"He Beat Fake News Rap" - Exclusive Interview With Attorney Who Represented Holocaust Revisionist Ernst Zundel
By Martin Hill
February 13, 2017


On December 7, LibertyFight.com published an exclusive story Holocaust Revisionist Ernst Zundel Was Actually Charged & Imprisoned For Disseminating "False News" In Canada. Now we present part two - an exclusive interview with an attorney who explains some aspects of Zundel's lesser-known American immigration case, a ground-breaking legal battle.

Southern California Attorney Bruce Leichty represented Ernst Zundel in the later stages of his immigration case. You may recall Leichty as the attorney who later represented 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani. They were both sanctioned for "deeply troubling personal slurs" against U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein. The lawyer had simply brought up the judge's connections to Israeli parties involved in the case. [See 9/11 Widow & lawyer sanctioned for motions which "reflect anti-Semitism in a raw and ugly form".]

In an exclusive interview with LibertyFight.com, Leichty said that Zundel's arrest by American authorities in 2003 violated his civil and constitutional rights as a resident and prospective permanent resident of the United States. "The arrest, which his U.S. citizen wife and I reasonably called a kidnapping, was obviously related to his controversial speech, even though federal authorities postured that it was because he had missed an interview to process the immigration petition of his wife," said Leichty. Zundel had never been notified of the interview.

Entering the case mid-stream after Zundel had already been taken out of the country, Leichty first assisted in an appeal to get the Knoxville federal court to consider a writ of habeas corpus, which appeal was successful; but ultimately the Knoxville court ruled that it had no "habeas jurisdiction" and the federal appeals court in Cincinnati's 6th circuit declined to reverse that ruling. The politics of the "hot potato" case were palpable, Leichty says.

Zundel meanwhile had been taken to Canada and held in solitary confinement in a Toronto jail. He was held on a 'national security certificate' as the Canadian government claimed that he was a threat to national security.

As Zundel's attorney representing him in ongoing U.S. federal court proceedings, Leichty visited Zundel at the prisons where he was held in Toronto and then ultimately in Germany after his deportation from Canada.

He said that at the time, the case involved uncharted territory regarding the newly formed Department of Homeland Security and the judicial system.

Although Leichty was not able to represent Zundel in the proceedings in Canada, he did testify in his favor in that case. "Zundel was prevented on national security grounds from seeing the evidence assembled against him and was eventually declared a threat to the national security of Canada and deported on a custom charter flight to his native Germany, where he had to undergo another trial and serve more time in prison under Germany's draconian anti-free-speech laws," notes Leichty. "Since being banished to Germany he has so far been muzzled on the subject of the Holocaust and prevented from rejoining his wife in the United States."

He said that the U.S. proceedings represented the lengths to which the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security was willing to go, to deprive someone of the rights that all residents of the U.S. are supposed to have -- citizens and aliens alike -- under the Constitution. "We are all guaranteed a right that goes back to time-honored English traditions, to seek a writ of habeas corpus, that is, to be able to offer evidence to a court that would force the sovereign to hand over a prisoner or remove a restraint on the liberty of a prisoner or on a person banished from the country. But the courts backed up DHS that Zundel could not exercise this right to a hearing, and the mainstream press and legal community simply ignored my efforts to get publicity for the violation."

"Zundel was not an alien outside the country where the Constitution wouldn't apply to him. He was living peacefully with his wife in Tennessee obeying all immigration laws."

"There are some people even in the U.S. who probably think that 'holocaust deniers' like Zundel deserve to be deported and imprisoned," says Leichty. "But what I found during the course of my representing him was not a hateful prejudiced man, not a Nazi, but a dissident on matters of history, different from the heartless anti-semitic lunatic stereotype most of us have of deniers. The stereotyping actually prevents rational evaluation of the evidence."

"What Zundel showed in the earlier Canadian court proceeding where he was charged with spreading 'false news' was that there was at that time no unequivocal evidence of an organized Nazi program for the mass extermination of Jews by gas chamber, a thesis which instead relied heavily on testimony of former concentration camp detainees of uncertain veracity, and on fantastic speculation that contradicted known science, and which was turned into very useful propaganda by the Allied victors. Those who win the wars usually get to write the history." bbb

"The Canadian Supreme Court decided for good reason that the Canadian law against spreading false news was unconstitutional in Zundel's case. He beat the `fake news' rap. So we may be unlikely to see a similar law in the United States, but it appears that some of the info oligarchs are prepared to step into the breach, based on the post-election announcements we've seen from Google and Facebook that they are going to withhold income-generating ads from appearing on sites that misstate facts and that they will be teaching journalists how to identify and debunk false claims."

"There's always been a battle for who gets to decide reality," notes Leichty. "But using the example of Zundel, even if Zundel had been a cold anti-semitic lunatic -- and I'm not saying there aren't some of those out there -- he had the right to publish what he did free from the threat of imprisonment.

'I don't want big capital censoring what I can read any more than I want governments imprisoning people for what they write. We as a society have always stood for persuasion through free discourse, not dogma protected by state sanctions; and some of our forebears died for those principles," Leichty added.

