Customer Reviews

Trial on Trial: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Many Americans today worship at the feet of FDR, regarding him as the father of social security. However, as this book shows, FDR was a virtual tyrannt able to manipulate this country into a war entangling us in European affairs against the better advice of all the Founding Fathers, including George Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796. And, to accomplish this manipulation he and his government were not afraid to resort to some of the most vicious forms of propaganda, including staging a "Moscow show trial" in which political dissidents and "crackpots" (the phrase used by the prosecution) were rounded up and accused of encouraging members of the U.S. armed forces to mutiny. One of these individuals who brought upon himself the ire of the Roosevelt administration and of other powerful forces within government was Lawrence Dennis, writer of several famous books dealing with the fascist revolution in America.
It was in light of his theories that Dennis got himself into trouble with the current powers that be. Indeed, approximately 40 dissidents and "crackpots" were hauled up by the government in a great show trial on charges of sedition in 1944. What was the purpose of this trial? Dennis argues that it was purely for propaganda purposes by the Roosevelt administration and refers to it as a farce and a waste of the taxpayer's money in this book _A Trial on Trial_. In fact, the trial did not attempt to prove the charge that the defendants had tried to make members in the armed forces mutiny, but rather instead alleged a "worldwide Nazi conspiracy" in which the defendants took part. Dennis argues that this trial was done in the tradition of Moscow, in which the government attempted to "educate" the public on the evils of "anti-Semitism, isolationism, and anti-communism" by means of a trial. For Dennis, he certainly could not be charged with the noxious anti-Semitic charge (still used so often today against those who propose another perspective) because his writings specifically showed the foolishness of anti-Semitism. Dennis argued that it was particularly ironic that the defendants were often referred to by the prosecution as "crackpots", because according to the dictionary a "crackpot" is a "harmless lunatic" but in the same breath the prosecution would call them all "dangerous".
But why was this trial staged at all? According to Dennis these individuals (the "crackpots") were easy targets. They were dissidents and quite frequently agitators who rebelled against the present order. However, many "respectable" Americans (including certain famous "isolationist" Congressmen such as Senator Nye, John T. Flynn, and the elder Lindhbergh) also shared the views of these "agitators" but were unable or unwilling to admit this in public or to take nearly such a radical stance. Indeed, according to Dennis it was not really the "crackpots" who were the target of the trial at all. Rather it was the dissident but respectable Americans who Roosevelt and his cronies were after. Afterall, by going after the "crackpots" the message to the rest of America was clear: if you share these views you'd best keep quiet because we'll go after you next, best just to parrot the Roosevelt line in times of war.
In addition, powerful Jewish groups including the freemasonic B'nai B'rith wanted the defendants prosecuted on the charge of anti-Semitism. While many of the defendants including the individual writing under the pen name Major-General Count Cherep-Spiridovich, claiming to be a Russian general of Aryan descent, were indeed virulent anti-Semites, the majority were not. (Interestingly, the chess player Bobby Fisher attempting to understand the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy behind international chess professionals has recommended the book by Count Cherep-Spiridovich entitled _The Secret World Government_, currently available from the Booktree publishers.) Indeed, anti-Semitism has always existed and can hardly be called a crime, certainly not by any legal standard within the United States and certainly not supported by the Constitution of the United States. While it may be understandable that these Jewish groups wanted to stamp out anti-Semitism, their methods for doing so were truly Machievellian and completely without regard to civil liberties. The same applies to the manner in which the ideologies of "isolationism" and "anti-communism" were being eradicated.
It is common for those among the communists to refer to every single opponent of the official "Moscow line" as a fascist. Indeed, the word fascist is a term of such abuse that it no longer has any meaning whatsoever. Indeed, when the fellow communist Trotsky deviated from the official Stalin-line he suddenly became a "fascist". So, the fascist smear is really old news and of course the left was playing this up in the sedition trial. However, many of those who certainly could not be referred to as part of the left wing extreme or communists continued to parrot the "fascist line" unaware that they were in fact unwitting pawns for Moscow.
After 6 months of unnecessary trial, the judge, worn thin from all the headache, had a heart attack and died. The trial was subsequently declared a mistrial and the defendants were all left off the hook. However, this trial had been a farce and a true perversion of American justice, attempting to cash in on the unanimous agreement of all Americans that fascism was a "bad thing" to persecute certain dissidents and "crackpots" who would not toe the interventionist/Roosevelt line. Dennis subsequently went back to his work and his writing.
This book, _A Trial on Trial_ presents the case point by point including the prosecutor's main arguments (or lack thereof) and sound rebuttal by the defense. The book is co-written by Lawrence Dennis who served as his own attorney and the defense attorney Maximilian St. George. This book is re-issued by the Institute for Historical Review and preserves one of the few accounts of revisionist scholarship dealing with the pre-World War II debacle of the Roosevelt "interventionist" administration.

Lawrence Dennis and Maxmillian St. George wrote a classic book explaining how to proceed against bogus government charges and kangaroo trials. These men not only give the reader an explanation of their defense, but they clearly indicate that dissenting views are not the same as sedition and conspiracy.

The brief background to the trial gives the reader the diverstiy of the defendents and their plan of attack in court. Dennis refused to cooperate in any plea agreements because, as he correctly saw, the government had no case. Rather than argue the legal definitions of the law, Dennis and St. George argued that no crime had been committed, and there was absolutely no case. Admittedly some of the defendents were rabid anti-semites which could have proved embarrassing, but this was not a crime defined by statue.

Government prosecutors probably thought that because many of the defendants were poor and had few resources, these prosecutors may have thought this would be an easy case to win. What they did not anticipate was the fact that some of the defendants were intelligent, and their intelligence more than compensated for lack of resources.

One of the charges brought against the defendants was attempting to cause mutiny in the armed forces. Yet, the government could not present one shred of credible evidence to sustain such a charge. In fact, one of the defendants lost his son fighting against the Germans during the trial. As for the accusation that these defendents posed a serious threat, one of the defendants died during the trial with about fifty cents in his pocket.

Basically, the defense, especially Dennis, challenged every introduction of government "evidence." Dennis remarked that the evidence was obviously weak, but to wait until the prosecution was finished would have been an error. The jurors would be tired and give more weight to the prosecution's evidence and might be too tired or bored to carefully listen to the defense's refutation of the goverment's "evidence." By challenging the presecution's evidence as it was presented, jurors had a better chance to see just how weak the government's case was.

The diagnois of the trial was also enlightening. This trial was compared to Stalin's "Show Trials" of the 1930s. There were no criminal acts, and the charges amounted to unpopular opinions. Some of the journalists who first thought they were reporting on a fameous trial became bored with the whole event as they too saw the government's case as weak and frivolous. In other words, what was supposed to be a show trial soon became almost a non-event in the view of the media.

Basically, the government prosecutors ran into vigorous defense which they never anticipated. After months of claiming there were records in Germany and Italy that would prove a conspiracy, no such evidence was found. Government prosecutors asked for delays and still no such evidence was presented because there was none.

What began as a showcase trial ended as a dismal failure for the government. The judge died during the trial, and due to the stinging rebuke from the defense, the case was adriotly dropped. There was no crime and no evidence to prove there was. Intelligent defendants made a shambles out of the trial to the dismay of those who promoted the trial. One should also realize that the trial was a victory for civil libertarians.

Dennis and St. George wrote a long but masterful book on the corrupt and illegal operations of the U.S. "Justice" system. A careful reading of this book will show that quite often government legal "experts" are giants with feet of clay.

This is a great book that exposes one of the greatest judicial farces in American history.During WWII,lead mainly by pressure from Jewish and Communist groups,the US government attempted to railroad a bunch of anti-communists and isolationists.The trial turned out to be a complete farce,thanks mainly to the book's author Lawrence Dennis.In many ways this trial saw the invention of "McCarthyism".(But don't expect your history professor to mention it,or Hollywood to make a movie about it.)It's all there,smears,innuendo,guilt by association,etc.,etc.Maybe it should be called Biddlism,after the Attorney General at the time.Or even more accurately Rooseveltism.