The Jewish show trial of German-Canadian-Estonian-Ukrainian Michael Seifert

Michael Seifert during WW II

Michael Seifert during WW II
  "Your control of 58 daily newspapers throughout Canada is alarming to Canadians who value free speech and democracy."
Lubomyr Prytulak

  December 8, 2000

F. David Radler
Deputy Chairman, Chief Operating Officer, President and Director
Hollinger International Inc.
712 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10019

F. David Radler:

The Vancouver Sun coverage of the war crimes trial in Verona, Italy of Vancouver resident Michael Seifert was extensive seven consecutive issues 18-Nov-2000 to 25-Nov-2000.  Three of the stories started on page 1.  Photographs of Michael Seifert were presented ten times.  The stories averaged a full broadsheet page apiece, making for a total of something like seven full broadsheet pages.

Michael Seifert is clearly German

In all this coverage, the Vancouver Sun furnishes several reasons for thinking that Michael Seifert is German:

  1. He bears a German name.

  2. He was born in the German colony of Landau situated in the Ukrainian SSR in 1924. We may infer that Landau is a German name from the National Geographic's Atlas of the World (6th ed.) listing three Landaus, all of them in Germany, none of them in Ukraine.

  3. During WW II, he was a member of the SS which accepted only Germans into its ranks.  (Had Vancouver Sun reporter Rick Ouston known this in time, he could have avoided getting it wrong on 18-Nov-2000 p. A8.)

  4. He embarked for Canada in 1951 from the German port of Bremerhaven.

  5. He sponsored his mother, Berta Seifert, to immigrate to Canada from Germany, and in 1982 she moved into the German Canadian Care Home in Vancouver.

  6. He speaks only German with his wife.

  7. His friends today that were mentioned, as for example Theresia Schneider, had German names.

  8. He was married at the Holy Family German Parish in Vancouver, where he still attends mass which is conducted in German.

  9. The Vancouver Sun refers to him and his wife as German: "both post-war German immigrants" [18-Nov-2000, p. A8].
And yet the Vancouver Sun repeatedly mis-identifies Michael Seifert as Ukrainian

Despite such numerous and compelling reasons as the above for viewing Michael Seifert as German, the Vancouver Sun repeatedly refers to him as Ukrainian (the emphasis below is mine):

  1. "The charges say he terrorized prisoners, along with another Ukrainian known as Otto Sein, under a camp commander named Alcino Cologna" [18-Nov-2000, p. A1].  One notes that the "other Ukrainian" also bears a German name.

  2. "A Second World War photograph of Misha Seifert, a Ukrainian SS guard stationed at a concentration camp in northern Italy during the war" [20-Nov-2000, p. A8].  This is from a caption which is in a bold font and readily catches the eye of the reader.

  3. "A Second World War photo (top) shows Misha Seifert, a Ukrainian SS guard at a concentration camp in northern Italy during the war" [21-Nov-2000, p. A8].  Another caption in bold in a prominent position on the upper-left of the page.

  4. "Giovanni Boni never saw the killings.  He would see the two Ukrainian prison guards enter a cell, then leave, and tell Boni to remove the body" [22-Nov-2000, p. A13].

  5. "Misha and Otto, that's how the two Ukrainian prison guards were known" [22-Nov-2000,, p. A13].

  6. "The charges say he murdered and tortured prisoners with a fellow Ukrainian guard, Otto Sein, whose whereabouts are unknown [22-Nov-2000, p. A13]

  7. "Dozens of people testified against Cologna at the end of the war, saying he allowed two Ukrainian SS guards to run rampage in the camp's prison torturing and murdering prisoners, Constantini told the court" [24-Nov-2000, p. A13].

  8. "For five days, the Italian military tribunal heard witnesses testify that Seifert, a Ukrainian member of the Nazi SS, was known in 1944 as Misha, a guard at the Bolzano concentration camp north of here" [25-Nov-2000, p. A1].

  9. "Witnesses also said Seifert and another Ukrainian SS guard named Otto Sein rampaged through prison cells at Bolzano, raping, torturing and killing" [25-Nov-2000, p. A2].
If it were the case that Michael Seifert was Ukrainian, then the Vancouver Sun's incessant hammering in of his being Ukrainian would have been inappropriate and unethical.  As Michael Seifert is not Ukrainian, but merely happened to have been born in a German colony situated in Ukraine, however, then the Vancouver Sun's incessant identification of him as Ukrainian is misleading and provocative.  To some it will seem to be a gratuitous spreading of hatred to a group which happens to have two outstanding WW II characteristics (1) that of having been among the leading victims of the Nazi aggression (10 million Ukrainians were killed during WW II), and (2) that of having been among the leading victors over Nazism (German KIA/MIA was more than nine times greater in the Eastern Slavic lands of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus than it was in the rest of the world combined).

The Vancouver Sun could as easily have identified Michael Seifert as Estonian or Canadian

The Vancouver Sun's labelling Seifert as Ukrainian advances from the inappropriate and misleading to the bizarre when we learn from the pages of the Vancouver Sun itself that Seifert's having been born in the German colony of Landau in the Ukrainian SSR is no more than a theory proposed by Italian prosecutors.  Seifert himself claims to have been born in Estonia, and during the 49 years of his residency in Canada has been accepted by Canadian authorities as having been born in Estonia.

Robert Matas writing in the Globe and Mail makes no mention of Seifert being Ukrainian, and accepts Estonia as his place of birth: "Documents presented in Verona showed that Mr. Seifert was born in Narva, Estonia, and arrived in Quebec on Aug. 14, 1951" [Globe and Mail, 25-Nov-2000, p. A3].  We might infer that Robert Matas was operating under ethnic-identification standards that were radically different from those of the Vancouver Sun, not only because he never identifies Michael Seifert as being Ukrainian or as having been born in Ukraine, but more importantly because he never even identifies him as German or speaking German or belonging to German organizations.  The only national identification that he makes is of the "Canadian Michael Seifert."

In view of Michael Seifert insisting, and Canadian authorities accepting, that he was born in Estonia, one might expect that some coverage of him somewhere would refer to him neither as Ukrainian nor as German, but as Estonian.  Very likely, though, this never happened, and we shall have occasion to examine why farther below.

Your inculcation in the Vancouver Sun that Michael Seifert is Ukrainian, then, is based on an Italian prosecutor's theory that he was born in a German colony in Ukraine, a theory which is denied by Michael Seifert himself and which is news to the Canadian government.  No impartial observer who is acquainted with his background would regard him as Ukrainian.  The only people capable of regarding Michael Seifert as Ukrainian are ones who have a motive for doing so that overpowers the dictates of common sense and of English usage.  The only people capable of labelling Michael Seifert as Ukrainian are ones that are using the Vancouver Sun as a channel of disinformation.

