The Great Trial of Berne – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

[yankeedoodle]

MECHANICALLY TRANSLATED FROM ROMANIAN   

The Great Trial of Berne – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

https://www.incorectpolitic.com/marele-proces-de-la-berna-protocoalele-inteleptilor-sionului/

Twelve years later, in 1933, Jewry tried to recognize the falsity  of the Protocols of Zion  by court order. On June 26, 1933, the Israelite League of Switzerland and the Jewish Community of Berne filed a complaint with the Cantonal Court of Berne, requesting the banning of the recent pamphlet of the Hammer publishing house, entitled The Zionist Protocols and distributed, on the occasion of a meeting for the defense and protection of the Swiss  youth  against Jewish perfidy. According to the complaint filed by the plaintiffs, the pamphlet in question belonged to subversive literature, so it should be declared illegal and banned. The plaintiffs' complaint was based on Article 14 of  the Law on Films and Measures Against Subversive Literature , a law promulgated on September 10, 1916, valid in the canton of Bern. According to this Swiss law:

"...  It is prohibited to print and disseminate subversive writings, especially works whose form and text are likely to incite crime, which are likely to endanger good morals, offend modesty, exert a brutal effect or to cause scandal  ".

Five Swiss were charged for distributing the pamphlet. Among the five were the musician Silvio Schnell and the architect Theodor Fischer.

The first hearing of the trial took place on 16 November 1933 and was presided over by the President of the Berne Tribunal, Judge Walter Mayer. On this occasion, the plaintiffs' lawyers requested  an expert examination of the authenticity  of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion . The lawyers of the accused opposed this request, as such expertise was not provided by law for the alleged subversive writings. The law only provided for the determination of whether or not any text violated the provisions in force, regardless of whether it was authentic or not.

Going beyond the legal framework,  Judge Walter Mayer ordered experts for the Protocols, appointing university professor A. Baumgarten, from Basel, at the request of the plaintiffs, and pastor L. Munchmeyer, from Oldenburg, at the request of the accused, as experts. The pro-Jewish writer CA Loosli, from Berne-Bümplitz, was appointed as the main expert.

Frightened by the scale of the process, by the constant threats, in such situations, the pastor-expert, proposed by the accused, gave up, retiring. The other two experts, one of the plaintiffs and another proposed by the court, submitted their expert reports in Oct. 1934, when the Tribunal found that the accused were left without an expert.

The second appearance of the tribunal took place between October 29 and 31, 1934. The plaintiffs appeared accompanied by 15 witnesses, most of them Jews of Russian origin. Believing that the authenticity  of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion  was not in question, which was perfectly accurate from a legal point of view, the defense presented only one witness, the writer Doctor Alfred Zander, of Zürich.

After hearing the prosecution's witnesses, who claimed obvious inaccuracies, the judge felt compelled to call in one more expert and other witnesses, adjourning the trial to November 6, 1934, when, at the defense's request, the court admitted its new expert , retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ulrich Fleischhauer, director of the  Welt-Dienst  (World Service) in Erfurt. On the same occasion, the defense proposed forty witnesses, the next appearance being set for January 15, 1935.

On January 15, 1935, the defense expert Ulrich Fleischhauer presented to the court  the Expert Report [1] , proving that the prosecution and its witnesses have no valid evidence regarding the forgery of  the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, all arguing in favor of the authenticity of this document. The proof of the authenticity  of the Protocols  was obvious and unmistakable. However, under the influence of the howls of the Jews, the judge had the weakness to deny the defense the right and the opportunity to say what he thought needed to be said, to expose everything. Bought off by Jidani or intimidated by the loud protests of the Zionists, the presiding judge of the tribunal, Walter Meyer, refused, without reason, to hear the forty defense witnesses, although they had been accepted, in the hearing of November 6, 1934.

The third appearance of the trial lasted 15 days, from April 29 to May 14, 1935, during which time the three experts presented their conclusions orally, by live speech. The two prosecution experts supported the thesis of the falsity  of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,  which they considered plagiarized from Maurice Joly's book, to which we shall return. The prosecution's experts also accepted as trustworthy the statements of Princess Radziwill and Count de Chayla, according to which Ratchkovsky was the plagiarist, his purpose being to slander the Jewish people. As for the indisputably false data of Princess Radziwill, the prosecution's expert, Baumgarten, declares that she was mistaken in speaking of the year 1905 [2] . The expert Loosli, however, had committed a deliberate forgery, stating in his written report that Princess Radziwill's statements had been dated in 1895 instead of 1905, without the Tribunal being aware of this change. Pressed by lawyers and defense experts, Loosli declares that the year 1905 was an error slipped by an American newspaper, which he could not name, and which he, Loosli, is correcting!

The prosecution's experts glossed over Princess Radzwil's claims that she had talked about the Russo-Japanese War and the 1905 Revolution, which ruled out that the princess had mistakenly confused the years 1895 and 1905, making the alleged error by an American newspaper worthless. .

In presenting his findings, which lasted several days, Ulrich Fleischhauer rejected  the Prosecution's Expert Report , proving that Princess Radziwill was a known schemer and adventurer, convicted by the Cape Court of falsifying bank documents. A proven thief, the princess's inaccurate statements regarding the origin of  the Protocols of the Elders of Zion cannot serve as the basis for a legal argument before a Tribunal worthy of this name.

