GENERAL FLYNN: FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE

This article will discuss why and how Judge Emmet Sullivan should be removed from the case involving Lieutenant General Flynn. The judge wrongly accused the general of treason and demonstrated that he enterred the court with no understanding of the case before him on the day that he was supposed to sentence Flynn. The axis term in E. SULLIVAN. At the same absolute skip are JUDGE and FLYNN. MUELLER at skip -6 shares a letter resh with AGAINST THE WALL. Treason carries the death penalty. In the open text is HE SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH. The Judge demonstrated hatred (prejudice) against Flynn and the Republican agenda. HATRED is in the open text. Not far from it is an ELS of AFFIDAVIT. I once successfully filed an Affidavit of Prejudice to remove a bigoted judge from a custody case involving my older son. Alan Dershowitz explains why Flynn should follow suit. 

STATISTICAL AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MATRIX. As per my standard protocol, no statistical significance is assigned to the axis term, here E. SULLIVAN at its 2nd lowest skip (in unwrapped Torah). This analysis is in two parts. First we'll look at the 299-letter segment of the matrix with a white background, then the full 888-letter matrix. In the smaller matrix the most significant clearly a priori term was FLYNN.  His name was at a special case skip (+/- 1 or the absolute skip of the axis term) against odds of about 93 to 1. I sought 5 synonyms for JUDGE and found one of them at the same skip as E. SULLIVAN and JUDGE against odds of about 21.7 to 1. These odds shrank to about 32 to 1 and 7.7 to 1, respectively, on the full matrix. MUELLER at skip -6 was not very significant. He had about a 74% chance to be on the small matrix, and essentially a 100% chance to be on the large one. I could not find any form of PREJUDICE, but I found the synonym HATRED in the open text against odds of about 69.7 to 1. AFFIDAVIT was in the full matrix (but not at a special case skip) against odds of about 17 to 1. HE SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH was only found a posteriori so it's not included in the calculation. The real issue here is the phrase AGAINST THE WALL. It occurs twice in Torah. Odds against it being on the small matrix are about 510 to 1. On the full matrix it's about 173 to 1. But is it a true a priori find? I was vaguely interested in the effects of a Government shutdown over border wall funding. Specifically, would it affect Federal Courts like that run by Judge Sullivan? On that issue I found this published back on January 20, 2018:

Despite a government shutdown, the federal Judiciary will remain open and can continue operations for approximately three weeks, through February 9, by using court fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation.

       Exactly how does Judge Sullivan feel about border issues, and by extension President Trump? Apparently this judge, originally appointed by President Clinton, is not a Trump fan. On the day after this nut ran his idiotic mouth against General Flynn this "judge" took the extraordinary step of ordering that asylum seekers who sued after their deportation be returned to the U.S. to have their claims heard anew, ruling against the Trump administration's revised asylum policies. In addition to returning asylum seekers to the U.S., Sullivan blocked the Trump administration policies from being further applied. So, clearly, this guy is against the wall too. Based on these actions I think it's fair to include the phrase AGAINST THE WALL on the odds calculations. As such, odds against the small matrix are about 695,552 to 1. Odds against the large matrix occurring by chance are about 25,463,919 to 1. See the spreadsheet at the end of this article.  What if we don't count AGAINST THE WALL? Then the odds against drop to 1,363 to 1 and 146,609 to 1 respectively. Who cares about which odds are correct? Anyone interested in statistics or pure science. However, from a military point of view it can be argued that the questionable phrase provides still strong evidence of deliberate encoding and identification of the judge in question. Remember that the a priori odds I quote only reflect how accurate I was in guessing what would be there. In no way do my abilities mandate all of what the Encoder was thinking (or will think). Here, to really understand the Code, we must retain an appreciation of what is often the artwork found on a matrix. This is where the skills of a true Intelligence Analyst become essential.

HOW DID SULLIVAN DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE AND INCOMPTENCE? Here let's look at words of Alan Dershowitz.

