[I’m busy catching up with the events of Alfred and Monika’s trial. They are due to be sentenced in 2 weeks. A white person, especially a TRUTH-TELLING GERMAN can’t expect any kind of actual JUSTICE! Nope! Not a hope in hell. This is a software translation from German. The reason the Germans are using the term inquisition is because they KNOW they will be found GUILTY regardless of the reality and regardless of the facts. They know they have been judged guilty before any facts were presented in court. They know that it doesn’t matter what they say, they will be punished.
It is absolutely sickening that white people like this, who are productive, intelligent and HONEST people, whose only crime in their lives was possibly going over the speed limit, should find themselves in JAIL FOR YEARS because they dared to question a historical event about the Jews.
If you know anything about the Jews, they are the MASTERS of historical fiction. If there’s one thing that Jews invented, and should be given credit for, then it is the invention of a lot of bold historical rubbish going back thousands of years. The only problem is that Jewish lies about the Germans cannot be questioned in occupied Germany. If you think Germany is free, then think again. Look at what is happening to our brothers and sisters in Germany thanks to us being on the stupid side in WW2.
“The Roman greeting” they refer to is also the NAZI/Fascist salute. This is actually the salute of the Roman Army.
There is also a “sound problem” in the court. I’m not sure if this is deliberate so that the Germans sitting in the court don’t get to properly hear the trial. This, to me is a critical point.
I highlighted the portion where the judge needed to calm down because he got so angry over Alfred’s comment! That’s priceless. Alfred was utterly brilliant! I highlighted other important sentences. Jan]
Short report of the fourth day of the trial against Monika and Alfred
Schaefer at the Munich Regional Court
endederluege General July 5, 2018
taken from: http://die-heimkehr.info
Today began quite turbulent. After the appearance of the Inquisition
court, the chairman asked the audience who a Mr. X was. When he reported
himself, he was confronted with the accusation that the day before he
allegedly insulted a public prosecutor in the lobby by saying to her
that he wished that she would also see a prison from the inside, which
the judge punished – besides himself with excitement – with 4 days in
custody. Immediately after this announcement, Mr. X was led out of the
room by police officers. His hint that his car was still out there
somewhere was angrily answered by the judge with the statement that he
did not care. He really shouted at Mr. X: “Go out, I don’t want to see
her here anymore”. Suddenly he also asked Alfred Schäfer what he thought
of it. Alfred Schäfer replied that he did not want to comment, because
words in this court are always reinterpreted and a comment is therefore
too dangerous for him. The hearing was then suspended for a short time
because the judge said he needed 5 minutes to calm down.
When the hearing was reopened, Alfred Schäfer’s lawyer filed a motion to
dismiss the judge on the grounds of partiality. Thereupon, the sitting
was suspended for two hours, but the motion was rejected by the public
prosecutor at the beginning of the resumption of negotiations on the
grounds of “juxtaposition of suspicions”.
Afterwards, the video presentations, which had already begun the day
before, continued. Again, two icons were pointed out that are juxtaposed
in the video. On the left side of the picture a Jewish star is shown and
on the right side a swastika, which is shown in Alfred Schäfer’s video
as a symbol of evil, because at the time he still believed that the
swastika stood for evil. This juxtaposition of the two symbols is
apparently the subject of the charge.
In the video, whose high distribution caused great astonishment in
court, Prof. Noam Chomsky from a university in America is questioned
about 9/11. Prof. Chomsky explains in the interview that there is no
evidence that the American government was involved in the terrorist
attack. Alfred Schäfer had written to Prof. Chomsky based on this
interview and read out his letters to Prof. Chomsky and his reply
letters in the video. Prof. Chomsky answered Alfred Schäfer’s letters,
but without specifically answering Alfred Schäfer’s questions, which
prompted Alfred Schäfer to formulate his letters more strictly.
When the judge reprimands an “aggressive tone” in his correspondence
with Prof. Chomsky, Alfred Schäfer explains that one must finally
understand that Prof. Chomsky is “a guru” in the English-speaking world
and that his statements on 9/11 were nevertheless a great
disappointment, which is why he called him a “cowardly traitor” and
“Zionist fascists”. Prof. Chomsky missed a great opportunity because he
could have rehabilitated himself. Instead, he risked his good reputation
for his “fellow believers” and with this statement destroyed himself all
his greatness, even though he had presented him with a clear factual
The judge also accused Alfred Schäfer of also making a threat to all of
Prof. Chomsky’s “Jewish friends,” in which he said in the video that
they would be complicit if they continued to remain silent about the
truth about 9/11. Alfred Schäfer explains the difference between a
threat and a warning to the judge using a practical example. He also
explained that this video was his first video and more or less
represents the beginning of his awakening process. When he realized that
some people can obtain more money through fraud and manipulation than
armies of workers through honest work, this triggered a political
thinking process with him.
The second video shown is an interview with Henry Hafenmayer on the
topic “The masterminds of our current situation”. The commentary on this
video has been postponed to the following week.
Subsequently, a witness was heard who claimed that Alfred Schäfer’s
speech at the commemoration ceremony in Bretzenheim on July 25, 2017 had
caused a stir. In addition, Alfred Schäfer concluded his speech with a
Roman greeting for 2 or 3 seconds. The judge asked the witness whether
the speech had been acknowledged by the audience with applause, which
the witness could not remember. The court was shown a photo from the video.
Alfred Schäfer then explained to the court that in this speech he simply
reproduced what his father had told him about the Rhine meadow camps and
that he resisted slandering his father as an agitator. His father had
observed as a prisoner of war in the Rhine meadow camps how prisoners
were brought in healthy, but soon became ill due to the deliberately
caused life-threatening circumstances and how daily trucks with the
corpses of the deceased prisoners of war were transported away without
being told where. His father survived the Rhine meadow camps undamaged
only by fortunate circumstances.
Monika Schäfer’s application for exemption from detention was rejected
on the grounds that the accusation had not changed.
Even today, the conduct of negotiations in the auditorium was sometimes
very difficult to understand.
The dates for the further hearing days are July 12 and 13, each starting
at 9:15 a.m.