Vanguard News Network Forum - View Single Post

Jimmy Dean · February 1st, 2008

Sylvia Stolz
GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany
November 2007 - January 2008
Days 12-14

Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by Prof James M Damon
Published by Adelaide Institute

****************
Day Twelve
of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4
18 December 2007
************************************************

****************
Day 12
18 December 2007
****************

Two police cars parked in front of the courthouse today, with four officers on duty. We are in the small courtroom again where there is no Xray inspection of purses etc., just the electronic “archway.”

Enter the Matadors: District Attorney Grossmann accompanied by his faithful bodyguard and two armed police officers who take their seats on the last bench next to the door. There is no bailiff in the room. Sylvia is present with her two attorneys. Again, the only media representative is “Mack the Knife” from the Mannheim Morgenblatt.

[Mack has filed charges against me for alleged “threats and insults.” In response, I filed a complaint against him for harassment and false charges. Three days ago, however, I received a letter from the political section of the District Attorney’s office saying that Mack had not filed a complaint. Instead, the complaint was traced to an announcement by the President of Mannheim District Court. Also, the alleged “threat” has now been changed to alleged “attempted coercion.” Without a complaint by Mack, the “charges” cannot be investigated, since he is an employee of the local newspaper. Furthermore a president of a district court cannot file a complaint on behalf of a subordinate. This suggests that Mack might be an Informeller Mitarbeiter (informal collaborator) of the Verfassungsschutz. (Verfassungsschutz means “Protector of the Constitution,” but Germany has no real constitution under international law.) “Informal collaborator” was a favorite expression of the old “Staatssicherheit” or “Stasi” of the former DDR, now resurrected as “Staatschutz” or “Staschu” – the political police of the present BRDDR.]

There are around 20 visitors today, among them Horst Mahler and Andreas K. from the Reich Capitol Berlin. Scheduled to begin at 9:00, the session get under way at 9:35. In my earlier reports I neglected to mention that, as in the Zündel and Rudolf trials, there is a manditory “all rise” when the gladiators enter the arena of the courtroom. Thanks to the Court’s countless recesses, this gives the visitors plenty of exercise... It now appears that Judge Rolf Glenz, who has abandoned his fatherly and good-natured demeanor, is annoyed by the colors black-white-red. He now loves “aesthetic orderliness.” Visitors are no longer allowed to lay articles of clothing on the empty chairs in the front row, which are reserved for official representatives of the media, who are ignoring the trial. The judge has not yet admonished me for my black-white-red sweater, but I note his disapproving glances. Glenz has not yet adopted the new house rules of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern District Court in Schwerin, where I would not be allowed to enter the courtroom wearing this article of clothing. “Ils sont fous, ces Romains!” (‘They are crazy, these Romans”) is a constant exclamation in the Asterix comics. Like the ancient Romans in Gaul, today’s BRDDR bullies are “sick in the head.”

ACHTUNG! This is a SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION, not a PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF PROSCRIBED POLITICAL OPINION!!

Glenz opens today’s session with the announcement that the Court has taken cognizance of the “wording” of all twelve evidentiary motions that Sylvia submitted on 14 December. Then come his inevitable “inadmissible” rulings.

Here are the motions that Sylvia submitted:
1. Motion to call the Viennese historian Jagschütz as expert witness;
2. Motion to read into the court record page 103 of Germar Rudolf’s book “Lectures on the Holocaust,” which deals with the scientific nature of court evidence;
3. Motion to call an expert on contemporary history to describe the memoirs of Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower, specifically to determine whether they mention “Holocaust,” “Shoa” or “Exterminations of Jews.”
4. Motion to call an expert witness to explain and define scientific and empirical evidence for the Court;
5. Motion to have the Court explain what it means by the concept of “OFFENKUNDIGKEIT” (usually translated as “Manifest Obviousness” or “Common Knowledge” -- in effect, hearsay evidence).
6. Motion to have the Court explicate Section 130 of the Penal Code.
7. Motion to call an expert on International Law to explain what is meant by the term OMF, “Ordnungsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft” (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.)
8. Motion to call on an expert witness to explicate the 1948 speech by Prof. Carlo Schmid explaining the concept of OMF, which is available on the Internet at:

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dis...ennig_engl.htm

[Sylvia argued that German law was not being applied in the Hennig trial, but rather the dictates of an occupying enemy power. Presiding Judge Knaag acknowledged that his court had taken cognizance of Prof. Schmid’s speech before the Parliamentary Council on 8 September 1948. He acknowledged that according to Prof. Schmid, the leading German attorney for state and international law, the Reich has never ceased to exist. Neither the capitulation of the Wehrmacht in 1945 nor any subsequent event dissolved the government, and the victors refused to sign a peace treaty with Germany. Under international law, the Reich continues to exist even though it has been rendered incapable of acting in its legitimate capacity. See also the recent article “Die Verteilte Macht” (Divided Power) in Spiegel, vol. 50, 12 Dec 05, pp. 56-. Carlo Schmid effectively demonstrated that the Bundesrepublik is not a sovereign state. It continues to be a vassal state under foreign rule.

Schmid also demonstrated that the Basic Law of the BRDDR is not a constitution, but rather a statute of the enemy Occupation.]

9. Motion to read selections from the work of the highly esteemed Jewish writer Martin Buber on “The Nature of Judaism.”
10. Motion to read in the record an evidentiary motion by Horst Mahler concerning the philosophy and worldview of Judaism.

Judge Glenz gives the following reasons for denying the motions:

1. Sylvia’s generalized abuse of the Court;
2. Sylvia’s deceitful purpose, namely of promoting Revisionism without speaking to the subjects specified in her indictment;
3. Sylvia’s contradicting the official version of history.
4. Sylvia’s conduct amounts to “attempting to justify the conduct of a liar.”
5. If Sylvia’s evidentiary motions were accepted, they would “re-enforce judicial validation of her overall conduct” which serves not the official Truth as expressed in her indictment, but rather the dissemination of her political convictions relating to Jewish “Holocaust,” Jewish conspiracies and Jewish world supremacy.

Glenz then refers to his admonitions regarding Sylvia’s ‘abuse of defense procedure” on 19 and 27 November. He says that this was particularly evident in her questioning of Judge Meinerzhagen when he was on the witness stand. He says that Sylvia has disregarded decisions of the German High Courts (Bundesgerichtshof and Bundesverfassungsgericht); in fact, she characterizes them as Talmudic, Jewish dominated and anti German. He says the facts she wants to introduce into the record are not specifically relevant to her defense and furthermore her motions are “polemically conceived.” He admits that the Court has not even considered some of her motions, especially those concerning Allgemeinkundigkeit (Common Knowledge) or Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness.)

He says it is obvious that Sylvia is disseminating Revisionist theories; and doubts about the official “Holocaust” are unacceptable. He says that Germany’s predicament under international law since 1945 is irrelevant to the specifics of her indictment. He ends his pronouncements at 10:00. Sylvia’s court appointed lawyer, who was “planted” in the Defense over her objections, now leaves the courtroom, saying she has other things to do.

In her response, Sylvia congratulates the Court for acknowledging the basic underlying problem. She expresses regret that the Court is not interested in moving on to the next phase of a real trial, which would be Sachaufklärung (Discovery). She says that “Manifest Obviousness” is not a holy cow and has no place in a real court of law. She says the Court’s ruling has nothing to do with justice: all her factually oriented evidentiary motions are automatically stamped “abuse of the Court” regardless of how relevant they may be. She calls the conduct of the Court shameless, contemptible and coldly calculating. This is best evinced by the Court’s disallowing the Discovery phase in her trial. She says it is clear to everyone who has the least familiarity with the law that the Court is acting illegally and irrationally. The theatrical expressions on Judge Glenz’s face show growing impatience and indignation. Sylvia points out that the infantile doctrine of “Manifest Obviousness” is logically untenable and can be maintained only by despotic violence. The truth would have no need of repression and violence, and no system of justice that is worthy of the name denies and rejects empirical evidence. Justice does not reject empirical truth, but empirical truth rejects injustice. By disallowing the submission of empirical evidence, the Glenz court has made its proceedings incompatible with justice and the rule of law. She says this is most clearly demonstrated by Glenz’s rulings designating evidentiary motions as “abuse of the Court”, which obviously makes any defense impossible. At 10:10, Glenz orders a ten-minute recess. Proceedings resume at 10:38.

After recess Judge Glenz announces that as far as the Court is concerned, the taking of evidence is now terminated. Sylvia disputes this and announces her intention to submit additional evidentiary motions. She introduces another motion regarding “Manifest Obviousness” with reference to rulings and verdicts by the German High Courts. Glenz perceives this as another “insult to the Court” and immediately disallows it. He says the Court has not insulted Sylvia, so why is Sylvia insulting the Court? Undeterred, Sylvia points out the Court’s duty to gather evidence and expert testimony. This consists of gathering personal data in order to determine whether what is quoted was really spoken or written in the manner depicted. Under present conditions, such determinations are enough for a summary verdict of “go straight to jail!” It reminds us of GULAG methods. She remarks that these “Holocaust” show trials could be expedited by simply making preprinted forms and filling in blank spaces with the victim’s name and verdict.

Referring to the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust,” she poses three questions:

a. Has “Holocaust” been adequately researched? In an interview with the Viennese Standard in summer of 2006, Raul Hilberg, since deceased, states that, despite more than sixty years of financial expenditure, countless investigations and numerous research institutes, “Holocaust” has been at most 20 percent investigated!
b. Are the results of “Holocaust” research available everywhere, to everyone?
c. Are there significant scientific, forensic or documentary reservations concerning official depictions of “Holocaust?”

Sylvia points out that her motion to submit evidence contains well documented scientific, forensic and documentary reservations pertaining to the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust.” Because of this documentation, the results of Revisionist research must be acknowledged as serious reservations. She says that the testimony of expert scientific witnesses would help answer questions about the authenticity of “Manifest Obviousness” and “Holocaust.” She repeats that her procedure represents an attempt to give the Court a chance to return to authentic justice. In support of her motion, she is submitting the following documents:

1. Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust, which are posted on the Internet.
2. Germar Rudolf’s Expert Report on the alleged “Gas Chambers” at Auschwitz, which he prepared for the trial of Wehrmacht Gen. Otto-Ernst Remer in 1993.
3. Serge Thion’s Vérité historique ou vérité politique – Affaire Faurisson (Political or Historical Correctness: the Faurisson Case), Paris, 1980.
4. Jürgen Graf’s The Giant with Feet of Clay, Hastings, England, 1999.

Sylvia points out that under the rule of law, there can be no legal enforcement of dogma, which is defined as legal or religious tenets put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. She repeats that, in defiance of the demands of justice, it is the clear intent of this Court to reject every evidentiary motion made by the accused and to imprison the accused without allowing her to submit evidence in support of her arguments. Judge Glenz then asks Sylvia whether she has additional motions to submit and she answers “No more for today.” At 11:02 he announces a noonday recess until 1:30.

After lunch, Grossmann returns without his bodyguard. The Court returns protected by two armed policemen to protect them from Revisionist desperados. Judge Glenz announces that the Court has considered the wording of Sylvia’s motion to submit evidence and its ruling is NEIN! Again the Court rejects her evidentiary motion because it constitutes “abuse of the Court.” Attorney Bock then suggests that the Court include in these proceedings a German translation of the verdict of the Spanish High Court of 9 November 2007.

[In conjunction with a trial that had resulted in the conviction of Pedro Varela of Barcelona, the Spanish Constitutional Court recently ruled that punishment of “Holocaust Denial” is unconstitutional. Only punishment of advocating or justifying such “Holocaust Denial” can now be construed as constitutional, which effectively abolishes the criminalization of “Holocaust Denial” in Spain.]

Glenz rejects Bock’s suggestion. He says that the Spanish case may be superficially similar in some respects but is not comparable to the present case. Then he announces that the Court has dealt with the question of whether the commission of two or more offenses in one act is involved in Sylvia’s case, or two or more separate acts. Because of the proximity of dates (February and March of 2006) as well as contextual co-incidence, the Court is inclined toward the “single act” option.

[This means that the Court has decided on one punishment instead of three, since the indictment stipulates three crimes. This is a tactical concession by the Court, since the sentence can be lighter.]

Glenz again tries to terminate the taking of evidence. Bock objects to this and makes an evidentiary motion to include the verdict of the Spanish High Court into the proceedings. Glenz calls a recess to confer. Shortly before two o’clock he returns to conclude today’s session, announcing that the trial will continue on 19 December.

****************
Day 13
19 December 2007
****************

Ludwig Bock, (Left) Attorney at Law
Ernst Zundel (Center)

>>An awareness of such contradictions and incongruities can obviously introduce considerable doubt into the Court’s hand-me-down conception of the obviousness of “Holocaust,” and such obvious doubt is obviously capable of causing this ostensibly obvious “Manifest Obviousness” to appear as anything but obvious.<<

****************

Today there is only one police vehicle in front of the courthouse, a Mercedes “Sprinter” squad car. There are four policemen in the vestibule of Courtroom 5. Security is rather lax today, with no Xray device, only the electronic “archway” and wand. The government is gradually dropping its pretensions that Revisionists are violent desperados scheming to assault the judges and district attorney. Scheduled for 9:00, the session begins at 9:11. The usual members of the Court are here except that a female colleague has replaced District Attorney Grossmann today. There are two armed police officers but no bailiff and no “Staschu” (political police) agent. Sylvia has both attorneys. Again there are no representatives of the media; they tend to either ignore the trial or parrot government statements. There are around 20 visitors, including Horst Mahler and Andreas K. of Berlin.

Bock begins by explicating Sylvia’s evidentiary motion made yesterday. He also moves to introduce Chapter 7 of the Rudolf Expert Report, as well as call a professional chemist as expert witness. Perhaps with tongue in cheek, he adds that for the sake of “neutrality” and “objectivity,” the expert witness should come from Israel!

Next, Sylvia moves that she be allowed to include an article on the subject of disbarring attorneys who represent defendants in political trials. After considerable hemming and hawing Glenz agrees, after Sylvia and Attorney Bock assure him that the article has nothing to do with Auschwitz or “Holocaust.” Sylvia’s extensively documented treatment comes as a complete surprise to most observers. It deals with the extent to which Horst Mahler’s collaboration should be prosecuted, in view of his provisional disbarment as pronounced by Tiergarten County Court and confirmed by Berlin District Court. Sylvia’s motion includes calling the President of the German Association of Attorneys as well as the Chairman of the Munich Association as expert witnesses. Glenz asks his usual “any more motions?” and Sylvia responds “Not today.” The time is 9:30. Glenz calls a recess until 11:35. His ruling is the inevitable “NEIN.” He says the judges of this Court have all the knowledge they need without testimony by expert witnesses. [Anyone interested in the article should contact Horst through [email protected]]

Attorney Bock then presents his own motion on the subject of Manifest Obviousness, which is in two parts.

PART 1:

In Part 1 he moves that the Court read chapters 7 and 8 of Germar Rudolf’s Expert Report (submitted yesterday) into the main proceedings. Since there is no chemist among the judges, Bock moves that the Court call an expert witness in order to assure that Germar’s evaluations of chemical analyses contain no errors, from the scientific standpoint. In order to protect the expert witness from criminal prosecution in Germany’s courts, in the event he or she should utter something that is politically incorrect, Brock suggests calling an expert from Israel. He adds that in a telephone interview with Germar’s supervising professor for his PhD dissertation, the professor assured him that Rudolf’s Expert Report contains no errors whatsoever -- it is 100% correct. Under present censorship and taboos, Germar’s professor would be risking criminal prosecution if he testified before this Court. Only citizens of Israel are immune from prosecution. Bock points out that acknowledging this Expert Report and having it verified by an Israeli expert with no criminal record would prove to the Court beyond all reasonable doubt, that eyewitness accounts supporting the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust,” which are accepted uncritically and in a politically correct fashion by the German High Courts, are objectively and forensically false. Whether such an acknowledgement would enable the Court in its “intense striving for justice” to “remove the keystone of the ‘Holocaust’” structure, is of course a matter for the Court itself to decide. He points out that the opportunity to do so still exists.

PART 2

In Part 2, Bock reminds the Court that yesterday his client submitted an article by Herbert Pitlick entitled “Auschwitz – Behauptungen und Sachbeweise“ (Auschwitz: Allegations and Empirical Evidence). He says that this article can be of great assistance to the Court in ascertaining the truth if it is entered into the record. In the article, the author enumerates a large number of contradictions and incongruities associated with “Holocaust.” Somewhat sarcasticlly, Bock observes that in the Court’s obvious strivings to achieve justice in this criminal trial, an obvious awareness of such contradictions and incongruities can obviously introduce considerable doubt into the Court’s hand-me-down conception of the obvious obviousness of “Holocaust,” and such obvious doubt is obviously capable of causing this obvious “Manifest Obviousness” to appear as anything but obvious. Bock points out that it is possible that the Court, after taking the Pitlik article into considerstion, will reject “Manifest Obviousness” on rational grounds, because of its contradictions and incongruities. The exposition of “obvious obviousness” will not be sufficient unless the Court feels the need to protect itself from accusations from on high for the sake of “domestic tranquility.” He adds that the “multiplicity of incongruities” in the Court’s reading of the article might not be adequate. If this should be the case, he requests appropriate notification so that specific details can be provided -- they are not lacking!

His motion too is of course denied. Glenz says it is lacking in seriousness since it subjects the concept of “Manifest Obviousness” to disparagement. Glenz asks if there are any more evidentiary motions for him to reject and Bock says no. Glenz announces “That’s all then” but Sylvia corrects him. She insists on her right of response to Glenz’s previously disallowed motion concerning Horst Mahler.

At 12:10, Glenz appears to have had enough. He ends today’s session and announces that the trial will resume at 9:00 am on Thursday, 20 December. Before he and his troops leave the courtroom, he decrees that in future, he does not want to see coats and purses draped across the chairs or backs of chairs in the empty first row. Apparently Judge Glenz does have some sense of decorum – at least, where items of apparel are concerned!

****************
Day 14
20 December 2007
**************** ****

Wovor haben Sie Angst? Sie machen sich doch zum Affen!

What are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself!

- Attorney Sylvia Stolz to Judge Rolf Glenz

****************

Today there is only one police vehicle in front of the courthouse.

The usual five armed police agents are on duty at the security checks. Security is rather lax, the same as last time. Scheduled to begin at 9:30, proceedings get under way at 10:24. The reasons given for the delay are that the judges needed to confer and Attorney Bock’s train from the Pfalz was delayed. The usual members of the Court are present. Grossmann has no bodyguard today. At 10:20 three armed police officers enter the room. A disheveled person sitting in the front row, who looks like a tramp, engages in a long, serious conversation with the ranking police officer. He could be an informer or undercover agent disguised as someone from the “street scene.” Only one representative of the media is present. This is the lady from the dpa (Deutsche Presse Agentur) in her late ‘30s, whom we remember from the Zündel and Rudolf trials. She is wearing jeans so tight that she looks as though she had been melted and poured into them, displaying her “chassis,” especially her “po,” to great advantage. The lady is obviously on good terms with the District Attorney. There are about 20 visitors today including Horst Mahler and the Andreas K. from Berlin.

Sylvia enters with her attorneys.

[Sylvia, Horst Mahler and I often eat in the “Mensa” the inexpensive student restaurant at nearby Mannheim University. Recently, a vigilant member of ASTA (Allgemeiner Studentenausschuß, an official student organization) recognized us and was inspired to call attention to the “evil Nazi guests” who go around “denying Holocaust.” The fearless “Antifa” printed up flyers containing pictures of Sylvia, Horst and myself, along with trial dates and schedules. This could explain the presence of the undercover “tramp” and his conversation with the police in the courtroom.

University students hardly ever visit the trial. One could count them on one hand, and “Chaoists” likewise have not showed up for this trial, although the presence of a few police officers would not have discouraged them. The “Flugi” (flyer) was apparently part of a planned “unofficial” documentary done in collaboration with the District Attorney’s office. ASTA activists welcome acknowledgment of their heroic “antifascist” and “anti-antisemitic” actions. Visit their website at www.asta-uni-mannheim.de]

Sylvia begins with her response to the rejected evidentiary motion concerning cooperation with Horst Mahler. Glenz tries to interrupt her but she does allow herself to be distracted. Throughout her detailed presentation, Judge Glenz is busily whispering to the bailiff, who is sitting at his right hand. After completing her response to the rejection of the Horst Mahler motion, Sylvia begins her response to the evidentiary motions that Glenz denied on 18th and 19th December. Glenz now goes into action and demands that Sylvia submit her response in writing. Sylvia asks: “Wovor haben Sie Angst? Sie machen sich doch zum Affen!“ - Now what are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself! Losing his “cool,” Glenz yells “I forbid you to speak!” and growls to the Court Reporter, “Write that down in the court record!” Grossmann chimes in as well and says in Sylvia’s direction: “Geben Sie doch auch eine Abschrift an das Jüngste Gericht!“ - Why not make a copy for the Final Judgment as well!

Glenz insists that Sylvia hand over her response, which she does at 10:40. Glenz then orders Selbstleseverfahren - which means the members of the Court read it for themselves, which means they may or may not read it - and announces a conference recess. Session resumes at 10:55.

Glenz announces that the Court has taken the document in consideration and the defending attorneys say they have done likewise. Then comes the automatic rejection of Sylvia’s response on the grounds he gave in his rejection of the evidentiary motion.

Again Glenz has a long whispering session with the court historian.

He asks his perfunctory question about further evidentiary motions and Sylvia answers “none today.”

Glenz then announces in a loud voice and with an expression of immense satisfaction: “Beweiserhebung abschlossen!” - The gathering of evidence is now concluded!

[This means that on 7 January, District Attorney Grossmann will present his pleading, as will Attorney Bock. It is unlikely that Sylvia’s court appointed defender will say anything. Sylvia is allowed the final word, and we do not know how long she will speak. It also means that additional trial sessions can still take place on
8 January as well as 10 January. At 10:58 Glenz ends today’s session with the announcement that the next session will begin at 9:00 am 7 January 2008.

Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 22. Dezember 2007
Günter Deckert

****************

Postscrip: Since I am not a skilled typist, I needed nearly six hours to prepare these reports. As far as assessments are concerned, I refer to my remarks in the first reports. I can say only that so far, Sylvia and Horst Mahler have made no complaints, although my reports are certainly not an exact transcription of what was said. I wish to thank Frau Ursula H., Werner W. and Ray G. in Texas for their financial support. If readers’ donations should exceed my expenses, then any excess amounts will most certainly go to Sylvia's trial expenses.

****************

Was auf Erden geschieht, geschieht durch Ehre und Treue.
Wer heute die alte Pflicht verrät, verrät auch morgen die neue.

The good in this world occurs through honor and steadfastness.
He who betrays the ancient duties today will betray the new ones tomorrow.

Adalbert Stifter, German poet from the Böhmerwald.

****************

My reports on the Stolz trial are neither a simultaneous transcription nor a complete account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I ask that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author. Please consider that compiling these reports takes at least four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim takes even longer and in addition, costs considerable money. I can donate my time, but money is very scarce. Every trip to Mannheim including gasoline, parking and a light lunch costs me around 35 Euros. If you are able to make a small contribution to help offset these expenses, I ask that you transfer the amount to: Konto 134345-754/G. Deckert – Postbank KA, BLZ 660 100 75, Vermerk „LG MA/SSt.“
I wish to thank our sympathizers Lother E., Klaus F., and Dieter G., as well as Frau Ilona O. for their contributions to my expenses, as well as Giovanni G. in Sweden who is making monthly contributions for the duration of the trial.

On this note I wish all the readers of my reports, whether in German, English, French or Spanish a happy and healthy New Year. May 2008 bring us the fortitude we need as patriots in our respective countries so that we can continue the struggle for Folk and Fatherland!

Best regards from Günter Deckert

****************

[From your translator James Damon - [email protected]: Happy New Year Everybody! If you appreciate Günter’s strenuous efforts in providing us with particulars of the German show trials, our only alternative to the politically correct claptrap in the Poodle Press, then let him know at [email protected].
Maybe things will get a little better in 2008. As Tiny Tim says: God bless us each and every one! - That goes even for mean old Judge Grinch who stole Christmas!

Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene4.htm

February 1st, 2008	#9
Jimmy Dean Whole Hog Sausage Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 245	Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Days 12-14 Sylvia Stolz GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL Mannheim, Germany November 2007 - January 2008 Days 12-14 Reported by Günter Deckert Translated by Prof James M Damon Published by Adelaide Institute ************** Day Twelve of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4 18 December 2007 ******************************************** ************ Day 12 18 December 2007 ************ Two police cars parked in front of the courthouse today, with four officers on duty. We are in the small courtroom again where there is no Xray inspection of purses etc., just the electronic “archway.” Enter the Matadors: District Attorney Grossmann accompanied by his faithful bodyguard and two armed police officers who take their seats on the last bench next to the door. There is no bailiff in the room. Sylvia is present with her two attorneys. Again, the only media representative is “Mack the Knife” from the Mannheim Morgenblatt. [Mack has filed charges against me for alleged “threats and insults.” In response, I filed a complaint against him for harassment and false charges. Three days ago, however, I received a letter from the political section of the District Attorney’s office saying that Mack had not filed a complaint. Instead, the complaint was traced to an announcement by the President of Mannheim District Court. Also, the alleged “threat” has now been changed to alleged “attempted coercion.” Without a complaint by Mack, the “charges” cannot be investigated, since he is an employee of the local newspaper. Furthermore a president of a district court cannot file a complaint on behalf of a subordinate. This suggests that Mack might be an Informeller Mitarbeiter (informal collaborator) of the Verfassungsschutz. (Verfassungsschutz means “Protector of the Constitution,” but Germany has no real constitution under international law.) “Informal collaborator” was a favorite expression of the old “Staatssicherheit” or “Stasi” of the former DDR, now resurrected as “Staatschutz” or “Staschu” – the political police of the present BRDDR.] There are around 20 visitors today, among them Horst Mahler and Andreas K. from the Reich Capitol Berlin. Scheduled to begin at 9:00, the session get under way at 9:35. In my earlier reports I neglected to mention that, as in the Zündel and Rudolf trials, there is a manditory “all rise” when the gladiators enter the arena of the courtroom. Thanks to the Court’s countless recesses, this gives the visitors plenty of exercise... It now appears that Judge Rolf Glenz, who has abandoned his fatherly and good-natured demeanor, is annoyed by the colors black-white-red. He now loves “aesthetic orderliness.” Visitors are no longer allowed to lay articles of clothing on the empty chairs in the front row, which are reserved for official representatives of the media, who are ignoring the trial. The judge has not yet admonished me for my black-white-red sweater, but I note his disapproving glances. Glenz has not yet adopted the new house rules of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern District Court in Schwerin, where I would not be allowed to enter the courtroom wearing this article of clothing. “Ils sont fous, ces Romains!” (‘They are crazy, these Romans”) is a constant exclamation in the Asterix comics. Like the ancient Romans in Gaul, today’s BRDDR bullies are “sick in the head.” ACHTUNG! This is a SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION, not a PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF PROSCRIBED POLITICAL OPINION!! Glenz opens today’s session with the announcement that the Court has taken cognizance of the “wording” of all twelve evidentiary motions that Sylvia submitted on 14 December. Then come his inevitable “inadmissible” rulings. Here are the motions that Sylvia submitted: 1. Motion to call the Viennese historian Jagschütz as expert witness; 2. Motion to read into the court record page 103 of Germar Rudolf’s book “Lectures on the Holocaust,” which deals with the scientific nature of court evidence; 3. Motion to call an expert on contemporary history to describe the memoirs of Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower, specifically to determine whether they mention “Holocaust,” “Shoa” or “Exterminations of Jews.” 4. Motion to call an expert witness to explain and define scientific and empirical evidence for the Court; 5. Motion to have the Court explain what it means by the concept of “OFFENKUNDIGKEIT” (usually translated as “Manifest Obviousness” or “Common Knowledge” -- in effect, hearsay evidence). 6. Motion to have the Court explicate Section 130 of the Penal Code. 7. Motion to call an expert on International Law to explain what is meant by the term OMF, “Ordnungsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft” (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.) 8. Motion to call on an expert witness to explicate the 1948 speech by Prof. Carlo Schmid explaining the concept of OMF, which is available on the Internet at: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dis...ennig_engl.htm [Sylvia argued that German law was not being applied in the Hennig trial, but rather the dictates of an occupying enemy power. Presiding Judge Knaag acknowledged that his court had taken cognizance of Prof. Schmid’s speech before the Parliamentary Council on 8 September 1948. He acknowledged that according to Prof. Schmid, the leading German attorney for state and international law, the Reich has never ceased to exist. Neither the capitulation of the Wehrmacht in 1945 nor any subsequent event dissolved the government, and the victors refused to sign a peace treaty with Germany. Under international law, the Reich continues to exist even though it has been rendered incapable of acting in its legitimate capacity. See also the recent article “Die Verteilte Macht” (Divided Power) in Spiegel, vol. 50, 12 Dec 05, pp. 56-. Carlo Schmid effectively demonstrated that the Bundesrepublik is not a sovereign state. It continues to be a vassal state under foreign rule. Schmid also demonstrated that the Basic Law of the BRDDR is not a constitution, but rather a statute of the enemy Occupation.] 9. Motion to read selections from the work of the highly esteemed Jewish writer Martin Buber on “The Nature of Judaism.” 10. Motion to read in the record an evidentiary motion by Horst Mahler concerning the philosophy and worldview of Judaism. Judge Glenz gives the following reasons for denying the motions: 1. Sylvia’s generalized abuse of the Court; 2. Sylvia’s deceitful purpose, namely of promoting Revisionism without speaking to the subjects specified in her indictment; 3. Sylvia’s contradicting the official version of history. 4. Sylvia’s conduct amounts to “attempting to justify the conduct of a liar.” 5. If Sylvia’s evidentiary motions were accepted, they would “re-enforce judicial validation of her overall conduct” which serves not the official Truth as expressed in her indictment, but rather the dissemination of her political convictions relating to Jewish “Holocaust,” Jewish conspiracies and Jewish world supremacy. Glenz then refers to his admonitions regarding Sylvia’s ‘abuse of defense procedure” on 19 and 27 November. He says that this was particularly evident in her questioning of Judge Meinerzhagen when he was on the witness stand. He says that Sylvia has disregarded decisions of the German High Courts (Bundesgerichtshof and Bundesverfassungsgericht); in fact, she characterizes them as Talmudic, Jewish dominated and anti German. He says the facts she wants to introduce into the record are not specifically relevant to her defense and furthermore her motions are “polemically conceived.” He admits that the Court has not even considered some of her motions, especially those concerning Allgemeinkundigkeit (Common Knowledge) or Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness.) He says it is obvious that Sylvia is disseminating Revisionist theories; and doubts about the official “Holocaust” are unacceptable. He says that Germany’s predicament under international law since 1945 is irrelevant to the specifics of her indictment. He ends his pronouncements at 10:00. Sylvia’s court appointed lawyer, who was “planted” in the Defense over her objections, now leaves the courtroom, saying she has other things to do. In her response, Sylvia congratulates the Court for acknowledging the basic underlying problem. She expresses regret that the Court is not interested in moving on to the next phase of a real trial, which would be Sachaufklärung (Discovery). She says that “Manifest Obviousness” is not a holy cow and has no place in a real court of law. She says the Court’s ruling has nothing to do with justice: all her factually oriented evidentiary motions are automatically stamped “abuse of the Court” regardless of how relevant they may be. She calls the conduct of the Court shameless, contemptible and coldly calculating. This is best evinced by the Court’s disallowing the Discovery phase in her trial. She says it is clear to everyone who has the least familiarity with the law that the Court is acting illegally and irrationally. The theatrical expressions on Judge Glenz’s face show growing impatience and indignation. Sylvia points out that the infantile doctrine of “Manifest Obviousness” is logically untenable and can be maintained only by despotic violence. The truth would have no need of repression and violence, and no system of justice that is worthy of the name denies and rejects empirical evidence. Justice does not reject empirical truth, but empirical truth rejects injustice. By disallowing the submission of empirical evidence, the Glenz court has made its proceedings incompatible with justice and the rule of law. She says this is most clearly demonstrated by Glenz’s rulings designating evidentiary motions as “abuse of the Court”, which obviously makes any defense impossible. At 10:10, Glenz orders a ten-minute recess. Proceedings resume at 10:38. After recess Judge Glenz announces that as far as the Court is concerned, the taking of evidence is now terminated. Sylvia disputes this and announces her intention to submit additional evidentiary motions. She introduces another motion regarding “Manifest Obviousness” with reference to rulings and verdicts by the German High Courts. Glenz perceives this as another “insult to the Court” and immediately disallows it. He says the Court has not insulted Sylvia, so why is Sylvia insulting the Court? Undeterred, Sylvia points out the Court’s duty to gather evidence and expert testimony. This consists of gathering personal data in order to determine whether what is quoted was really spoken or written in the manner depicted. Under present conditions, such determinations are enough for a summary verdict of “go straight to jail!” It reminds us of GULAG methods. She remarks that these “Holocaust” show trials could be expedited by simply making preprinted forms and filling in blank spaces with the victim’s name and verdict. Referring to the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust,” she poses three questions: a. Has “Holocaust” been adequately researched? In an interview with the Viennese Standard in summer of 2006, Raul Hilberg, since deceased, states that, despite more than sixty years of financial expenditure, countless investigations and numerous research institutes, “Holocaust” has been at most 20 percent investigated! b. Are the results of “Holocaust” research available everywhere, to everyone? c. Are there significant scientific, forensic or documentary reservations concerning official depictions of “Holocaust?” Sylvia points out that her motion to submit evidence contains well documented scientific, forensic and documentary reservations pertaining to the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust.” Because of this documentation, the results of Revisionist research must be acknowledged as serious reservations. She says that the testimony of expert scientific witnesses would help answer questions about the authenticity of “Manifest Obviousness” and “Holocaust.” She repeats that her procedure represents an attempt to give the Court a chance to return to authentic justice. In support of her motion, she is submitting the following documents: 1. Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust, which are posted on the Internet. 2. Germar Rudolf’s Expert Report on the alleged “Gas Chambers” at Auschwitz, which he prepared for the trial of Wehrmacht Gen. Otto-Ernst Remer in 1993. 3. Serge Thion’s Vérité historique ou vérité politique – Affaire Faurisson (Political or Historical Correctness: the Faurisson Case), Paris, 1980. 4. Jürgen Graf’s The Giant with Feet of Clay, Hastings, England, 1999. Sylvia points out that under the rule of law, there can be no legal enforcement of dogma, which is defined as legal or religious tenets put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. She repeats that, in defiance of the demands of justice, it is the clear intent of this Court to reject every evidentiary motion made by the accused and to imprison the accused without allowing her to submit evidence in support of her arguments. Judge Glenz then asks Sylvia whether she has additional motions to submit and she answers “No more for today.” At 11:02 he announces a noonday recess until 1:30. After lunch, Grossmann returns without his bodyguard. The Court returns protected by two armed policemen to protect them from Revisionist desperados. Judge Glenz announces that the Court has considered the wording of Sylvia’s motion to submit evidence and its ruling is NEIN! Again the Court rejects her evidentiary motion because it constitutes “abuse of the Court.” Attorney Bock then suggests that the Court include in these proceedings a German translation of the verdict of the Spanish High Court of 9 November 2007. [In conjunction with a trial that had resulted in the conviction of Pedro Varela of Barcelona, the Spanish Constitutional Court recently ruled that punishment of “Holocaust Denial” is unconstitutional. Only punishment of advocating or justifying such “Holocaust Denial” can now be construed as constitutional, which effectively abolishes the criminalization of “Holocaust Denial” in Spain.] Glenz rejects Bock’s suggestion. He says that the Spanish case may be superficially similar in some respects but is not comparable to the present case. Then he announces that the Court has dealt with the question of whether the commission of two or more offenses in one act is involved in Sylvia’s case, or two or more separate acts. Because of the proximity of dates (February and March of 2006) as well as contextual co-incidence, the Court is inclined toward the “single act” option. [This means that the Court has decided on one punishment instead of three, since the indictment stipulates three crimes. This is a tactical concession by the Court, since the sentence can be lighter.] Glenz again tries to terminate the taking of evidence. Bock objects to this and makes an evidentiary motion to include the verdict of the Spanish High Court into the proceedings. Glenz calls a recess to confer. Shortly before two o’clock he returns to conclude today’s session, announcing that the trial will continue on 19 December. ************ Day 13 19 December 2007 ************ Ludwig Bock, (Left) Attorney at Law Ernst Zundel (Center) >>An awareness of such contradictions and incongruities can obviously introduce considerable doubt into the Court’s hand-me-down conception of the obviousness of “Holocaust,” and such obvious doubt is obviously capable of causing this ostensibly obvious “Manifest Obviousness” to appear as anything but obvious.