ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

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