The Italians mis-identify Michael Seifert as Ukrainian as well

The listing above of nine instances of your identifying Michael Seifert as Ukrainian on the pages of the Vancouver Sun is not exhaustive.  Three other instances can be found, and I present them separately below because they are different they are direct quotes of what is being said about Michael Seifert in Italy.  The new conclusion that these further quotations suggest is that Michael Seifert is being inappropriately labelled as Ukrainian not only by you upon the pages of your Vancouver Sun, but also by the military court in Verona, Italy:

  1. "In a period from December 1944 and the month of April 1945, acting by himself and sometimes together with other military personnel belonging to the SS, particularly with the material complicity of another Ukrainian, which remains identified only with the particulars of Otto Sein[...]" [20-Nov-2000, p. A8].  This is a translation from the indictment against Michael Seifert.

  2. "Carla Giacomozzi testified that she works as the head of historical archives for the Bolzano region [...][...]  'Everyone remembers with horror the two Ukrainians Misha and Otto,' she said" [21-Nov-2000, p. A8].

  3. "Luciana [Menici] remembers the night as well.  'The two Ukrainians were dragging him.  The Two Beasts were beating him,' she said" [23-Nov-2000, p. A13].
However, the picture being painted by these further quotations is not easy to credit.  That picture is that during WW II, Italians encountered German armed forces, one of whose members bore the German surname Seifert, wore a German uniform, and spoke German, and yet for some mysterious reason the Italians could not bring themselves to think of this individual as German.  No, they somehow got hold of his dossier, discovered that he had been born in a German colony in the Soviet Union, and from that point on could not shake off their perception of him as Ukrainian, and that is why to this day they continue to refer to him as "the Ukrainian."

But surely this picture is fantastic and constitutes an impossibility!

The alternative view that any impartial reader of the Vancouver Sun finds himself compelled to is that Italians who came across Michael Seifert during WW II (a member of an SS detachment remember in an SS uniform, speaking German) would have perceived him as German, and would have found that perception impossible to shake.  If Michael Seifert did have any Ukrainian roots, he would have hidden them, as his comrades considered Ukrainians to be Untermenschen he would have hidden any Ukrainian roots from his comrades, from the Italian prisoners, and from the Italian camp personnel.  Therefore, Italian WW II witnesses who labelled Seifert as Ukrainian during his Verona trial were demonstrating the same startling bias as we just saw you demonstrating on the pages of the Vancouver Sun, and they consequently suffer the same loss of credibility.  As they are unlikely to be telling the truth, they are likely to be operating under some hidden motivation.

Michael Seifert is not very Ukrainian, but you are very Jewish

Since you so incessantly echo in your newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, the refrain that Michael Seifert is Ukrainian (which happens to be false and irrelevant), you force me to observe in this one letter to you that you are Jewish (which happens to be true and relevant).  Your being Jewish is relevant because it offers a possible explanation for the Vancouver Sun having so glaringly violated common sense and English usage.  That explanation is that the Vancouver Sun is a conduit for Jewish disinformation, and that inciting fear and hatred of Ukrainians is one of the goals of that Jewish disinformation.  Put another way, under your ownership and control, the Vancouver Sun is a Jewish newspaper, and inciting fear and hatred of Ukrainians is integral to Jewish culture.

Jewish leaders have a hidden agenda

Reasons for Jewish leaders inciting fear and hatred of Ukrainians have been expounded at length on my web site, the Ukrainian Archive, at www.ukar.org, the leading five of which reasons are as follows:
  1. Group cohesion.  To increase Jewish cohesion by inciting fear and hatred of non-Jews, and by provoking reciprocal emotions in non-Jews which Jews will label as anti-Semitism, and which anti-Semitism will be used to further strengthen group cohesion.  It is most effective to focus this fear and hatred on a particular group, and prudent to focus it on a weak group, which is why Ukraine is preferred as a target instead of Germany.  Focussing on Ukraine as the Jewish enemy brings other benefits, such as those below.

  2. Brain drain.  To provoke animosity between Ukrainians and Jews so as to increase the brain drain from Ukraine to Israel.  Ukraine held, and still holds, a large reservoir of Jews, and in view of the relative standards of living of Ukraine and Germany, it is much easier to induce a Ukrainian Jew to emigrate to Israel than it is to induce a German Jew to do so.  That is why priority is given to teaching Jews to fear and hate Ukrainians as Nazis, rather than Germans.

  3. Plunder.  To isolate and destabilize Ukraine so as to facilitate the plundering of its wealth by the Jewish mafiya.  Ukraine is easy to steal from because it is unstable, and the more discredit that can be heaped on its people, the longer it will remain unstable, and the longer can the theft continue.

  4. Monopolize the mask of victim.  To inculcate the image of Jews as victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity so as to displace the images of

  5. Discredit the victim.  To discredit the Ukrainian victim before he has regained enough strength to point an accusing finger, some instances of Ukrainian victimization by Jews being

We may venture to speculate, then, that among the reasons why the Vancouver Sun does not identify Michael Seifert as Estonian might be that Estonia has fewer Jewish brains that can be drained to Israel, less wealth that can be plundered by the Jewish mafiya, and a briefer history of exploitation by Jews which needs to be buried.

And Italian leaders have a hidden agenda too

What might be the reason behind the Italian bias?  The Italian military is unique among WW II Axis powers in having avoided recognition of, and culpability for, its own massive war crimes committed in Ethiopia and in the Balkans.  On the question of war criminality, Italy has a dismal record and low credibility.  Possibly, the trial of Michael Seifert serves to deflect attention from Italy's own guilt the subject of increasing scrutiny in recent years by pointing to the guilt of others.

At the same time, one can imagine that the Italian prosecution of Michael Seifert is a Jewish initiative, as is his mis-identification as Ukrainian, just as it appears to be on the pages of the Vancouver Sun.

Jewish accusations of war criminality lack credibility

Balanced coverage of the Michael Seifert case on the pages of the Vancouver Sun would have disclosed that most Holocaust stories are false.  Jewish accusations, or testimony, of war criminality have been discredited so often that prudence demands that any fresh ones be approached with skepticism.  Of the vast number of instances that could be cited, here are three that the majority of Vancouver Sun readers will not remember, and whose recollection alongside the Seifert coverage would have made possible a less superficial understanding of the Seifert case:

  1. Ivan Chrabatyn as the Butcher of Rudolf's Mill.  In 1971 the Vancouver Sun had accused Ivan Chrabatyn (a real Ukrainian this time, but like Michael Seifert elderly, and like Seifert a blue-collar worker, and like Seifert living in East Vancouver), of having participated in the execution of 10,000 Jews, and of having personally directed the massacre of 300 of them at Rudolf's Mill.  Here the Vancouver Sun made the mistake of relying on Simon Wiesenthal who was claiming, "We have about 60 witnesses who can positively identify him."

