The fourth day in Munich

translated into English by:

The fourth day in Munich started again very spectacularly. But let us have a process observer report who has already gathered some information for us over the past few days:

„Today began quite turbulently. After the appearance of the Inquisition court, the chairman asked the audience who a Mr. X was. When he reported himself, he was confronted with the accusation that the day before he allegedly insulted a public prosecutor in the lobby by saying to her that he wished that she would also see a prison from the inside, which the judge punished – besides himself with excitement – with 4 days in custody.

Immediately after this announcement, Mr. X was led out of the room by police officers. His statement that his car was still out there somewhere was angrily answered by the judge with the statement that he did not care. He really shouted at Mr. X: „Get out, I don’t want to see you here anymore“. Suddenly he also asked Alfred Schaefer what he thought of it. Alfred Schaefer replied that he did not want to comment, because words in this court are always reinterpreted and a comment is therefore too dangerous for him. The hearing was then suspended for a short time because the judge said he needed 5 minutes to calm down.

When the hearing was reopened, Alfred Schaefer’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the judge on the grounds of partiality. Thereupon, the sitting was suspended for two hours, but the motion was rejected by the public prosecutor at the beginning of the resumption of negotiations on the grounds of „juxtaposition of suspicions“.

Afterwards, the video presentations, which had already begun the day before, continued. Again, two icons were pointed out that are juxtaposed in the video. On the left side of the picture a Jewish star is shown and on the right side a swastika, which is shown in Alfred Schaefer’s video as a symbol of evil, because at the time he still believed that the swastika stood for evil. This juxtaposition of the two symbols is apparently the subject of the charge.

In the video, that had a high distribution rate that caused great astonishment in court, Prof. Noam Chomsky from a university in America is questioned about 9/11. Prof. Chomsky explains in the interview that there is no evidence that the American government was involved in the terrorist

attack. Alfred Schaefer had written to Prof. Chomsky based on this interview and read out his letters to Prof. Chomsky and his reply letters in the video. Prof. Chomsky answered Alfred Schaefer’s letters, but without specifically answering Alfred Schaffer’s questions, which prompted Alfred Schaefer to formulate his letters more strictly.

When the judge reprimands an „aggressive tone“ in his correspondence with Prof. Chomsky, Alfred Schaefer explains that one must understand, after all, that Prof. Chomsky is „a guru“ in the English-speaking world and that his statements on 9/11 were nevertheless a great disappointment, which is why he called him a „cowardly traitor“ and „Zionist fascist“. Prof. Chomsky missed a great opportunity because he could have rehabilitated himself. Instead, he risked his good reputation for his „fellow believers“ and with this statement destroyed all his greatness, even though he had presented him with a clear factual situation.

The judge also accused Alfred Schaefer of also making a threat to all of Prof. Chomsky’s „Jewish friends,“ by saying in the video that they would be complicit of guilt if they continued to remain silent about the truth about 9/11. Alfred Schaefer explains the difference between a threat and a warning to the judge using a practical example. He also explained that this video was his first video and more or less represents the beginning of his awakening process. When he realized that some

people can obtain more money through fraud and manipulation than armies of workers through honest work, this triggered a political thinking process in him.

The second video shown is an interview with Henry Hafenmayer on the topic „The masterminds of our current situation“. The commentary on this video has been postponed to the following week.

Subsequently, a witness was called who claimed that Alfred Schaefer’s speech at the commemoration ceremony in Bretzenheim on July 25, 2017 was instigation (hate). In addition, Alfred Schaefer concluded his speech with a Roman greeting for 2 or 3 seconds. The judge asked the witness whether the speech had been acknowledged by the audience with applause, which the witness could not remember. The court was shown a photo from the video.

Alfred Schaefer then explained to the court that in this speech he simply reproduced what his father had told him about the Rhine meadow camps and that he would not slander his father as an agitator. His father had observed as a prisoner of war in the Rhine meadow camps how prisoners were brought in healthy, but soon became ill due to the deliberately caused life-threatening circumstances and how daily trucks with the corpses of the deceased prisoners of war were transported away without being told where. His father survived the Rhine meadow camps undamaged only by fortunate circumstances.

Monika Schaefer’s application for exemption from detention was rejected on the grounds that the accusation had not changed.

Again today, the conduct of negotiations in the auditorium was sometimes very difficult to understand.

The dates for the further hearing days are July 12 and 13, each starting at 9:15 a.m.“


We were not surprised that the dancer [nickname by the author for the female prosecutor] from the first days of the hearing was present again. After all, she had to get medical care today – after being covered in such terribly evil „curses“ [not meant literally]. During her performance yesterday, the poor woman did not reveal that she was so delicately strung. When we observe what the persecuted in Germany have to endure – our Monika has been held captive since January 3 – one only wants to just puke. Welcome to the Jewish-Bolshevik constitutional state.

Nevertheless, there is always something pleasing to report. Again and again new spectators appear for such processes and their eyes are now also opened to them. Not only because of the material that is shown and discussed in the trial, but also because of the conditions that prevail in a FRG court. People are really shocked that they have closed their eyes to it for so many years and were so uninterested.

But now, some, after only one day as spectators, they are aware of this: We must stop this madness while we can still breathe with impunity!