By Monika Schaefer

What does the state have to hide when they relentlessly persecute a 92-year-old peaceful woman, who has never done anything that we normally associate with ‘criminal behaviour’, never did anything violent, has never stolen, never vandalized, never defrauded anyone, but has asked an inconvenient question over and over again.

This woman has just been released from jail, having spent 2.5 years behind bars, and less than two weeks later was in court in Berlin to face similar charges. Her name is Frau Ursula Haverbeck. The Law is the infamous Par. 130.

Monika Schaefer, who was also imprisoned in Germany for publishing her findings following her investigation into holocaust fraud:

‘This 16-minute video (in German) by the Volkslehrer (Folk Teacher) was sent my way recently by an English-only speaker, who wondered what was said. What follows is by no means a word-for-word translation, but a description giving the gist of it.

‘I highly recommend viewing at least the first 8 minutes of the video even if you do not speak German, because it is beautifully put together especially the music and scenes at the beginning, followed by the interesting scene of reporters chumming outside the courtroom, excluding the independent journalist-reporter Nikolai Nerling the Volkslehrer, producer of this video.

The Volkslehrer asked Ursula Haverbeck for an interview before court began, but she explained that she was not allowed to speak to anyone at this time.

Then you see the throng of reporters outside the courtroom awaiting entry, all friendly with each other, laughing and joking, until one masked woman asks ‘who are you,’ to Nikolai.

He introduces himself, shows his press pass, and explains that he has been a journalist for the last 3.5 years. Condescendingly, she scoffs at him, accuses him of having made up his press pass himself, effectively calling him a liar, says this is nothing, it is not from a proper organ of the press, and then mutters about putting the mask on properly. He answered that it had just slipped down.

After she disappears with his press pass, she returns, again delegitimizing him by saying his press pass has not been issued by a recognized institution (recognized ie. mainstream media. She cackles about not coming too near and that his mask is slipping yet again.

He read her the Grundgesetz, the foundational law which stipulates freedom of the press, to no avail. Nikolai Nerling was not allowed in, and was forcibly taken out of the building.

Ursula Haverbeck was in fine spirits when she came out of the building. Her appeal is being reviewed. The remainder of the video is the interview with Haverbeck’s Attorney, Wolfram Nahrath.

Nahrath tells how Ursula spoke so clearly, so honestly, with dignity, with grace, brilliantly really, and made her case in court that day.

She spoke about how she came to her present understanding of what really happened in WWII. It began in the 1960’s, as she was investigating the nuclear industry on account of her concern for the environment. She read much, researched much, which led her to question the official narrative of WWII.

She emphasized that she never denies anything, but that she has repeatedly asked the question over the years, to which nobody could ever give her an answer. Nahrath referred to that famous question which she still asks, but did not describe it in this interview. (The question is ’where did the crime (the six million take place?)

Ursula went on to say that actually there is nobody in the courtroom who would be capable of denying anything, because nobody was there to witness what happened. So if they don’t know what it is that happened, because they did not see it themselves, then none of them are in the position to ‘deny’ it either.

It is interesting logic, because in German the word for deny is leugnen, and by the German definition, you cannot leugne something that did not happen. It is impossible.

Then Nahrath went on to say that Ursula had said all these things with a clear mind and spirit and that she demonstrated that she has no guilt-awareness or better said, no guilt feeling.

In all the 10 different trials she has been through, not a single prosecutor nor could judge or anybody answer her question. Nor did anybody attempt to answer her question. They simply declared her guilty.

When they declared her guilty in the past, they proclaimed that Frau Haverbeck knows the holocaust took place, and yet she denies it (leugner). So she is guilty. Evidently, the judges and prosecutors engage in mind-reading.

We will see what the verdict is on December 4, he says. He fears it might be as previous verdicts. Then it is far from over. There is another count that she is charged with in Berlin for which the prosecutor appealed because the 6-month sentence was not deemed stiff enough. Then there are the court proceedings in Hamburg still underway in which the prosecutor asked for 10 months.

Lastly, Nahrath goes on to say that Frau Haverbeck is in no way-shape-or-form agitating to incite. She operates on an intellectual level, searching for answers. He laments the fact that they are dragging a 92-year-old matriarch through the court. He of course makes the point that this Par. 130 should not exist at all, but really emphasizes how terrible it is that they drag an elderly woman through this.

He talks about how at this age her health could take a turn at any time, and also that if she goes back to jail after these legal battles, there is naturally the possibility that she could be brought back out under a sheet directly to her grave. The fact that she is willing to seek answers at the age of 92, in full knowledge of the personal consequences bring forth respect.

Nahrath’s emotions could be felt coming close to the surface when he addressed the ‘court’. The whole affair is such a travesty. But if they do put Ursula Haverbeck back in jail, do they not just show their desperation to protect their lies?

Evidence is forbidden. Independent reportage is forbidden. They read the accused’s mind to say she knows something only to deny it with the intention to incite hatred. How absurd. How is it not blatantly obvious to every thinking man and woman?’ ~ Monika Schaefer. Source