro
now resorted to a new weapon and used his “connections.” In the
Weimar government at that time, the notorious Dr. Weißmann, a Jew,
was still sitting as Secretary of State, and he began to visit authoritative
gentlemen of the Ministry of Justice. He spoke about the weather
and the theater, but also about the fact that the approaching trial against
Caro was embarrassing, since Caro was designated by the government
for an important mission abroad, and the impression would be
extremely regrettable, in case. . .

Twice the state attorney’s office quashed the proceedings against Caro.
The Petscheks, however, were just as much Jews as Caro. They had no
less cunning than the Privy Councilor, but moreover, more money and
still better “connections.”

Tricks no longer availed: on 06 June 1932, Caro had to appear before
the Court to answer for forgery of the receipt and perjury. Three
attorneys accompanied him: Alsberg, Dix, Heine. His opponent was
represented by the attorneys Davidsohn, Roth, and Drucker — a rather
racially pure Jewish company.

The course of the court proceedings defies any description. Day by
day, a German court had to occupy itself with the dirty laundry of two
Jewish families. The most impossible matters were brought before the
Court, proof for which would never succeed. Caro raged and insulted,
pounded the table with his fist and cried. The Plaintiff, the defendant,
witnesses, lawyers insulted one another in the most vulgar manner —
the Jews behaved just as they are accustomed to do at such business haggling.

Emile Zola described it in his novel L’argent: “There stood
an unclean party of Jews together in a noisy group, with faces
glistening with grease or the emaciated profiles of raptors — an unusual
assembly of conspicuous noses, as if pressed densely against one
another over their prey, and becoming excited among loud shouts and
close to the point of devouring one another.” A few examples of the
graceless and vulgar manner of speech of these Jews may be sufficient:

Caro screams: “What you’re saying, there, is a lot of blather.” Drucker
replies: “Your account [of things] is organized like the Polish
economy.” When the subject of Caro’s “fist-sized” kidney stone arises,
he says to the opposing counsel: “I don’t care if you get my kidney
stones!” To which the other answers “with never-failing quick-
wittedness”: “Even in this area I refuse to do business with you.”
Once the word daffke occurred. The state’s attorney, who did not know
it, asked about its meaning. Those present smiled pityingly — “the
dumb goy doesn’t know what daffke means!”

That was the external form of the proceedings. In the case itself, no
progress was being made. Caro admitted that the contents of one of his
statements made under oath did not correspond to the truth.
Nonetheless, that was not his fault — he had signed a “blank statement”
and knew nothing about what the steno typist had written above
his signature. . .

Yet when the Court wanted to deal more closely with the facts of the
case, Caro served up some sort of hair-raising tale, which was
supposed to distract the attention of the Court. Over and over again, he
resorted to effects from a crime novel: he told that he was being
watched day and night by hostile spies, the letter carrier had been
suborned exactly as the bailiff of the Court, and handed over his
correspondence to his opponents, burglars who were in the pay of
Petschek had searched his apartment.

His telephone conversations were
tapped, they wanted to kidnap his grandson, “a good looking
sportsman” had been set loose to “seduce” his daughter, his life was in
constant danger from rogues who were in the employ of Petschek —
perhaps they were even Nazis! A wave of excitement swept through
the courtroom. The poor, innocent Privy Councilor! They had even set
the Nazis on him — the peak of depravity! The persecuted innocent,
however, sobbed into his snow-white handkerchief and secretly winked
at his lawyer.

This disgusting show lasted weeks and months long. How was the
Court supposed to discover the truth in this tangle of calculated
hysteria, triteness and vulgarity, tales of oriental fantasy, perjuries,
talmudic nitpicking by the attorneys, threats, slanders and dark hints,
half truth and half lie, bought testimony of witnesses and unverifiable
claims?

It was a genuine Jewish trial.
It ended on 23 December 1932 with the acquittal of the accused, Privy
Councilor Caro. The costs of the proceedings and those of the
defendant were imposed upon the co-plaintiff, Dr. Ernst Petschek.
The Caro-Petschek trial has only one worthy counterpart, the so-called
“Trotskyite trial” against Sinovyev-Apfelbaum and Kamenev-
Rosenfeld in Moscow in August 1936. It likewise was a matter of a
well-known Jewish ‘family quarrel,’ the struggle for power between
two Jewish cliques in the Bolshevist apparatus, a power-struggle which
lasted nearly two decades and only came to an end with the ‘liquidation’
of the Sinovyev group.

In the dock sat the Westernized coffeehouse-
and asphalt-Jews, who in Europe are to be found at the head of the
Marxist and liberal parties, to which Trotsky-Bronstein also belonged
intellectually, and from which strong threads of sympathy and perhaps
also political connections ran to the so-called Trotskyite-
Sinovyevists in the Soviet Union. The judgement was passed and
executed by the more brutal, filthier, but also more powerful ghetto-
Jews, like the then head of the GPU, Yagoda (whose correct name was
Yehuda), Bärmann, and the great number of hangers-on, the GPU-Jews
and the Jewish clique around Stalin, which grouped itself about the
person of Lazar Mosessohn Kaganovitch.