    But in the end, as is standard for Wiesenthal, zero witnesses were produced, overwhelming exculpatory evidence came to the fore, and the Vancouver Sun paid $11,000 to have Chrabatyn drop his libel suit.  The Vancouver Sun lawyer, Peter W. Butler, wrote on 10-May-1972, "I am pleased to advise you that I am satisfied that the allegations that were made pertaining to you were untrue."  In 1971, it was not easy to find eyewitnesses to testify to WW II innocence, but it was possible, and Ivan Chrabatyn did it; in 2000, it is no longer possible, and Michael Seifert is defenseless, a topic I will touch upon again below.

    In its current stories about Michael Seifert, then, the Vancouver Sun appears to have drawn no moral from its earlier embarrassment at having trusted Jewish-Holocaust-industry disinformation.  In 1971, Simon Wiesenthal cost the Vancouver Sun $11,000 and a loss of credibility, and yet in 2000 the Vancouver Sun (18-Nov-2000, p. A8) paradoxically cites the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation to lend credibility to its accusations against Michael Seifert.

  2. Frank Walus as The Butcher of Kielce.  The indefatigable Simon Wiesenthal also accused Polish-American Frank Walus of having been the sadistic Nazi war criminal, The Butcher of Kielce.  Some dozen Jewish eyewitnesses clambered forward to swear that he was so indeed.  Chicago Judge Julius Hoffman did not hesitate to hand down the verdict that he was so indeed.  The quality of the testimony met the same high standards of goriness that appeared in the Vancouver Sun coverage of the Seifert trial, and that Jewish witnesses have made a tradition of supplying:

    Almost 18 years ago, Frank Walus was accused by the U.S. Department of Justice as being a Nazi Gestapo and SS officer, so notorious for his cruelty to Polish Jews as to have become known as the "Butcher of Kielce."  Mr. Walus maintained that rather than being in Poland, he was 800 miles away working as a forced laborer on a German farm.  He had documents and witnesses to support him.

    On the other and, the Justice Department had 12 eyewitnesses to his Nazi brutality.  "I will never forget that face," one such witness said.  "This is the face who killed an innocent man whose only crime was the fact that he was a Jew."  "Here," said another witness, standing before Walus in the Chicago District courtroom, "sits the murderer."

    Another witness testified that after a woman, accompanied by her two daughters, refused to disrobe upon Walus' order, Walus shot the woman in the back of her head and just as quickly killed the two girls.  Testimony of similar character was related by all the other Holocaust survivor eyewitnesses.
    Ukrainian American Bar Association, Part III, Deceit of U.S. Justice Department could cause death of innocent man, Ukrainian Weekly, 01-Jul-1990.

    However, six years after Walus's persecution began, and two years after he was stripped of his U.S. citizenship, conclusive evidence of his innocence surfaced, and the Justice Department withdrew the charges.  Such is the worth of a dozen Jewish eyewitnesses testifying to the Jewish Holocaust.  Two Jewish authors Ashman and Wagman below recounting the Walus case are happy to place the blame at Wiesenthal's feet, but not at the feet of the dozen Jewish eyewitnesses, which may strike some as peculiar, since Wiesenthal had merely been misled, whereas the dozen had manufactured fantastic lies and presented them in court:

    Only later was the source of the "evidence" against Walus that had reached Simon Wiesenthal identified.  Walus had bought a two-family duplex when he came to Chicago.  In the early 1970s, he rented out the second unit to a tenant with whom he eventually had a fight.  Walus evicted the tenant, who then started telling one and all how his former landlord used to sit around and reminisce about the atrocities he had committed against Jews in the good old days.  Apparently one of the groups to which he told the story was a Jewish refugee agency in Chicago, which passed the information along to Simon Wiesenthal.
    Charles Ashman & Robert J. Wagman, The Nazi Hunters, Pharos Books, New York, 1988, p. 195.

  3. John Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka.  The gruesome stories of John Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, after being tossed about by prosecutors and by the press for several years, were eventually corroborated by a string of Jewish eyewitnesses in his trial in Jerusalem, and were convincing enough for three Israeli judges to convict him and sentence him to death.  Stories of this sort:

    As part of the torments he inflicted on prisoners from the work parties, the Accused one day ordered a Camp 2 prisoner named Finkelstein to lay face down on the ground and to roll down his trousers.  When the prisoner had done so, the Accused took a tool for drilling wood and drilled a hole into the prisoner's buttocks.

    In another case, the Accused forced one of the prisoners to have sexual relations with a girl who remained alive after the corpses had been removed from the chambers following the gassing process.
    Indictment, Israel vs. Demjanjuk, 29-Sep-1986, p. 21.

    There was a time when the repetition of such Jewish fables as the above disgraced John Demjanjuk, but such is not the case today, as he was acquitted upon appeal in Jerusalem, and today the claim that he was ever at Treblinka has been abandoned.  The testimony of the eyewitness survivors who swore knowing John Demjanjuk at Treblinka is thus revealed as having been fabricated.  Today these stories stand as a disgrace to the State of Israel and to the Jewish people.
Jewish Holocaust-industry representatives lack credibility

Just as it is the case that most Holocaust stories are fables, so also is it the case that most Holocaust-industry representatives are fabulists.  Alphabetically, a few of these fabulists are:

  1. Irving Abella, because of his close involvement with the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) as for example in his capacity of War Crimes Committee Chair may be credited with participation in, or in some cases leading authorship of, a series of CJC publicity stunts and hoaxes whose primary goal was to disseminate disinformation regarding Ukrainian involvement in Nazi war crimes:

    1. Littman-Blumenthal Mengele Scare,
    2. Littman-Wiesenthal Thousands of Nazi War Criminals Scare,
    3. Commemorating the Deschênes Commission Hoax,
    4. Rambam-Abella Fifty Confessions Hoax,
    5. Rambam-CJC Guaranteed Flip Hoax,
    6. Abella-CJC Neal Sher Will Show Us How Hoax.

  2. Yitzhak Arad testified at the 1987 trial of John Demjanjuk in Jerusalem that 870,000 Treblinka bodies vanished into thin air, leaving behind not a single body, not a single bone, not a single tuft of hair, not a single tooth, not a single pile of ash.  That Arad is testifying in a capital case seems insufficient to galvanize him into applying elementary logic.  Consider, for example, that if 870,000 bodies are burned in open fires, the teeth will not burn (and much more than the teeth but let that pass), and on the assumption of a conservative 20 teeth per body instead of the full 32, that gives us 17.4 million teeth that must have been left behind.  If the teeth are pulverized, then that still leaves us with a mountain of pulverized teeth that cannot vanish into thin air any more than the teeth themselves can.

