Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Turnagain
Posts: 7951
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Turnagain »

Lupus wrote:
It was your claim, you need to produce the evidence.
That's been done, Lupus. So, now it's your turn to present evidence that judicial notice wasn't a factor in the witch trials of the 60s. Hop to it.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7089
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Huntinger »

In the 1981 case of Mel Mermelstein v. Institute for Historical Review, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County took judicial notice of the fact that "Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944."
The argument is that the Superior Court was legally wrong. The question whether Jews were gassed at Auschwitz is not susceptible to judicial notice.

Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law. Deering's Annotated Evidence Code, Section 450. This is true even though, to the judge, the fact may appear to be indisputable. Varcoe v. Lee, 180 C. 338, 181 P. 223 (Cal. l9l9).
It is commonly understood that judicial notice is not to be used to resolve the disputed issues of a case, but rather is a way of avoiding time-wasting and expense in the proof of matters which are so obvious and indisputable as to necessitate no proof.
The judge was jude.


π•΄π–ˆπ– π–‡π–Šπ–—π–Šπ–šπ–Š π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ–π–™π–˜...π•Ύπ–”π–Ÿπ–Žπ–†π–‘ π–Œπ–Šπ–π–™ π–“π–šπ–— π•Ήπ–†π–™π–Žπ–”π–“π–†π–‘

βœ™π•³π–šΜˆπ–“π–™π–Žπ–“π–Œπ–Šπ–—

Turnagain
Posts: 7951
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Turnagain »

Two Jews colluding to defraud the goyim. That's never happened before......Oh, wait a minute!

Werd
Posts: 9978
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Werd »

Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:06 pm
Turnagain wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:04 am
Article 21 of the IMT Statute:

"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United Nations"
For a more comprehensive overview of "Judicial Notice" go here:
https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relev ... ial+notice+
Tell me Turnagain, is it stated anywhere in the Nuremberg Indictment, Judgement or pre-trial determination etc, that this Judicial Notice was taken regarding gassings and extermination during the course of the trial ?
And the Talmudic Jew with slippery lawyer reasoning comes bursting out of Lupus. The FACTS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE that are to be taken JUDICIAL NOTICE THEREOF are PRECISELY THE GASSING CLAIMS THAT WERE CIRCULATING AS FAR BACK AS 1942 AND THAT THE POLISH UNDERGROUND STARTED AND HAD THE BRITISH CARRY IN THEIR PAPERS WITH THE HELP OF THE POLISH GOVERNMENT IN EXILE.

Lupus wants us to believe that just because the word "gassing" or "gas chambers" isn't EXPLICITLY in the article 21, that this is not what it is talking about. And yet THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WAS AFFIRMED BY ALL THE SO CALLED WITNESSES AND THE PROSECUTION AT IMT AND DIDN'T REQUIRE PROOF!!! Lupus wants us to ignore the forest for the trees. Sorry, Jew. Not happening.

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Lupus Rothstein »

Huntinger wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:14 pm
In the 1981 case of Mel Mermelstein v. Institute for Historical Review, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County took judicial notice of the fact that "Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944."
The argument is that the Superior Court was legally wrong. The question whether Jews were gassed at Auschwitz is not susceptible to judicial notice.

Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law. Deering's Annotated Evidence Code, Section 450. This is true even though, to the judge, the fact may appear to be indisputable. Varcoe v. Lee, 180 C. 338, 181 P. 223 (Cal. l9l9).
It is commonly understood that judicial notice is not to be used to resolve the disputed issues of a case, but rather is a way of avoiding time-wasting and expense in the proof of matters which are so obvious and indisputable as to necessitate no proof.
The judge was jude.
I have already mentioned the mermelstein trial viewtopic.php?p=166219#p166219

The rest of your post is the usual incoherent mess. So best ignored.

Asher Cohen
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Asher Cohen »

Turnagain wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:00 pm
So, Lupus, here's your chance to prove that judicial notice wasn't taken of the holyhoax during the 1960's witch trials. Have at it. "The stage is yours".
My friend , Lupus , told me that you do not like to provide any proofs for any of your assertions , why is that Turnagain ?

I have reads this thread and so fars you have nots provided any proof for your assertion , please try again . Thanks .

Asher Cohen
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Asher Cohen »

Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 3:43 pm
Werd wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:15 pm
Turnagain wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 5:33 am
It's my understanding that most if not all of those trials conformed to the IMT precedent.
Based on what exactly?
I'm tempted to say based on nothing, but I will hazard a guess and say a few years ago he read an article from IHR dating from the 1990's , about the Mel Mermelstein court case from 1985, where judicial notice of the gassing and extermination WAS taken . He then took his own judicial notice that this must have also applied to the 1960's trials in West Germany.

