I have four points or so to put to the court, after which we shall discuss the list of Issues. First, I express formal thanks to the two firms of solicitors acting for the defendants, since I recognise the extra burden placed on them by a litigant acting in person. (Not to be outdone, Rampton later comments in court on "Mr Irving's sycophantic remarks" about the solicitors -- and adds his own words of thanks to the Court Usher.)
Second, I provide the full diary entry for July 25, 1998, which I had redacted: this shows that there was no reference to the National Alliance (NA), which they suspected was excised. Third, I produce a small file on the gas chamber broadcasts made by Thomas Mann, Germany's "Lord Haw-Haw", in 1941 and early 1942, as requested by the court on Thursday.
I then touch upon the defendant's provision of their video of the Halle speech, November 9, 1991. There are three issues, I suggest: admissibility, conduct of case, and damages. Judge Gray says that this is not the place to make representations on matters going to the defendants' conduct of the case or damages, purely on the admissibility of the video in evidence. That limits my submissions sharply. He says most helpfully, "You are going to claim, aren't you, that the manner in which the defendants withheld discovery was untoward (?) and offensive." I reply that I was not going to use those precise adjectives, but that I shall certainly now appropriate them, and I shall make the relevant submissions in my closing speech.
The judge has now grasped the point, that this video on which the defendants rely has some abrupt cuts in the images and sound, as filmed by the cameraman (the left-wing police Spitzel Michael Schmidt) -- "He only filmed what interested him?", Judge Gray points out to the defence, inviting a response. I shall now do further homework on that item for the final speech. Mr Rampton then says that since I have made remarks in open court about the "broken undertaking", Mr Anthony Julius, who is familiar with the affair (April 2000) will address the court. Julius says flatly that no undertaking was broken (on that, opinions will differ!); and that the videos concerned were privileged, which privilege they waived at the time.
Showing that he is nobody's fool, the judge does now express curiosity on the "broken undertaking." and asks, razor-sharp, "How long did you claim that the privilege existed?" "Two days," admits Julius. That shows, I think, that Judge Gray has got the point on that. Mr Rampton confirms that as for the American extremists, he is "dumping" the whole of Bundle "C" except for the report by Rebecca Guttman, the ADL's Mata Hari in Tampa, Florida, and the appendices thereto. Comment: [...].
For twenty minutes we then discuss the Issues as listed. The defendants want to add some and amend others, and Judge Gray makes the point, before I can, that he has inadvertently omitted the Section 5 matters, namely Hizbollah, Hamas, Farrakhan, and other matters where the defendants plead no justification.
Mr Rampton asks if provision can be made for much more seating on the final days as people are coming from all over the world.
The final timetable is agreed:
Rampton to kick off, reading a shortened summary of his full speech (which he says would otherwise take "three days" to read into court); followed by me -- as Plaintiff (claimant), I get the Queen's Bench equivalent of the jus primae noctis, the right to the last word.
I declare that I shall not slavishly follow the listed Issues as drafted, and I shall read out my speech with omissions, rather than write a separate summary. Finally, Rampton asks that if I am to be given the judgement one day ahead of the public reading, as is now the custom, I should give an undertaking of secrecy; to which I agree.