Fraudulent 'SS-Action' against Human Rights Commission rewarded

Robert (101607.2566@CompuServe.COM)
19 Jul 96 11:25:02 EDT


---------- Forwarded Message ----------

From: INTERNET:Reinhard.Helmers@orgk1.lu.se, INTERNET:Reinhard.Helmers@orgk1.lu.se
To: Robert, 101607,2566
Date: 17.07.1996 12:10

Subject:Fraudulent 'SS-Action' against Human Rights Commission rewarded

LE CACH=C9 SCANDAL EUROP=C9EN, FABRIQU=C9 EN SUEDE.
=20
In September 1944, the Youth-Fuehrer of the Swedish Nazis,Edquist, crossed=
the=20
boarder to Norway. Right-away he was appointed SS-Obersturmfuehrer(major) a=
t=20
Viktoriaterrassen(Gestapo HQ) in Oslo. 5 January 1945, he took the flight f=
rom=20
Fornebu to Berlin and enforced the decreasing,fanatic SS-gang around the Fu=
ehrer=20
with SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Otto Skorzeny. Previously, he had delivered=20
resistance people into the concentration camp Sachsenhausen where some hund=
red=20
Oslo- students already were tortured.- This report shows how useful he beca=
me to=20
the Swedish Government, protecting some offenders at the University of Lund=
, who=20
had violated Human Rights.His past qualified him in the eyes of the Governm=
ent.=20
This <recycling> scandal might interest those Norwegians who remember the=20
SS-terror during Norway's occupation. Of course with regards to the respons=
ible=20
officials in Sweden, these proved facts are swept under the carpet.
__________________________________________________________________________=
_____
=09
=20
=20
THE SWEDEN OF THE MYSTERIOUS PALME-MURDER
A case study on the state of civil rights and academic freedom
in contemporary Sweden as confirmed by European precedents:
=20

HONOURARY DOCTORATE IN RETURN FOR SUPPRESSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In 1994, the University of Lund in Sweden conferred an honourary doctor's

degree on the President of the European Commission of Human Rights, Prof. C=
arl
=20
Aage Noergaard of Denmark. Why ? The answer:

On 29 October 1991, the Plenary of the European Court of Human Rights had

condemned Sweden for holding a secret trial on opinions. The secret trial h=
ad

been based on groundless accusations, which had been levelled by the top
=20
administration of the very same University of Lund at one of their lecturer=
s,

Reinhard Helmers.

The Swedish Government saw no wrong in attempting to justify their secret t=
rial
=20
held by the University administration by making a totally unfounded 'Baader-

Meinhof'insinuation before the Strasbourg Court, but their efforts were in =
vain.

A FRAME-UP TRIAL

But,the legal scandal was started already in the seventies. Reinhard Helmer=
s was =20

known for his engagement in academic freedom and students' rights. As such,=
he=20

was obviously an embarrassment to the bureaucracy of the University of Lund=
,=20

which wanted him out of the way in order to make an example that would frig=
hten

other members of the staff.=20
=20
The university leadership initiated a huge legal scandal, which has=20

occupied the Strasbourg instances since 1979(!).Because Helmers had several

times been proposed for a professorship at Bremen University, the leadershi=
p of

Lund's University depicted the Government of Bremen as 'leftist radical',
=20
Danish and German professors who had evaluated his publications as corrupt,=
and
=20
Helmers himself a leftist rebel-rouser. This was officially done on the gro=
unds

of an anonymous but legalised letter to a local newspaper written by a fasc=
ist.

The Swedish Government approved this libellous discrimination ('Berufsverbo=
t')=20

and degraded Helmers from his lectureship to the rank of junior lecturer. T=
his

caused Swedish and international publicity and a variety of protests. In or=
der

to hide the responsibility of both the University Senate and the Government=
, the

Supreme Prosecutor arranged in 1975 an illegal scape-goat and mockery trial

against a single (female) subordinate,a trial which was contrary to the

provisions of procedural law and the European Convention on Human Rights:Th=
us=20

the victim, the injured party was not heard in court. Otherwise the truth m=
ight=20
=20
have been revealed.

=20
When Helmers sued the responsible officials and tried to have the degradati=
on=20

judicially examined,the Swedish courts denied him access and legal protecti=
on

against the libellous discrimination carried out by the University of Lund =
and

the Swedish Government.The courts,even the Supreme Court, referred to the

Swedish Law of Exceptions 1974:573,granting immunity to delinquent official=
s=20

and forbidding their victims any access to court. -'Sweden's Law of Silence=
', as=20

the British SPECTATOR called it in 1981.The law was a late copy from Mussol=
ini's=20

Italy.It was retroactively applied, forbidding claims for damages caused by

offcials nearly one year earlier - POST FACTUM. Obviously, by its explicit

denial of justice it was a violation of the European Convention on Human

Rights.