What do you say to that, Turnagain ? Does that scenario sound the likely reason ? At least it means you didn't invent the whole claim from nothing, although you did come quite close.
Hi Lupus mate , you was rights about Turnagain , will he ever learns ? Probablys not .

User avatar
Lupus Rothstein
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Lupus Rothstein »

Werd wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 8:23 pm
Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 4:06 pm
Turnagain wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:04 am
Article 21 of the IMT Statute:

"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United Nations"
For a more comprehensive overview of "Judicial Notice" go here:
https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relev ... ial+notice+
Tell me Turnagain, is it stated anywhere in the Nuremberg Indictment, Judgement or pre-trial determination etc, that this Judicial Notice was taken regarding gassings and extermination during the course of the trial ?
And the Talmudic Jew with slippery lawyer reasoning comes bursting out of Lupus. The FACTS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE that are to be taken JUDICIAL NOTICE THEREOF are PRECISELY THE GASSING CLAIMS THAT WERE CIRCULATING AS FAR BACK AS 1942 AND THAT THE POLISH UNDERGROUND STARTED AND HAD THE BRITISH CARRY IN THEIR PAPERS WITH THE HELP OF THE POLISH GOVERNMENT IN EXILE.

Lupus wants us to believe that just because the word "gassing" or "gas chambers" isn't EXPLICITLY in the article 21, that this is not what it is talking about. And yet THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WAS AFFIRMED BY ALL THE SO CALLED WITNESSES AND THE PROSECUTION AT IMT AND DIDN'T REQUIRE PROOF!!! Lupus wants us to ignore the forest for the trees. Sorry, Jew. Not happening.
Well if Werd is so sure about what he claims is covered by the term 'facts of common knowledge' at Nuremberg, then maybe he would like to share with us how he can prove it ?

Of course, he could make this much easier for himself. All he has to do is produce the relevant passage from the Nuremberg Trial's records that specifically states that the gassings and mass extermination in Auschwitz and Treblinka were actually 'common facts' , and judicial notice was taken thereof. Can you do that, Werd ? Turnagain has failed so maybe you can help him out.

Werd
Posts: 9978
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Werd »

Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 18, 2020 5:45 pm
The FACTS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE that are to be taken JUDICIAL NOTICE THEREOF are PRECISELY THE GASSING CLAIMS THAT WERE CIRCULATING AS FAR BACK AS 1942 AND THAT THE POLISH UNDERGROUND STARTED AND HAD THE BRITISH CARRY IN THEIR PAPERS WITH THE HELP OF THE POLISH GOVERNMENT IN EXILE.
Well if Werd is so sure about what he claims is covered by the term 'facts of common knowledge' at Nuremberg, then maybe he would like to share with us how he can prove it ?
Lupus seriously is contesting the fact that gas chambers were considered a fact of common knowledge at Nuremberg.
Of course, he could make this much easier for himself. All he has to do is produce the relevant passage from the Nuremberg Trial's records that specifically states that the gassings and mass extermination in Auschwitz and Treblinka were actually 'common facts' , and judicial notice was taken thereof.
Lupus is seriously contesting that any Nazi stood accused of participating in a conspiracy to engage in genocide against Jews and use gas chambers as the weapon at Nuremberg.

The FACTS of gas chambers were already established by the Poles and the British during the war. Hence, there was no need to find proof of them outside mere witness testimony. The proof is in the chocolate pudding, and Lupus is pretending that his dessert plate is empty.

Werd
Posts: 9978
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Turnagain's Judicial Notice

Post by Werd »

Judicial Notice means that the court acknowledged certain matters sufficiently proven to be factual, therefore by taking "judicial notice" of the Holocaust the court determined that there was more than ample proof that the Holocaust did, in fact, occur and was therefore not subject to a need for further proof. In other words, it considered that there was ample evidence, documentation and proofs available that the fact of its concurrence was common knowledge with no further need to take evidence to prove its factualness. Take for example, that a certain date in a certain year was a "Tuesday", or that Christmas always occurs on Dec 25th. The accused could deny their involvement in the Holocaust but not the fact that it occurred.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Judicial notice doesn't really mean they couldn't deny it had occurred. It only means that the prosecutors didn't need to prove it had happened. In theory, a defendant who had evidence to the contrary could have introduced that evidence. It's a little like if you've gotten a speeding ticket. The policeman can typically just say: "the speed limit there is 50", and the court won't require real proof of it. If you can show evidence that the speed limit is higher, you're free to do so--but where he could just make an unsupported statement, you'll probably have to provide real evidence.


https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... aust/34501

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 16 guests