Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины
to triumph is for good men to do nothing." For Further
Reading: Julian Sher, "White Hoods: Canada's Ku Klux Klan",
New Star Books, Vancouver, 1983. James Ridgeway, "Blood
in the Face", Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, 1991. Russ
Bellant, "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party",
South End Press, Boston, 1991. Steve Mertl and John Ward,
"Keegstra: The Trial, The Issues, and The Consequences",
Western Producer Prairie Books, Saskatoon, 1985. James
Coates, "Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist
Right," Hill and Wang, New York, 1987.
About the author.
Jeffrey Shallit, who is not Jewish, is associate professor in the
computer science department at the University of Waterloo.
CODOH comments on Shallit's comments about
Leuchter:
Rothe sells the "Leuchter report" in his store, a book
purporting to be an engineer's refutation of the
existence of gas chambers in Poland. (David Irving
also uses Leuchter's report to support his claims.)
What Rothe will not tell you, however, is that Fred
Leuchter is not an engineer.
Fred Leuchter is self-trained in the extremely arcane field of
execution equipment, and before smears such as Mr. Shallit's
had their effect he worked for numerous state prison systems
in the United States on the repair, upgrading, and replacement
of said equipment. He has done work on gallows, electric
chairs, gas chambers, and in fact is the inventor and builder of
not only the automatic equipment used for lethal injection but
also determined the type and sequence of the four drugs used
to insure maximum comfort and a certain, painless death
when physicians refused to offer any assistance in this area.
At the second Zuendel trial in Canada, the judge recognized
his expertise, and ruled that he was an engineer by virtue of
experience and demonstrated ability, and therefore he would
be allowed to testify as an expert witness regarding gas
chambers. In some other areas, such as crematories, he was
not allowed to testify.
Rothe also won't tell you that, according to the
Boston Globe, Leuchter admitted to illegally collecting
20 pounds of building and soil samples in Poland, and
that Leuchter's "analysis'' has been thoroughly
rebutted in a report by French pharmacist
Jean-Claude Pressac. Pressac "noted that Leuchter
never looked at documents in the Auschwitz Museum,
and failed to study German blueprints of the gas
chambers."
The legality of the collection process has nothing to do with
the validity of the analyses of same. This is but another
example of the attempts to heap all possible negatives
because of the damage his investigations have done to the
accepted myths regarding non-existent gas chambers. His
sample analyses have, in fact, been independently verified by
the later work of both a Polish government commission,
Austrian engineer Walter Leuftl, and the inarguably qualified
German chemist, Germar Rudolf.
Shallit does not indicate if Pressac indicates what relevance
the "documents in the Auschwitz Museum" might have on the
matter. Given that much of what is on display at Auschwitz are
reproductions with obvious liberties taken to closer match
wartime accounts, a fact only admitted in the last few years,
one would have to be wary of whatever they purport to claim is
documentation. And the plain fact is that no "German
blueprints of the gas chambers" exist. What does exist are
blueprints of the various Krema (crematoria) which supporters
of gas chambers claim were "code worded" to hide the actual
use to which they would be put. These blueprints do exist, and
nothing on them supports the gas chamber theory--none of the
special provisions one would expect, such as sealing, gas
introduction equipment, forced air circulation of the closed
room(s) or adequate ventilation are indicated.
After a particularly traumatic cross-examination by the attorney
for Prof. Robert Faurisson, during which Pressac became
incoherent to the point of tears on the stand, he has retreated
from any active defense of his extremely flawed work, and it is
no longer cited by top-level historians. His alleged refutation of
challenges to the existence of gas chambers is a huge
embarrassment of a book now trotted out only by lay people
such as Mr. Shallit, and professional promoters of the gas
chamber myths.
With his false credentials, he convinced authorities in
several states in the U.S. to let him construct
execution machinery for their prisons.
Leuchter presented no false credentials. It is common for
self-trained individuals, particularly in fields for which no
academic accreditation exists, to advertise or present
themselves as Leuchter did--an "execution engineer." His
expertise in that field is amply demonstrated by work
experience. Shallit's comments are based on the events
following Leuchter's appearance in the Zuendel trial. A New
York based group called Holocaust Survivors and Friends in
Pursuit of Justice brought action in Massachussets based on
an obscure and never tested state law saying that people
working in areas involving public safety could not present
themselves as engineers unless they were licensed as such
by the state. Of amusing and revealing relevance is the fact
that the charge was brought and supported by a judge that
designing execution devices qualifies as working in an area
involving "public safety"!! Surely this is close to the height of
doublespeak. (See "The Execution Protocol" by Trombley,
Crown Publishing 1992)
But in 1990, according to the New York Times, his
misrepresentations began to unravel. The Attorney
General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois
terminated his contract after determining that his
machine for injecting cyanide would cause prisoners
unnecessary pain.
The Alabama warden's actions were in response to Leuchter's
having testified against the Florida prison system when an
inmate brought suit against her electrocution sentence on the
basis that the antiquated equipment there constituted cruel
and unusual punishment, which it demonstrably did. The
Alabama produced letter to other wardens warned them that if
Leuchter tried to sell them equipment and they refused to buy,
he might wind up testifying against them. This libelous and
career threatening action might have brought great financial
penalty on him and the state of Alabama were not Leuchter by
this time a sufficient pariah who saw no hope of getting a fair
shake in court. The comments regarding Illinois describe only
an excuse given which has no basis in reality.
Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with
fraud in Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had
only a bachelor's degree in history, and was not
licensed to practice engineering in Massachusetts. In
June 1991, to avoid a trial in which he would surely
have been convicted, Leuchter admitted that, "I am
not and have never been registered as a professional
engineer", and that he had falsely represented himself
as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter
agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the
title 'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the
Leuchter report.
See comments above about this charge. Leuchter did not at
any time advertise himself as a "professional engineer" but
only as an "execution engineer." He never "falsely
represented himself as one" as Shallit states. It is not even
illegal for him to advertise and work as an execution engineer
unless one would seriously make the case that this involves
public safety. It is not illegal in Massachussets to work and
advertise as an engineer in a great many areas. Shallit's
comment is based on surmise which is in turn based on
ignorance of the terminologies and their meanings. The
difference between "professional engineer" and "engineer" is
not a trivial distinction. The title "Professional Engineer"
(Massachussets equivalent "licensed engineer" in other
locations "state certified engineer") is that used to legally
certify documents as correct, and the certifier must in many
states (but far from all) have certain qualifications (which vary)
to do this. Such a certification places all liability on the
certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of
blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal
importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects
involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise,
which is directed toward insuring rapid death!
Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that.
Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the
case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has
nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do
with work in Massachussets.
Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said,
"Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his
business in violation of Massachusetts law should
serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels."
A typical ADL smear tactic, Leuchter's credibility is in no way
discredited by the Massachussets/New York travesty of
justice. A biased court surrounded by several hundred
screaming demonstrators made a ludicrous interpretation of a
law and applied it against an unpopular defendant. None of
this has a thing to do with the scientific data contained in that
report, data later supported by several other sources whose
qualifications no one argues. Leanard Zakim's statement is
pure and hateful propaganda intended to silence those who
threaten his livelihood.
David Thomas, 2/28/97
CODOH can be reached at:
Box 439016/P-111
San Diego, CA, USA 92143
Comments from Fred Leuchter
Dear David Thomas,
Your remarks after the Irving to Shallit letter are not entirely
true.
The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly,
although it did privately, and forced both parties..i.e. The
Commonwealth and Leuchter into a settlement as a trial
would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an
agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the
things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or
change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's
dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual
promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the
Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he
would not break the law by saying things or doing things he
had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never
admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply
agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his
life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not
broken the law.
Please consider this and restate your description. I am sick of
people misunderstanding what took place in Cambridge
Court.
Fred Leuchter
4/5/99
To The Federal Court of Canada from Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March 20, 1997.
Galina Buyanovsky
175 Sherbrook St.West,
Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec,
CANADA H2X 1X5
FEDERAL COURT
Supreme Court Building Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0H9
CANADA
Tel.(514)843-8458 See the list of the places where the copies of that appeal are submitted below.
Dear Sirs! This appeal is formal. It composed not by a lawyer but by the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a non-official letter
we want an official response. We claim that a wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel exists, and that Canadian Ministry of
Immigration is manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned
to our case was Mr. Jacques La Salle. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a
shadow structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality were
expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister of Immigration [ look
over her anger declaration about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see our BIBLIOGRAPHY in the end, #4, ] - gave Mr. La Salle a new
commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is
0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see
comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. And this person whose partiality towards the Russian-speaking people was already
recognized is sent now to hear the cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from Kazachstan are too often told that they are not eligible for the
political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada. For example, the first hearing of a refugee claimant from Kazachstan was
dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not a province of Israel, but
an independent state? Why refugees from Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent to Israel anyway**?
Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a kibbutz in Israel and holds an Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard is his ex-wife and his best friend
