It appears, from the below exchange, that DvdThomas will not admit
that someone twice convicted in Canadian criminal court of being a
liar, is a liar.

The question arises:  under what circumstances _would_ he call
someone a liar?



From dvdthomas@aol.com Thu Jun 20 10:57:04 PDT 1996
Article: 44859 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: dvdthomas@aol.com (DvdThomas)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ernst Zundel's crocodile tears
Date: 20 Jun 1996 12:29:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 47
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4qbua5$fhb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4q9ief$944@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
Reply-To: dvdthomas@aol.com (DvdThomas)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Ken McVay wrote, of Ernst Zuendel's acquittal on appeal:

>Is he? In the first case - the "publishing false news" case,
>he was clearly guilty - two juries said so. That the law was
>later thrown out does not change the jury findings. In short,
>he was not "persecuted," he really _did_ publish lies, and
>under existing law of the day, his arrest was justified. That
>the law was arcane, and ineffectual, I readily agree.

This is an interesting interpretation of the Western system of justice.  I
think it's called sophistry, albeit unwitting.  So all successful
appellants are, in your eyes, guilty as charged.  That's more than a
little scary.

And juries, of course, are the final arbiters of truth.  Why, I believe
that O.J. Simpson may find a second career in Canadian football.

The appeals process is intended to protect citizens from the stupidities
and inequities of laws, legislators, lower court judges and ignorant
jurors.  If you wish to side with stupidity, inequity, ignorance and
incompetence then your statement above becomes valid.  Otherwise, it is
close to:

"lying, and of _knowingly_ lying"

That's said in sarcasm.  I don't believe in calling people liars without
incontrovertible evidence of it and that doesn't exist here.  I'll stay
with "unwitting sophistry" as an adequate description.

>I would give creedence to the charge of "persecution" with
>regard to the recent "conspiracy" charge, which I think was
>foolish and doomed to failure from the gitgo, but what one
>citizen does does not "persecution" make. Neither, I must
>point out, is a libel suit - unless, of course, you believe
>that Canadians should be able to lie about anyone with
>complete legal impunity? Or that the victim of such lies
>should have no legal recourse?

"One citizen" does not accurately describe the Candadian bureaucracy that
was involved in the persecution.  The one citizen you refer to has made a
career of late of directing charges at Zuendel that result in nothing save
great expense for the taxpayers of Canada and Zuendel himself.
_________________________________________________________

"The kind of person who always insists
on his way of seeing things
can never learn anything from anyone." - Tao Te Ching, 24








Path: news.voyager.net!clmx46.dial.voyager.net!user
From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ernst Zundel's crocodile tears
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 03:32:48 -0400
Organization: Absence Software
Lines: 142
Message-ID: 
References: <4q9ief$944@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qbua5$fhb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vixa.voyager.net

DvdThomas, we're still waiting for you to at least comment on
Zuendel's pro-censorship stance.  As co-webmaster at the Committee
for Open Debate On the Holocaust, "Open Debate" being the operative
words, it seems a bit odd that you tolerate censors as your allies.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Zuendeldiscussion...

dvdthomas@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:

> Ken McVay wrote, of Ernst Zuendel's acquittal on appeal:
> 
> > In the first case - the "publishing false news" case,
> > he was clearly guilty - two juries said so. That the law was
> > later thrown out does not change the jury findings.

[...]

> This is an interesting interpretation of the Western system of justice.  I
> think it's called sophistry, albeit unwitting.  So all successful
> appellants are, in your eyes, guilty as charged.  That's more than a
> little scary.

Zuendel successfully appealed on a point of law -- the law was
unconstitutional.  (And good for him, the law needed to be overturned
anyway.)

Appealing a point of law does not change the facts of the case.  And
the facts were such that two juries found him guilty.

> And juries, of course, are the final arbiters of truth.  Why, I believe
> that O.J. Simpson may find a second career in Canadian football.
> 
> The appeals process is intended to protect citizens from the stupidities
> and inequities of laws, legislators, lower court judges and ignorant
> jurors.

In general, yes.  In Zuendel's case, his appeal was intended to
protect him from, and did protect him from, the unconstitutionality
of the law.

The fact remains that Zuendel was convicted -- twice! -- of not
merely printing falsehoods, but of _knowingly_ printing falsehoods.

Zuendel's defense lawyer was one of the brightest around, and he was
closely coached by a very smart (and dishonest) "revisionist," Robert
Faurisson.  He presented the best case possible for his client.  Zuendel
and his allies worked night and day to try to get him off.  The Crown
had a very, very tough case to prove -- they had to convince twelve of
Zuendel's peers that they could know what was inside his head at the
time the "Did Six Million" pamphlet was published.

That's a very, very tough burden of proof.

And twelve of Zuendel's peers unanimously decided it had been met.

Zuendel's lawyer appealed on a technicality -- he was granted another
trial -- they went through the whole thing again, except in even more
excruciating detail.  The Crown had to meet its burden of proof all
over again.

And twelve more of Zuendel's peers unanimously decided it had been met.