    And that's not all that vanished without a trace.  According to Arad, the entire camp vanished without a trace as well, leaving behind not a single map of the camp, not a single blueprint of any building in the camp, not a single photograph of the camp as a whole or of any building in the camp or of any room inside any building in the camp, not a single road or sewer line or garbage dump or telephone post or foundation or brick, not even a single area of disturbed earth where any of the massive burial pits were supposed to have been.

    That was the testimony that Yitzhak Arad, leading authority on the Jewish Holocaust, head of Jerusalem's Yad Vashem for the previous fifteen years, fresh from having written his book, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka that is the testimony that Yitzhak Arad presented in Jerusalem as his contribution to the Jewish effort to get John Demjanjuk hanged.

  3. Alan Dershowitz has run hard in the race to lead the struggle to have John Demjanjuk convicted in the court of public opinion, which paralleled the struggle to get him convicted in various courts of law.  Undermining Dershowitz's efforts, however, has been his weak committment to truth.  The outstanding example documented on the Ukrainian Archive so far is Dershowitz insisting to Lord Denning that John Demjanjuk's being sentenced to death was greeted with no more than a few muffled sobs, and that the audience sang and prayed only after the judges left the courtroom.  However, the alternative view that the Demjanjuk audience was out of control from the first day of the trial, and erupted in a bloodthirsty outcry the moment the death sentence was pronounced, is supported not only by Demjanjuk's defense attorney, Yoram Sheftel, and not only by the trial transcript, and not only by nineteen press accounts, but also by Dershowitz himself in an article he wrote three years prior to presenting Lord Denning with his untruthful version.

  4. Jonathan Kay, editorial board member of your National Post newspaper, writes articles supporting the authenticiy of current Holocaust stories, but has nothing to say when presented with evidence that these stories have been so adulterated with falsehoods that they have become more fiction than fact.

  5. Jerzy Kosinski was being groomed for a Nobel Prize when it was discovered that his Holocaust-survivor recollections were total fabrications, and that the Poles whom he had maligned in his novel, The Painted Bird, as brainless and brutal anti-Semites had in reality, at considerable risk to themselves, protected the Kosinski family, and had enabled them to pass the war years in a comfort not shared by the Poles themselves.

  6. Sol Littman is the first author of one of the two publicity stunts that led to the creation of the Deschênes Commission the Littman-Blumenthal Mengele Scare; and is the co-author of the second of the two publicity stunts the Littman-Wiesenthal Thousands of War Criminals Scare.  Littman was excoriated by Commissioner Deschênes, and his reputation left in tatters in the minds of that infinitesimal minority of Canadians who have read the Commission Final Report.  To illustrate the low esteem in which Commissioner Deschênes came to hold Littman's credibility, I reproduce the following excerpts from his report:

    [T]he Commission must say that it takes a dim view of the attitude of Mr. Littman.  [...]

    Littman was [...] put on notice [by his own research] that, in view of the paucity of available information, it was dangerous to make the assumptions with which he was playing.  [...]

    There is no documentary evidence whatsoever of an attempt by Dr. Joseph Mengele to seek admission to Canada from Buenos Aires in 1962.

    The affirmation has come from Mr. Sol Littman, and from him alone.  [...]

    The advice which Littman solicited [in the course of his own research] [...] did not support his assumptions, but put him on notice about their fragility.

    As stated at the outset, all that Littman could rely on was "speculation, impression, possibility, hypothesis".  Yet he chose to transmute them into statements of facts which he publicized [...].

    This is a case where not a shred of evidence has been tendered to support Mr. Littman's statement to the Prime Minister of Canada on 20 December 1984, or Mr. Ralph Blumenthal's article in the New York Times on 23 January 1985.

    Indeed Mr. Littman has stated before the Commission:

    Well, let me put it this way.  We have accepted the fact that Mengele did not come to Canada and, in all likelihood, never applied to come over to Canada.  We had no difficulty accepting that.

    The Commission accordingly FINDS without the slightest hesitation that:

    8   Dr. Joseph (Josef) Mengele did not apply in Buenos Aires in 1962 for a visa to enter Canada, either under his own name or under any of his several known aliases.

    Of course in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians who have not read the Deschênes Commission report, Sol Littman continues to enjoy the reputation of Canada's leading Nazi hunter.  It testifies to Littman's competence and integrity that he accepts this title without being able to point to a single Nazi that he has helped bag over the course of his Nazi-hunting career.  The number of Sol Littman's misrepresentations is vast, and I invite you to read my beginning to catalog them in my letters to him which are on the Ukrainian Archive.  You will note in these letters that I ask Littman to produce several documents that he has claimed are in his possession, and that are supposed to be highly inculpatory of Ukrainians, but that he has neglected to do so.  I have even offered Sol Littman immediate publication of his documents on the Ukrainian Archive, without regard to how damaging they may be to Ukrainians, but he does not take me up on my offer.

  7. Martin Mendelsohn seized control of the Demjanjuk case from the U.S. Attorney's office for his own Special Litigation Unit (SLU) at the request of Israel in an effort to somehow protect Jewish witnesses from the sort of uninhibited cross-examination which had discredited and traumatized them during their testimony in the Fedorenko trial in Ft. Lauderdale.  Under Mendelsohn's direction of the Demjanjuk case both as head of the SLU, and later as the first head of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) he not only withheld exculpatory evidence from the Demjanjuk defense, but actually attempted to sabotage the Demjanjuk defense by inviting it to rely on him alone to provide evidence from foreign sources when he had no intention of supplying any.

    For example, if John Demjanjuk had worked at Treblinka, then he would have appeared on lists of Treblinka guards, and if John Demjanjuk had been Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, then he would have taken the prize for most notorious butcher of WW II, and would have appeared on lists of war criminals.  However, when Dr. Czeslaw Pilichowski, Director of the Main Commission Investigating Nazi Crimes in Poland, was asked for information concerning John (Ivan or Iwan) Demjanjuk, he wrote that the Commission did not have any.  This reply was highly exculpatory, and should have been given to the defense, but was not.  The Demjanjuk defense discovered the Pilichowski letter only by going through OSI garbage.

    We will see in the Simon Wiesenthal section below that Martin Mendelsohn acted for Weisenthal in the course of the Deschênes Commission hearings.