<< ************ Today there is only one police vehicle in front of the courthouse, a Mercedes “Sprinter” squad car. There are four policemen in the vestibule of Courtroom 5. Security is rather lax today, with no Xray device, only the electronic “archway” and wand. The government is gradually dropping its pretensions that Revisionists are violent desperados scheming to assault the judges and district attorney. Scheduled for 9:00, the session begins at 9:11. The usual members of the Court are here except that a female colleague has replaced District Attorney Grossmann today. There are two armed police officers but no bailiff and no “Staschu” (political police) agent. Sylvia has both attorneys. Again there are no representatives of the media; they tend to either ignore the trial or parrot government statements. There are around 20 visitors, including Horst Mahler and Andreas K. of Berlin. Bock begins by explicating Sylvia’s evidentiary motion made yesterday. He also moves to introduce Chapter 7 of the Rudolf Expert Report, as well as call a professional chemist as expert witness. Perhaps with tongue in cheek, he adds that for the sake of “neutrality” and “objectivity,” the expert witness should come from Israel! Next, Sylvia moves that she be allowed to include an article on the subject of disbarring attorneys who represent defendants in political trials. After considerable hemming and hawing Glenz agrees, after Sylvia and Attorney Bock assure him that the article has nothing to do with Auschwitz or “Holocaust.” Sylvia’s extensively documented treatment comes as a complete surprise to most observers. It deals with the extent to which Horst Mahler’s collaboration should be prosecuted, in view of his provisional disbarment as pronounced by Tiergarten County Court and confirmed by Berlin District Court. Sylvia’s motion includes calling the President of the German Association of Attorneys as well as the Chairman of the Munich Association as expert witnesses. Glenz asks his usual “any more motions?” and Sylvia responds “Not today.” The time is 9:30. Glenz calls a recess until 11:35. His ruling is the inevitable “NEIN.” He says the judges of this Court have all the knowledge they need without testimony by expert witnesses. [Anyone interested in the article should contact Horst through [email protected]] Attorney Bock then presents his own motion on the subject of Manifest Obviousness, which is in two parts. PART 1: In Part 1 he moves that the Court read chapters 7 and 8 of Germar Rudolf’s Expert Report (submitted yesterday) into the main proceedings. Since there is no chemist among the judges, Bock moves that the Court call an expert witness in order to assure that Germar’s evaluations of chemical analyses contain no errors, from the scientific standpoint. In order to protect the expert witness from criminal prosecution in Germany’s courts, in the event he or she should utter something that is politically incorrect, Brock suggests calling an expert from Israel. He adds that in a telephone interview with Germar’s supervising professor for his PhD dissertation, the professor assured him that Rudolf’s Expert Report contains no errors whatsoever -- it is 100% correct. Under present censorship and taboos, Germar’s professor would be risking criminal prosecution if he testified before this Court. Only citizens of Israel are immune from prosecution. Bock points out that acknowledging this Expert Report and having it verified by an Israeli expert with no criminal record would prove to the Court beyond all reasonable doubt, that eyewitness accounts supporting the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust,” which are accepted uncritically and in a politically correct fashion by the German High Courts, are objectively and forensically false. Whether such an acknowledgement would enable the Court in its “intense striving for justice” to “remove the keystone of the ‘Holocaust’” structure, is of course a matter for the Court itself to decide. He points out that the opportunity to do so still exists. PART 2 In Part 2, Bock reminds the Court that yesterday his client submitted an article by Herbert Pitlick entitled “Auschwitz – Behauptungen und Sachbeweise“ (Auschwitz: Allegations and Empirical Evidence). He says that this article can be of great assistance to the Court in ascertaining the truth if it is entered into the record. In the article, the author enumerates a large number of contradictions and incongruities associated with “Holocaust.” Somewhat sarcasticlly, Bock observes that in the Court’s obvious strivings to achieve justice in this criminal trial, an obvious awareness of such contradictions and incongruities can obviously introduce considerable doubt into the Court’s hand-me-down conception of the obvious obviousness of “Holocaust,” and such obvious doubt is obviously capable of causing this obvious “Manifest Obviousness” to appear as anything but obvious. Bock points out that it is possible that the Court, after taking the Pitlik article into considerstion, will reject “Manifest Obviousness” on rational grounds, because of its contradictions and incongruities. The exposition of “obvious obviousness” will not be sufficient unless the Court feels the need to protect itself from accusations from on high for the sake of “domestic tranquility.” He adds that the “multiplicity of incongruities” in the Court’s reading of the article might not be adequate. If this should be the case, he requests appropriate notification so that specific details can be provided -- they are not lacking! His motion too is of course denied. Glenz says it is lacking in seriousness since it subjects the concept of “Manifest Obviousness” to disparagement. Glenz asks if there are any more evidentiary motions for him to reject and Bock says no. Glenz announces “That’s all then” but Sylvia corrects him. She insists on her right of response to Glenz’s previously disallowed motion concerning Horst Mahler. At 12:10, Glenz appears to have had enough. He ends today’s session and announces that the trial will resume at 9:00 am on Thursday, 20 December. Before he and his troops leave the courtroom, he decrees that in future, he does not want to see coats and purses draped across the chairs or backs of chairs in the empty first row. Apparently Judge Glenz does have some sense of decorum – at least, where items of apparel are concerned! ************ Day 14 20 December 2007 ************ Wovor haben Sie Angst? Sie machen sich doch zum Affen! What are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself! - Attorney Sylvia Stolz to Judge Rolf Glenz ************ Today there is only one police vehicle in front of the courthouse. The usual five armed police agents are on duty at the security checks. Security is rather lax, the same as last time. Scheduled to begin at 9:30, proceedings get under way at 10:24. The reasons given for the delay are that the judges needed to confer and Attorney Bock’s train from the Pfalz was delayed. The usual members of the Court are present. Grossmann has no bodyguard today. At 10:20 three armed police officers enter the room. A disheveled person sitting in the front row, who looks like a tramp, engages in a long, serious conversation with the ranking police officer. He could be an informer or undercover agent disguised as someone from the “street scene.” Only one representative of the media is present. This is the lady from the dpa (Deutsche Presse Agentur) in her late ‘30s, whom we remember from the Zündel and Rudolf trials. She is wearing jeans so tight that she looks as though she had been melted and poured into them, displaying her “chassis,” especially her “po,” to great advantage. The lady is obviously on good terms with the District Attorney. There are about 20 visitors today including Horst Mahler and the Andreas K. from Berlin. Sylvia enters with her attorneys. [Sylvia, Horst Mahler and I often eat in the “Mensa” the inexpensive student restaurant at nearby Mannheim University. Recently, a vigilant member of ASTA (Allgemeiner Studentenausschuß, an official student organization) recognized us and was inspired to call attention to the “evil Nazi guests” who go around “denying Holocaust.” The fearless “Antifa” printed up flyers containing pictures of Sylvia, Horst and myself, along with trial dates and schedules. This could explain the presence of the undercover “tramp” and his conversation with the police in the courtroom. University students hardly ever visit the trial. One could count them on one hand, and “Chaoists” likewise have not showed up for this trial, although the presence of a few police officers would not have discouraged them. The “Flugi” (flyer) was apparently part of a planned “unofficial” documentary done in collaboration with the District Attorney’s office. ASTA activists welcome acknowledgment of their heroic “antifascist” and “anti-antisemitic” actions. Visit their website at www.asta-uni-mannheim.de] Sylvia begins with her response to the rejected evidentiary motion concerning cooperation with Horst Mahler. Glenz tries to interrupt her but she does allow herself to be distracted. Throughout her detailed presentation, Judge Glenz is busily whispering to the bailiff, who is sitting at his right hand. After completing her response to the rejection of the Horst Mahler motion, Sylvia begins her response to the evidentiary motions that Glenz denied on 18th and 19th December. Glenz now goes into action and demands that Sylvia submit her response in writing. Sylvia asks: “Wovor haben Sie Angst? Sie machen sich doch zum Affen!“ - Now what are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself! Losing his “cool,” Glenz yells “I forbid you to speak!” and growls to the Court Reporter, “Write that down in the court record!” Grossmann chimes in as well and says in Sylvia’s direction: “Geben Sie doch auch eine Abschrift an das Jüngste Gericht!“ - Why not make a copy for the Final Judgment as well! Glenz insists that Sylvia hand over her response, which she does at 10:40. Glenz then orders Selbstleseverfahren - which means the members of the Court read it for themselves, which means they may or may not read it - and announces a conference recess. Session resumes at 10:55. Glenz announces that the Court has taken the document in consideration and the defending attorneys say they have done likewise. Then comes the automatic rejection of Sylvia’s response on the grounds he gave in his rejection of the evidentiary motion. Again Glenz has a long whispering session with the court historian. He asks his perfunctory question about further evidentiary motions and Sylvia answers “none today.” Glenz then announces in a loud voice and with an expression of immense satisfaction: “Beweiserhebung abschlossen!” - The gathering of evidence is now concluded! [This means that on 7 January, District Attorney Grossmann will present his pleading, as will Attorney Bock. It is unlikely that Sylvia’s court appointed defender will say anything. Sylvia is allowed the final word, and we do not know how long she will speak. It also means that additional trial sessions can still take place on 8 January as well as 10 January. At 10:58 Glenz ends today’s session with the announcement that the next session will begin at 9:00 am 7 January 2008. Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 22. Dezember 2007 Günter Deckert ************ Postscrip: Since I am not a skilled typist, I needed nearly six hours to prepare these reports. As far as assessments are concerned, I refer to my remarks in the first reports. I can say only that so far, Sylvia and Horst Mahler have made no complaints, although my reports are certainly not an exact transcription of what was said. I wish to thank Frau Ursula H., Werner W. and Ray G. in Texas for their financial support. If readers’ donations should exceed my expenses, then any excess amounts will most certainly go to Sylvia's trial expenses. ************ Was auf Erden geschieht, geschieht durch Ehre und Treue. Wer heute die alte Pflicht verrät, verrät auch morgen die neue. The good in this world occurs through honor and steadfastness. He who betrays the ancient duties today will betray the new ones tomorrow. Adalbert Stifter, German poet from the Böhmerwald. ************ My reports on the Stolz trial are neither a simultaneous transcription nor a complete account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I ask that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author. Please consider that compiling these reports takes at least four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim takes even longer and in addition, costs considerable money. I can donate my time, but money is very scarce. Every trip to Mannheim including gasoline, parking and a light lunch costs me around 35 Euros. If you are able to make a small contribution to help offset these expenses, I ask that you transfer the amount to: Konto 134345-754/G. Deckert – Postbank KA, BLZ 660 100 75, Vermerk „LG MA/SSt.“ I wish to thank our sympathizers Lother E., Klaus F., and Dieter G., as well as Frau Ilona O. for their contributions to my expenses, as well as Giovanni G. in Sweden who is making monthly contributions for the duration of the trial. On this note I wish all the readers of my reports, whether in German, English, French or Spanish a happy and healthy New Year. May 2008 bring us the fortitude we need as patriots in our respective countries so that we can continue the struggle for Folk and Fatherland! Best regards from Günter Deckert ************** [From your translator James Damon - [email protected]: Happy New Year Everybody! If you appreciate Günter’s strenuous efforts in providing us with particulars of the German show trials, our only alternative to the politically correct claptrap in the Poodle Press, then let him know at [email protected]. Maybe things will get a little better in 2008. As Tiny Tim says: God bless us each and every one! - That goes even for mean old Judge Grinch who stole Christmas! Source: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene4.htm