Finally, Zuendel appealed to the Supreme Court, and the law was
(thankfully) overturned.

No, courts are not the final arbiters of truth (except when Holocaust
deniers want them to be, of course).  But those twenty-four jurors saw
more of Ernst Zuendel than you or I have seen, saw some brilliant
defense work, saw the best and brightest "revisionist" minds around
(including Bradley Smith's) -- and still said "nope, he's a liar."

Were you at the trials?  How much of Ernst Zuendel have you seen?  How
many times have you read through his "Did Six Million Really Die"
pamphlet?  Have you pored over every word?  Have you analyzed every
claim?  Have you sat down and sweated with that pamphlet for ten months,
watching a dozen "revisionists" give their opinions about it and about
the Holocaust?  Have you sat with Ernst Zuendel in the witness stand,
twenty feet from you, and watched him try to explain to you what was in
his mind when he published the pamphlet?

No?

So why do you think your opinion is any more relevant than those
twenty-four unanimous jurors'?

> If you wish to side with stupidity, inequity, ignorance and
> incompetence then your statement above becomes valid.

Laughable!

What on earth does this have to do with anything?

Ken McVay was merely noting a fact:  the _fact_ that Zuendel was
convicted of selling lies.  Knowingly, i.e. dishonestly, selling lies. 
Twice.

Yes, his appeal was successful, but that was on a point of _law_, not
a point of _fact_.  The _fact_ is that he was convicted.  Twice.

And hey, if you don't think twenty-four jurors have any relevance,
_talk_ to Ken McVay.  He says he's got proof that Zuendel was peddling a
complete and total fabrication of a document -- "Das Lachout Dokument"
-- and he's got the goods to back it up.  There's a set of web pages on
his web site that detail this Zuendelfraud, maybe you should check it
out sometime.  Then ask Zuendel if he's still selling the Lachout
videotape -- he has refused to answer us when we have asked that
question, repeatedly, over the past nine months.

Let us know what you find.

> Otherwise, it is close to:
> 
> "lying, and of _knowingly_ lying"
> 
> That's said in sarcasm.  I don't believe in calling people liars without
> incontrovertible evidence of it and that doesn't exist here.  I'll stay
> with "unwitting sophistry" as an adequate description.

Pfft!

Tell me, "DvdThomas," what do you require for "incontrovertible
evidence"?

I'm really interested, "DvdThomas."  Not many people have it on their
records that they've been convicted of being dishonest.  Not once but
twice.  If you can't call a man convicted of dishonesty a liar, who can
you call a liar?  Should we maybe just remove the word from the
dictionary?

I admit that it is impossible to know, with absolute 100% certainty,
that a person is lying, unless you are that person.

But if not Ernst Zuendel -- who?

Anyone?

Posted;  emailed to "DvdThomas";  Cc'd to Ken McVay and Ernst Zuendel.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.







Path: news.voyager.net!clmx51.dial.voyager.net!user
From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ernst Zundel's crocodile tears
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 14:25:10 -0400
Organization: Absence Software
Lines: 15
Message-ID: 
References: <4q9ief$944@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qbua5$fhb@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4qcebh$k46@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU> <4qde1h$nor@atlas.uniserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vixa.voyager.net

rjg@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:

> Isn't it the case that the appeal threw out the law itself rather than
> the verdict?  In other words, Mr. Zuendel was indeed proven to be a
> liar, but the the higher court found that lying isn't a crime.

That is exactly correct.

Note that Zuendel claims that the Supreme Court's legalization of lying
was "an acquittal" for him.  Hey look, another lie!  :-)
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.







Path: news.voyager.net!fred.enteract.com!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!uunet!inXS.uu.net!news.island.net!nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!not-for-mail
From: kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,can.politics,can.legal
Subject: Re: Ernst Zundel's crocodile tears
Followup-To: alt.fan.ernst-zundel
Date: 21 Jun 1996 08:26:45 -0700
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4qeevl$96t@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
References: <4q9ief$944@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4qbua5$fhb@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4qcebh$k46@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.almanac.bc.ca
Xref: news.voyager.net alt.revisionism:49492 can.politics:70678 can.legal:8873

In article <4qcebh$k46@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU>, 
rjg@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:

>I haven't been following the facts of the case, but if the facts are as
>the two of you presented, I think that Mr. Hunt's logic fails here.

Gee, that's a shocker :-)

>Isn't it the case that the appeal threw out the law itself rather than
>the verdict?  In other words, Mr. Zuendel was indeed proven to be a
>liar, but the the higher court found that lying isn't a crime.

That is precisely right. Two juries found that he knowingly
published lies - in my book, that makes him a liar :-)

The details are available from Mr. Zundel's web pages on
Nizkor, where you may read the Supreme Court of Canada
judgement for yourself, and hear what the justices had to say
about Mr. Zundel.

http://www.almanac.bc.ca/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/supreme-court/

Fascinating reading.

-- 
Nizkor Canada - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
FTP Canada: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl? 
FTP Europe: ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently!)......unlearn

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor