Alan Dershowitz   Letter 10   09-Aug-2001   Third-party interference in Jewish show trials
"If the KKK threw acid into the face of Johnnie Chochran, and pushed Robert Shapiro out of a fifteenth-story window, I expect you would have questioned whether OJ Simpson had received a fair trial." Lubomyr Prytulak

09 August 2001
Alan M. Dershowitz
Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law
520 Hauser Hall
Harvard Law School
1575 Massachusetts Avenue
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA   02138

Alan Dershowitz:

I bring to your attention several instances of third-party interference in Jewish show trials.

Jewish Audience Interference in the Jerusalem Trial
of John Demjanjuk (1987-1988)

Israeli defense attorney Yoram Sheftel's description of John Demjanjuk's first appearance in court in his Jerusalem trial supports the following conclusions:

While we were talking, there was great commotion and noise in the hall; the cameras began to roll and the flash bulbs explode; and police formed a buffer between hall and platform, and some of the audience rose to their feet.  I realized that Demjanjuk, handcuffed and with legs chained, had just been brought into the hall through the stage door behind me.  Two policemen led him to the dock behind the defence bench.  [...]  As soon as the policemen had finished removing Demjanjuk's handcuffs, O'Connor went over to hug him.  Gill got up and embraced Demjanjuk too, but without O'Connor's dramatics.  Next I got up and shook hands with Demjanjuk, confident that a real difference would be perceived between my cool, formal handshake and the demonstrative hugs of my colleagues.

But the audience burst into a roar at the sight, with shouts of 'Disgrace!', 'Shame,' 'Disgusting.'  The pandemonium intensified, the shouting coming from all sides.  Again I felt weak and helpless.  Though I had anticipated hostile reactions, I had certainly not foreseen such noisy and constant shouting from the hall itself.

[...]  It was noticeable that no one from the Justice Ministry or the police had made the slightest effort to silence the voices raised against me.  There's nothing to be done about it, I told myself.  This must be the way show-trials are conducted.
Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk affair: The rise and fall of a show trial, Victor Gollancz, London, 1994, pp. 29-30.

In my letter to Yitzhak Arad of 05-Mar-1999, I cited nine instances from the trial transcript of audience interference in court proceedings on the first three days of testimony (17-19 Feb 1987), two of which instances I cite below.  The first instance serves to demonstrate that the audience noise was not just random commotion rather, it was harassment and intimidation directed at the defense:

O'CONNOR:  With all due respect, if there is not enough dignity accorded to this Court, where there is hissing and booing as if this is a body ... and not something for history Your Honor, this is going to be recorded in infamy.

LEVIN:  I once again request the public the defense counsel is complaining about the noise in the hall and the noise is disruptive and distracting.  The public is earnestly requested to observe the silence and keep quiet otherwise we will have to adopt other measures.
State of Israel vs John Demjanjuk, 19-Feb-1987, p. 575.  Speaking are American defense attorney Mark O'Connor and Israeli judge Dov Levin.  It is unclear whether the ellipses above, present in the original transcript, indicate (1) a pause in O'Connor's speach, (2) something O'Connor said that transcribers found unintelligible, or (3) material that was so harshly critical of the Israeli court that transcript providers expurgated it.

The second instance is significant in two respects: (1) it provides a measure of how loud the audience harassment of the defense was, and (2) it is followed by no admonition from the court to the audience (toothless though such admonitions always had been), reinforcing the conclusion that audience right to harass the defense had been established, and that the judges had abandoned even the appearance of challenging that right:

O'CONNOR:  I cannot even hear you because of obstruction in the Court.  The noise in the Court is so intense, I can't even hear on the headset, Your Honor.  And it is continuing even as I speak to you, with no control in the courtroom.
State of Israel vs John Demjanjuk, 19-Feb-1987, p. 617.

The following excerpt demonstrates that another eyewitness British journalist Gitta Sereny concurs that the audience participation was not random or undirected, but rather was an expression of hostility toward the defense, and adds the detail that the judges' intervention, at least in this instance, did not aim to quiet the audience, but rather chastised defense attorney Mark O'Connor for having provoked the audience:

O'Connor pounced.  "Was sealing the gas chambers also part of your duties?"

There were angry murmurs in the hall, and Judge Levin intervened, as he would often have to do, in an effort to stem O'Connor's emotive approach.
Gitta Sereny, The Case of John Demjanjuk, Sunday Times, 20-Mar-1988, p. 29.

Nor was it only the audience that harassed and intimidated the defense.  The prosecution team, rather than presenting a model of restraint and propriety, was yukking it up as the defense made its presentations:

The judges gave the defence great leeway during their final arguments, hardly interrupting at all, and reprimanding the prosecutors for signalling disagreement (or amusement) to each other during the presentation.  "Go out in the hall if you wish to communicate," he said sharply.
Gitta Sereny, The Case of John Demjanjuk, Sunday Times, 20-Mar-1988, p. 38.

Predictably, by the end of the Jerusalem trial, the audience had regressed into a lynch mob egged on by both prosecutors and judges.  As documented in my letters to you of 08-Jul-1999 and 18-Feb-2000, just before John Demjanjuk's death sentence was pronounced, when US defense attorney John Gill questioned the court's reliance on the memory of Treblinka witnesses, this "clearly angered the bench and caused hissing from the audience."  When Gill argued that the judges should not apply the death penalty for fear of a miscarriage of justice, "a loud hiss ran around the converted theatre."  Demjanjuk "was hissed as he insisted that he was never at Treblinka."  John Demjanjuk crossed himself upon each reading out of an atrocity, "causing murmurs among the 650 spectators."  When Demjanjuk shouted from his wheelchair, "I am innocent," one of the spectators yelled back, "You're a liar."

That was what was going on in the hours before the death sentence was actually pronounced.  Just as soon as the death sentence was pronounced, real pandemonium broke out, as you yourself witnessed and initially reported, and as described by Yoram Sheftel:

The minute the word "death" escaped Judge Tal's lips, a terrible commotion began in the courtroom.  All the disorder there had been up to then was merely naughtiness compared to the chaos that erupted now.  The unruly crowd began cursing, shouting and screaming insults.  "Death, death," "Death to Ivan," "Death to the defence attorney," "Death to all Ukrainians," "Death, death, death!"  The people were dancing, stamping their feet, waving fists in the air.  There had been so many disturbances and displays of violence, but this time my heart skipped a beat.  The mob was ready to lynch anyone who got in its way.  I stayed in my seat and watched.  Here, I thought, this is the disgraceful, but apt, finale to Ivan Demjanjuk's show-trial.
Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk Affair: The Rise and Fall of a Show-Trial, Victor Gollancz, London, 1994, p. 225.

As documented in the second of my two letters to you cited above, during the above audience eruption, "demands for silence were ignored."  After John Demjanjuk was pushed out of the court room in his wheel chair, a mob from the audience tried to intercept his prison van, jeering, shouting that his punishment was too mild, and waving a placard which read "Let the Ukrainian beast starve to death."

A Jew Threatens Potential Defense Witness Tuvia Friedman (1987)

Putative Treblinka survivor Eliahu Rosenberg claimed to be able to identify John Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka.  However, it was discovered that he had given depositions after the war that he had witnessed the killing of a camp guard named Ivan in a camp uprising on 02-Aug-1943 (the suffix "the Terrible" is a contemporary after-though).  When Tuvia Friedman, one of the people who took such a post-war deposition from Rosenberg, made a statement to the press confirming Rosenberg's earlier claim of having helped kill Ivan of Treblinka, Rosenberg telephoned Friedman and threatened him.  What Rosenberg really said to Friedman, we don't know, but what he admitted in court to saying to Friedman is as below:

Q:  Do you testify so, sir, that at no time within a very recent past within the last two days that you in fact threatened bodily harm to Tuvia Friedman with regard to his testimony to do with taking your deposition?

A:  I did not threaten him bodily and it certainly wasn't two days ago.

H.J. LEVIN:  Have you ever threatened him, have you ever threatened Tuvia Friedman at any time at any moment?

A:  Yes, I spoke to him on the telephone.  [...]  On one of the evenings my daughter called me from Jerusalem and told me I am absolutely shaken up.  The paper says that Tuvia Friedman, a certain Friedman, together with Mr. O'Connor, held a press conference and there it says as if I had stated that Ivan had been killed or that I had killed him.  [...]  Now this evidence aroused me and I rang Mr. Tuvia Friedman, and I said, Shalom Tedik, and he asked me who is speaking?  I said Eli.  So he said, Eli?  And I said yes, Eli.  I continued, Tadik, what gives you the cheek and the nerve to say such things as if I had killed Ivan [...]?  And I said, how dare you say so, and Tuvia Friedman said I have written it down black on white.  And I said to him, 'You are a liar, you'll pay for this, God will punish you for this'.  He put the phone down.  Is that all you wish to hear, Mr. O'Connor?

Q:  Mar Rosenberg, why do you feel that God should punish Tuvia Friedman?

A:  Let him get his just desserts, because he is lying.  May I add something.  Yes it was my intention that God should punish him.
State of Israel vs John Demjanjuk, 26-Feb-1987, pp. 1179-1181.  Questions are by defense counsel Mark O'Connor, answers are by prosecution witness Eliahu Rosenberg.  H.J. Levin is the senior of the three judges.  Both "Tedik" and "Tadik" are in the original.

Jewish Hysterics Upon John Demjanjuk's Acquittal (1993)

Der Spiegel, 02-Aug-1993
Jaakow Spindler, claiming to be a prosecution witness (which clashes with his name appearing neither in the indictment nor anywhere in the trial transcript), and claiming also to be a "Treblinka death camp survivor" (which as he was never called as a witness, invites the inference that even Israeli prosecutors didn't believe him), can be seen in the photograph on the right indulging in theatrics upon John Demjanjuk's conviction being overturned upon appeal.  "How am I to explain to my relatives that the Israeli state lets Nazis walk around freely?  Demjanjuk is the murderer, I know it with certainty", he wailed, displaying a photograph which he claimed was of his father, and who he claimed had been murdered in the Jewish holocaust.

When it comes to discovering truth, at least it must be acknowledged that Spindler's methodology has the merit of simplicity he dismisses the complex evidence placed before the court, and instead consults his emotions.  Spindler's methodology for influencing the course of justice is also revealing when the courts will not set flowing for him the blood that his emotions demand, he throws a tantrum.

Jaakow Spindler typifies the Jewish response.  Kochava Eden, a fellow passenger aboard El Al Flight 001 which returned John Demjanjuk to the US said "Instead of letting him fly with us, we should pull him behind the plane" (Time, Canadian Edition, 04-Oct-1993, p. 13).

A Jew Splashes Acid Into The Face Of Demjanjuk Attorney
Yoram Sheftel (1988)

Harassment and intimidation of a defense attorney need not be limited to heckling, catcalling, cursing, and threatening in the courtroom it can include throwing acid into his face outside the courtroom:

A Holocaust survivor hurled acid in the face of an Israeli lawyer for convicted Nazi murderer John Demjanjuk at a funeral yesterday for another Demjanjuk lawyer who died in an apparent suicide, police said.

The injured lawyer, Yoram Sheftel, was reported in satisfactory condition at Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital eye unit, where he was transferred for treatment after the incident.

The lawyer complained of blurred vision and pain in his left eye and will be kept under observation for several days, Hadassah spokesman Ruth Mekel said.

A woman standing near Mr. Sheftel, identified by Israel Radio as author Edma Shabtai, suffered a minor eye injury from the acid.

Police identified the assailant as Yisrael Yehezkeli, 70, who was detained after the attack at Jerusalem's Sanhedria Cemetery.

Reporters who covered the 14-month Demjanjuk trial said Mr. Yehezkeli was a frequent spectator.


Israelis have voiced resentment that Jewish lawyers would defend a suspected Nazi war criminal.
Reuter and AP, Acid hurled on lawyer for Nazi, Globe and Mail, 02-Dec-1988.

Jews Possibly Murder Demjanjuk Attorney Dov Eitan (1988)

The acid hurled in the face of Yoram Sheftel cited immediately above happened to be at the funeral of Dov Eitan, a former Israeli judge who had
joined the Demjanjuk defense team to prepare the appeal.  However, before he could ever appear in court, Dov Eitan plunged to his death from the 15th story of an office building.  Israeli authorities immediately labelled his death a suicide, but Dov Eitan had left no suicide note, nor any indication with family or friends of despondency or stress.  Eitan's wife, Miriam, said:

"They say he committed suicide.  That can't be, I don't believe it.  He left home before eight in the morning.  We ate breakfast together.  He told me he was going to his office, and we made an appointment to meet at eleven to buy a new suit for the appeal."
Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk affair: The rise and fall of a show-trial, Victor Gollancz, London, 1994, p. 244.

Perhaps the explanation for Dov Eitan's demise is that he was a man of stature who looked like he was going to begin to give John Demjanjuk the first effective defense that John Demjanjuk had ever seen (and as it turned out, that Demjanjuk ever would see), this by means of a broad range of initiatives, among them documenting graphically the misconduct of the three Israeli judges (Levin-Tal-Dorner) who had originally convicted John Demjanjuk and sentenced him to death, a video that would have become a cult classic had it ever been produced, but a video that was never made once Dov Eitan lay dead:

The final request to be made on September 2 will be to allow the defense access to the videotapes of the entire trial and isolate the actions of the three-judge panel, in order to point out what it believes to be the court's prejudice towards defense witnesses and defense counsel.
Former Israeli judge joins Demjanjuk defense, Ukrainian Weekly, 04-Sep-1988.

Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that Dov Eitan's death signifies, among other things, that the state of Israel had no intention of allowing scenes of Jewish judges shouting abuse at the defense (not to mention the Jewish audience dancing and singing in the aisles of a courtroom, standing up on their seats, clapping rhythmically while chanting "Death! Death! Death!") to be included in a cult classic.

Were survival the only consideration, then we note how superior was your attitude as compared to Dov Eitan's Dov Eitan wished to bring Israeli courtroom misbehavior to the attention of the world, and is today dead; you condoned Israeli courtroom misbehavior by lying about it and thus shielding it from the view of the world, and you are today alive.  It is obvious that you could have taught Dov Eitan a lesson about survival that it is better to be a live coward than a dead hero though one can imagine that Dov Eitan might have come from that strange breed of men who would have pushed away your lesson with contempt, and drawn away from you in disgust.

Jews Demand Ouster of Judge Norman Roettger in Fort Lauderdale (1978)

Third-party attempts to influence the outcome of Jewish show trials sometimes focus not on the defense, but on the judge, in the instance below, Judge Roettger sitting on the Fedorenko case in Fort Lauderdale.  What provoked the Jewish Defense League to call for Judge Roettger's ouster? His sin was to give the defense more time to gather evidence:

The court was aware that the Jewish Defense League members were in attendance in the courtroom as spectators [...].

The court was well aware of the emotional nature of the issues in this case and wished to assure the citizens in South Florida that any such continuance would not be one of indefinite duration even though it might take many months and perhaps well over a year.  The court attempted to communicate that matter but the attempt was either misconstrued or too little, too late.  The misinterpretation of the length of a possible continuance apparently stimulated the Jewish Defense League into printing and handing out leaflets by the following afternoon demanding the disqualification and impeachment of the trial judge.
Norman C. Roettger Jr., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Feodor Fedorenko, Defendant, Case no. 77-2668-Civ-NCR, 25-Jul-1978, p. 194.

Jews Riot in Judge Martin Travers' Baltimore Courtroom (1977)

Judge Roettger cited just above also made reference to an earlier JDL outburst in a Baltimore court room during the trial of retired factory worker Karlis Detlavs, 66 years old at the time, for crimes allegedly committed against Jews while working as a guard in Latvia during WW II.  When the prosecution not the defense this time, but the prosecution, mind you asked for time to obtain more evidence, the Jewish Defense League reaction was a "riot in the courtroom":

[T]he court was also aware that, when an Administrative Law Judge announced a continuance to permit the government to obtain more evidence in a deportation hearing in Baltimore of an alleged ghetto guard in Latvia, the Jewish Defense League had staged what can be described as a riot in the courtroom.  See news article, p. 6E, Fort Lauderdale News dated Dec. 4, 1977.
Norman C. Roettger Jr., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Feodor Fedorenko, Defendant, Case no. 77-2668-Civ-NCR, 25-Jul-1978, p. 194.

Consulting the Fort Lauderdale News article cited by Judge Roettger above brought to light the following elaboration of the JDL reaction in Baltimore which was directed against Judge Martin Travers whose sin was to give chief prosecutor James W. Grable time to negotiate with Soviet authorities for possible evidence, and possibly also to find more witnesses:

On the day the hearings were postponed indefinitely, angry members of the militant Jewish Defense League were tossed out of the courtroom after shouting at Judge Travers.

At a news conference after the hearing, Bonnie Pechter, national director of the JDL, said "This is the beginning of a ... campaign against every single Nazi war criminal in this country."

Asked if her organization wasn't presuming guilt prematurely, considering Detlavs had been accused but not convicted, Ms. Pechter replied, "Does Jewish blood mean nothing?  ...  We know this man is not innocent.  We do not believe in rights for Nazis."

She said if Detlavs were found innocent, her group would take "JDL justice," but she refused to say what that meant.
Richard Newcombe, More evidence sought in accused Nazi's trial, Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel, 04-Dec-1977, p. 6E.  Ellipses were in the original.

Jews Murder Soobzokov in NJ and Bomb Sprogis in NY (1985)

Reports such as the following permit us to conclude that threat of "JDL justice" that we read just above was not empty, and that third-party interference in Jewish show trials occasionally extends beyond the confines of the court building, and beyond the duration of the trial, and is directed at something other than influencing the judges or the defense attorneys it sometimes inflicts upon an acquitted defendant the punishment that the American justice system refused to grant:

The controversy took a violent turn last year, with twin bomb attacks one of them fatal on two former Soviet refugees who had been cleared of war crimes charges.  A spokesman for the FBI in Washington, Lane Bonner, said the bureau is continuing an intensive investigation into the two bombings and believes that the militant Jewish Defense League may have been responsible.

Last Aug. 15, Tscherim Soobzokov, 67, whom the Office of Special Investigations had sought unsuccessfully to deport, was lured out of his home in Paterson, N.J., at 4:30 a.m. by a ruse a fire set in his car and suffered massive injuries to his lower body as a bomb exploded at his doorstep.  His wife, daughter, 4-year-old grandson and a neighbor were also injured.

Accused by the Office of Special Investigations of having served in the German Waffen SS, the combat arm of Hitler's elite security force, Soobzokov had been a target of protests by the Jewish Defense League after the Justice Department dropped its charges for lack of evidence.  Friends of the Soobzokov family have explained that he belonged to a small, persecuted ethnic minority and accepted a Waffen SS uniform as a ploy to escape the Soviet Union with retreating German forces.

Another Bomb Blast

Then on Sept. 6, the day Soobzokov died, a similar bomb detonated at 4:30 a.m. in the Long Island community of Brentwood, N.Y., damaged the home of Elmars Sprogis, 70, a retired construction worker exonerated by a federal appeals court in 1984 of persecuting Jews in his native Latvia.  Sprogis was not hurt, but a passer-by, who apparently was attracted by a fire set in Sprogis' car as a lure, was seriously injured.