In 2014, Leichty and author Christopher Bollyn were holding an event on the anniversary of 9/11 in Southern California, and the ADL wasted no time in characterizing both of them as "antisemitic." Leichty, they claimed, is a "problematic figure who has defended a number of Holocaust deniers."

In actuality, however, the ADL, which conveniently neglected to link to the actual press release, omitted Leichty's words and the crux of his message:

Stated Leichty, "Christopher Bollyn is doing ground-breaking work that no one else is doing. He has been attacked for it, and he has been denied fair treatment in the judicial system just as occurred with my client, Ellen Mariani. Neither of us are anti-semitic. Neither of us are motivated by hostility toward Jews because simply they are Jews. Our adversaries have attempted to construct false realities, but we will resist these depictions with information. We are both Christians who believe that speaking truth to power sometimes takes precedence over the risk of being misunderstood, and that Americans need to question and examine a false national narrative--irrespective of the implications and precisely because of the implications."

In the 9/11 case, Leichty and his client Ellen Mariani were simply pointing out an apparent conflict of interest on the part of Judge Alvin Hellerstein. Mariani's April 19, 2012 brief noted, in part that "Judge Hellerstein and his wife Mildred are known to be active supporters of Israeli causes, and it is implausible that Judge Hellerstein would not at least be on inquiry notice of the affiliations of his son's law firm and the connections of his son's clients to Israeli and Israeli-linked defendants in a case before him, particularly in a case of the magnitude of the 911 case." It continued "It is not plausible that Judge Hellerstein, a highly-educated and connected supporter of Israeli causes, was unaware of the connections of his son's law firm."

Regarding the rebuke he received in the 9/11 widow's case, Leichty noted at the time:

"These connections needed to be brought out into the open. The public deserved to know what kind of justice was being dispensed to 9/11 widows after all. I believe the truth about my motives should be obvious to all non-biased, thinking people. No, this was not anti-semitism I was indulging. The motion was driven by a sense of justice. It was an act of patriotism. It is patriotic to disclose the possibility of dual loyalties of any federal judge which might be affecting his rulings. It also did not violate any rule... That I was rebuked in such a harsh and public way is therefore telling--but not so much about me, but rather about the state of a compromised federal judiciary. In modern-day America, there are positions that are safe to take, and there are some that are not safe to take. It is not safe to point out possible dual loyalties of judges involving Israel. (It is particularly unsafe to do so in the context of 9/11, in light of cogent arguments made about the hidden hand of the Mossad in the events of 9/11, but that is a different story altogether, and nothing in my motion cited or depended on that.) That will be branded as anti-semitism." --Attorney Bruce Leichty [You can read the rest here.]

Leichty maintains his law firm website at leichtylaw.com. Further writings on his legal and church activism can be found at goodinformation.org.


You can find the most recent articles from LibertyFight.com here.

To get notice of the latest material you can follow LibertyFight on Twitter or contact me to join our e-mail list.

NOTE: The 'DISQUS' feature has been added to this site so you can leave your comments below. No login is required, you can post as a guest.

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleo-conservative and civil rights advocate. In 2015, President Donald J. Trump in front of a live international TV audience, said Hill was "very committed" and "got a lot of energy," adding that "he's on our side" and "is a Trump guy." In addition to being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and The Daily Beast, Hill's work has been featured in the Los Angeles Daily News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 TV Los Angeles, The Press Enterprise, LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened.com, Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Economic Policy Journal, FreedomsPhoenix, Haaretz, TMZ, Veterans Today, Jonathan Turley blog, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show, National Motorists Association, RedState.com, AmericanFreePress.net, RomanCatholicReport.com, WorldNetDaily, HenryMakow.com, OverdriveOnline.com, Educate-Yourself.org, TexeMarrs.com, Dr. Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad radio show, InvestmentWatchBlog, Strike-The-Root.com, Antiwar.com, Mark Glenn's 'The Ugly Truth' Blog & radio show, Michael Hoffman's RevisionistHistory.org, John Friend's TheRealistReport.com, Sophia Smallstorm's Blog, DrDay.com, Pasadena Weekly, ActivistPost.com, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI AM 640, IamtheWitness.com, Redlands Daily Facts, SaveTheMales.ca, BlackBoxVoting, The Michael Badnarik Show, The Wayne Madsen Report, Devvy.com, Rense.com, FromTheTrenchesWorldReport.com, BeforeItsNews.com, The Contra Costa Times, Pasadena Star News, Silicon Valley Mercury News, Long Beach Press Telegram, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, L.A. Harbor Daily Breeze, CopBlock.org, DavidIcke.com, Whittier Daily News, KCLA FM Hollywood, The Fullerton Observer, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com, DontWakeMeUp.Org, RandPaukZionist.com and JohnInBarbados.com.

Be sure to see my meeting with President Trump:

Featured Articles From LibertyFight.com:


FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on LibertyFight.com may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC S. 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

You can follow LibertyFight.com on Twitter and re-tweet this article here.

comments powered by Disqus

Share this page: