https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann Her name is Gaby Weber and I receive her news letter since over a decade. She is probably not 'ourgal' but she does what real journalists used to do, including suing, going to court, digging in archives, doing FOIA stuff, you name it. I found her last newsletter (and the one before it) particularly interesting. The behavior of the powers-that-be shows how much they still have to hide, over 80 years later. It's quite frustrating. Below is the DeepL translation. >Lawsuit over access to documents in Argentina > Hello everyone, > I’d love to share some good news, but that’s hard to do these days. I have now lost a lawsuit here in Argentina regarding access to documents related to the Eichmann case. As you know (because you supported me in this), I filed a lawsuit in the Argentine administrative courts seeking the disclosure of several still-classified telexes from 1960 (sent by the Argentine Consulate in Tel Aviv to the Ministry in Buenos Aires) and won all the way up to the Supreme Court. But when the local Foreign Office was required to produce the documents, it discovered that “someone” had stolen them. I then filed a criminal complaint for theft. > At first, the new judge refused to recognize me as a joint plaintiff; I objected, and won. Then he refused to accept my motions for evidence; I objected, and won. Then my lawyer, Marcus Filardi, summoned some very interesting witnesses, including the former head of the archives, who testified (as everyone knows) that documents classified at the highest levels of secrecy are not kept in the public archives but at the ministerial level. But the judge wouldn’t go any further and rejected our motion to question the foreign minister or search the ministry; he dismissed the case, claiming that all avenues to these “lost” documents had been exhausted. Objection. Then there was a public hearing in March, which I thought went pretty well (I’ll report on it in Overton Magazine), because one of the three judges (Gustavo Hornos) said he had great respect for my search for historical truth. Honestly, that’s never happened to me before; usually I’m just called a “troublemaker” or something like that. Also, the people from ODIA were there—the Observatorio de Derecho Informático de Argentina. In Germany, you’d call them “hackers,” but in Argentina that’s considered a slur because they’re gangsters who demand money from you; otherwise, they’ll hack your cell phone or email account. But at least the issue of access to records has now reached parts of society. > I have now received the written ruling. Of the three judges, two confirmed the dismissal; there was simply nothing more to be done, Judge Mariano Borinsky explained. He is rumored to have close ties to the DAIA (the political arm of the Jewish community, which many consider to be the Mossad’s arm in Argentina); as recently as February of this year, he delivered a eulogy in criminal court praising Israeli procedural law. However, in his written reasoning, he stated that the current dismissal of the criminal proceedings is “provisional” and could be reopened if new evidence is presented. This presumably means that—if other countries break the code of silence regarding the events of May 1960 (perhaps Russia, France??)—then one could search the Foreign Ministry again for these documents. Well, I heard that here off the record 10 years ago; “we don’t want to be the first to speak up.” That’s just how it is with the Mafia. > Judge Hornos published his dissenting opinion, stating that he considers the dismissal “premature” and “flawed in its reasoning.” The defendant ministry had not explained why my motions for evidence—the examination of the minister and a search of the agency—would yield no results; it had merely adopted the general grounds for dismissal from the lower court. Furthermore, this proceeding “does not concern only the plaintiff; the clarification of historical events is in the public interest,” according to Judge Hornos. At least... > The decision has, exceptionally, been published and criticized by numerous media outlets. At the moment, there is a veritable persecution of all journalists taking place in Argentina; they are no longer allowed to enter the government building and are constantly being insulted, even colleagues from conservative newspapers. The Milei government is spiraling from one corruption scandal to the next and is shifting the blame onto the media. Freedom of the press and freedom of information are foreign concepts to them. And my case was the first to be brought before the courts under the new Freedom of Information Act. Unfortunately, it was unsuccessful. Now I can still appeal the dismissal to the Supreme Court, which I will of course do, even if it drags on for a long time again, and even if I win there, I’m still a long way from getting the classified documents. Milei is an avowed supporter of Netanyahu, and Israel is determined to maintain its disinformation campaign regarding Eichmann; the Mossad’s archives are kept under lock and key there. > By the way, you are cordially invited to attend the hearing before the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig on June 4, 2026, at 9:15 a.m. The case concerns my lawsuit against the BND, specifically regarding the remaining, still-classified portions of its Eichmann files. As you know, I sued the BND back in 2008 to compel the release of its files and received approximately 80% of them at that time. A major success, but 20% were to remain classified—specifically, until the maximum 60-year period expired. Since that 60-year period ended in 2020, I filed another lawsuit, and that is what this proceeding is about. The BND says they must remain classified, and the Federal Administrative Court’s Senate for Federal Affairs supports this position, claiming that “the security of the Federal Republic depends on it”! The BND no longer wishes to respect the 60-year period but instead cites the Federal Ministry of the Interior’s classification directive—that is, an internal administrative regulation drafted by some bureaucrats in a backroom. This is unconstitutional, because a fundamental right can only be restricted by a law. But now they want to circumvent it by simply pulling some administrative regulation out of thin air. Given the judges’ total subservience, they will likely get away with it. Bad times for the press and for democracy.