HELMERS LODGES HIS FIRST COMPLAINT WITH THE EUROPEAN=20
COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN STRASBOURG, RESCUE BY A GESTAPO AGENT.

In the beginning, Sweden and the university bureaucracy in Lund were, howev=
er,=20

protected from a Strasbourg verdict by a grave, fraudulent manipulation aga=
inst=20

this Commission and Mr NOERGAARD as its President.=20

Mr Noergaard was, however, informed that the well-known former 'SS-Oberstur=
m-=20

fuehrer'(major), qualified in occupied Norway, and Gestapo agent,the

professional jail-bird Karl Dogger,had played the key role as the Governmen=
t's

accessory.Their Supreme Prosecutor had unconstitutionally dictated the Supr=
eme

Court a new retroactive decision and acted as if he were the Gestapo vetera=
n's
=20
solicitor - a fabrication that only had the purpose of deceiving the Europe=
an

Commission of Human Rights - POST FACTUM, POST LEGEM ET AD HOC.In return,the

prosecutors granted the jail-bird an omission of prosecution for his proud=
ly

admitted offences(e.g. concealment and bribing of police officers).

The Human Rights Commission with Mr.NOERGAARD as its President ignored the=
=20

documentary evidence. The Commission thus became both the conniving victim =
and

party to the fraud. In this way, the Human Rights Commission justified both=
the

discrimination and the total denial of justice! Now, in favour of the Swedi=
sh

offenders, the Commission had bent its own Strasbourg case-law.In its compu=
lsory

publication 'Decisions and Reports' the Commission omitted this decision

No.8637/79, which reflects the fraud as if it never had been made.

Thus,it overruled the GOLDER/UK judgement of the European Court of Human Ri=
ghts=20

which stated the right of access to court for the victims of libel committe=
d by=20

State officials.The GOLDER case was pursued in the seventies by the 'Nation=
al=20

Council of Civil Liberties' (NCCL) in London.
=20
In effect, the Human Rights Commission was encouraging the university=20

bureaucracy to go on with their violations and their witch-hunting, which=20

from the start had reminded a number of well-known Swedish writers of the

'Dreyfus- affair'in France. This is exactly what then happened.The fraudule=
nt

manoeuvre had been designed with the expectation that the European news med=
ia

would never disclose it for their public. =20
=20
=20

Headlined:<THUS SWEDEN BETRAYED THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION>,

the Swedish newspaper EXPRESSEN 24.2.86 ,however,revealed the fraud

disobediently. So did the German law journal DEMOKRATIE UND RECHT 3/92.

The Strasbourg agent of the Government, Hans Danelius,had been in charge of=
the

fraudulent action. When it had been exposed,he,though still a Government ag=
ent,

was appointed Member of the deceived Commission. When EXPRESSEN (circ.600.0=
00)

had made the forensic fraud public, Danelius's 'achievement' was rewarded =
both

with an appointment as Justice of the Supreme Court and a honourary doctor's

degree from Stockholm's University.Nobody protested! In the eyes of those w=
ho

decided, fraud against Human Rights disqualifies not from membership in the

Human Rights Commission,or for the highest court position or for honourary

doctor's degrees from Swedish Law Faculties.
=20
The Supreme Prosecutor Sjoeberg, who had unconstitutionally intervened on=20
=20
behalf of his co-operative Nazi jail-bird and dictated the needed, retroact=
ive=20
=20
Supreme Court's decision, was appointed President of the Supreme Administra=
tive=20
=20
Court ('Regeringsraetten').
=20
The co-operation had additionally increased even the reliability and influe=
nce

of the SS-convict; with access to secret police files, he thus could act as=
a

solicitor to those medical doctors who had cut a prostitute in pieces and t=
hrown

them into the bushes, now under a new, the nobility name Borgenstierna.
=20

Also the Government's obedient judge at the Court of Appeal, who had

held that secret trial mentioned in the beginning,who had falsified the

chronology and bent Procedural Law and thus violated the Human Rights Conve=
ntion

with the Strasbourg judgement as a result, was Government rewarded with an

appointment as -- expert in their Ministry of Justice.

Anonymous and unproved political libel, however, is sufficient grounds for =
the=20

Swedish Government for firing academic teachers.

=20
The University of Lund - with the support of the Swedish Government - =20

conducted a series of acts of revenge on Helmers for having complained in =
=20

Strasbourg and having been compelled to disclose legal corruption in

Sweden.After a delay of several years,the Human Rights Commission brought t=
hat

particular secret trial to the European Court of Human Rights and reached t=
he

abovementioned verdict against Sweden.