First, Sullivan suggested that Flynn might be guilty of treason. This reflects an abysmal ignorance of the governing case law. Nothing Flynn did comes even close to satisfying the strict definition of treason.

The U.S. Constitution states: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same Overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Flynn admitted he represented Turkey – America’s NATO ally – before he became a federal employee as President Trump’s national security adviser, but said he failed to register until later under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not charge Flynn for failing to register – let alone with the far more serious crime of treason.

But Sullivan blundered by accusing Flynn of having been an unregistered foreign agent while he was serving in the White House, thereby having “sold your country out.” This was flat out wrong, since Flynn stopped working for any foreign government before he became President Trump’s national security adviser when Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2017.

During a recess, in the sentencing hearing, Judge Sullivan’s law clerks obviously set him straight on the law and the facts and the judge walked back his erroneous statements. But these statements reflect a kind of abiding bias that might well result in reversible error if Flynn’s lawyers appeal a sentence he eventually receives from Sullivan.

Why did the Judge delay sentencing until March 13 to file a status report with the court? Quite possibly to keep the pressure on Flynn with the hope that he will give Mueller more time to perhaps compose an anti-Trump statement that could be the basis of an impeachment. Dershowitz goes on to say:

I had a case much like this several years ago and the appellate court reversed the sentence and remanded it for resentencing before a different and unprejudiced judge. Walking back erroneous statements cannot unring the bell of a judge’s prejudice.

It is obvious that Judge Sullivan regards Flynn as guilty of far more serious crimes than he pleaded to or was even charged with committing.

Sullivan probably came into the courtroom before the recess with his mind made up about the sentence he intended to impose based on his erroneous views regarding treason and Flynn’s supposed role as an agent for a foreign government while serving in the White House. The judge may even have written out the sentence in advance, as many judges do.

Sullivan deliberately telegraphed his intention to impose a prison sentence in defiance of the joint recommendation of the Mueller and Flynn’s defense attorney, who agreed that Flynn should not serve any prison time.

MY OWN MOTION TO DISQUALIFY A JUDGE. From 1979 to 1984 I fought in the court of Richard S. Hickey in Miami, Florida for custody of my older son Robert (born in 1977 and now an Orthodox rabbi). Initially my ex-wife, Maria, was awarded primary residency in a joint custody arrangement. The interfaith marriage to her was one in which she promised to allow Robert to be raised as Jew. In 1984 Maria, against my will and my son's will, baptized our son into the Catholic religion. That set off another custody battle, one in which the Catholic Church was forced to annul the baptism - a first in History. The Miami Herald press coverage for all this is here and the Letter of Annulment from Archbishop McCarthy of Miami is here.

       Along the way to my win in court Judge Hickey made bizarre, inaccurate and hateful remarks, much like those of Judge Sullivan. What follows below is account of how I removed Hickey from my case. As I was advised my friend, Bob Finnerty, lawyers don't like to file these motions because they often have to plead cases before the same judge and such a motion may color the judge's attitude toward them in future cases. The segment that follows is from Chapter 22 of my on-line book BAPTISM ANNULLED which formerly went by the name A MATTER OF SPIRITUAL CUSTODY.

       A hearing on the Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge was set for September 18th.  I hadn’t been idle as that date approached.  I had not only prepared the Motion, but a hundred-page lawsuit to be filed against the Church, naming everyone from the priest who had carried out the baptism right up to the Pope himself.  The suit was ready by September 14th.  I wasted no time in phoning the Herald and the attorneys for the Archdiocese to tell them that it was going to be filed on September 24th unless the baptism was annulled by that day at 9:00 a.m.  I made certain that Fitzpatrick (attorney for the Archdiocese of Miami) understood the thrust of my attack would be to link the Vatican to the Holocaust and promised to rip the Church wide open with new evidence.  In reality, all I had was what had already been filed in my custody proceedings, but I thought that was more than enough to do the job, and it was best to keep my opponent off guard.  Anyway, if a cursory search of the 1933 New York Times microfilm copies could reveal so much, it was almost certain that the Church itself was sitting on far more incriminating evidence that it had to fear might leak out one day.

       What evidence did I have? I'll include it at the end of this article as Note 1 in blue fonts for those who might be interested.

BACK TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE

       On Monday, September 17th, I called Fitzpatrick back to remind him that his Church had seven days to comply.  On Tuesday, the 18th, I called again to tell him it was now down to six days.

       Tuesday was also “D Day” (or Dump Hickey Day) for me.  Only four people showed up to see the judge: Karl Schmidt (Maria's attorney), Maria, Bennett Lapidus  (my attorney), and I.

       Bennett was first to speak.  “Your Honor,” he began, “My client’s here today with an Affidavit in Support of his Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge. Before he speaks, and I want to make clear that this is his doing, I would like to address some problems that I’m sure Mr. Schmidt will bring up.  As Your Honor is aware, in Florida Civil law there are two witnesses required to support accusations of prejudicial remarks made by a judge if the strict letter of the law is to be followed.  The equity of the situation, however, demands that civil procedure be set aside.  On the day that the alleged remarks were made by you, there were no witnesses save myself, my associates, and Mr. Schmidt, all attorneys, prohibited by the statute from serving as witnesses.  Mrs. Estavan (pseudonym for Maria's new last name) was present, but she can hardly be called as a witness by our side.  There was a court reporter, but we ask you to spare Mr. Roffman the expense of requiring a transcript. Instead, we ask that you do justice to the Motion by searching your own memory as to what transpired that day.  Mr. Roffman, tell the judge why you want to disqualify him.”

       I took a deep breath to get up the courage and then began.  “Your Honor, as I stated in my Affidavit, I fear that I may not receive a fair decision in this proceeding due to apparent prejudice or bias on your part.”

       “How so?” the judge asked.

       “There are six points I would like to address.”

       “Proceed,” Hickey said.

       “You stated at the onset of the last hearing that you remembered trying the case originally.  You then falsely accused me of abandoning my wife and child to run off to Israel for a year.  When I corrected you and told you that some five months after my wife left me, I took a six-week vacation in Israel to calm my nerves, you said, Oh well, I knew it was something like that.  Needless to say, there is a vast difference between a man abandoning his family for a year, and a man taking a six-week vacation five months after his wife has left him.  I would add that I sent child support payments for my boy while I was in Israel.  You acted like there were no differences between the two situations and you unfairly implied that I was negligent in my family responsibilities.  That was my first concern.  Second, you said at the onset of the hearing that you wouldn’t consider religion in this case.  Yet, as the press and the court-appointed psychologist have pointed out, religion is at the very core of this case.  Dr. Goldberg has testified that the child in question has been beaten and deprived of food by his mother.  The boy wishes to practice the religion that his mother swore before God Almighty to raise him in at his ritual circumcision or brith milah.  His mother and stepfather have conducted nothing short of a religious war against him.  You can no more overlook religion in this case than you can in any other religious war.  It is the sole problem that brought us here.  Third, you stated in reference to ritual circumcision that, lots of people are circumcised.”

       “Well, they are,” Hickey retorted.

       “That’s true, but not by a member of the Jewish clergy for religious reasons. Circumcision is one of the cardinal precepts of the Jewish faith.  It’s been central to our religion ever since God instructed our forefather Abraham to make it a sign of the covenant between Him, God that is, and the Jewish people.  You seemed to downgrade the entire practice to a simple medical procedure.  We don’t circumcise for medical reasons in Judaism.  We do it as an act of our faith and love for God.  If a Jew has the sign of God inscribed there, and understands what it means, he is reminded of God before he uses it to draw a soul into the world.  This makes him less likely to commit an act of adultery, homosexuality, or incest.  It tells him the purpose for all sexual pleasure.                       

        “Fourth, you stated that you thought it was a disgrace that I would have Bobby preach from the pulpit.  You thus implied that my son has no right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

       “That’s your interpretation,” Hickey complained.

       “Yes, it is,” I said, “and it’s my son’s interpretation, too.  Anyway, he doesn’t preach. He sings Hebrew prayers to our God, and I believe that the Constitution guarantees him that right.

       “Fifth, you said at the onset of the last hearing that you wouldn’t receive testimony.  That wasn’t only fair.  It was mandated by the agreement reached between all parties before General Master Dixon when both sides stipulated to a decision based solely on the testimony of psychologists Goldberg and Gray.  I waived a very large list of witnesses in agreeing to that.  Mr. Schmidt knew full well what he was doing, too, and so did Mrs. Estavan.  But you violated both your own instructions and our stipulation agreement by allowing Mr. Schmidt to read to the Court from the social worker’s report.  That report was never admitted as evidence, nor did we get the chance to cross-examine the man that wrote it.  I’d like you to know that the writer of the report had told me that he had seen my indictment of the Vatican before he came to my house on the day he interviewed my family.  Further he told me he was Catholic and he implied he was upset that I would link the Vatican with the Holocaust.  He then proceeded to argue theology with my seven-year-old son as is evident by the Torah remarks that are included in his report.  Finally, Your Honor, you said at the conclusion of the August 9th hearing that you’d give us your answer sometime in the future.   From the tone of your voice, you seemed to suggest that you might table the decision for a long, long time.”

       “Don’t you think I’m entitled to a vacation?” Hickey asked sarcastically.

       “Yes, you’re entitled. But it’s now been forty days since the hearing and, unfortunately, my son can’t take a vacation from the persecution he’s suffering in his mother’s home.  You’ve had almost seven weeks to review the transcripts.  Have you done so?”

       “No,” the judge admitted, “I seem to have lost them right after the hearing.  I asked my secretary to look for them, but she hasn’t come up with them yet.  Mr. Schmidt, can you get me another copy?”

       “Certainly, Your Honor,” the attorney answered.

       “The general master,” I said, “after having heard the facts, ruled that it was neither desirable nor safe to leave Bobby in the care of his mother for more than one day per week.  He reached that decision on June 29th, some twelve weeks ago, and yet this matter drags on and on and you don’t know where you’ve placed the transcripts seven weeks ago.  My kid’s going nuts while this Court drags its feet.  For all these reasons, I respectfully request that you step down from the case and let the chief judge assign it to another judge.  Thank you for hearing me out.”

       “Mr. Schmidt, have you got something to say about this matter?” the judge asked.

       “I think it’s absolutely outrageous that that man can come in here and make such obscene accusations against a man who is as respected on the bench as Your Honor is.  I sat here on that day and I remember nothing of what he says" (James Comey complex).  "I think he must have a very active imagination and persecution complex, both of which are indicative of why he shouldn’t have custody of the child in question.  And as for his having the right to come in here in the first place, as Mr. Lapidus has pointed out, two witnesses are required. Where are they?  Mr. Roffman hasn’t even supplied the transcripts from the hearing in question.  Why hasn’t he supplied them?  Because he knows damn well that they’ll show nothing of what’s been alleged here today.  And then there’s the issue of my client’s interests.  My fee is $150 per hour.  Who’s going to pay my client’s added expense to go all through a repeat of the last hearing with another judge?  Mr. Roffman?  I doubt it!  It’s unfair to ask my client to pay for another hearing.  I would add, that after having read Mr. Roffman’s Affidavit, that it doesn’t comply with the Florida Statutes which state that the petitioner must state that, and I quote, the filer fears that he WILL not receive a fair decision.  Mr. Roffman states only that he fears he MAY not receive a proper decision.  MAY is not the same as WILL.  Thus the affidavit is improper.”

       The judge took off his glasses and gave me a hard look.  “Mr. Roffman,” he said, “Although I’m not prejudiced against your case or your religion, I’m going to grant your Motion.”  With these words I felt a surge of relief rush through my whole body.  The judge continued: “Both of you are fighting for your child, and whoever loses will probably think I was wrong, but if you already think so, then I’ll step down so you’ll believe that you can get a fair decision.  I’ll have you know that my daughter is married to a Jewish attorney.  I have nothing against Jews.  For all you or I know, I might’ve well ruled in your favor.  Mr. Lapidus, draw up the necessary papers, and I’ll see to it that the case is reassigned.”

       With tears of joy in my eyes, I said, “Thank you, Your Honor,” and the hearing was over.

       Schmidt was furious as we left the room.  “Put a muzzle on your client,” he urged Bennett.

       He’s listed as a co-counselor, and he’s a damn good one at that,” Bennett beamed.

       “I never know who I’m fighting with in this case!” Schmidt barked.

       “You’re fighting with us both.  We’re a team,” Bennett said.  With that we parted while Schmidt continued to mumble to himself.  After almost five long years, I was free of Hickey and the case was reassigned to Judge Gerstein.

       Luck, after years behind a cloud, had finally emerged to shine on me with a warm and loving smile.  For at the very moment I was being freed from the bondage of Hickey’s decrees, John Fitzpatrick was meeting with Archbishop McCarthy to warn him of my upcoming $6,000,000 suit.

CONCLUSION.

       First of all I don't want to imply that Lieutenant General Flynn is without guilt. He deceived the White House and Vice President Pence. The White House has said Trump wasn't aware of Flynn’s work as a lobbyist for Turkey before he went to work for the White House. Flynn served just 24 days as national security adviser and was fired when it emerged that, despite what he had told Pence, he had discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition. Flynn was fired in part because he was liable to blackmail by the Russians, since they almost certainly had recordings of the conversation. But as incoming national security adviser Flynn should have had the right to discuss sanctions with Russia so that he could help figure out what U.S. policy should be with Russia who (1) provides the rockets to get Americans into space, (2) shares the International Space Station with us, (3) has helped us fight ISIS in Syria enough that on December 12, 2018 President Trump could announce that we can pull out of Syria in 30 days. Russia also shares intelligence information with us. In fact, they warned us about the bombers who hit the Boston marathon, but the FBI chose to ignore them. 

       Flynn supposedly lied to the FBI, but they set him up for it and failed to read him his Miranda warning. Is prison warranted for his indiscretions? No. It's enough that he was fired so quickly and that he has been bankrupted by all the legal expenses. The equities of the situation merit dropping of all charges.

        As for the Code, it did indeed provide a sketch of Judge Sullivan's warped views. He is an activist judge. All of them seem to confuse their responsibilities with those of the President. While it is true that after a recess, Sullivan walked back the bulk of his ignorant and totally wrong bigoted remarks, the damage was done. I've seen the likes of him before with Judge Hickey. I would recommend impeachment of the judge, but the incoming Democrat House majority can't seem to understand how that such action might be appropriate against anyone other than our President or Judge Kavanaugh.

NOTE 1: EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN JUDGE HICKEY'S COURT ABOUT THE LINK BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE HOLOCAUST.

        What was it that the Catholic judge would now be forced to read?  The attack on Rome started with an account of Vatican-sponsored persecution of the Jews right back to Pope Urban II, who raised the first Crusader army which had slaughtered about 10,000 Jews in the year 1096.  I wrote of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition of 1492, and of Pope Pius V who (in 1569) expelled the Jews from all States of the Church, except Rome and Ancona for commercial reasons.  I listed the failure of the Church to come to the aid of Jews killed during the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648 in which more than 100,000 Jews died, and the fact that in Rome Pope Pius X maintained the Jewish Ghetto until 1870.  Then, and only then, did I begin to document the Vatican’s role in the Nazi-led Holocaust.

       I had managed to travel back in time to 1933 with the help of the microfilm library at Florida International University.  There, in copies of the New York Times, was all the evidence needed to prove my point.