  8. F. David Radler, yourself, deserve a place among Holocaust fabulists for your admiration on the pages of the Vancouver Sun of the Jewish Show trial of Michael Seifert, which is the subject of the present letter; and for your audacious transformation of Michael Seifert into a Ukrainian; and perhaps for your sponsorship of the Rambam-Abella Fifty Confessions Hoax, already cited opposite Irving Abella above, and commented upon more fully opposite Mike Wallace below.

  9. Eli Rosenbaum, since 1995 Director of the U.S. Office of Special Investigations (OSI), a Jewish-run branch of the Justice Department whose sole purpose is to prosecute Nazi war criminals.  As the U.S. Justice Department has no Ukrainian-run department prosecuting Communist war criminals, and no Armenian-run department prosecuting Turkish war criminals, and no Tibetan-run department prosecuting Chinese war criminals, and no Chinese-run department prosecuting Japanese war criminals, and no Cambodian-run department prosecuting Pol Pot war criminals, and no Vietnamese-run department prosecuting American war criminals, and no Palestinian-run department prosecuting Israeli war criminals, the very existence of the OSI is a testament to the corruption of the American Justice system, and to the lack of integrity of OSI employees.

    As an OSI employee over the intervals 1980-1984, and 1988 to the present, Rosenbaum was involved in the early persecution of John Demjanjuk, and directs the current persecution.  That early persecution has been revealed to have been fraudulent.  The current persecution consists in shifting the locus of John Demjanjuk's alleged crimes from Treblinka to Sobibor.  The weakness of this latest accusation is that Yitzhak Arad testified at the Jerusalem trial of John Demjanjuk that Sobibor was one of the three death camps (Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec) for which not the slightest physical or documentary evidence exists.  Nothing is known of Sobibor except the fantastic tales of a handful of Jews, which if we credit would require us to believe, for example, that Ivan the Terrible of Sobibor was not a Ukrainian at all but a Jew, and one practicing some peculiar shaving habits: "There was a certain Jew there, whom Paul and all the Jews called "Der schreckliche Ivan" (Ivan the Terrible).  Half the beard of this man had been shaved off, half the hair of his head, half his eyebrows and half his moustache."

    In other words, there is no credible evidence that any Sobibor crimes ever took place, and so there is no credible evidence on which to base any prosecution, and yet Eli Rosenbaum continues prosecuting John Demjanjuk.

  10. Morley Safer is the co-author of the Wiesenthal-Safer Calumny, outlined in the Simon Wiesenthal section below.  Generally, Safer feels no qualms about getting up in front of 30 million viewers and offering them his off-the-top-of-my-head prejudices and stereotypes and hatreds which he assumes must be valid because he has heard them so often from everybody around him, and repeated them so often himself.  He tells us that Western Ukrainians are particularly predisposed to blaming their troubles on others, but doesn't tell us what historian or sociologist offered that observation.  He tells us that the accusation has been made that Ukrainians are genetically anti-Semitic, but doesn't tell us what geneticist made that accusation.  He tells us that the government of Ukraine has responded that Ukrainians may not be genetically anti-Semitic, but doesn't tell us the name of the government spokesman who deigned to give such an idiotic reply to such an idiotic charge.  He imagines that there is such a thing as "the church of Ukraine," and he tells us that it too has responded that Ukrainians may not be genetically anti-Semitic, but does not name any church, nor any church representative who offered the reply.  He doesn't know the difference between the SS and the Waffen SS.

  11. Neal Sher is a master of suppressing exculpatory evidence.  His level of achievement in this department can be inferred from the following two passages:

    HADZEWYCZ: If you had the opportunity today to speak with the two former directors of the OSI, Allan Ryan ... What would you say to him today?

    SHEFTEL: I would tell him that he is a key player in, in my opinion, the worst cover-up in concealing evidence in a major case taken by an American public prosecutor in modern history after the second world war.

    HADZEWYCZ: And what would you say to his successor, Neal Sher?

    SHEFTEL: Exactly the same.

    HADZEWYCZ: Those two are equally guilty of this cover-up?

    SHEFTEL: I would say Allan Ryan more, because Allan Ryan was in charge of the OSI in August 1978 and through 1981 this is the key, crucial time of the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute Demjanjuk.  And the decision to prosecute was made by Allan Ryan, who knew that Demjanjuk was not "Ivan the Terrible" and yet he prosecuted him for being "Ivan the Terrible."  Again, I don't know of a major case with such a deliberate cover-up as Allan Ryan, more, and Neal Sher, not much less, are responsible for.

    Roma Hadzewycz interviews Yoram Sheftel, The Ukrainian Weekly, 21-Jul-1996, p. 3.

    Thus, we hold that the OSI attorneys acted with reckless disregard for the truth and for the government's obligation to take no steps that prevent an adversary from presenting his case fully and fairly.  This was fraud on the court in the circumstances of this case where, by recklessly assuming Demjanjuk's guilt, they failed to observe their obligation to produce exculpatory materials requested by Demjanjuk.
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit No. 85-3425 17-Nov-1993, p. 35.

  12. Mike Wallace hosted a 1997 60 Minutes story featuring private detective Steven Rambam who claimed to have tape-recorded numerous (50 according to the CJC) confessions from Nazi war criminals living in Canada.  Since that time, not one of these 50 confessions has been used in any litigation anywhere in the world, either civil or criminal, or in any administrative procedure, and not one has been published either by Steven Rambam or by the CJC.  This is the Rambam-Abella Fifty Confessions Hoax already cited above in the Irving Abella section.

    As it appears that the Rambam project was sponsored by the Jerusalem Post, and as you have owned the Jerusalem Post since 1989, it may be wondered whether this aborted project sprang from your brow, and whether Steven Rambam was merely a low-level participant.

  13. Yankiel Wiernik is perhaps the pre-eminent Jewish-Holocaust-survivor eyewitness, as his account of Treblinka was relied upon heavily in the Jerusalem trial of John Demjanjuk, and is spoken of with reverence to this day, as in Yitzhak Arad's book Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka.  If Yankiel Wiernik's account of Treblinka can be doubted, then nobody of comparable stature is available to fill his shoes, and the credibility of the Treblinka story is dealt a mortal blow.  And yet what is Wiernik's credibility?

    Yankiel Wiernik relates that he was fired upon by a Ukrainian guard who was just behind him, and that the bullet penetrated all his clothing but stopped at his shoulder leaving only a scratch.  Wiernik relates that as he helped drag bodies that had not received immediate burial, their arms and legs fell off.  Where the woman's world record for high jump is around 2.1 meters, Wiernik claims to have witnessed a girl prisoner jump over a barbed wire fence 3 meters high, then wrench the rifle out of the hands of a pursuing Ukrainian guard, and then shoot two Ukrainian guards before being overpowered.  Wiernik relates that whenever an airplane was heard over Treblinka, prisoners would conceal piles of corpses numbering 10 or 12 thousand from view by covering them with branches.  Wiernik relates that when Germans threw a burning object into an opened mass grave just to see what would happen, "clouds of black smoke began to pour out at once and the fire thus started glimmered all day long."  Wiernik relates that when bodies were tossed into a mass grave without being given a chance to cool off first, "they were so tightly packed that, when the graves were opened on a scorchingly hot day, steam belched forth from them as if from a boiler."

    In other words, Yankiel Wiernik gives every indication of never having witnessed the scenes he is describing, but rather of making them up out of his fevered imagination, and where that imagination is constrained by a knowledge of the world that is little better than that of a child.

  14. Elie Wiesel fails to describe gas chambers as the chief method of execution in his recollections of Auschwitz, and instead describes the method of execution as forcing prisoners to leap into pits of fire.  According to Wiesel, although the Germans were on the verge of murdering him the way they were murdering all the Jews at Auschwitz, they nevertheless allocated scarce resources to him the use of a German surgeon and a German anesthetist, together with a week's stay in hospital, together with rations so generous that he was sending out leftovers to his father who was not in the hospital.  Unfortunately, Wiesel cannot keep straight from one telling of the story to the next whether the genocidal Germans operated on the sole of his foot or on his knee.  When offered the choice of accompanying the genocidal Germans as they abandoned Auschwitz, or remaining to be liberated by the approaching Soviets, Wiesel chose to accompany the genocidal Germans.

  15. Simon Wiesenthal has already made his appearance above in connection with the Ivan Chrabatyn and Frank Walus cases, and can be credited with a long string of similar fiascos, as for example his co-authorship of the Littman-Wiesenthal Thousands of Nazi War Criminals Scare which was the second publicity stunt leading to the creation of the Deschênes Commission.  Wiesenthal, like Littman, is excoriated by Commissioner Deschênes for his irresponsibility, as in the following statements:

    It was obvious that the list of 217 officers of the Galicia Division furnished by Mr. Wiesenthal was nearly totally useless and put the Canadian government, through the RCMP and this Commission, to a considerable amount of purposeless work.
    Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 258

    The Commission has tried repeatedly to obtain the incriminating evidence allegedly in Mr. Wiesenthal's possession, through various oral and written communications with Mr. Wiesenthal himself and with his solicitor, Mr. Martin Mendelsohn of Washington, D.C., but to no avail: telephone calls, letters, even a meeting in New York between Mr. Wiesenthal and Commission Counsel on 1 November 1985 followed up by further direct communications, have succeeded in bringing no positive results, outside of promises.
    Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 257.

    Among other sins, Simon Wiesenthal can also be credited with being the chief author of the Wiesenthal-Safer Calumny which has Lviv Ukrainians killing five to six thousand Jews in the three days prior to German occupation, an event which he and Morley Safer introduced into the historical record gratuitously, and where an abundance of testimony indicates that in that same interval it was the Jewish-dominated NKVD that was killing Ukrainians by the thousands in Lviv, and by the tens of thousands throughout Ukraine.

    Wiesenthal's credibility is not enhanced by indications that he was a Nazi collaborator of massive proportions, as evidenced by such of his own admissions as that he had been allowed to keep two pistols by his German captors, or that while other escapees were executed following recapture, he was relieved of work and put on double rations.

How to stage a Jewish show trial

The following characteristics appear frequently, though not invariably, in Jewish-conducted, or Jewish-inspired, trials of individuals accused of Nazi war crimes, and when used in concert, all but guarantee conviction.  Readers of the Vancouver Sun who are unaware of these characteristics will be unable to evaluate the Michael Seifert trial properly:

  1. Pick a defenseless target.  Michael Seifert is 76 years old.  A retired blue-collar worker, his education is modest, as are his means.  He probably speaks middling English and negligible Italian.  Similar also were the characteristics of Ivan Chrabatyn, Frank Walus, and John Demjanjuk, and similar also are the characteristics of those being prosecuted today for half-century-old immigration infractions by Canada's war crimes unit.

  2. Have him tried by his victims.  Instead of handing the accused over to some impartial court, have him tried by his victims, or those who feel themselves to be his victims.  If he can't be brought to the place where his victims are, then try him in absentia; or try him where he is, but at least by a Jewish judge.  With reference to Eichmann's case, Hannah Arendt made the following observation:

    Many of Israel's best friends, Jewish and non-Jewish, felt she should act as the accuser, not the judge, that the court should collect the data and draw up the charges, and then lay them before the United Nations.  [...]  But another, more practical proposition, which usually is not mentioned precisely because it was feasible, was made by Dr. Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress.  Goldmann called upon Ben-Gurion to set up an international court in Jerusalem, with judges from each of the countries that had suffered under Nazi occupation.  This would not have been enough; [...] and the chief impairment of justice, that it was being rendered in the court of the victors, would not have been cured.  But it would have been a practical step in the right direction.

    Israel, as may be remembered, reacted against all these proposals with great violence.
    Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil, Viking Press, New York, 1963, p. 248.

  3. Conduct the trial far away, under unfamiliar laws, and in an incomprehensible language.  As Seifert's trial took place in Italy, he would have found its proceedings both inaccessible and incomprehensible.  John Demjanjuk's trial was conducted in Hebrew in Israel, as was Adolf Eichmann's, which raised costs astronomically, and limited the speed and the accuracy of comprehension of what was going on, and made it impossible to know whether what one was saying or writing was being translated into clear and effective Hebrew.

    Obviously, Michael Seifert would have gotten a higher quality of Jewish show trial if the Italian evidence had been handed over to Canadian prosecutors, and he had been tried in Vancouver.  That this alternative was avoided suggests that Seifert's persecutors expected that the evidence against him would not hold up in a Canadian court; or they feared that in a location that was accessible to him, and where he understood the language, he might be able to mount some sort of defense.

  4. Make sure the accused gets a bad lawyer.  It is not unreasonable to speculate that the defense attorney appointed in Italy to represent Seifert might have been only marginally competent and only perfunctorily motivated for reasons such as the following:

    • a good lawyer would be disinclined to work for the small wages that a military tribunal would offer anyone representing an in absentia defendant;
    • a good lawyer would find no satisfaction in representing a defendant whom he had never met and with whom he held no communication, and on whose behalf all that he would be able to offer would be the feeble "he was only following orders"; and
    • every lawyer would fear the injury to his career of being identified as an effective and enthusiastic defender of an accused Nazi war criminal, and so it would be the less successful lawyers with uncrowded schedules who would have found it difficult to turn down the invitation to represent Seifert.

    John Demjanjuk was forced to get an Israeli lawyer (because only an Israeli lawyer would be familiar with Israeli law and court procedure, and be fluent in Hebrew), and discovered that the only one who would take his case was Yoram Sheftel, an Israeli agent it turned out, who did a wonderful job hobbling the Demjanjuk defense.  Soon after a former Israeli judge, Dov Eitan, joined the Demjanjuk defense team to prepare the appeal, 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.

    Yoram Sheftel, attending Dov Eitan's funeral, had acid thrown in his face by a "Holocaust survivor."

    One can see that there are reasons why it may be hard to get a good lawyer, sometimes any lawyer, to represent a defendant accused of Nazi war crimes, and one can see that having gotten a lawyer, good or bad, it might not be easy to keep him from getting pushed off the top of a building, or from having acid thrown in his face.

    And one has only to read a transcript of the Eichmann trial to realize that Eichmann's lawyer, Dr. Robert Servatius, was incompetent, and may as well have been sleeping through much of the trial for all the good he was doing his client, and so may have been regarded by Israeli prosecutors and by the State of Israel more as an ally than as an opponent.

  5. Engineer an absence of defense witnesses.  When defense witnesses abound, as they did in the Eichmann case, scare them away:

    German witnesses for the defense were excluded from the outset, since they would have exposed themselves to arrest and prosecution in Israel under the same law as that under which Eichmann was tried.  (p. 114)
    The documentary evidence was supplemented by testimony taken abroad, in German, Austrian, and Italian courts, from sixteen witnesses who could not come to Jerusalem, because the Attorney General had announced that he "intended to put them on trial for crimes against the Jewish people."  (p. 200)
    It quickly turned out that Israel was the only country in the world where defense witnesses could not be heard [...].  (p. 201)
    Justice was more seriously impaired in Jerusalem than it was at Nuremberg, because the court did not admit witnesses for the defense.  In terms of the traditional requirements for fair and due process of law, this was the most serious flaw in the Jerusalem proceedings.  (p. 251)
    Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil, Viking Press, New York, 1963.

    In the Demjanjuk case, Demjanjuk's Israeli defense attorney, Yoram Sheftel, considered all those who had served in the German military to have been "Nazi thugs," and refused to call them as witnesses, as for example:

    Gill and Chumak went to Germany, to Hamburg.  On 9-10 December they were to question a German SS man called Rudolf Reiss, who had been a sergeant at Travniki.  I strongly objected to using his testimony [...][...]  I was not prepared under any circumstances to use the testimony of Nazi thugs.
    Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk affair: The rise and fall of a show-trial, Victor Gollancz, London, 1994, p. 177.

    John Demjanjuk was on trial for having been Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, and yet the Deputy Commandant of Treblinka, Kurt Franz, was excluded from testifying.  Why?  Because he was expected to deny the accusations against John Demjanjuk and deny the atrocities at Treblinka in other words, because his testimony would assist the defense.  His exclusion did not have to be implemented by the prosecution or by the State of Israel Israeli agent Yoram Sheftel, acting as John Demjanjuk's defense attorney, implemented it:

    Gill, Nishnic and many people close to the Demjanjuk family, especially the anti-Semite Jerry Berntar, had incessantly pressed for the defence to take evidence from the Deputy Commandant of Treblinka, the fiend Kurt Franz.  He had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 in Germany, and was incarcerated until July 1993.  I opposed this categorically, because using the testimony of Treblinka's Deputy Commandant would look very bad and could be interpreted as meaning that Demjanjuk had asked for his ex-commander's assistance.  I emphasized also that in any case no court would believe Franz's claim that Ivan Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Terrible, since he had lied flagrantly at his own trial and denied all the atrocities he committed at Treblinka.  Then there was my moral opposition, and at one point I even threatened to resign from the case.  Our compromise was the Kurt Franz would not be called to testify for the defence; the defence would question Reiss, but I would not take part, nor would I refer to it in my summation.
    Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk affair: The rise and fall of a show-trial, Victor Gollancz, London, 1994, p. 177.

    An impartial observer, however, might lean toward the view that Kurt Franz would have been a valuable witness because he was the only one of all the witnesses who had incontestably been at Treblinka no evidence whatever being presented that the Jewish witnesses had ever been there.  If Franz lacked credibility, this could have been brought out during cross-examination, but denying him an appearance because the judges had already made up their minds that he was a liar and a fiend was an innovation of Jewish show-trial justice, and did not conform to Western practice.  And Sheftel's intention to exclude the testimony of Rudolf Reiss from his summation further demonstrates how his eagerness to hold the paint can for the prosecution while it brushed the picture which convicted John Demjanjuk and calumniated the Ukrainian people overrode his obligation to provide his client with an effective defense.

    In Michael Seifert's case, Jewish persecutors waited 55 years after the alleged crimes before initiating proceedings, by which time most defense witnesses would be dead, or too old to testify.  Any that might still be alive and able to testify would not have to be explicitly threatened they would understand by themselves that their appearance on Seifert's behalf was likely to trigger retaliatory Jewish persecution.  In any case, as there was no defense team with the resources to search out defense witnesses, none were found, and none appeared.

  6. Inhibit the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Enclose every Jew claiming to be a Holocaust survivor in a bubble of sanctity which it is not permitted for a defense attorney to puncture by means of effective cross-examination.  In the trial of Adolf Eichmann:

    Once a witness had taken the stand, it was difficult indeed to interrupt him, to cut short such testimony, "because of the honor of the witness and because of the matters about which he speaks," as Judge Landau put it.  Who were they, humanly speaking, to deny any of these people their day in court?  And who would have dared, humanly speaking, to question their veracity as to detail when they "poured out their hearts as they stood in the witness box" [...]?
    Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil, Viking Press, New York, 1963, p. 191.

    In the trial of John Demjanjuk, as the only evidence of the existence of the Treblinka death camp, or of the existence of an Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, was the testimony of some half-dozen Jewish eyewitnesses, the most effective defense would have been to challenge their veracity.  Israeli defense attorney Yoram Sheftel, however, made the refusal to cross-examine prosecution witnesses on what really happened at Treblinka, or on whether there had really existed an Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, a precondition of his taking the case:

    "First of all," I began, "as a Jew and an Israeli, it is a fundamental condition, as far as I am concerned, that the defence admits to all the facts in the indictment, apart from those facts that pertain to the question of the identity of Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible."
    Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk affair: The rise and fall of a show-trial, Victor Gollancz, London, 1994, p. 19.

    When the leading Jewish eyewitness, Eliahu Rosenberg, was trapped in a devastating self-contradiction (on the one hand, identifying John Demjanjuk in the Jerusalem courtroom in 1988 as "Ivan the Terrible," and on the other hand, having written right after the war that he had participated in killing "Ivan" during a Treblinka camp revolt in 1943), Sheftel recalled his committment to block the defense from challenging Treblinka stories, but being unable to stop a challenge on this occasion, handed over the cross-examination of Rosenberg to a Canadian lawyer who of course was hampered in being unable to speak Hebrew:

    On [...] 27 January 1988, Rosenberg returned to the witness stand.  This was the second instance of a prosecution witness being caught "red-handed" in a lie and being forced to testify again.  Before the trial began, I had vowed to question the survivor-witnesses on one subject only: the identification process they had taken part in with Israel Police during the years 1976-79.  I was especially resolved not to question them on any matter touching on Treblinka itself.  Therefore I would not examine Rosenberg myself; we agreed that Chumak would do so.
    Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk affair: The rise and fall of a show-trial, Victor Gollancz, London, 1994, p. 179.

    Sheftel's refusal to cross-examine extended to star prosecution expert witness Yitzhak Arad, who on the very first day of testimony was given carte blanche to spin whatever mad tales he wanted without fear of challenge from the defense:

    Now out of respect for Dr. Arad, and out of the post which he holds, [...] we do not propose [...] cross-examination.  We have no need of cross-examination even on a single point.  Everything that is encompassed by Dr. Arad's testimony, we accept fully.  We do not quibble over a single comma or full stop and we submit that the statement, preliminary statement by Dr. Arad which we have been given is good enough.
    Yoram Sheftel addressing the court, Trial transcript, 17-Feb-1987, p. 162.

    Furthermore, for the purpose of evaluating credibility, an effective cross-examination would be based on an investigation of the psychiatric or criminal histories of the witnesses; and it would be based on a comparison of what the witnesses were saying in court to what they may have been saying, or writing, over the years since the war.  However, the resources for such research were unavailable in trials such as that of Eichmann, Demjanjuk, Walus, or Seifert, and so the evidence on which an effective cross-examination for credibility could be based was absent.

  7. Give the accused bad press.  By means of Jewish influence over the press, make sure that the public hears nothing in the accused's defense.  Such was certainly the case in the Vancouver Sun coverage of Michael Seifert, and such was certainly the case in the bulk of the coverage received by John Demjanjuk.  Such tends to be the case also in several of the immigration infraction proceedings being conducted by Canada's misnamed "war crimes unit" today.

  8. Hide all the "bad" witnesses.  Jewish-show-trial prosecutors typically interview hundreds of volunteers that have been solicited by advertisements, and discover that the vast majority of these fail to uphold the prosecution case.  The prosecutors proceed by neglecting to disclose to the defense the identities, or even the existence, of this mass of "bad" witnesses.  This practice alone might qualify a trial as a show trial in the eyes of some observers.

    To no more than allude to a single example of hiding "bad" witnesses, Israeli prosecutors not only concealed from the Demjanjuk defense the existence of survivor Richard Glazar who was writing a book on Treblinka, but actually made Glazar promise not to communicate with the defense.
Whether Michael Seifert is guilty of any crimes or not, we have many reasons for fearing that he did not get a fair trial in Italy, but only a show trial.  Readers of the Vancouver Sun should have been made aware of this, and should have been introduced to the idea that a show trial is a step toward dictatorship.  The more that a show trial is condoned anywhere, the more justice is undermined everywhere.  It is the duty of the press to expose a show trial, and not to defend it.  A newspaper that supports a show trial teaches its readers to submit to totalitarianism.

Your goal is not to communicate but to injure

Your attack on Michael Seifert in the Vancouver Sun is revealed as being hate-driven by your printing the name of his son and the son's place of employment, and your contacting the son at his place of employment as if he either shared in Nazi guilt or could conceivably have knowledge of events that took place before his birth and on the other side of the globe.  In doing this, you give the appearance of being driven by the desire to inflict the greatest damage over the widest swath.  This is in line with some Italian coverage, at www.anpi.it/misha_oggi.htm, which even gives Michael Seifert's home address, the only purpose of which must be to invite harrassment and to heighten his unease.

Perhaps you will better appreciate how loathsome this is by imagining that as part of my criticism of your coverage of Michael Seifert, I published your home address, and also the name of one of your daughters, and gave her place of employment, and contacted her at her place of employment.  For people who stoop to such tactics, I have nothing but the deepest contempt.

All your motives are illegitimate

All of the reasons outlined above for your support of the Michael Seifert show trial are illegitimate.  Thus, it is illegitimate to strengthen group cohesion by terrifying the members of a group with fantastic stories, and teaching them to hate, and inciting a reciprocal antipathy toward them.  It is illegitimate to provoke animosity between Ukrainians and Jews so as to increase the brain drain from Ukraine to Israel.  It is illegitimate to isolate and destabilize Ukraine so as to facilitate its plunder by the Jewish mafiya.  It is illegitimate to dedicate a newspaper to painting images for the purpose of displacing images of Jewish culpability.  It is illegitimate to attempt to discredit Ukrainians for the reason that they have historically been among the leading victims of Jews, or because today Ukrainian women are held as sex slaves in Israel, or because Jewish gangsters are plundering Ukraine.

You bring discredit

Your coverage of the Michael Seifert show trial brings discredit upon you personally.  It brings discredit upon the Vancouver Sun.  As it is easy to imagine that you similarly use all the newspapers under your direction as channels for Jewish disinformation, you can expect that it will bring discredit upon all these newspapers.  As you are Jewish, it is inevitable that some of the discredit will rub off on the Jewish people.

Your influence is dangerous

I have long ago cancelled my subscription to the National Post on account of its excessive Jewishness, as you will be able to read in my correspondence with editorial board member, Jonathan Kay.  I became aware of the Vancouver Sun coverage of the Michael Seifert show trial only because I have the Vancouver Sun delivered to my door free of charge as part of that paper's promotional campaign, but you can be sure that when the term of free delivery expires, I will not purchase a subscription.  It is my belief that anybody who subscribes to any of your newspapers strengthens Jewish control over the flow of information, and that this control is exercised in the interests of Jewish leaders, and against the interests of Ukrainians, and against the interests of Canadians, and against the interests of the Jewish people themselves.  Your control of 58 daily newspapers throughout Canada is alarming to Canadians who value free speech and democracy.

Not just tit for tat

I expect that you find my identification of individuals or newspapers or show trials as "Jewish" offensive, but you leave me no choice you use the Vancouver Sun to publish hatred against the Ukrainian people, you use it to stir up inter-ethnic strife, and so you have to expect that when you yourself use ethnic identification falsely and for illegitimate purposes, that others will use it truthfully and to combat your evil work.  Your work is to destroy Ukraine, which necessitates that you use the ethnic identification "Ukrainian" often.  My work is to expose your work, which cannot be done without my using the ethnic identification "Jewish" often.

Lubomyr Prytulak