Interest Groups Despite the fact that the judicial process in U.S. and West European countries is based on the principle of complete independence from the potential factors of influence, in recent years, we witness the alarming tendency of court decisions being affected by so-called interest groups. Even as far back as fifties, the applying political or cultural pressure on judicial procedures was considered as being utterly inappropriate. But now, the students of law learn that the influence of interest groups is just another factor to consider, during the trials. What is the interest group? It is a group of people, united by the common political, cultural or ethnic affiliation, which tries to alter the outcome of legal procedures to its own advantage, by whatever the means possible. This, of course, would not be possible if such group did not posses a substantial financial power. In this essay we will focus our attention on one particular interest group, which political influence is hard to underestimate the Jews.
We will analyse three the most important trials of this century, where the basic principles of jurisprudence were being grossly violated, in order to appease this group: the Nuremberg trial, the trial of Ernst Zundel and the trial of David Irving. The Nuremberg trial proceedings took place between 1945 and 1949. But it is the sentencing of eleven main defendants to death in 1946 that sparked a public controversy over the legality of the process itself. Richard Harwood in his article Did Six Million Really Die? points out to the main inconsistencies of this trial: At Nuremberg, ex post facto legislation was created, whereby men were tried for “crimes” which were only declared crimes after they had been allegedly committed. Hitherto it had been the most basic legal principle that a person could only be convicted for infringing a law that was in force at the time of the infringement. “Nulla Poena Sine Lege.” The Rules of Evidence, developed by British jurisprudence over the centuries in order to arrive at the truth of a charge with as much certainty as possible, were entirely disregarded at Nuremberg.
... budge on their position. This leads me into the next interest group. Attorneys and litigators have been brought into this conflict because ... interest that we discussed in class one day completely slipped my mind from ever being involved in the water crisis. The political ... lecture was that depending on which political party is in office, one of the opposing groups in the water crisis debates felt ...
It was decreed that “the Tribunal should not be bound by technical rules of evidence” but could admit “any evidence which it deemed to have probative value,” that is, would support a conviction. In practise, this meant the admittance of hearsay evidence and documents, which in a normal judicial trial are always rejected as untrustworthy (Harwood).
During the Nuremberg trial, the defence lawyers were not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. In the case of Herman Goering, his lawyer was simply forbidden from speaking, once it became clear to the prosecution that he will successfully deal with every accusation against his client. It all was being done in order to give the legality to Jewish post-war Holocaust claims. Out of 9 prosecutors, at this mockery of a trial, 6 were Jews, therefore they could not possibly remain objective. The American press, largely controlled by Jews, began to create the atmosphere of a witch hunt, during the proceedings, so that anyone involved in the process, would automatically be claimed as nazi-sympathizer, if he simply wanted to remain impersonal.
... in a strange state of being both Jewish and non-Jewish. A Jew trapped in a non-Jewish body. A bizarre spiritual circumstance that ... of heaven will not open up for an uncircumcised Jewish male.' A Jew's obligation is to serve Ha Shem and observe ... of flesh off a helpless baby.' Three years ago Israeli courts held hearings to discuss the famous case number 5780/98 ...
This was the first time in the history of Western civilization that one particular interest group was able to completely distort the very nature of main principles of jurisprudence, to serve their own agenda. It was not by the simple accident that the execution of the main defendants took place on October 16. This is because this is the celebration of Purim, according to Jewish calendar, when thousands of goyims were being slaughtered by Jews, by the order of their God Jehovah. The date of execution was being selected to show the immense power of Jews as interest group, when it comes to pursuing their own agenda, during the legal procedures. This trial created a precedent. From this time on, it will be virtually impossible for any legal decision to pass at court, if it negatively affected the interests of Jewry.
One of the best examples that would back up such statement, is the trials of Ernst Zundel. He is widely known under the label of holocaust-denier, even though that his professional credibility of historian has never been doubted. The monstrous crime of Zundel lies in fact that he stated that the modern interpretation of Holocaust is distorted. He simply wanted to examine the evidence, upon which Jews base their claim of 6 million Jews being killed by Nazis, during the Second World War. In any civilized society, the history of any event can be freely studied and analyzed. But it becoming increasingly hard to do, when the matter of concern is Jewish historical claims.
Zundel was first being brought to trial in 1985 on charge of distributing the hate literature. Although, his case had a formal nature, it was understood by everyone that one particular group of interest was behind all his trouble with the law. Mark Weber in his interview to American Dissident Voices said: And there’s been unanimous agreement — even by the host of the show, who’s Jewish, and the others who’ve been on the show — that Ernst Zundel is not a threat to national security. But one guest in particular was emphatic in saying that Zundel is in prison because Jewish groups want him in prison. This is a point which very few people are willing to say openly, but which must be said(Weber).
After three moths of deliberations, the court ruled in favor of the accusers, sentencing Zundel to two years in prison.
... and will be prosecuted under the court of law. Prison policies have been written to assist the court in sentences according to a ... , extending incarceration time is a good idea because longer prison terms deter people from committing crimes and increasing the incarceration ... specific crime. The policies are usually to keep criminals in prison, and to ...
Yet, in 1992 the Supreme Court of Canada had acquitted him on all the accounts, since it viewed Zundel’s prosecution as violation of the guarantees of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only reason for the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favor of Zundel was the fact that members of the jury were being spared of Jewish pressure, while making decision, due to the whole matter kept in relative secret from the press. Nevertheless, the attempts to imprison Zundel never stopped, especially after Jewish Anti-Defamation League was being brought into play. This public organization enjoys an immense lobbyist power, because it was granted an official advisory status. Here is how Zundel described by ADL: Zundel as a hypocrite who cultivates a pacifist public image while guiding, aiding and supporting neo-Nazi groups around the world, including some that propagate violent messages of hate and work to accomplish the destruction of governments and multicultural societies (ADL).
Eventually, Zundel was brought up to the court again, while the political pressure, on the part of Jewish lobbyists, to lock him up, was increasing at alarming rate.
In 2003 Zundel was arrested in U.S. for violating its immigration law. But this was nothing but a legal excuse to keep in in jail, before he could be deported to Germany, where he would be facing up to 8 years in prison, for Holocaust denial. But before this would happen, Zundel was being transported to Canada, where he had an official right for claiming refuge status, since he was clearly at danger for merely expressing his political views back in Germany. However, this right was being denied to him in most blatant form. On January 21, 2004 Judge Blais (a Jew) ruled against Zundel. Apparently, he was not fully convinced about the peaceful nature of Zundel, as an individual: I have come to the conclusion, based on the information presented to me in camera, that Mr. Zundel does represent a danger to the security of Canada, and should remain in detention for the time being.
In writing the present reasons, I am constrained by the reality of national security reasons which impede giving full expression to the grounds for continuing the detention (Blais, Wikipedia).
This is despite the fact that throughout 53 years of living in Canada, Zundel was never been convicted of anything. He provided employment to 30 workers at his publishing firm, donated heavily to charitable causes and enjoyed the reputation of respectable citizen. Yet, he represented a danger to the power of Jewish mind-control. It is because of this power, the Swiss banks are being extorted for milliards of dollars by holocaust survivors. It is because of unquestionable dogma of Holocaust that allows Israeli soldiers to openly engage in acts of genocide against Arabs, without risking to inflict world’s condemnation.
... ’s list of multiple meanings. Many Jewish activist groups want to let go of the word all together, to ... used, and it’s list of multiple meanings. Many Jewish activist groups want to let go of the word all and it ... for fear of being accused of antisemitism. The activist groups for the Jewish communities, seem to have good intentions. At the same ...
Our third example of power of Jewish interest group, which is being employed to its fullest, is the trial of British historian David Irving on November 11, 2005, during which he was convicted of holocaust denial and sentenced to 3 years in prison by the Austrian court. It is necessary to give some background information about Irving. He is highly acclaimed historian, the author of many books, professor of history at Oxford University. His reputation allowed him to gain an access to much of classified information about the Second World War. Irving began to speak openly in favor of reexamining the war, especially the facts related to so-called holocaust. By doing this, he automatically gained many powerful enemies.
He was being brought to court in England on account of holocaust denying, yet he was able to convince judges in validity of his statements, by producing a credible evidence, while his accusers could not come up with anything better than simply labeling him as anti-semite. Still, he lost his case to Deborah Lisptadt, a Jewish historian, supported by 6 top-lawyers, who were getting paid up to 500 dollars an hour. But it was understood by everybody that Lipstat’s victory was based on technicalities. Ronald Hilton in his article David Irving v. Deborah Lisptadt points out to why Irving lost the case: He sued her (Lisptadt) in a London court and made the mistake of defending himself without a lawyer. Lipstadt, an aggressive individual, had a number of lawyers-He lost, and was required to pay heavy court expenses, which ruined him financially (Hilton).