As for Count de Chayla, the expert Ulrich Fleischhauer shows that in 1920 he was the head of propaganda for Wrangel's army, in which capacity he had been exposed as a Bolshevik agent and disgracefully expelled from the White Army. Sentenced to death for treason, the execution of the sentence was postponed, thanks to the suspicious and persistent intervention of the French ambassador, who then helped him escape.

In light of Fleishhauer's expertise, any impartial tribunal would have recognized the falsity of Princess Radziwill's and Count Chayla's statements. Bern judge Walter Meyer disregarded Fleishhauer's expertise, considering it a string of speculations inspired by his anti-Jewish sentiments.

By the sentence of May 14, 1935, Judge Meyer sentences the accused Silvio Schnell and Theodor Fischer to a fine of 20 and 50 Francs, respectively, plus the payment of court costs, in the amount of 32,270 Swiss Francs, the first being convicted for the dissemination of the Protocols of the Elders  of  Zion , printed by the Hammer publishing house, and  the second for the publicity given  to the Protocols in  his newspaper  Der Eidgenosse (  The Confederate ) and  for an anti-Jewish article published in the same newspaper . In giving reasons for his sentence, Judge Walter Meyer declares that  the Protocols of the Elders of Zion  is a forgery that violates Article 14 of the Swiss law on films and measures against subversive literature, a law passed by the Canton of Bern on September 10, 1916.

The first sentence of the Berne Tribunal was a triumph for world Jewry! Finally, a Swiss court condemned and stigmatized  the Protocols of the Sound Sages , considering them false.

The convicts Silvio Schnell and Theodor Fischer appealed to the Correctional Chamber of the Court of Appeal in Bern. Through their appeal, both convicts requested the annulment of the sentence and the resending of the file to the Court of First Instance, simply for acquittal. From a legal point of view, their appeal could not be rejected because Judge Walter Meyer had broken the law: the minutes of the witness statements had not been written by official court stenographers but by private stenographers, paid by the Jewish people, which constituted a flagrant violation of procedure . In addition, Judge Walter Meyer had not required the prosecution's witnesses to sign statements written on their behalf by Jewish-paid stenographers.

As an additional reason for overturning the sentence of Judge Walter Meyer, Silvio Schnell and Theodor Fischer pointed out that the documents presented by the Loosli expert had no legal value, coming from the services of the Soviet Government in Moscow and presented to the Berne Tribunal without legalization and certification in accordance with the originals. Moreover, the translation of Dr. Lifschitz, of Berne, contained obvious omissions and contradictions.

The Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal Bern had to admit the validity of these errors and flagrant violations of procedure.

However, once the file was returned to the Court of First Instance, it rejected the appeal, declaring that the sentence did not contain any defect of form, so the review of a very expensive trial is not justified.

Without further debate or judgment, the new decision-sentence of the Berne Tribunal was pronounced on November 1, 1937, the two convicts being practically acquitted. The accused Theodor Fischer was nevertheless fined with an amount that was to go into the account of the State's expenses. This fine was justified by the article "  Young Swiss girls, beware of depravities, whores and Jewish sexual perverts  .

In the statement of reasons for his decision, Judge Peter stated that the law on subversive writings does not provide for any expertise, so the expertise ordered by Judge Walter Meyer must be considered a superfluous and unwarranted act. The trial court judge should have simply decided whether or not the text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion violated the law, without dealing with its authenticity or inauthenticity .

On the other hand, the text  of the Protocols  could not be considered subversive writing, not having any kind of immoral character, not urging anyone to commit a crime. Being a political writing,  the Protocols of the Elders of Zion  had to be judged on the basis of the rights and freedoms accorded to political ideas and writings of any kind.

The Protocols of Zion trial   had lasted four years. Through false witnesses, through the elimination of defense witnesses, through the drafting of the minutes of the meetings by paid stenographers, through the use of illegal supporting documents, through erroneous translations and tendentious expertise, the Jewishness wanted to prove the falsity of the  Protocols . Thanks to a Jewish judge, a member of a Marxist party, using an inapplicable law in that case, in the first instance the Jewish people had succeeded in obtaining a judicial sentence proclaiming that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were  false  . The triumph of Judaism was short-lived, the Court of Appeal overturning the sentence of the Court of First Instance.

Although the Court of Appeal found the gross errors committed by the judge Walter Meyer, in conducting the trial of the first instance, although the procedural illegalities and the partisanship of the expert Loosli were found, the Jewish press had the nerve to declare: "It is true that Silvio Schnell was acquitted  , the law of subversive writings not being applicable in this case: however, the falsity of the Protocols was recognized by the judiciary, experts and witnesses providing evidence accepted by the Court of First Instance  ». The intention of the Jewish press is clear. In this case, as in many others, the Jewish press is determined to mislead public opinion by any means.

Since the Court of Appeal found that the procedure followed in the trial of the first instance was illegal, since this procedure was biased, in favor of the applicant Jewry, the conclusions of the expert Loosli lost all interest, the political arguments of the judge Walter Meyer being the opinions personal of an incompetent. Moreover, these opinions are based on all kinds of falsehoods.

[1] . Fleischhauer Ulrich,  Expert Report for the Bern Trial , U. Bodung Publishing House, Erfurt 1935, 416 pages.

[2] . The newspaper edition ( Znamia-Stindarul , 1903), of  the Protocols of the Sages of Zion , makes impossible the statement of Princess Radziwill, that  the Protocols  would have been drafted in 1905, not to mention the non-existence of Golovinski, among Ratchkovsky's subordinates.