       I argued that the Vatican entered into a Concordat with the Hitler government on July 20, 1933, after speeches had already been made in the U.S. Senate quoting Hitler’s suggestion that 12,000 to 15,000 Jews be held under poison gas.  The first Times article about the Senate speech was on pages 1 and 25 of the June 11,1933, issue.

       When the New York Times covered the signing of the Vatican-Nazi pact on page 5 of its July 21st, 1933 issue, the story was only three columns to the left of an article called World Jews Push Boycott Of Reich For Inhuman Acts.  The article said back on page 1 that “the Hitler government had expressed its determination to persist in its policy of persecution and to drive the Jews of Germany from every branch of activity in public and private life, to annihilate them economically, to deprive them of their citizenship, to reduce them to a state of pariahs and eventually to exterminate them.”  It listed, on its page 5 continuance, the fact that “hundreds of thousands of unoffending Jews have been imprisoned, tortured and lodged in hells on earth, called detention camps.”  Thus, I argued, it was common knowledge that the concentration camps existed and that Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews when the Vatican signed the agreement.  The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich (page 324) by William L. Shirer was also quoted.  He said that “the Concordat,  . . . signed by Papal Secretary of State, Monsignor Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII,” “came  . . . at a moment when the first excesses of the new regime in Germany had provoked worldwide revulsion” and that “the Concordat undoubtedly lent the Hitler government much badly needed prestige.” 

       An article in section II on page 4 of the New York Times September 10, 1933, issue showed that the Pope was aware of the plight of the Jews.  It read: “The report that ratification of the Vatican-German concordat has been delayed by the Pope’s dissatisfaction with Chancellor Hitler’s policies, especially sterilization and anti-Judaism is denied by both the Vatican and by German sources.”  Two days later, in the September 12th issue, the Times reported on page 10 that the Concordat had been ratified.  This article stated, “Nazi newspapers view the ratification as new proof of the stability of political conditions in Germany since Adolf Hitler took over the government and as a rebuke to foreign meddling.  Less than twenty-four hours ago, the Nazis assert those meddlers proclaimed that the pact would be doomed by Papal veto.”

       The most damning piece of evidence introduced on the topic, however, was a photocopy of page 10 from the December 16, 1933, issue of the Times:

PARLEYS ON JEWS DENIED BY VATICAN

Report of Negotiations With Reich on Status of Those Who Are Catholics Is Refuted.

ROME, Dec.15. - The Vatican denies that any negotiations are in process with the German Government concerning the status and treatment of Catholics of Jewish blood.

       It is pointed out that The Vatican could intervene on behalf of this class of German citizens only if they were being subjected to unfair treatment as a consequence of being Catholics. Since this is not the case, the whole matter is regarded as being purely an internal German affair.

      The only other case, it is stated, in which The Vatican might consider itself called on to intervene would be if Catholic priests were being prevented from carrying out their duties because of Jewish descent. Only two such cases have been brought to the notice of the ecclesiastical authorities, but the Vatican did not consider it advisable to join issue with the German Government on the strength of only two such cases, and let the matter drop.

       I pointed out that any Church that could imply its approval to kill or persecute its own members so long as it was because of their Jewish ancestry and not because of their present faith had no right to lay its hands on my half-Jewish son.  It was stressed that the Vatican had proven that it would not even stand up for its own priests if they had Jewish parents or grandparents (under Nazi law anyone with one Jewish grandparent was classified as a Jew for extermination purposes).

      What evidence did I have? You can skip if if you just want to know about the Affidavit of Prejudice, but I'll include it here in blue fonts for those who might be interested.

      What was it that the Catholic judge would now be forced to read?  The attack on Rome started with an account of Vatican-sponsored persecution of the Jews right back to Pope Urban II, who raised the first Crusader army which had slaughtered about 10,000 Jews in the year 1096.  I wrote of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition of 1492, and of Pope Pius V who (in 1569) expelled the Jews from all States of the Church, except Rome and Ancona for commercial reasons.  I listed the failure of the Church to come to the aid of Jews killed during the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648 in which more than 100,000 Jews died, and the fact that in Rome Pope Pius X maintained the Jewish Ghetto until 1870.  Then, and only then, did I begin to document the Vatican’s role in the Nazi-led Holocaust.

       I had managed to travel back in time to 1933 with the help of the microfilm library at Florida International University.  There, in copies of the New York Times, was all the evidence needed to prove my point.

       I argued that the Vatican entered into a Concordat with the Hitler government on July 20, 1933, after speeches had already been made in the U.S. Senate quoting Hitler’s suggestion that 12,000 to 15,000 Jews be held under poison gas.  The first Times article about the Senate speech was on pages 1 and 25 of the June 11,1933, issue.

       When the New York Times covered the signing of the Vatican-Nazi pact on page 5 of its July 21st, 1933 issue, the story was only three columns to the left of an article called World Jews Push Boycott Of Reich For Inhuman Acts.  The article said back on page 1 that “the Hitler government had expressed its determination to persist in its policy of persecution and to drive the Jews of Germany from every branch of activity in public and private life, to annihilate them economically, to deprive them of their citizenship, to reduce them to a state of pariahs and eventually to exterminate them.”  It listed, on its page 5 continuance, the fact that “hundreds of thousands of unoffending Jews have been imprisoned, tortured and lodged in hells on earth, called detention camps.”  Thus, I argued, it was common knowledge that the concentration camps existed and that Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews when the Vatican signed the agreement.  The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich (page 324) by William L. Shirer was also quoted.  He said that “the Concordat,  . . . signed by Papal Secretary of State, Monsignor Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII,” “came  . . . at a moment when the first excesses of the new regime in Germany had provoked worldwide revulsion” and that “the Concordat undoubtedly lent the Hitler government much badly needed prestige.” 

       An article in section II on page 4 of the New York Times September 10, 1933, issue showed that the Pope was aware of the plight of the Jews.  It read: “The report that ratification of the Vatican-German concordat has been delayed by the Pope’s dissatisfaction with Chancellor Hitler’s policies, especially sterilization and anti-Judaism is denied by both the Vatican and by German sources.”  Two days later, in the September 12th issue, the Times reported on page 10 that the Concordat had been ratified.  This article stated, “Nazi newspapers view the ratification as new proof of the stability of political conditions in Germany since Adolf Hitler took over the government and as a rebuke to foreign meddling.  Less than twenty-four hours ago, the Nazis assert those meddlers proclaimed that the pact would be doomed by Papal veto.”

       The most damning piece of evidence introduced on the topic, however, was a photocopy of page 10 from the December 16, 1933, issue of the Times:

          PARLEYS ON JEWS DENIED BY VATICAN

               Report of Negotiations With Reich on

           Status of Those Who Are Catholics Is

                                    Refuted.

ROME, Dec.15. - The Vatican denies that any negotiations are in process with the German Government concerning the status and treatment of Catholics of Jewish blood.

       It is pointed out that The Vatican could intervene on behalf of this class of German citizens only if they were being subjected to unfair treatment as a consequence of being Catholics. Since this is not the case, the whole matter is regarded as being purely an internal German affair.

      The only other case, it is stated, in which The Vatican might consider itself called on to intervene would be if Catholic priests were being prevented from carrying out their duties because of Jewish descent. Only two such cases have been brought to the notice of the ecclesiastical authorities, but the Vatican did not consider it advisable to join issue with the German Government on the strength of only two such cases, and let the matter drop.

       I pointed out that any Church that could imply its approval to kill or persecute its own members so long as it was because of their Jewish ancestry and not because of their present faith had no right to lay its hands on my half-Jewish son.  It was stressed that the Vatican had proven that it would not even stand up for its own priests if they had Jewish parents or grandparents (under Nazi law anyone with one Jewish grandparent was classified as a Jew for extermination purposes).

     Below:  Spreadsheet showing the odds against terms on Figure 1 above.