However, in its reports and statements to the European Court, the Commissio=
n,=20

with Mr.NOERGAARD as its President, carefully obscures both the origin of =
this=20

European legal scandal, namely the university administration, the official=
=20

capacities of the responsible offenders, and how they continued their campa=
ign.

Therefore, the offenders are grateful that such consideration was taken.

That Helmers had won in Strasbourg had not given him his job back as=20

lecturer.The discrimination was continued.The Government had not abided=20

by the decision of the European Court in Strasbourg and had not ordered the=
=20

University of Lund (a state university) to give him his job back. He remain=
ed=20

degraded in the position of 'adjunkt' (junior lecturer).

An indication for the established, although hidden xenophobia of Swedish

society: The nationalistic syndicate of academicians SACO supported the

persecution of their member, an immigrant; no parliamentarian opposed the

Government when they violated the Human Rights and fooled the Human Rights
=20
Commission together with the well-known SS convict and former Gestapo resid=
ent -

SS-Obersturmfuehrer Karl Dogger.

HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND ACCOMPLICES

Now, the President of the Commission of Human Rights has been rewarded by t=
his=20

very same leadership of the University of Lund which continues to maintain =
a=20

long-lasting violation of the Human Rights Convention by their witch-huntin=
g and=20

libel. Obviously,they even try to comfort the President in respect to their=
acts=20

of revenge which are still pending at his European Commission of Human Righ=
ts in=20

Strasbourg: <For he's a jolly good fellow!>.
=20

Helmers opened his plea on 22 November 1990 in front of the Court in Strasb=
ourg=20

sarcastically with <Injustice must not only be done, it must be obscured if=
=20

done!>. An honourable doctorate, given by the offenders to the President of=
the=20

Human Rights Commission, is an excellent exchange for their violations; it =
even=20

secures a good-will for their continued violations of Human Rights to be=20

conferred upon future victims by the Human Rights Commission and its Presid=
ent=20

who never opposed the deception perpetrated in co-operation with a SS-convi=
ct.

Without being aware of his European connivance at the Swedish fraudulent

'SS-action', the Danish 'JYLLANDS POSTEN'(4.6.1995) called Noergaard the

'architect' of South Africa's 'law of truth'.

=20
With a conniving President, and the agent of the Swedish Government Daneliu=
s=20

inside the Commission, fooling the Human Rights Commission has become an=20

established and tolerated practice in at least those cases before the Commi=
ssion=20

which concern the Swedish Government and the needs of their 'infallible'=20

officials.

IMAGINARY JUDICIAL REMEDIES

The successful fraud of 1982 (Dec.No.8637/79) founded a new case-law of the

Human Rights Commission - at least when the Swedish Government are involve=
d.

Because the European news media neither control nor keep a close eye on the

Commission,the elements of that fraud can be applied to further crystal-cle=
ar

cases of 'denial of justice' and 'denial of remedies'.In the meantime, Dane=
lius,

the inspiring agent of the Government while still being agent, had taken se=
at as

a member of the Commission - which in itself is a violation of Art.23 of the

Human Rights Convention.

If a plaintiff proves a denial of justice and the absence of remedies while=
the

Commission does not want to blame the Government, the Commission simply inv=
ents

imaginary remedies, which evidently do not exist in the national legal syst=
em,

and claims that the plaintiff had not exhausted these remedies.The complain=
ts

are dispatched.Thus the Commission both denies the violation of the Convent=
ion

and consents in the denial of justice. - This particular administration of

justice deserves many more honourary doctorates from law faculties as quali=
fied

white-wash. So far, the former Gestapo agent who rescued the Government and=
the

university leadership has not yet been honoured officially. In return, he m=
erely=20

was released from prosecution for offences as a respected member of Society.

SAGITTARIUS NORDICUS=20

=20
___________________________
Documentation and References(selection):

RES PUBLICA 3/85 (Swed.), EXPRESSEN 24.2.1986 (Swed.), DEMOKRATIE UND RECHT=
3/92=20
(Germ.),SPECTATOR(London) 8.8.1981,'actes'(Paris) 23/79, FRANKFURTER HEFTE=
=20
9/1980, S.49 - 57, FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG 22.7.1980 and 5.1.1991;=20
FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU 21.2.1983, VRIJ NEDERLAND 30.8.1980, RETFAERD(Copenha=
gen)=20
Nr.65/1994, EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,judgement 29.10.1991 Helmers/Swe=
den,=20
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL Oct.1991, St.Wehowsky:<Kriminelle Mentalitaeten in=
=20
Europa>,Hanser, Muenchen 1994.
=20
=20