since 1991 Long document, allow to load the fight over your possessions Mr Irving to his counsel: Draft responses to the Witness Statement filed

on April 1, 2004 by the official Trustee in re Mr Irving’s claim for the return of his possessions, and Deborah Lipstadt’s counter-claim for all his possessions to be turned over to her . Key West, [4:42 PM] Dear Paul (and Adrian) I gave you my initial response to the Trustee’s witness statement in an email today . The following is a point-by-point response. More points will occur to you.

Para. 2: Until reading this witness statement’s Para. 2 I did not know — I was not informed — that Haig was one of the Trustees. I was told only of [Louise] Brittain. I have never seen page 2 of the exhibits before. Colin Haig should now therefore be joined to my application. Given the importance of Haig vs. Aitken, this seems important; they cannot therefore plead ignorance of the law on “books and papers.” Para. 9: if they are holding little funds, they have themselves to blame.

Bradford & Bingley (B&B) sold the property for £200,000 less than the offer than was made to me during the previous twelve months. The Trustee also allowed B&B to hold it empty for six months, running up further interest charges, before selling it. Para. 13: the various people attending the meeting were not identified to me at the time, which accounts for the confusion in identities. They were strangers who marched into my home and claimed to have various functions to perform.

I knew only that some were the Trustee and some the Trustee’s solicitors. There was also a “Daryl”, as I recall. Para. 14: I agree it may therefore not have been DLA who made the statement referred to in this Paragraph, but the Trustees (who clearly did act in the Aitken case). Para. 16: Unlike the Trustee, I abided by my undertaking not to dispose of the items.

For her undertaking, which has clearly been broken (see exhibits, page 23) not to sell any items removed from the property without giving us fourteen days’ notice, see Paras. 20, and 35.3. Para. 18: I did not “unsuccessfully attempt to obtain a stay of the eviction.” I instructed [London solicitors:] Amhurst, Brown, Colombotti, and put them in funds, and they negligently omitted to make the application. When I learned of this omission, it was too late to avert the disaster.

Para. 19: they list Benté Hogh as a “partner”: but overlook whether she had any inherent rights to the equity in the property or its contents. . . The final sentence of this Paragraph is not admitted. Para. 20: the Trustee or DLA repeated on several occasions the undertaking not to dispose of items seized without notifying us.

This was important to us, as friends had indicated they would enable us to buy back such items at reasonable market valuations, and Bente was keen to recover her own chattels. Contrary to the final sentence of this Para. 20, I was never notified of the location of the items taken — I now suspect, deliberately — until after the recent Order was made, when I had to be told the location to enable my agent to attend to invigilate the inspection and valuation by Jersak et al.

Para. 23-24: the Trustee asserted wholly wrongly by letter to DLA and B&B a claim to all the possessions in the premises, and consequently forbade my re-entry as agreed by B&B to retrieve the remaining possessions, which Benté had not been able to remove before the locks were changed, including most of her personal possessions. As for “no evidence being provided” by me: as the Trustee knew, I was eight time zones away in Seattle.

Para. 25: the only item of “Nazi memorabilia” was a replica bust in bronze of Dr Joseph Goebbels , whose biography I had just published. There was nothing else of this nature. The reference to Nazi memorabilia is an attempt to prejudice. Para. 26 is not admitted in this form. Para. 28: Kevin H was at the property on behalf of Bente Hogh, who was (and is) very sick.

I admit that I sent to Mr Hall an email list of essential items which Bente had to rescue if she could from the disaster, like personal diaries, personal photo negatives, etc. It never occurred to me that my entire historical archive and book-library, or other tools of my trade as historian, were at risk.

Para. 29: notwithstanding what the Trustee says, the Trustee removed our only table, our only chairs, and asserted via DLA in writing a spurious claim to the entire remaining contents of the flat (which included all white goods, linen, beds, sofas, kitchen equipment, pots, pans, glasses, crockery, tableware etc), all of which were subsequently lost, looted, or disposed of by B&B. Para. 30: This Paragraph is denied.

The Trustee in writing asserted a claim to the entire contents of the property, and refused permission to B&B to allow us to

See Also