The trial likewise offered a
disgusting and nausea-producing picture of Jewish intrigue and Jewish
cowardice and dishonesty, as the execution of the punishment unveiled
all the features of an unchecked Jewish cruelty. A few samples of this:
Sinovyev, an ill-reputed, flabby Jew, cowardly and intellectual,
belonged, like the Jew Rosenfeld — alias Kamenev — to the old Lenin
Group, which in 1917 came from out of Switzerland to Russia, together
with this half-breed. Sinovyev was close to the Jews who were later the
murderers of the Czar, Sverdlov and Golostchekin, Bronstein-Trotsky,
the later Soviet envoy Kollontai, the founder of the Petersburg Checka,
Uritzky, the later People’s Commissar Brilliant-Sokolnikov and Joffe,
who became ambassador in Berlin after the Bolshevist Revolution, and
who was already in August 1917 member of the Central Committee of the Party.

At the historic session of the Central Committee of the Party
of 23 October 1917, where the armed revolt of the Bolshevists was
decided upon, Sinovyev and Kamenev voted out of fear against the
overthrow. Sinovyev and Kamenev then became members of the first
Polit bureau of the Party and belonged to the ten most responsible
members of the Supreme Central of Revolutionaries.

Sinovyev later became the first General Secretary of the Communist
Internationale. Kamenev filled the highest Soviet positions. The
struggle of Stalin and the ghetto-Jews against the Bronstein-Apfelbaum-
Rosenfeld Group lasted from 1917 until 1936. Step by step, Stalin
deprived his rivals of power, neutralized, and finally executed them.
Sinovyev as well as Kamenev were already sentenced to long terms of
imprisonment on 16 January 1935, in the affair of the so-called
Moscow Central of Sinovyev’s adherents. The war staff of Supreme
Court of the Soviet Union sentenced Sinovyev and Kamenev to death
by shooting in the sensational trial from 19 to 24 August 1936.

The wire-pullers and directors of the trial were likewise Jews.

With justice, the entire German public stressed what a disgusting and
repulsive impression the self-accusatory behavior and humiliation of
the accused Jews made before the Court, and how they outdid
themselves in self-abasement, contrition, and raging attacks upon
“fascism,” in order to save their pathetic lives. In his summation in
the session of 23 August 1936, Rosenfeld-alias-Kamennev said the
following, among other things:

“Together with Sinovyev and Trotsky, I was the organizer and leader
of the terrorist conspiracy which planned and prepared a series of
attempted terrorist assassinations against the leaders of the government
and the Party of our nation, and which carried out the murder of Kirov.

Therefore we were serving Fascism (so Rosenfeld-Kamenev
concludes) and we organized the counter-revolution against Socialism,
and thus prepared the way for foreign intervention. This was our path
and such seems the pit of our treason and of every sort of base dirty
trick, to which we sunk.”

Even Apfelbaum-Sinovyev, the Jew once celebrated as “leader of the
World Proletariat,” as “Liberator of the Working Class” of all nations
and General Secretary of the Communist Internationale, could offer
nothing better.

“My defective Bolshevism was transformed into anti-Bolshevism and
beyond Trotsyism into Fascism. Trotskyism is only another kind of
Fascism and Sinovyevism only a kind of Trotskyism.” Through the
maze of this Jewish dialectic a non-Jew can certainly not find his way.
Sinovyev had been caught in the coils of his own noose.

As nauseating as the trial, just as disgusting and repulsive was the way
the shooting was carried out. We take the description from the Berne
Tagwacht of 22 October 1936, which is based upon the report of a
foreigner, which was first published in the Paris Journal and in the
London Daily Mail:
“Most terrible of all was the end of Sinovyev. He sat in a single cell in
the first floor of the OGPU prison. After he, as the first, signed the
application for mercy, he tried to fall asleep on the plank bed. Although
it was rather warm, he kept tossing violently and he was freezing.

About one in the morning, he was awakened. The nighttime
appearance of a detachment of OGPU officials shook him. He jumped
up, frightened, and looked around with uncomprehending eyes. The
leader of the detachment said to him:

“Prepare yourself, Sinovyev. We have been ordered to bring you to
another location.’
With bloodless face, Sinovyev sank back on the plank bed.
‘Get dressed, Sinovyev!”

Sinovyev made inarticulate sounds and began pull at the hair at his
temples.One got the impression that he had lost his mind
 Then one of the OGPU soldiers walked out of the cell and brought
water. A handful of this water was sprinkled on Sinovyev’s face. Now
he got ahold of himself and stood up. ‘Take your belongings along!’ he
was ordered. He did so. A half minute later he was led from the cell.
Along the route, a detachment of eight men was waiting. By their look,
Sinovyev understood at last what was supposed to happen. He sobbed,
he resisted, he screamed.

At the end of the walk he had a downright attack of hysteria. He held
onto the hands of the accompanying soldiers and squealed like a
woman. The leader of the execution squad, Lieutenant Yevangulov,
commanded: ‘Open the closest cell!’ This was done. Sinovyev was
pushed into the closest empty cell. Here the Lieutenant took hold of his
hair with his left hand, bent his head downward, and put a bullet in the
back of his head with his right hand.”

Thus ended this Jewish trial before a Jewish court — disgusting and
bloody, completely different from the ‘famous’ Jewish trials before
Aryan courts, where the accused Jewish ‘martyrs’ either were totally
acquitted or punished only too leniently.


 

Categories Israel/Jesuits/Jewish/Jews/zionist

Post Author: admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.