Shortly after the explosion, the Long Island newspaper Newsday received a telephone call in which an apparently recorded voice reportedly said: "Listen carefully.  Jewish Defense League.  Nazi war criminal.  Bomb.  Never again."

The FBI has since warned defense attorneys involved in war crimes cases to be alert to the possibility of further violence and to urge their clients to take precautions against reprisals.
Robert Gillette, Soviet Aide Warned U.S. on War Crime Evidence, Los Angeles Times, 28-Apr-1986.

Although the two above bombings happen to be of acquitted defendants, the terror that they inspire is not confined to defendants alone rather, the FBI warns that defense attorneys too could be the subject of similar attacks, and we note that the JDL does not specify that it excludes judges from blame for proceedings that do not follow a JDL script.

Jews Block Supreme Court Appointment of Judge Gilbert Merritt (1993)

The following excerpt demonstrates two avenues of Jewish third-party interference:

Forward reported intense concern by national Jewish organizations that federal Circuit Court Judge Gilbert Merritt, a member of the panel, has tilted toward the defense.  "Concern was so intense," wrote Forward writer David Twersky, "that President Clinton removed Judge Merritt from a short list of nominees to the Supreme Court after three major Jewish groups protested his possible elevation." 

White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum had met with Merritt while he was under consideration for the Supreme Court.  Protests about Merritt came from the AntiDefamation League, World Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Forward reported.

"The chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is accused of displaying an 'insensitivity' to the Holocaust and harboring antipathy to the OSI," Twersky wrote of Merritt.  It was Judge Merritt who reopened the Demjanjuk case last year.

Twersky pointed out that most of Judge Merritt's critics have insisted on anonymity.  Those critics say that their concerns about Merritt began before his Demjanjuk decision.  They were disturbed by his 1991 blocking of the deportation of an alleged Nazi slave-camp guard, Leonid Petkiewytsch, on grounds that he had not actually persecuted Jews, but merely assisted. 

Merritt is also viewed with suspicion for having chosen not to return the Demjanjuk case to the judge who heard the denaturalization and extradition proceedings, Chief Judge Frank Battisti of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  Since Battisti was most familiar with the matter, the critics said, he would be the natural choice to investigate the charge of misdeeds by the prosecution.

Twersky wrote that Merritt was said to have asked Battisti if a Vanity Fair article about the case had persuaded him of misconduct.  Battisti said no and asked that he be allowed to review the case.  Merritt, however, gave the task to Judge Wiseman, seemingly reversing an earlier Sixth Circuit judgment that "judicial economy is served" by choosing a judge familiar with the case.

The Forward reported that Merritt denies he had a conversation with Battisti before he appointed Wiseman.  Battisti would not comment.  Forward said "sources close to" Battisti called the appointment of Wiseman "ludicrous."  (The selection of Wiseman was challenged and upheld by the Sixth Circuit.)

Sheldon Richman, American Jews Debate Demjanjuk Acquittal, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September/October 1993, p. 62, online at www.washington-report.org/backissues/0993/9309065.html  Forward is a widely read New York Jewish newspaper.

Any judge showing as marked a lack of subservience to Jewish demands as has been shown by Gilbert Merritt can expect to discover some heavy hitters brought out to swing against him, heavy hitters like Neal Sher.  Neal Sher's stellar career has been founded on a reliance on three devices: blind trust in unverifiable and suspect Soviet data, the suppression of exculpatory evidence, and uninhibited mendacity.  Despite this or perhaps because of it he has risen to the highest positions in Jewish organizations, as for example to the head of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and of the America Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC).  Among his assignments today is that of adviser to Canada's war crimes unit.  Despite the high positions that he manages to reach, Neal Sher continually demonstrates his unfitness for any of them (and demonstrates at the same time the ferocity of Jewish-implemented attempts at career destruction) by such statements as the following: "I've never been to Judge Merritt's chambers.  Do you think it's possible that right there, next to his copy of the Constitution, sits a collector's edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" (Neal Sher, Letter 10, 09-Feb-2001, Aren't animated images beneath you?).

A Jew Offers To Lead Indoctrination Classes For Canadian Judges (1998)

Sol Littman describes to the press his fantasy of Jews and as he is Canada's foremost Nazi hunter, we wonder if not himself leading political-indoctrination classes to be attended by Canadian judges.

To Littman's way of thinking, Canadian judges too often don't recognize that war crimes cases are "serious."  Littman does not detail what specific judicial defect he has in mind here.  Is he implying that Canadian judges crack jokes in the midst of holocaust testimony, or what?

Also in need of correction, according to Littman, is that court decisions are too often "unpredictable" and "offbeat," which might mean that they are not what Jewish leaders had been hoping for, a divergence that Littman perhaps visualizes himself bringing to the judges' attention for their correction.

Also, according to Littman, judges need instruction on the "important precedents set in key war crimes trials since the end of the war" precedents which, we infer, prosecution attorneys are inexplicably failing to bring to the attention of the court, and thus which need to be inculcated in judges in Jewish-led right-think classes before court.  What precedents exactly is it that Canadian judges are ignorant of, and that prosecution lawyers are failing to bring to their attention?  Littman does not say.  It is not his job to say.  Littman is a propagandist, a master of the sound bite, and does not do well where specificity and elaboration are called for.  Littman presumably does not mean precedents such as the following:

The only precedent that Sol Littman might feel it worthwhile to notice in all these show trials is the precedent of paying homage to the folk tale of the Jewish super-holocaust, so perhaps it is that folk tale that Sol Littman would like to recount in the brainwashing sessions that he fantasizes conducting for the benefit of Canadian judges.

Our judges none of whom experienced first hand the heaped, emaciated bodies of concentration camp victims seem unaware of the utter brutality of the Nazis' crimes.  [...]  Perhaps they could participate in seminars arranged by our leading law schools that would deal with the history of the Holocaust and the important precedents set in key war crimes trials since the end of the war.  In this way, Canadian judges may be convinced of the seriousness of war crimes cases and avoid the unpredictable, offbeat decision-making we have so far experienced.
Sol Littman, Toronto Star, 20-Oct-1998, p. A22.

What Sol Littman appears to be doing is joining the Jewish consensus that Jewish show trials too often collapse unless bolstered by third-party interference, and he offers himself as yet another third party which will be happy to participate in yet another variation of that interference.

And the implausibility of Sol Littman's political re-education classes ever being implemented does not mean that his recommendation was without effect.  It did have an effect.  What Littman succeeded in demonstrating to the Canadian judiciary is that even a Jew like himself by which I mean one with a mendacity rap sheet as long as your arm is able to bring to national attention his accusation that Canadian judges are non-serious, unpredictable, offbeat, insensitive, and ignorant.  From this demonstration, judges might infer that should Littman ever find himself particularly displeased with some future decision, it will be within his power to inflict more focussed damage by diagnosing the judge who wrote that decision as suffering from the psychiatric malady of anti-Semitism-holocaust-denial.

Is Third-Party Interference In Justice Integral To Jewish Culture?

The Jerusalem trial of John Demjanuk was broadcast to Israel on both radio and television.  Coverage of the trial blanketed the press.  Untold multitudes tramped in and out of the converted movie theater which served as a courtroom.  Thus, all of Israel knew of the third-party interference in the trial, and yet not more than one Jew in a million objected.  You knew of the third-party interference, and you did not object, you even condoned.  Jews did then to John Demjanjuk what they do today to Palestinians which is whatever they have the power to do, inhibited neither by higher principles nor by pragmatic considerations of what repercussions the morrow will bring.

The same with all the other instances of third-party interference cited above Jews en masse viewed each interference by their coreligionists as a Jewish right, as no more than the correction that needed to be applied to due process so as to guarantee the outcome that had been pre-defined as just.