Yet, it is the anti-Irving’s hysteria in British newspapers that made it impossible for the judge to rule objectively. It is no secret that 90% of British newspapers are owned by Jewish media clans. In the matter of few days, the public image of Irving was being transformed from hero to villain, because the power of media. Yet the worst was still to come. In 2005 Irving visits Austria, where he was instantly arrested, upon the arrival. In Austria, the holocaust denial, if proven, can result in up to 5 years in prison. Almost like in medieval times, when people were being burnt at the stake for simply saying that Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around.
... (2011). In those few examples, I was exploring how groups can influence people in a positive and negative ways. Positively, by providing ... to, we start behaving by the norms of our group. The last process is social comparison. After we categorize ourselves with a ... that theory. The theory argues that there are three mental processes involved in evaluating others as ‘them’ and us’ the first ...
The outcome of the trial was being decided, before the legal proceedings had even started. Irving’s activity was becoming known to many people, who were inspired by him to seek the truth for themselves, without relying on popular media. This, of course, represented a big danger to the power of international Jewry. Irving had to be silenced in such way so that it would deter others from following his footsteps. The historian is now now doing 3 years in Austrian jail, being put together with killers, rapists and multiple felons, for simply expressing his views on the historical event, which took place 50 years ago. The example of Irving proves to everybody the real extent of Jewish power as interest group. In my opinion, the interest groups have the right to exercise its influence on judicial process, for as long as the principles of law have not being violated. But this is not the case with above mentioned examples.
As a whole, the factor of interest groups should be thought of in rather negative than positive terms. The positive role of interest groups influence of judicial process lies in fact that it often allows court to vote in favor of what is necessary, rather than what is proper. It is no secret that it often takes many years for the judge to evaluate all the evidence, before coming up with the decision, especially in cases where the big corporations involved. This because the law itself became so complicated that in many cases its different provisions contradict each other. Thus, if judge only considers the abstract law, upon making decision, the verdict will never be reached. This is why the power of an attorney can never be arbitrary, in the true sense of this word.
Therefore, we can say that the influence of interest groups benefits judicial process, by the mean of speeding it up. Yet, there are also many negative moments, with which we associate the activity of interest groups. As society becomes more and more multicultural, it also gets secularized along the racial and cultural lines. The abstract definition of justice, originated in Europe by white people, simply cannot satisfy the people of different ethnic backgrounds, since in many cases this word does not even exist in their vocabulary. When this happens, our very understanding of the essence of justice, upon which modern criminal and civil codes are based, ceases to be a credible foundation for the law. This is when the factor of interest groups comes into play.
... ) conducted an experiment to determine how roles within a group can influence people’s behaviour. During the experiment participants were given a ... definition a group is a number of people who are regarded as a unit. They are united by a shared interest or ... belief, be that religion, sport, or politics. All groups have their own identity, we ...
Basically, we talk of the judicial process as the tool of giving the official status to the influence of every concerned party, according to the power of its influence. Whatever group has more money and media on its side, will automatically win the process. But then we cannot talk of such things as fairness and justice. It is quite probable that in future, the process of judicial deliberation will simply be abandoned as unnecessary. Even now, only the very naive people believe that it is possible to find justice in court, without applying some direct or indirect pressure onto the jury. Ancient people were aware of the fundamental principle of life everything has to do with everything. We cannot talk of jurisprudence and the influence of interest groups, in particular, without relating them to the current socio-political trends.
If we allow our society to roll down the path of multiculturalism, we will need to delete such category as abstract justice from our vocabulary. Eventually, we will come to the state, where our criminal and civil codes will simply be describing the different aspects of jungle law. The main principle of such law the strongest is always right. Therefore, I relate the growing influence of interest groups, particularly Jewish one, to the fact that our society is slowly becoming less civilized and slowly descending into savagery.
Harwood, Richard Did Six Million Really Die?. 2000. Radio Islam. 1 Apr.
2006. http://www.radioislam.org/historia/really/05.htm Hilton, Ronald David Irving v. Deborah Lisptadt. 11 Jun. 2005. Ronal Hilton Site. 1 Apr. 2006. http://wais.stanford.edu/ztopics/week040105/german y_050401_davidirvinglisptadt Ernst Zundel.
2006. Wikipedia. 1 Apr. 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zundel Interest Groups and Representation in Texas. ( 2006).
Texas Politics. 1 Apr.
2006. http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/ig/inde x.html Weber, Mark Zundel’s Persecution: By Order of the Jews. 5 Mar. 2005. American Dissident Voices. 1 Apr. 2006. http://www.natvan.com/adv/2005/03-05-05.html.