From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.misc,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: NEVER FORGET (the docudrama smear of IHR) / Witness for the Defense!
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:49:12 GMT
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics

In article <gate.V70TiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP>, ralphw@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston) writes:

The account of the Mermelstein trial given by the IHR is imply false.
Please look at the official court documents below.
Also notice the apology that they were forced to give, for saying that
no Jews were gassed at Aushwitz.  They have made the same claim on the
network.  I am hereby asking them to cease from making the claim, or
to follow up each claim with a copy of the apology.

>
>In _The Journal of Historical Review_ Vol. 11, #2 (Summer 1991):
>
>   
>       REVIEWS:  "A Forgettable, But Survivable, Hatchet Job on IHR"
>              
>              (Or, "Never Forget -- Witness for the Defense")
>
>
>NEVER FORGET.  Produced by Robert Radnitz.  Directed by Joseph Sargent.
>Turner Pictures, Inc. 1991.  2 hours.
>
>Institute for Historical Review
>P.O. Box 1306
>Torrance, California 90505
>
*****  A  *****  A  *****  A  *****  A  *****  A  *****  A  *****  A  *****


		 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
		       FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

MEL MERMELSTEIN.                )    No. C 356 542
         Plaintiff,             )
vs.                             )    JUDGMENT
                                )
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL        )
REVIEW, et al.                  )
         Defendants.            )

     Pursuant to the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment executed on July 22,
1985, the Court renders the following judgment:

    1.  Defendants LIBERTY LOBBY, WILLIS CARTO, ELISABETH CARTO, LEGION FOR
SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, and NOONTIDE PRESS,
and each of them, are jointly and severally liable to plaintiff MEL
MERMELSTEIN for the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00),
reduced to the sum of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00) payable as
follows:
       (a) Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) on August 1, 1985, and
delivered to the law offices of ALLRED, MAROKO, GOLDBERG & RIBAKOFF;
       (b)  Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) on September 1, 1985;
       (c)  Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) on October 1, 1985.
    2.  Should any of the installments not be made by the defendants against
whom judgment herein is entered within the time period provided, plaintiff,
at his sole option and discretion, shall have the following options:
       (a) To rescind the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and proceed to
trial and any payments received by plaintiff to that date from defendants
shall not be returned to said defendants; or
       (b) Plaintiff may request entry of Judgment against each of said
defendants, jointly or severally, in the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($150,000.00).
    3.  Defendants LIBERTY LOBBY, WILLIS CARTO, ELISABETH CARTO, LEGION FOR
SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, and NOONTIDE PRESS,
shall issue and execute, by a duly authorized representative, a Letter of
Apology to Mel Mermelstein, as follows:
  "Each of the answering defendants do hereby officially and formally
  apologize to Mr. Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and
  Buchenwald, and all other survivors of Auschwitz for the pain, anguish and
  suffering he and all other Auschwitz survivors have sustained relating to
  the $50,000 reward offer for proof that "Jews were gassed in gas chambers at
  Auschwitz".

DATED: AUG 5, 1985

                                          ROBERT A. WENKE, JUDGE
                                          SUPERIOR COURT

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

G. G. BAUMEN
Attorney for Defendants
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW,
LEGION FOR SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM,
ELISABETH CARTO and NOONTIDE PRESS

VON ESCH & ASSOCIATES
Attorneys for Defendants
LIBERTY LOBBY and WILLIS CARTO


*****  B  *****  B  *****  B  *****  B  *****  B  *****  B  *****  B  *****


			    STATEMENT OF RECORD
				    AND
		    LETTER OF APOLOGY TO MEL MERMELSTEIN

     "WHEREAS, the Legion for Survival of Freedom, and the Institute for
Historical Review, sent by letter dated November 20, 1980, directly to Mel
Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Buchenwald, an exclusive
reward offer in a letter marked "'personal'" dated November 20, 1980,
offering Mr. Mermelstein a $50,000 exclusive reward for "'proof that Jews
were gassed in gas chambers at Auschwitz'" "and further stating that if Mr.
Mermelstein did not respond to the reward offer "'very soon"', "the
Institute for Historical Review would ' publicize that fact to the mass
media' ..."
     "WHEREAS, Mr. Mermelstein formally applied for said $50,000 reward on
December 18, 1980; and
     "WHEREAS, Mr. Mermelstein now contends that the Institute for
Historical Review knew, or should have known, from Mr. Mermelstein's letter
to the editor of the Jerusalem Post dated Autust 17, 1980, that Mr.
Mermelstein contended he was a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and
Buchenwald; knew, or should have known, that Mr. Mermelstein contended that
his mother and two sisters were gassed to death at Auschwitz; and knew, or
should have known, of his contention that at dawn on May 22, 1944, he
observed his mother and two sisters, among other women and childred, being
lured and driven into the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, which he later
discovered to be Gas Chamber No. 5; and
     "WHEREAS, on October 9, 1981, the parties in dispute in the litigation
filed cross-motions for summary judgment resulting in the court, per the
Honorable Thomas T. Johnson, taking judicial notice as follows:
  "'Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial
  notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz
  Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944'" and "'It just
  simply is a fact that falls within the definition of Evidence Code Section
  452(h).  It is not reasonably subject to dispute.  And it is capable of
  immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably
  indisputable accuracy.  It is simply a fact.'"
     "WHEREAS, Mr. Mermelstein and other survivors of Auschwitz contend that
they suffered severe emotional distress resulting from said reward offer and
subsequent conduct of the Institute of Historical Review; and
     "WHEREAS, the Institute for Historical Review and Legion for Survival
of Freedom now contend that in offering such reward there was no intent to
offend, embarrass or cause emotional strain to anyone, including Mr.
Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Buchenwald Concentration
Camps of World War II, and a person who lost his father, mother and two
sisters who also were inmates of Auschwitz;
     "WHEREAS, the Institute for Historical Review and Legion for Survival
of Freedom should have been aware that the reward offer would cause Mr.
Mermelstein and other survivors of Auschwitz to suffer severe emotional
distress which the Institute for Historical Review and Legion for Survival
of Freedom, now recognize is regretable and abusive to survivors of
Auschwitz.