In most Jewish show trials, direct evidence of third-party interference is lacking, since in most cases it consists of little more than an understood threat of future career destruction in case of failure to comply with the Jewish agenda.  As compliance with Jewish expectations is the most frequent course, there is no ensuing career destruction that could be entered in evidence of the existence of third-party interference; and where failure to comply does call down career destruction, the third-party interference may leave no clear track.  However, even in cases where no third-party interference is evident, we infer its influence to explain what would otherwise remain inexplicable namely the failure of defendants in Jewish show trials to put up the effective defense which is within their reach, as I explained in my letter to you of 04-Jul-2001.  In view of the universal failure of defendants to defend themselves, we may well hypothesize that Jewish intimidation is integral to all Jewish show trials, and therefore that it is integral to Jewish culture.

As for Jewish distrust of Western justice and Jewish readiness to interfere in its course, we need not be content with merely inferring it we are able to find prominent and influential Jewish movements articulating that same distrust, and in fact disparaging all existing secular justice systems, wherever possible supplementing them with Jewish religious laws and courts (the batei dinim), and even looking forward to the day when the Noahides (sometimes spelled Noachides) the Children of Noah, non-Jews working in the service of Jews seize control of governments around the world and replace their existing secular laws and courts with Jewish religious laws and courts:

Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform.  [...]  Jewish courts (the batei dinim of the rabbis) will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country, who will no longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts.  The pre-existing Noachide judges and courts will replace the existing court system of each country, and the legal code will be drastically rewritten to conform to halacha; in the United States, the emphasis will be on restoring the authority of the Constitution and abolishing all unconstitutional government programs and agencies.  [...]  And law and order will be fully restored through the establishment of internal security measures, again in accordance with Torah law.
Committee for Israeli Victory at www.noahide.com/finalwar.htm.

Why Your Double Standards
Toward the OJ Simpson And The John Demjanjuk Cases?

The exercise of transposing the characteristics of Jewish show trials to the OJ Simpson trial, as we have seen before, leads to absurdity.  It is absurd to imagine Judge Lance Ito hiring a movie theater for the OJ Simpson trial, allowing it to be packed with an audience hostile to OJ Simpson say with members of the Ku Klux Klan and on top of that permitting this hostile audience to harass the defence throughout the trial, and permitting even the audience's grand finale of dancing in the aisles, climbing up on the seats, and chanting "Death! Death! Death!", "Death to OJ!", "Death to Johnnie Cochran!", "Death to all blacks!"  If anything like that had happened at the OJ Simpson trial, I expect you might have objected to it.  Something like that did happen at the John Demjanjuk trial, you watched it happen, and you condoned it.

If the KKK had staged a riot in Lance Ito's courtroom, or called for his ouster, or after the trial blocked his career advancement, I expect you would not have let this pass without notice.  If the KKK bombed OJ Simpson after he was acquitted, perhaps you would have commented that justice was not being served.  If the KKK threw acid into the face of Johnnie Chochran, and pushed Robert Shapiro out of a fifteenth-story window, I expect you would have questioned whether OJ Simpson had received a fair trial.  If the KKK offered to conduct re-education classes for judges because they seemed insufficiently sensitive to the proud history of the Confederate South, you might write an essay on the subject.  If the KKK published its plan to take over the governments of nations around the world and replace their existing laws and courts with KKK laws and courts, you might raise your voice to sound a warning.

In the face of any such perversions of the OJ Simpson trial, I venture to predict that you would come forward to point out that Western-tradition justice is founded upon adherence to due process no matter how undesirable the outcome.  The solution to undesirable outcomes is to modify the due process through legislation, not to influence outcomes by means of third-party interference.  Hostile to Western justice is the notion of engineering a desired outcome at no matter what violation to due process.  That is what I would expect you to argue in response to the perversions of the OJ Simpson case that we are imagining.

However, when these same perversions occurred in actual Jewish show trials, you remained largely silent, and when you did speak out, it was to side with those who were perverting justice this for reasons of your own which I invite you to explain.

Lubomyr Prytulak