⚠️ Historical Documentation Notice
This document is part of a historical archive and is presented for scholarly research and educational purposes.
The content reflects historical perspectives and should be understood within its historical context.
your “holes” index other interlocutory hearings September 11, 1998 September 15, 1998 October 2, 1998 December 15, 1998 January 26, 1999 April 23, 1999the witnesses and statements: David Irving Deborah Lipstadt Dr K Arnold Bernie M Farber Rebecca Guttman Robert Horenstein Warren Kinsella Vladimir N Kuzelenkov Daniel Levitas Peter Millar Peter Pringle Andrew Rosenheim Vladimir Tarasov Tatiana Vasilyeva Eric K Ward Steven M Wasserstrom the reports by experts: Christopher Browning Richard Evans
Peter Longerich Robert Jan Van Pelt Civil Evidence Act Notice the verbatim Day 1: Jan 11, 2000 Day 2: Jan 12, 2000 Day 3: Jan 13, 2000 Day 4: Jan 17, 2000 Day 5: Jan 18, 2000 Day 6: Jan 19, 2000 Day 7: Jan 20, 2000 Day 8: Jan 24, 2000 Day 9: Jan 25, 2000 Day 10: Jan 26, 2000 Day 11: Jan 28, 2000 Day 12: Jan 31, 2000 Day 13: Feb 1, 2000 Day 14: Feb 2, 2000 Day 15: Feb 3, 2000 Day 16: Feb 7, 2000 Day 17: Feb 8, 2000 Day 18: Feb 10, 2000 Day 19: Feb 14, 2000 Day 20: Feb 15, 2000 Day 21: Feb 16,
2000 Day 22: Feb 17, 2000 Day 23: Feb 21, 2000 Day 24: Feb 23, 2000 Day 25: Feb 24, 2000 Day 26: Feb 28, 2000 Day 27: Feb 29, 2000 Day 28: Mar 1, 2000 Day 29: Mar 2, 2000 Day 30: Mar 6, 2000 Day 31: Mar 14, 2000 Day 32: Mar 15, 2000 Prize Day etc., as available Our dossier: The fight over Mr Irving’s seized possessions and archives High Court in London throws out the defamatory affidavits filed for Deborah Lipstadt against David Irving The writer’s diary record FOR THIRTY-FIVE years author
David Irving has kept a private diary. It has proven useful in countless actions. For the information of his many supporters he publishes an edited text in his irregular newsletter ACTION REPORT. Summary British writer David Irving is suing American professor of religion Deborah Lipstadt in Libel, for lies about him contained in her book Denying the Holocaust, which she wrote at the behest of Vidal Sassoon, Yad Vashem, and other similar agencies. The action will be tried in 1999.
In a hearing in chambers at the High Court on October 2, 1998 Prof. Lipstadt’s lawyers urged the court to allow two slanderous affaidavits sworn by one Jonathan Mozzochi to stand. Mr Irving (and the court) disagreed. CTOBER 2, 1998 TO THE HIGH COURT at 3 p.m. [Deborah Lipstadt’s lawyers] Anthony Julius , James Libson , and their law expert, a nice young tousle-haired man, come in due course.
Master Trench is practice master today, the term having begun, which means he does not have enough time to deal with our matters. He says he will take only the matter concerning the order to provide copies of the Goebbels Diaries, and my complaint about the defective first and second Jonathan Mozzochi affidavits.
Julius begins by saying he wanted to take up four matters, namely “the New Order” (in fact he says new order, but for a moment I am startled); then Mozzochi, then my summons , and then the restore-Directions matter. On Mozzochi, Master Trench hears both sides. I say that I do not believe a P O Box can be regarded under Order 41 as a “place where he works.” The rules are quite plain.
We are confronted with this situation: I have lived at the same address off Grosvenor Square for thirty years, and have had the same phone number for thirty years. To attack my name, Deborah Lipstadt has produced two scandalous affidavits written by a U.S. Pacific coast fly-by-night, who gives only an “accommodation address” (Master Trench’s word) for a job which he has since left by his own admission, and who appears to have a police record.
Julius makes a rather weakly stated plea that no doubt the Coalition operates from a P O Box for fear of firebomb attacks etc. I think that either he has had genuine difficulty in locating their witness, or he has his own reasons for not wanting me to locate him. Whatever the reason, Master Trench finds in my favour, ordering that “both affidavits should be taken out of the file, and not be used.”
He doesn’t normally take this line, he adds, but the affidavits sworn by Mozzochi contain “allegations [which] are strongly made” and should not be allowed to stand on the file since the affidavits fail to comply with all the rules. The result is that the names of four alleged rightwingers listed by Mozzochi are removed from the list of my discovery obligations; I barely know the gentlemen anyway. It is the general smear effect of the affidavits that concerns me.
Julius, unwilling to give up too easily, asks whether, if he can establish “an office front” for the Coalition for Human Dignity, this will satisfy the court. Besides, he reminded the court, under Order 24 I am obliged to discover all my dealings with these gentlemen anyway. “Only if they are rightwing extremists,” I point out. “And we had only Mr Mozzochi’s word for that.” A satisfactory afternoon, but a waste of time: I copy-edit Churchill’s War, vol. ii while waiting. . [ Go