		    LETTER OF APOLOGY TO MEL MERMELSTEIN

  "Each of the answering defendants do hereby officially and formally
apologize to Mr. Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and
Buchenwald, and all other survivors of Auschwitz for the pain, anguish and
suffering he and all other Auschwitz survivors have sustained relating to
the $50,000 reward offer for proof that "Jews were gassed in gas chambers at
Auschwitz".

DATED: 7/24/85             G. G. Baumen
                           Attorney for Defendants
                           Legion For Survival of Freedom,
                           Institute for Historical Review,
                           Noontide Press, and Elisabeth Carto

DATED: 7/24/85             MARK F. VON ESCH
                           Attorneys for Defendants
                           Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto


*****  C  *****  C  *****  C  *****  C  *****  C  *****  C  *****  C  *****


THE JERUSALEM POST  (INTERNATIONAL EDITION), 24-30 AUGUST 1980

     Sir, - By now you may have heard of the so-called "prestigious" names: 
  1. Dr. Austin J. App (retired) La Salle College, Philadelphia
  2. John Bennett, Victoria Council for Civil Liberties, Australia
  3. Dr. Reinhard K. Buchner, California State University, Long Beach
  4. Dr. Arthur R. Butz, Northwestern University, Illinois
  5. James E. Egolf, Duquesne University, Pennsylvania
  6. Dr. Robert Faurisson, University of Lyon-2, France
  7. Ditlieb Felderer, Bible Researcher, Sweden
  8. Dr. James J. Martin, Institute of Historical Review
  9. Udo Walendy, Varlag Fur Volkstum & Zeitgeschictsforschung.
     You may have also read about a recent publication of the so-called
"Journal of Historical Review" which originated in Torrance, California.  If
by chance you have not heard of these gentlemen, nor read about the
so-called "Journal of Historical Review," allow me to inform you that these
university professors, some of them former Nazis of the old Hitlerite
regime, have taken upon themselves to use and abuse our colleges and
universities throughout the western world, in particular the United States,
to spread lies, hatred and bigotry vis-a-vis the subject known as the
"Holocaust."  They even invented new titles to distort these awesome
historical events.  "The Hoax of the 20th Century," "The Myth of the Six
Million," etc., etc.
     What can one say, when once again we sit idly by as these highly
acclaimed professors, in highly accredited universities are "at it again."
They are teaching our new generation that the chumneys of Auschwitz were
only those of the bakeries.  That there were no gas chambers at
Auschwitz-Berkenau.  That Dachau was a peaceful town within Nazi Germany and
that the "six million" European Jews fled Nazism and have been living
peacefully in Israel ever since.
     As one who survived the infernos of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Buchenwald,
my eyes are still blurring from the vision of that nightmare and my ears are
still ringing with the agonizing sounds of men, women and little children
who were lured and driven into the gas chambers disguised as shower rooms,
solely and exclusively because they were Jewish.  These "prestigious"
gentlemen mentioned above, as well as the bigoted organizations they
represent, have the gall to offer any survivor of the Holocaust a $50,000,
and possibly $100,000 award if he or she can prove that indeed gassings of
men, women and little children had actually taken place during that awesome
period known as the "Holocaust."
     I shall be leaving for the 10th time to a survivors' conference in
October to be held at Auschwitz.  Perhaps some of these "prestigious"
gentlemen would like to accompany me, at which time, I could physically
point out the places from where I saw the actual gassings of men, women and
little children in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms.
                               MELVIN MERMELSTEIN
                               Huntington Beach, California


*****  D  *****  D  *****  D  *****  D  *****  D  *****  D  *****  D  *****


                                 INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
                                 20 November 1980

Dear Mr. Memmelstein (sic):
     Your recent letter in the Jerusalem Post indicates that you can prove
that Jews were gassed in gas-chambers at Auschwitz.
     At our 1979 Revisionist Convention we announced a $50,000 reward for
proof of this allegation.  To date, no one has stepped forward, and at the
1980 Revisionist Convention we suspended the reward and replaced it with a
$25,000 reward for proof that The Diary of Anne Frank is authentic, and
another $25,000 reward for proof that Jews were turned into bars of soap by
the Nazis.
     In the circumstances, we will re-open the $50,000 reward so that you
can apply.  I enclose the necessary application forms.  Please note that the
evidence will be judged along the same standards as evidence in a U.S.
criminal court; not the standards of the Nuremberg Trials.
     If we do not hear from you, we will be obliged to draw our own
conclusions, and publicize this fact to the mass media, including the
Jerusalem Post.
     I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Sincerely,
Lew Brandon
Director


*****  E  *****  E  *****  E  *****  E  *****  E  *****  E  *****  E  *****


		 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
		       FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 82                                HON. STEPHEN O'NEIL, JUDGE

MEL MERMELSTEIN.                      )
         PLAINTIFF,                   )
VS.                                   )  NO. C 629224
                                      )  Consolidated with
LEGION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM    )  NO. SOC 95211
etc., et al.,                         )
              Defendant.              )

			 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
			      January 10, 1991

...................
THE COURT: .........
     All right?
     Now, let's handle the judicial notice matter.
MR. HULSY (lawyer for defendant/responding party):
     All right.
     The judicial notice matter, your Honor - perhaps the court could give
me a little guidance on its thinking on how it arrived it, because there
were three or four different theories proferred.
THE COURT:
     Certainly.  And that's why I wrote down all four sections of the
Evidence Code and have it right in front of me; because in essence, if you
will, it was on two theories:  One, the previous matter, I believe it was
Judge Johnson.
     So under Evidence Code sections 452(c) and (d), that alone permits this
court to take judicial notice under those sections of the Evidence Code I
just cited.  But I'm taking it a step further; and I'm adding, in addition,
as a reason Evidence Code sections 452(g) and (h), that - and if you'd like
me, I'll quote (h) in particular:
  "Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are
  capable of immediate and accurate determdination by resort to sources of
  reasonably indisputable accuracy."
     So for all of those reasons, the request for judicial notice is
granted.
MR. HULSY:
     Okay.  Well, in other words, you're deciding it anew, as well as
holding that you're collaterally estopped to raise it.
THE COURT:
     For all of the above.
MR. HULSY:
     All right.
     Well, I don't suppose I'm going to change the court's mind; but when
you look at things like the number of moons around Jupiter, we pull out an
old Encyclopedia Britannica, and they'll have a statement, very factual,
about what they knew at that time.  This is - there's been developments in
the last ten years, since this was last looked at by the court; and the
historians are still pondering over this area.
     It was our - my feeling is that it's too controversial - it's a jury
matter, but I really don't have any new case.
THE COURT:
     Well -
MR. HULSY:
     - I thought that the -
THE COURT:
     - more important than a new case, how about a new fact?
MR. HULSY:
     Well, I'm - I'm not -
THE COURT:
     Because, again, I emphasize the language, "reasonably indisputable
accuracy." 
MR. HULSY:
     Well, it takes away a major area from the role of the jury, and this - 
THE COURT:
     Well, there's also a society in England, I believe, called the Flat
Earth Society.
MR. HULSY:
     True.
THE COURT:
     So, I mean, some people may not want to take Caribbean cruises for fear
of falling off the end of the earth - you know.  But reasonably indisputably
accurate, I'd say the earth is a sphere.  I mean - you know - how far are we
going to carry this?
MR. HULSY:
     My thought is, your Honor, that's a spurious analogy.  I've tried to
use the moons of Jupiter where, it's a continu- - we're discovering now,
we've got twenty -
THE COURT:
     Well, you're entitled to your opinion - 
MR. HULSY:
     Right.
THE COURT:
     - as it being spurious, sir.  I - you know -
MR. HULSY.
     I don't mean to be disrespectful.
THE COURT:
     - I'm just citing that as a - I mean, there are all sorts of societies
out there, and there are all sorts of groups and organizations.
     But as far as this issue and this request for this statement of
judicial notice, this court again, in its opinion, feels that for all of the
reasons that I cited, not only the prior ruling but also because it is just
not disputable.
MR. HULSY:
     The - I can't offer anything to quarrel - you know - factually, a new
fact on the deciding it anew, other than the facts that have been submitted.
On the collateral estoppel issue, I thought that the - that the case that
was appended from the Lexis was very interesting and it showd the court's
logic; and I thought that it would be useful to go back to the letter of
apology and see that the thrust of that was the emotional distress rather
than any sort of a concession as to the facts.
     And that's why I thought on the collateral estoppel that if the court
was thinking exclusively on that, that it ought not be followed.
THE COURT:
     Interesting, not persuasive.
MR. HULSY:
     All right.
     I submit.

>                                Ralph Winston
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism