busch20160922Douglas.html

Ulrich Busch correspondence with Lawrence Douglas

From: Ulrich Busch <[email protected]>
Date: 2016-09-29 20:26 GMT+02:00
Subject: public controversial dicussions about the Demjanjuk case
To: "JD Prof. Douglas" <[email protected]>

Dear Lawrence!

I seriously repeat my offer to you, to discuss the case with you in front of any public auditorium.
As Prof of Law you know very well that the case was nothing else than a political show case and farce. Just look at the first case of the 16 accused cases. The train came shortly after the arrival of
new Trawnikis, who did not at all know, what they would have to do in Sobibor. And you sell in your book, that Demjanjuk was guilty in this first case, because he did not desert. This is not justice, it is a travesty of justice. And you sell in your book, that Sobibor was only and only a death camp, although you know, that several work camps were operated by Sobibor and of course watched by Trawnikis from Sobibor. The permanent presence of Demjanjuk in the death camp is one of the biggest lies in the Munich judgement.

I hope very strongly, that you do not refuse my offer and that you stop avoiding to meet the truth.

Greetings ULI

From: Ulrich Busch <[email protected]>
Date: 2016-09-22 22:40 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: Ihre Werbeveranstaltung at Case Western
To: Lawrence Douglas <[email protected]>, John Demjanuk <[email protected]>, Ulrich Busch <[email protected]>

Dear Lawrence

Thank you for your answer. See please § 206 a of the German criminal code. The trial in Munich did not end with a conviction, but with the decision of the LG Munich: Das Verfahren wird eingestellt auf Kosten der Staatskasse.
This decision is the only outcome of the Munich trial. Das frühere Urteil wurde damit gegenstandslos und geriet in Wegfall. Der deutsche Verfahrensbegriff umfasst alle Instanzen bis zur Rechtskraft und ist ein einheitliches und unteilbares Geschehen. Deshalb ist es nicht erlaubt, von einer Verurteilung bzw. conviction zu sprechen oder sie zu behaupten, bevor nicht die letzte Instanz entschieden hat.

You totally misunderstand the German system of "Burden of proof". The proof of "voluntarily service" is the duty of the court. The court had to proof, that the individual Trawniki personally and for himself said yes to the service.
This is only possible, if the Trawniki asked the Trawniki-boss for transferring him to Sobibor, knowing what kind of service he would be obliged to do. There was not a single proof, that Demjanjuk applied for a job in Sobibor. There was only overwhelming evidence, that the Trawnikis were sent to Sobibor by the strict command of the Verbrecherstaat Germany. They would have been shot, if they would have refused to be transferred. If the beginning of the service was forced, then the court has to proof for each individual Wachmann, if and when he had a concrete chance to desert without danger for his life and that there was no other hindrance at all against leaving the camp without fear for his life.
Your critic of the defence about this matter proofs, that you definitely belong to the overwhelming majority, which did not even try to listen to defence arguments.

As a lawyer I was really surprised, that you as a Prof of Law and teacher of the future generation of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, was not able to say the truth about the outcome of the Munich trial: "a juristical scandal". You know the contents of the statements of Mr Danilschenko: " through the time of his service in Sobibor Demjanjuk was many times not present". You know exactly, why the Supreme court Israel did not convict Demjanjuk for Sobibor: Justice Barrak:"We do not know, what he did in Sobibor and when he was there or elsewhere":

No court in this world could ever convict Demjanjuk under these circumstances for the death of all Jews which were deported to Sobibor in the time-period, which was limited through the transfer-lists. The complete silence of your book
about this juristical scandal is more than shocking. It was your duty as Law Professor, to inform the public about this.

There is much more to say about your thesis. For example about your opinion, that it was a mistake to say: I was not in Sobibor, but if I was there, I was forced and in fear of my life. First of all: Demjanjuk used his right to be silent. Second: The two defence walls are simple German use of Law and the court hat to proof the contrary of both defence thesis. There was overwhelming evidence, that in Sobibor nobody could sucessfully desert or escape. You find the sources for this in my published last statement. Two Trawniki tried to desert, were caught and shot. And you forgot to tell the public, which Nazi or SS officer told each Trawniki : If you desert with a gun, we will kill you, if you desert without a gun, you get a mild punishment and then you can kill Jews again.

I am anytime ready for public discussions with you about your shocking wrong opinions in your book. I hope you will agree. Its time for the truth.

Best ULI .

2016-09-22 15:41 GMT+02:00 Lawrence Douglas <[email protected]>:
Dear Uli,
I of course understand that as a technical legal matter Demjanjuk died with the presumption of innocence intact despite having been convicted in LG Munich. In explaining to an American audience, it would be wrong to claim that Demjanjuk was "never convicted." Rather, it would be proper to say that the conviction never took legal effect as Demjanjuk died before the appellate process had run its course. This strikes me as an accurate statement of fact.

It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Demjanjuk served at Sobibor. The only interesting question, as I write in my book, is whether his service was voluntary. I think I handle this question with fairness to the complexity of the issue, though I can understand how you or his son might reach different conclusions,
Best,
Lawrence

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Ulrich Busch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sehr geehrter Prof. Douglas
>
> Deutsches Recht ist: " Der Angeklagte erhält das Recht auf ein Verfahren, in dem er bis zur abschließenden Entscheidung über den Schuldspruch wie ein Unschuldiger zu behandeln ist."
>
> Demjanjuk was never convicted in Germany. Your statement is illegal and false and an offense of my client. I ask you, to recall that statement.
>
> Sie wissen sehr genau, dass das Verfahren vor dem Landgericht München nicht durch ein Urteil beendet wurde, sondern durch einen Einstellungsbeschluss des Landgerichts München. Sie berufen sich in Ihrer Werberede ausdrücklich darauf, das Deutsche Recht zu kennen. Sie wissen, dass ausdrücklich von den staatlichen Stellen bestätigt wurde, dass Demjanjuk ohne Verurteilung unschuldig verstorben ist.
>
> Die Wahrheit zu verschweigen, um ihr Buch mehr zu verkaufen, ist ein Verstoß gegen das Gesetz.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Dr. Busch RA