Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 30th, 2008 #1
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Sylvia Stolz (Germany, Switzerland)

A Letter From Horst Mahler To Frederick Töben
Concerning Sylvia Stolz's Mannheim Trial


Horst Mahler, Pfarrer-Grabmeier-Allee 10, 85560
Ebersberg

Frederick Töben
Adelaide Institute
via Weltnetz

Ebersberg, den 27. Januar 2008
An Kaiser’s Geburtstag

Lieber Fredrick,
_________________________________

Greetings from Horst Mahler:

This is a quick report on the latest developments here in Germany.

The weekend before Sylvia was jailed, we received a letter from Potsdam court that caused Sylvia to exclaim, “This is a bomb!” meaning that it was smashing good news. She was right -- in fact, her exclamation was actually an understatement. It is actually a “super bomb” that has already been “fused,” and I have the other end of that fuse in my hand!

On 17 December last year, when the outcome of Sylvia’s Mannheim trial was already obvious to everyone, I received notice of a ruling by the Staatsschutzkammer of “Staschu” (State Security Agency) of Potsdam District Court to the effect that they were dropping the six most serious charges against me, including 21 separate counts of denying “Holocaust.”

Now they are saying that the statutes of limitations have expired. The basis for this ruling is obviously in error technically, at least for some of the counts. This basis for the court ruling has also been “zurechtgezimmert” (tailored or bent) by ignoring certain changes in the regional press laws that had been rammed through by the Central Jewish Council.

Through these changes, the relatively short statute of limitations for the alleged publishing crime of denying “Holocaust,” which had been six months, was increased to at least three years. This three-year limitation for the separate counts in the indictment has expired in just a few instances.

It is obvious that the court in Potsdam has deliberately allowed the statutes of limitation to expire. As early as October 2006, and using the same rationale, a different court of the same district had dropped an indictment against me for “disparagement of the state,” for which Rigolf Hennig was imprisoned for nine months.

I was not even aware of this at first. By Mannheim District Court standards, the counts in that indictment (21 separate counts each with a sentence of 5 years) would have been a life sentence for me in view of my age, since the maximum would have been 15 years.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg! The Federal judiciary’s “quiet revolt” against “Holocaust” prosecutions is now in full swing.

Other judges in Stuttgart, Mühlhausen, Berlin, Bernau, Brandenburg, Potsdam and Lüneburg‚ who have been putting “Holocaust” trials of at least five other Revisionists “on ice,” will now be carried along with the stream of events.

From now on, Mannheim will be known as “Holonkenheim” (“home of scoundrels” -- a play of words on Halunkenheim.)

At least two dozen prosecutors and judges will soon be facing charges of “evading punishment while in office,” and the Central Jewish Council with its attack dogs will be cracking the whip.

These trials are going to split the judicial establishment. They are going to throw it into total turmoil. The correct defense will have to be that no evasion of punishment has taken place. No conviction is possible under Section 130 III, 90a, and 86a of Penal Code, therefore the defendants must be exonerated. With no convictions there can obviously be no evasion of punishment.

I would never have dreamed that I would be the recipient of such highly unlikely favoritism by the judiciary of the Federal Republic. The law normally works to the disadvantage of German-minded Germans, rather than protecting their “guaranteed freedoms.” However, the whole thing becomes quite plausible when you “add 2 and 2 together.”

By her heroic conduct, Sylvia has succeeded in unmasking the disgusting fraud of “Holocaust” justice. On basis of the courts’ verdicts and rulings, all of which we have in hand, she has exposed and demonstrated the short and simple formula for “Holocaust” prosecutions.

It goes like this: “If Defendant A, who is charged with lying and must therefore be punished, presents evidence that he has told the truth, he is punished a second time, and this time his attorney is punished for defending him.” The institution of “Holocaust” prosecution has destroyed itself by acting in such an obviously despotic manner.

The “Holocaust” judges should never have allowed their “secret” to be so openly depicted! Sylvia has struck at the very heart of the foreign domination of Germany! Now that her accomplishment is clear for all to see, fewer and fewer prosecutors and judges will be willing to support those judicial atrocities of “Holocaust” prosecutions.

There are signs that entire groups of prosecutors are now hesitating to sign their names to “Holocaust” indictments, knowing that they will be faced with defendants who follow Sylvia’s example. Sylvia has very effectively demonstrated how to scandalize these show trials, to convert the role of accused into that of accuser and to function as prosecutor in these courts of foreign inquisition.

We have to consider the whole phenomenon in its larger context. The jurists, who have now been exponiert (“raised to a higher level”) by Sylvia’s defense, are legally required by their office to read my works. I can assume that even if the jurists are not convinced by my arguments, they are at least aware of them.

The clamor in the media over the debate between Michel Friedman and myself has brought several things to light that heretofore had been submerged in silence. On page 82 of Vanity Fair’s Issue No. 45 for the year 2007, we read the following:

“With his anti Semitic theories, Mahler has inspired the extreme Right as no one else in Germany has done... Neo-Nazis listen to Mahler because he philosophically ennobles their nonsense...”

However it does appear that “Neo-Nazis” are not the only ones who are now paying attention to me. Harald Martenstein made the following remarks on the Friedman-Mahler exchange in the “Opinion” page of TAGESSPIEGEL issue for 6 November 2007:

“In Germany / one does not confront rightwing radicalism. Instead, one runs away from it.... Behind this kind of thinking lies more than just antiquated theory about the media, according to which the only thing that exists is what is presented in the media and that one can overcome discord with silence....

The uncontrollable Internet has demolished that theory, which was inspired by an irrational fear of the apparent omnipotence of the rightwing radical arguments. It is as though Nazi slogans could mesmerize the masses merely by being uttered... Many of us obviously have misgivings about ourselves, since any one who really confronts ideas must first allow them into his head.”

Vanity Fair Chief Editor Ulf Poschardt wrote the following to Süddeutsche Zeitung in its online edition of 2 Dec 07:

“Horst Mahler is the chief ideologue of the extreme Right. His views, horrible and absurd as they may be, are secretly shared by a great many Germans.”

In Süddeutsche Online for 2 Dec 07, Friedman himself augments this, writing that “Mahler talks about what a not insignificant part of the population is thinking.

Surveys show that, irrespective of age and class, 10% to 15% percent of the population admits racist prejudices. This is true even of people in three piece suits... The problem of rightwing extremism has not died out. It continues to be contemporary, present in a considerable portion of today’s youth.”

At another place Friedman writes, “Horst Mahler’s articulate and pseudoscientific agitation is influencing a portion of our youth and leading them to commit violence against minorities.”

Regarding the departure of the chief editor of Vanity Fair, Ulf Poschardt, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes on 11 Jan 08 that he showed recklessness, “...such as in the debate between Michael Friedman and the rightwing radical Horst Mahler... His intention of demystifying Mahler was a spectacular failure.”

In a perceptive observation, Henryk M. Broder writes in Spiegel Online, 4 Nov 07 “...but the important thing) is that he talks with Mahler, and does not land in hell, but rather under the wheels of a demagogue who is superior to him because he is more overbearing and intelligent... Finally Friedman loses his nerve... the winner with the most points is Horst Mahler.”

“... As Michel Friedman points out, Horst Mahler himself is unimportant... If Horst Mahler were the only one involved, it would not be worth the effort of talking to him, but he represents the most virulent ‘brown beast’ on the rightwing scene. It is important to talk to him because behind Horst Mahler there are millions of ‘light brown’ (lesser intensity right-wingers)... They are not all skinheads... some of them are representative fellow citizens from the midst of our society.’ Friedman said it occurred to him at the time Mahler greeted him with ‘Heil Hitler, Mr. Friedman!’ that there are millions in Germany who believe that Hitler had his good side. 20 percent of all Germans do not want to have a Jewish neighbor. In a nation of 80 million, that is 16 million Germans! The fact that Horst Mahler unfortunately represents a sizeable group of Germans makes him interesting... For me, Horst Mahler must be taken seriously because millions of Germans are standing behind him... A person who represents a political direction with millions of followers has become an actual social phenomenon.”

The December 2007 edition of Jüdische Zeitung (Vienna) contains the following on page 3: “It was irresponsible and impermissible to offer Mahler such a platform,” according to the General Secretary of the Jewish Central Committee in Germany, Stephan J. Kramer.Vice President Wolfgang Thierse of the Federal German Parliament is grumbling that the Neo-Nazi spoutings of Mahler are ‘completely irrelevant’ and directs at Friedman ‘the unsettling question of why he allowed himself to be used as a sounding board for rightwing extremist slogans.’”

The chairman of the Unionsfraktion Wolfgang Bosbach says, “I do not understand why Mr. Friedman so damages his own interests”, while Petra Pau, Vice President of the Bundestag (Left) speaks of an “incomprehensible public relations action for a magazine.” Other acknowledged opponents of National Socialism, such as the chairperson of Bundestagsinnenausschusses, Sebastian Edathy (SPD) as well as Representative Omid Nouripour of Green Party, also released criticisms, according to TAGESSPIEGEL of 6 Nov 2007 (page 4). In the Münchner Merkur, Bavarian interior minister Joachem Herrmann of CSU also criticized Friedman’s conduct, saying he should have “broken off the interview immediately after the Nazi salute.”

DIE WELT Online, 7 Nov 07 reported that the search words “Michel Friedman Horst Mahler” in the Yahoo search engine found 78,200 “hits,” while Horst Mahler registered 343,000, Sylvia Stolz 161,000, and “Sylvia Stolz Horst Mahler” 20,300. “Strategic Silence” can no longer head off what is happening now, and the Verlästerung (slandering) of our ideas has been rendered ineffectual.

Fear of the “omnipotence of rightwing radical argumentation” is spreading rapidly.

“Obviously Nazi slogans can enchant the masses, merely by being expressed.” What an admission! Whoever said “Obviously a great many of us do not trust ourselves, since whoever wants to seriously grapple with an idea must first allow it into his head” -- wasn’t that person referring to his own experiences and anxieties about being convinced by “rightwing radical” ideas? Have we come a long way, or not? Among the 16 million Germans that Friedman includes among my followers, there are surely several thousand prosecutors and judges. What effect is that going to have on our present government of foreign occupation?

So far I have had opportunity to speak to Sylvia in prison just twice,once for 20 minutes and once for 30 minutes. When I mentioned Friedman’s figure of 16 million “right wingers” she remarked: “In his wildest dreams it’s only 16 million!” She is in good spirits, and more determined than ever to continue the struggle for Germany’s liberation.

Whoever coined the poetic phrase Zum Kampf auserkoren, zum Sterben bereit (“Chosen for struggle, prepared for death) must have had her in mind. Victory or death! must be our battle cry.

****

Frederick, please inform the world about what is going on here in Germany. Please arrange translations of this letter into English, French, Spanish and as many other languages as possible.

With heartfelt good wishes to all,

Horst Mahler

Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/new...7E_English.htm
 
Old January 30th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Re: Sylvia Stolz



Sylvia Stolz
 
Old January 30th, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Re: Sylvia Stolz

Holocaust revisionist's lawyer jailed

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:18:35

A German court has sentenced the former lawyer of Ernst Zundel to three and a half years in prison for denying the Holocaust herself.

In addition to 3 1/2 years in prison, Sylvia Stolz has also been banned by the court from practicing law for five years.

During the trial of the Holocaust revisionist scholar, Ernst Zundel , Stolz called the Holocaust "the biggest lie in world history".

Stolz has reportedly read a newspaper article to the court about the appearance of world renowned Israeli artist, Gilad Atzmon in Bochum.

In a public statement, Atzmon is quoted as having said that the written history of the Second World War and the Holocaust are a "complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists".

Stolz represented 67-year-old Zundel in his first trial in Germany and was banned from the court for allegedly trying to sabotage the proceedings.

Zundel's second trial ended in February, 2007 with his conviction for denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to the maximum five years in prison.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020604
 
Old January 30th, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Re: Sylvia Stolz

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Gets Prison

Jan 14, 2008

BERLIN (AP) — A former lawyer for a well-known Holocaust denier was convicted of incitement in Germany on Monday for denying the genocide herself and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

Sylvia Stolz, who represented Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel at his trial, also was banned from practicing law for five years.

During Zundel's trial, Stolz repeatedly disputed the Nazis' mass murder of Jews, called for hatred of the Jewish population and ended a legal document with the words "Heil Hitler."

Zundel's first trial collapsed after Stolz was banned from the proceedings on the grounds she was trying to sabotage them.

Zundel's second trial at Mannheim state court ended in February 2007 with his conviction for incitement for denying the Holocaust — a crime in Germany.

The 67-year-old Zundel, who was deported from Canada in 2005 and also once lived in Tennessee, was sentenced to the maximum five years in prison.

In sentencing Stolz, Judge Rolf Glenz said she used Zundel's trial in order to deny the Holocaust and to spread revisionist ideas.

"Stolz has a basic reflex to make far-right statements," he said.

Stolz, who called the Holocaust "the biggest lie in world history," also was convicted of disparaging the country and its symbols and insulting the court.
 
Old January 31st, 2008 #5
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Days 1-3

Sylvia Stolz
GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany
November 2007 - January 2008
Days 1 - 3


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

****************
Day One
of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4
15 November 2007
************************************************

Judge Glenz is presiding, accompanied by Attending Judges Dr. Bock and Dr. Lindenthal as well as Lay Judges Askani and Haaß. All are over 50 years of age except for one attending judge. Judge Glenz appears to be around 60 years old. Scheduled for 9:00, the trial gets under way at 9:52. The same security measures are in place as in the trials of Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf. Around 15 uniformed police agents are present. The courtroom is completely filled. There is less media coverage than in the Zündel and Rudolf trials. By and large the Poodle Press is ignoring this trial. If it mentions the trial at all, it is to heap politically correct abuse on “Rightwing Radical Extremists,” “Holocaust Deniers,” “Neo Nazis” etc. The press particularly enjoys ridiculing the close personal relationship that has developed between Horst Mahler, who is 71, and Sylvia Stolz, who is 44. 2 photographers are present as well as 1 cameraman, 8 journalists and the court illustrator. V. Zastrow is here for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), as is someone from the Mannheimer Morgen (MM). “Schreiber Mack” is here along with “The Gorilla” from BILD Rhein-Neckar as well as a blonde thirtysomething from dpa (Deutsche Presse-Agentur), leftwing rabblerouser K. Plastig from taz - Tageszeitung Berlin and a representative of Die Rheinpfalz in Ludwigshafen. In the courtroom there is also 1 bailiff along with four armed policemen. I do not see any familiar faces among the “Staschu” or Staatsschutz. In the former DDR, the genesis of this version of political police, the agents were called “Stasi,” which is an abbreviation for “Staatssicherheit.” Among the audience are Lady Michel R. and Peter R. of www.jailingopinions.com from England; Claude V. from France; Dr. Rigold Hennig, the publisher of Der Reichsboten, and Joachim Sch. As usual, Reichshauptstadt Berlin is represented by a large delegation.

Attorney Sylvia Stolz, affectionately known as “The German Joan of Arc” and “The Bavarian Spitfire” to her supporters, is accompanied by Horst Mahler. She is represented by Defense Attorney Ludwig Bock and a female pro bono in her mid 30s, who was appointed by the Court over Sylvia’s objections. We are familiar with this tactic from the Zündel trial. The Court wants to make sure that the proceedings do not result in a mistrial in case Attorney Bock departs (or is abucted) from the scene, as Sylvia was removed from the courtroom during the Zündel trial. Opposing Sylvia is District Attorney Andreas Grossmann accompanied by Head District Attorney Seiler.

When proceedings finally begin, the Court offers no reason for its tardiness. The first item is a procedural question concerning the status of Horst Mahler. Attorney Wingerter submits Mahler’s motion to participate in the trial, which is disallowed, although the Court allows him to remain in the room as an observer. Horst is then called to the stand as a witness. Since he has publicly announced that he and Silvia are engaged to be married, he is excused from having to testify against her.

Next, Grossmann and Seiler take turns reading the indictment. Most of the charges grew out of the trial of Ernst Zündel. They relate not only to evidentiary motions and trial strategy, but also to her testimony during appeal before Superior District Court Karlsruhe concerning here removal from the Zündel trial. Grossman and Seiler read 5 pages of this as well as complaints from a trial in Potsdam County Court. The indictment can be obtained from Frau Stolz for a small fee to cover expenses. Primarily the charges have to do with “Obstruction” of the Zündel trial as well as disrespectful remarks about “BRDDR.” (BRDDR is a reference to the German government that has often been used since the BRD merged with the DDR. Critics say the “BRDDR” combines the worst characteristics of both those Cold War governments.) Sylvia is also charged with “Insulting the Memory of the Deceased” (meaning Jews) and “Inciting the Masses” which is punishable under Article 130 of the Penal Code. On behalf of the BRDDR the District Attorneyis demanding that Sylvia be disbarred from practicing law, in addition to other punishments. Judge Glenz announces that the Court, while meeting in chambers, has accepted the indictment.

The Defense moves for a deferment and appeal to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany’s version of the Supreme Court) in order to clarify the fundamental question of whether Section 130 of the Penal Code (Incitement of the Masses) is not unconstitutional. At issue is the widely held contention that Section 130 of the Penal Code is incompatible with Article 5 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of speech, opinion and research. The Bundesverfassungsgericht has never ruled on this burning question.

Bock’s motion is based on opinions expressed in an article by the former presiding judge of Hamburg District Court, Dr. G. Bertram, in Neue Juristische Wochenzeitung No. 21 / 2005. This article presents the issue very clearly.

It is encouraging that Dr. Bertram publicly applauded the recent decision of the Spanish Supreme Court concerning “Holocaust” prosecutions as they relate to freedom of opinion, which is guaranteed in the UN Charter. During my (Günter Deckert’s) trials in the 1990s, Judge Bertram had not yet expressed concerns about the constitutionality of Section 130. District Attorney Grossmann of course sees no reason to request such a ruling, and Sylvia’s pro bono lawyer appointed by the Court does not rise to support Attorney Bock’s motion.

At 10:35 the Court announces a pause as the judges retire to confer in chambers. Half the reporters leave the courtroom, including the “Gorilla” from BILD magazine and the blonde from dpa. The proceedings recommence at 1:00 O’clock. NEIN! is the Court’s response. As expected, the Court denies Bock’s motion, which it had anticipated. There will be no deferral and the Court will not ask the Budesgerichtshof to rule on the constitutionality of Section 130.

Mannheim District Court has conducted its own research into the matter. It has decided that legal doubts about the compatibility of Freedom of Opinion with prosecution for “Incitement of the Masses” are not adequate to justify asking for a ruling from a higher court.

At 1:13 Sylvia is allowed to begin presenting her Einlassung, or statement of position. She explains that the indictment is in reality an indictment of various branches of the OMF (Organisationsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft -- Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.) [OMF is a term formulated by the “Father of Basic Law” and expert on international law, Prof. Carlo Schmid, in 1948. For a detailed explanation of OMF visit this website: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dis...ennig_engl.htm

In 1948, when Washington executed its sudden about-face from Morgenthau to Marshall Plan, Prof. Schmid had to come up with a somewhat objective term for the new regime that would describe its collaborative nature without using terms such as “vassal state” or “puppet government.” Since the Basic Law has never been approved by plebiscite, it cannot accurately be called a “Constitution.”]

Sylvia announces that she does not intend to discuss in detail the points included in the indictment, which are by and large accurately presented. She says that she was merely doing her duty as attorney for the defense, namely to defend her client. She takes this duty seriously! She then describes the extreme procedures that characterized the Meinerzhagen court and demonstrates how that court was totally indifferent to historical reality. The Zündel trial was a show trial from beginning to end, as was the Rudolf trial; and the same is of course true of her present trial as well. She anticipates that her evidentiary motions will again be routinely denied as part of the same hollow legalistic ritual. They will be dismissed as “not pertinent, irrelevant, not part of these proceedings,” etc. In political trials, the verdict is decided before the trial begins. Sylvia says that in her In her presentation she wants to cover four pertinent areas:

1. Since the end of World War II, Germany has been ruled by foreign powers acting through the OMF;

2. More specifically, Germany has been ruled by Jewish occupiers in accordance with the rules laid down in the Talmud;

3. The historical record has been thoroughly falsified regarding World War II and the Third Reich; and

4. Under OMF law, the Third Reich can legally be depicted only as “evil” and “satanic” as though these were legal concepts.

Sylvia points out that German judicial perversions result from the violent imposition of a particular version of history. Anyone who expresses an alternate opinion is transformed into a recreant untouchable. Thus OPINION is the real target of the prosecutors in these “Holocaust” show trials. She urges the Court to consider how many things Germans are no longer allowed to say or think in Germany. Here she refers to an article by former SPIEGEL editor Fritjof Meyer in the journal Osteuropa (published by Prof. Rita Süßmuth of the Christian Democratic Party) in the issue for May 2002, pages 631-641. [This article is available as reprint from Durchblick-Schriften-Vesand, Bremen 2004, which also contains the rejection of the indictment against Horst Mahler and Günter Deckert that was drawn up by Stuttgart District Attorney on 28 May 2003. It is also available online at:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/aus...steuropa.shtml, www.fritjof-meyer/meyer-replik-auf-piper.shtml and www.fritjof-meyer/index.shtm .

Sylvia points out that evidentiary motions relating what really happened are proscribed by German courts, which makes the task of the defense attorneys impossible. The official OMF consensus on “Holocaust” has been achieved through great judicial violence. She remarks that the German courts long ago abandoned their duty to establish truth by gathering material evidence themselves. However, the holy cow of Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) cannot reign forever. This was established by the Petitions Committee of Federal Parliament in a position paper in 1994/95. The usual practice is the use of an arbitrary Ausnahmestrafrecht (exceptional penal code.) Here she is referring to the Bertram Beitrag (Bertrm Article) in the legal journal NJM. The Bundesgerichtshof Supreme Court has never released a detailed and final opinion on this matter.

She points out that the result of this has been the never-ending enemy occupation of Germany.

The Court recesses briefly between 2:15 and 2.30.

Sylvia then points out that she herself is now in a exposed position in an ominous historic locale. In this very courtroom Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel and Günter Deckert (your reporter) have all been convicted on account of their opinions. However, she is determined not to bend to threats and violence. She goes on to describe certain Ur-Erlebnisse (enlightening experiences or defining moments) that have occurred in her life. One of these was the pseudo documentary melodrama “Holocaust” made by the Jewish film producer Steven Spielberg in the 1970s, when she was young. Other similar Ur-Erlebnisse were events she experienced as an activist for animal rights during her student days and reading the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte by Ernst Gauss alias Germar Rudolf, published in Tübingen in 1994.(2) Sylvia then quotes extensively from this (around 20 pages), which prompts Judge Glenz to remark that her presentation has little to do with her indictment, and that extensive quotations contradict the purpose of her position statement.

He says that he wants this to be understood as an admonition. Frequent word exchanges occur before Sylvia is allowed to continue.

It becomes clear that Sylvia is growing tired, as she had to drive over the snow-covered Swabian Alps during the night, from Ebersberg east of Munich to Mannheim. After a short pause from 4:15 until 4:25, proceedings end for the day.

****************
Reporter’s Comments on Day 1:
****************

1. The presiding judge creates the impression of being thoughtful, composed and fatherly; yet leaves no doubt that he is steering directly in a given direction, namely a timely conclusion of the trial. In comparison to the agitated nervousness of Dr. Meinerzhagen in the Zündel trial or slick and polished Schwab in the Rudolf trial, he cuts a better figure.

2. For possession of 55 copies of this book I was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment without parole by the court in Weinheim (Judge Herbig) in 1995, which was upheld by the appeals court in Mannheim District Court (Judge Köhler.) The courts assumed that I must have read the book in its entirety and therefore must have known that it contained proscribed materials. However, at the time I placed the orders to buy the books they had not yet been proscribed, or even indexed! At the time of the appeal I was already incarcerated in Bruchsal, having been arrested at Frankfurt airport in November 1995 when I returned from abroad. The reason given for my arrest was “danger of fleeing the country!”



****************
Day Two
16 November 2007
****************

Scheduled to begin at 9 O’clock, proceedings get under way at 9:14.

The Court has the same composition except that District Attorney Grossmann is alone today. Both of Sylvia’s attorneys present as well as 1 representative of the press (Die Rheinpfalz) and 35 visitors. Resuming where she left off yesterday, Sylvia begins speaking on

National Socialist policies toward the Jews. She describes the various historic schools of this policy with emphasis on the writings of the Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno, showing that the concept of Sonderbehandlung (Special Treatment) referred to any and all treatment of internees that was not routine, just as its name implies. It clearly was not synonymous with “liquidation” since internment in luxury hotels was also called Sonderbehandlung.

Then she discusses at length the research by Udo Walendy on the subject of falsifications and photographic montages in his book Wahrheit für Deutschland (Truth for Germany) published by Vlotho/Weser in 1973. The German government’s attempts to suppress this work failed. She also discusses J. C. Ball’s expert analysis of wartime air photographs of Auschwitz, which disprove the allegations of smoking chimneys, mass murders, burnings of corpses in fire pits, etc. Ball’s works have never been acknowledged by “court historians” however. Sylvia also discusses the “Great Wendig” publications.(3) Then she moves on to the writings of the Frenchmen Paul Rassinier, who was himself interned at Buchenwald, and Prof. Robert Faurisson, who is famous/infamous for his challenge to the “Holocaust” Industry to “show me a single document!”

Sylvia points out that all the researchers she has mentioned are prominent witnesses who have presented their opinions in well-documented empirical arguments. She asks: How is it possible that defense attorneys are not allowed to defend their clients with evidentiary motions? This question arises constantly in “Holocaust” prosecutions. The impression recurs that criminal laws are misused to protect the official “Holocaust” concept, which leads the public to constantly ask: Who has an interest in the continuation and propagation of “Holocaust?” Every single OMF court has shied away from the central problem of the lack of material evidence for “Holocaust,” while material evidence is never allowed on behalf of the defense, even though such evidence is readily available.

Sylvia then returns to the above-mentioned book by Gauss/Rudolf as well as the book by F.P. Berg, Mordwaffe Dieselmotor (The Diesel Motor as Murder Weapon.) It is undeniable that evidentiary motions are disallowed by the German courts, and this is a great injustice.

She observes that Talmudic Justice rules the OMF courts. Here District Attorney Grossmann interrupts with the demand that this remark be included in the court record since it is another criminal opinion. The Court orders a ten-minute recess and announces that today’s proceedings will terminate at 2:15 pm.

Sylvia then reiterates her determination to fight for the truth and for the German nation. She points out that the above-mentioned illogicalities of official “Holocaust” historiography are indisputable and obvious to everyone. Why are those who ask obvious questions persecuted and imprisoned? Who profits from such tyranny and repression? Do Jews enjoy special privileges, or not? She points out tha citizens who ask logical questions are demonized, isolated, defamed, persecuted and imprisoned. In the recent case of Eva Hermann, official repression was again clearly demonstrated.

Sylvia observes that German citizens are not allowed to criticize atrocities committed by the Zionist settler state in Palestine because Jews were victims once upon a time. Citizens cannot draw comparisons or make accountings because to do so is “immoral.”

Sylvia then quotes the Jewish writer Martin Buber and his concept of truth as “forbidden fiction.” She points out that truth and objective reality are no longer considered in German courts. Judaism has succeeded in establishing its peculiar version of reality not just in Germany, but worldwide.

Throughout the German nation, Judaism has created for itself a moralistic power position that it exploits for financial extortion.

She then quotes from central passages of the Talmud to the effect that only Jews are human; all other denizens of the Earth are mere animals. She quotes numerous other Talmudic passages and comparisons. The Court recesses for lunch between 12:30 and 1:00, then resumes at 1:05 pm.

Continuing after lunch, Sylvia points out that Judaism strives for the dissolution of all other nationalities through racial and ethnic mixing. Here Judge Glenz again interrupts her with a question about specific relevance to her indictment. She replies that she is illustrating the extent of occupation and foreign rule over the German nation. Germans who expresses misgivings about this Überfremdung (foreign infiltration) are also prosecuted under Article 130. Then she briefly discusses the open letter that Host Mahler wrote to Daniel Goldhagen regarding his book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners.” Again Judge Grenzel interrupts and asked her to briefly summarize her individual points. He says that her statement of position has to relate to specific points in her indictment.

Sylvia replies that this is not a possibility and again explains her plan for presenting her statement. Attorney Bock points out that Sylvia’s statements are in fact within the framework of the indictment. Sylvia objects that her indictment is arbitrary and outrageous, demonstrating the absurdity of prosecuting citizens for expressing an opinion. How can opinions be prosecuted anyway? she asks. Why do the courts even consider such indictments?

She points out that she is attempting to force the Court to return to the quest for truth. The principal task of every court is to seek the truth, but these guidelines for justice are abandoned in “Holocaust” trials. Another example of this is the judicial creation of “tatbestandlichen Voraussetzung” (Court assumptions concerning the facts of the case) associated with Article 130, the OMF’s newest political innovation. As it is now 2:25, pm proceedings are discontinued until 9 am Monday, 19 November.

***********************
Reporter’s Comments on Day 2:
***********************

3. “Der Große Wendig – Richtigstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte” (The Great Wendig: Corrections to Contemporary History.” Presently in two volumes; Vol. 3 will appear in December. This is highly recommended – order from me and I will pay postage! Advice from your Reporter: It is a good idea to get the German Penal Code and study Sections 88 and 130 very carefully. The commentaries are very helpful. The commentary by Tröndle and Fischer is a relative bargain at around 75 Euros. Since I wish to purchase the latest edition, I am willing to sell my edition of 2001 for 35 Euros.

********************
Day Three
19 November 2007
********************
The trial resumes shortly after 9 am, with Court in the same composition as Friday: District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia’s two attorneys. Today there is 1 representative of the press (Die Rheinpfalz) and two agents of “Staschu,” formerly known as “Stasi.”

There is no bailiff present and no policemen are in the courtroom.

Only 4 policemen are on duty in the courthouse, with no police cars in front. 25 observers are present.

At the start, Judge Glenz spends about 10 minutes reading some “legal guidelines,” about 4 pages long, which was to be expected after his admonitions on Friday. The issue is what Silvia should be allowed to say and how she should be allowed to say it. The Court is concerned that she might misuse the proceedings and turn it into a forum for her views on “Holocaust” specifically and Revisionism in general. Judge Glenz says the Court is considering imposing a time limit on her presentation. At 9:15 Judge Glenz orders a consultation recess of 1 hour for the sake of the Defense, and proceedings resume at 10:23.

At that time Judge Glenz asks Attorney Bock whether the recess for consultation has been adequate. Bock answers in the negative and says that the Defense intends to submit a written response, which will be completed by 9am Monday, 26 November. To the judge’s question of whether the response could be completed by the middle of this week, Bock responds that the Defense will try to complete it by that time but he cannot promise anything. With this, today’s proceedings conclude at 10:26 am. They will continue at 9am on Monday, 26 November.

{Page 5 of Report}

The anticipated dates for continuation of this trial are as follows.

In November: 26th, 27th and 29th - unfortunately your reporter has a prior engagement and will not be present on the 29th.

In December: 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 18th and 20th.

In January: 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 22nd, 24th and 29th.

Whether all these dates will be needed, or additional dates will be added, depends on factors as yet unknown. It is obvious that the Court wants to conclude this case as quickly as possible.

Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 19 Nov 2007

Günter Deckert

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

Note: These reports are neither a simultaneous transcription nor an exhaustive account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I request that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author.

Another request: Please consider that compiling these reports took four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim took even longer and in addition, cost 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.“

Thanks!

Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene1.htm
 
Old January 31st, 2008 #6
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Days 4-6

Sylvia Stolz
GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany
November 2007 - January 2008
Days 4 - 6


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

******************
Sylvia the Proud

What’s in a name? Quite a bit in the case of Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German, and that word describes Sylvia very well: proud and undaunted. No wonder her patriotic supporters call her “the German Joan of Arc.”
****************
Day Four
of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4
26 November 2007

************************************************
Scheduled for 9:00 am, today’s proceedings begin at 9:10.

Eight policemen are present as well one bailiff, but there are no police vehicles parked in front of the courthouse today. The usual members of the court are present including District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz, who is accompanied by Horst Mahler and her two attorneys. At first there are two armed policemen in the courtroom, then six more are added along with three Staschu (Staatsschutz) agents (these are the new German political police patterned on the old Stasi from DDR days.) There is one representative of the “poodle press”: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. There are about 30 visitors, although the most prominent Revisionists are not here today.

Sylvia begins with her response to the Court ruling of 19 November.

She objects to the misrepresentations and false depictions regarding her testimony on “Holocaust” and OMF (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule). [OMF is a term formulated in 1948 by Carlo Schmid, the “Father of the Basic Law” and expert on international law. Schmid, a member of the parliamentary council that compiled Germany’s Basic Law, had the task of formulating an objective term for the legal basis of the new regime. The term had to describe the regime’s compliant nature without using derogatory phrases such as “vassal state” or “puppet government.” Since the Bundesrepublik with its Basic Law was never approved by plebiscite, it could not accurately be called a “constitution” under international law. For a more detailed description of OMF visit this website:

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

Sylvia announces that as part of her testimony she intends to introduce Horst Mahler’s Heilsgeschichtliche Lage des Deutschen Reiches (Salvation History and the religious position of the Reich.) She also intends to read pertinent portions of other texts. In order to establish the extent of Jewish influence and the Jewish worldview and self-image, she then quotes a great deal from the Talmud and Torah as well as Schul-chan-aruch. This is a catechism of the Genara Mischna Talmud, a worldwide connecting link of Jewish culture. Sylvia observes that today one can also read about the “special Jewish world view” in an article written by the Israeli ambassador in Berlin that is available on the Internet. She points out that the threats of punishment in her indictment, as well as the shameful conduct of the Court in accepting the indictment, are evidence of foreign domination by the Jews, which is based primarily on the imposed “Holocaust” myth. On the basis of quotations, Sylvia points out numerous significant differences between German and Jewish Volksgeist (national genius.) This is followed by a short lecture on Jewish religion past and present.

Mack the Reporter leaves at 9:45, after just half an hour, but still writes a report on of the entire day’s proceedings. You can read it in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, at www.morningweb.de. Sylvia repeatedly asks the question: what is an attorney supposed to do when he or she is constantly discovering evidence that would help his or her client? Should the attorney just keep quiet and ignore it? Should the attorney ask whether he or she is going to be threatened, indicted and convicted for introducing of evidence that would help his or her client? The Staschu leave at 10:10 am and the visitors breathe more easily. Around 10:25, Judge Glenz interrupts Sylvia and reminds her of his judicial admonition that what she is reading in court has nothing to do with her indictment, which is for expressing doubt about “Holocaust,” and defaming the “BRDDR” (the present government of Germany, which combines the worst elements of the old “BRD” and “DDR.”)

Sylvia does not allow herself to be intimidated. She firmly responds that on the contrary, her presentations are very pertinent to the matter at hand, since it is necessary for her to establish the influence of the Talmud on Jewish court witnesses. Because of the influence of the Talmud, Jews have no inhibitions about bearing false witness against non Jews. Sylvia’s presentations go much too far for Glenz. He announces that he wants the Court instructions to be understood as an official admonition, specifically dictating this to the Court Recorder. Undeterred, Sylvia goes on to state that world Jewry now possesses the means, technique and influence to project and enforce their views worldwide. Sylvia observes that the Bench in this trial is attempting to hinder insight into Jewish thought and to present relevant and significant Jewish quotations as though such quotations were disconnected and taken out of context. She says that is the reason why, when introducing evidence, she intends to introduce Mahler’s testimony from his Berlin trial.

Sylvia then remarks on the obvious discomfort on the judges, who have firm instructions to avoid “providing a forum for Revisionism.” She points out that this is additional evidence that the Court is not concerned with establishing the truth: it does not allow material evidence. She says that Revisionists, by contrast, are truth seekers who have devoted themselves to researching the “Holocaust” in great detail for many years. She warns the Bench that it is in the process of crossing the “Rubicon of public shame and humiliation” and observes that authentic German law proceeds from a presumption of honesty, from the quest for truth and justice. She asks about the conscience of the jurists in this case: what do they want? Do they just want to be left in peace? Which do they prefer – to be heroes of the German nation and seek the truth, or to be despicable traitors who lack the will to pursue the truth? She observes that whatever choice they make, they will not be the same at the end of this trial as they were at the beginning. She admonishes the judges that if they convict her they will lose all sense of honor, because they are not conducting a real trial, but a show trial. If they convict her they will be acting in the capacity of henchmen of the “OMF.” Legally, ethically, historically and philosophically, they will be contributing to the assassination of the German character. They will be collaborating in the imposition of “Holocaust” religion on Germany.

Sylvia’s pronouncements cannot really be called a defense, but rather a kind of counter indictment. She points out that all her arguments are objective and directly relevant to points mentioned in her indictment. She explains that her actions, and her reasons for acting thus, are part of a political trial; and she declares that she intends to defend herself with all means at her disposal against a possible muzzle order. She asks: doesn’t an attorney have the professional obligation to demand, pursue and facilitate evidence that will help discover the truth? She reminds the Court that in conjunction with the trial of songwriter Frank Rennicke over three years ago, Horst Mahler submitted a detailed Verfassungsbeschwerde (constitutional complaint) that still has not been decided by the Constitutional Court. She insists that as an attorney, she has always acted in accordance with Section 193 of the Penal Code, which requires the attorney to take all llegitimate interests into consideration. She asks: is it even possible to indict a defense attorney for taking his or her professional obligation seriously and doing everything possible to meet these obligations? If the answer to this question is “yes” then the answer is further proof of Talmudic supremacy in the “BRDDR.” However, it is obvious to all that such tyranny can no longer be called “justice.”

Sylvia then demonstrates that the only thing obvious about official Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) is that it is not a fact but rather an opinion and an evaluation; and such opinions do not remain unchanged forever. New knowledge logically and inevitably leads to a new Offenkundigkeit. When the old Offenkundigkeit collapses, as the Manifest Obviousness of geocentricity collapsed in the 17th Century, then it becomes necessary to seek empirical evidence. Furthermore, in our present dispute, there is no legally binding definition of “Holocaust.” She points out that official Offenkundigkeit results in the de facto proscription of legally defending one’s client, which violates the first principle of justice in the Western world. She said that this again illustrates the “OMF” character of the vassal “BRDDR” regime, whose administrators are puppets of the victorious Allies.

At 11:05 Judge Glenz again interrupts her with remarks about her “circumlocutions.” Stolz responds that her presentation is quite relevant because she is also charged with criticizing the government. The Judge then calls a ten minute recess. There are now only two policemen in the courtroom and no bailiff. After the break Sylvia continues with her presentation, pointing out that an occupying power cannot expect loyalty from the nation it occupies.

Therefore: why should any attorney express a high regard for a branch of the “OMF?” How can Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag (representing a client with out commission), as Sylvia represents the Reich, which under international law still exists as the legitimate German government, be construed as a criminal offense? This was one of the charges leveled against her in Karlsruhe Superior District Court. She points out that this is in fact a legal question, and attorneys are hired to advise on legal questions. Are attorneys now required to accept the opinion of the prosecutor? If so, what is the use of attorneys in the “BRDDR”? Are attorneys required to defer to a system that is clearly illegal under international law, and must they obey the functionaries of a system that is clearly illegal? She points out that German judges allow only one view of contemporary history; and they proscribe and punish contradictory views.

Since the 8th of May 1945 the National Socialist world-view has been proscribed and repressed.

At 11:33 Judge Glenz interrupts her once again and announces that she is again repeating herself and engaging in circumlocutions.

Sylvia disputes this and states that, on the contrary, what she is presenting pertains very much to the point. Glenz admonishes her again and when Sylvia attempts to read a portion of the acceptance speech of the Jewish author and Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter, Judge Glenz becomes agitated. He says he does not want to hear it and he forbids her to quote it. Sylvia then requests a ruling on the matter by the Court, which withdraws to confer at 11:50 and returns at 12:00. Judge Glenz then announces that the Court supports his decision: Pinter’s opinion is not relevant to Sylvia’s indictment. He calls a noonday recess until 1 o’clock and the Court reconvenes at 1:10 pm.

As expected, Syvia counters the Court’s ruling with a reply in which she makes clear that the Pinter quotation is highly pertinent to the problem of “OMF” and “pax americana.” She explains that the Pinter quotation should not be considered as evidence, but rather the exposition of a thesis, and she again asks for another ruling by the Court. The court recesses until 1:38. As expected, the Court abides by Judge Glenz’s decision: the Pinter quotation may not be read into the record. When Sylvia attempts to summarize its contents, Glenz again interrupts and says he does not want to hear it, which prompts Sylvia to demand yet another ruling. At 1:50 the court again recesses and again resumes at 2:00 and Glenz again announces that the Court again upholds his decision that the Pinter quotation has absolutely no relevance to Sylvia’s trial. [Those who are curious to know why Judge Glenz is so determined to keep the Pinter speech out of the court record, can read it at:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...lecture-e.html

Sylvia then moves for a recess in order to confer with Attorney Bock and Horst Mahler. The proceedings resume at 2:50, at which time Sylvia explains that she is attempting to break the judges’ blockade of an alternative world view that is not familiar to them. She points out that they are acting as henchmen for a worldwide system of repression, terror and injustice that the USA... Glenz interrupts her in mid sentence with the announcement that the Court is seriously considering imposing a time limitation on her testimony. Glenz asks whether she would give the Court a written version of what she has presented so that they would be able to better deal with it. Sylvia replies that she will provide the Court with her written text at the end of her presentation. At 3:00 pm the Court once again recesses to confer. It resumes at 3:20 with the announcement that it has not concluded its discussion; there is need for further deliberation. It announces that it will resume tomorrow morning at 11:00 and so terminates today’s session. A visitor does not understand and asks about the exact time , whereupon Glenz repeats “11 O’clock” in an extremely loud and agitated voice.

Today’s proceedings show that Glenz is becoming quite agitated.

They suggest that we can now expect a course of events similar to those of the Zündel trial.

****************
Day Five
27 November 2007
****************

What was evident to the knowledgeable observer yesterday, occurred today in part: the proceedings were cancelled. The only notice of this was a sign placed at the entrance to the courtroom: “Today’s Session Has Been Cancelled.” The Court did not give a reason or explanation. Since neither Sylvia nor Horst nor the two attorneys appeared, we can assume that they were notified. The cancelled session suggests that we can expect a judicial thunderbolt on Thursday. At the very least, the Court will impose a time limit on Sylvia’s presentation.

As I mentioned in my first report, I will not be able to cover the Thursday session. However, I hope that two friends of mine, with whom I discussed the matter, will share their accounts with me, so that I will be able to include them in my reports for the coming week.

Günter Deckert
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 27.11.2007

PS: I repeat my remarks from my first report, which hold true also for partial selections, reproductions and summarizations in languages other than German as well.

Many thanks to Frau Ilona O. as well as Josef K. and Manfred Kr. for their contributions to offset my travel expenses to Mannheim and preparing these reports.

Horst Mahler has also thanked me for my reports, which are the only alternative to official coverage of Sylvia’s trial.

****************
Day Six
29 November 2007
****************

Scheduled for 9 am, proceedings begin at 9:05 in a smaller courtroom.

There are the usual security checks with x-ray equipment, etc. but no incidents. The other courtrooms in Mannheim Court House do not carry out such security checks, but this one is used to conduct trials for violent crimes, grievous bodily harm, drugs, etc. Eight policemen are present along with three Staschu (political police, today’s counterpart of the old Stasi from DDR days) and one bailiff. Two police vehicles are parked in front of the courthouse. The court is present in its usual composition: Judge Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz with Attorney Bock as well as her court appointed lawyer. Horst Mahler is present as visitor. There is one very young female reporter from the dpa (Deutsche Presse-Agentur.) The media are boycotting the trial except for passing on politically correct clichés such as “Rightwing Extremist,” “Holocaust Denier,” “Neo-Nazi,” etc. There are also several very young female observers, perhaps students or apprentices. In addition there are around 30 visitors who come and go throughout the day. They are exasperated because the sound system is either out of order or turned off for the day, making it nearly impossible to hear what is said. In addition, Judge Glenz is speaking unusually softly, apparently on purpose. The visitors have to listen very attentively to hear anything at all, and for that reason the courtroom is remarkably quiet.

The proceedings begin with a brief dispute between Sylvia and Judge Glenz over his most recent ruling. He tells her that he sees no reason to change his decision. Attorney Bock contradicts him, pointing out in detail that he is constantly interrupting Sylvia and refusing to allow her to speak, which is unworthy of a court in a lawful society. At 9:10 the Court recesses to confer and resumes at 9:40. Previous to this, Sylvia made a motion that she be reimbursed for travel expenses, since she no longer has a source of income. The Court’s decision: Nein!

Sylvia then points out that the Court is doing everything it can to shut her up. She remarks that harboring doubts about “Holocaust” has become a thought crime in Germany. She again alludes to the never-ending foreign occupation and domination and observes that today the Jews rule all nations everywhere through their vassals. Racial mixing, which they promote for everyone except themselves, means the extinction of European ethnicity, while phony Jewish “democracy” and their perverted version of “human rights” (except for freedom of speech and opinion) result in bondage and Jewish rule: they are in fact Jewish inventions.

Sylvia points out that in every nation, the Jews have created a state within a state, with non Jews serving as Nutzvieh (useful animals), as is well demonstrated in Jewish laws and writings. She again quotes extensively from Jewish writings in support of Jewish supremacism, then she reminds the Court that it would not allow her to read from the speech of Harold Pinter, a Jewish winner of the Nobel Prize and an outspoken critic of Zionist American imperialism. Perhaps the following is the passage that Sylvia wished to quote in order to illustrate the nature of Zionist American hegemony:

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources. The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honorable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it. Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear, which we can see growing daily in the United States, is unlikely to diminish.

Sylvia then moves on to ask a question that also puzzles her supporters: if the Court is so intent on expediting proceedings and avoiding her “circumlocutions”, why did it set aside 20 days on the court calendar for this show trial? Judge Glenz then reprimands Sylvia, saying that her presentation does not respond to the disapproval expressed by the Court. She denies this and reminds the Court that this is the 3rd day of her defense presentation, therefore she cannot be interrupted and her testimony cannot be shortened or abrogated.
She says it has become obvious that the honorable presiding judge is not concerned about the length of her presentation, but rather its contents. Judge Glenz allows her to continue. She points out that people have a right to know what the expression “human rights” means to the Jews: namely the total plundering of non Jews and the imposition of Talmudic supremacism.

At 9:46 Judge Glenz again interrupts Sylvia and announces that he is now imposing a time limit on her presentations: he definitively and conclusively forbids her to continue speaking. She ignores his ultimatum and continues introducing exhibits regarding the recent decision of the Spanish High Court that decriminalizes dissenting opinions on “Holocaust.” She points out that the Spanish decision is posted on the Internet for all to read, and suggests that her exhibits will help the Mannheim District Court reach a proper verdict. Sylvia and Attorney Bock both rebuke the court for constantly retreating to chambers. It does not have to recess for a conference; the judges can discuss the matter in the courtroom. They demand an open and proper ruling by the judges.

Since Sylvia is no longer allowed to give oral testimony, but only to submit written documents, the attendant judge on the right of Judge Glenz asks Sylvia what sort of supporting (individual) documents she wishes to submit. Sylvia then hands over two large files of copies as well as two packets containing copies of Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust” [posted on the Internet at:

<www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/#download>].

The Court then recesses from 10:30 until 11.07.

After recess the Court announces that Sylvia will be limited in her defense to two hours, which may be extended at the pleasure of the Court. Judge Glenz then gives an oral summarization of Sylvia’s testimony, mentioning Jewish domination of Germany; “Holocaust” and the reasons why she doubts its authenticity; forensic evidence that “Holocaust” could not have occurred as officially promulgated; “OMF” and the foundation of Germany’s present Basic Law; the Talmudic assumption that only Jews are human and non Jews are mere animals; and the function of the United Nations in eliminating national characteristics, with the result that today’s young Germans have been brainwashed into no longer wanting to be German. At 11:26 Judge Glenz finishes reading the Court’s “muzzle” ruling and has copies distributed to the individual members. Concerning Sylvia’s motion for compensation for travel expenses now that she has no source of income, the judge remarks that she must fill out applications and submit documentations for expenses.

Sylvia now points out to the Court that she is faced with an entirely new situation, since she has been limited to two hours in which to present her case. This is an impossible task, as the Court well knows. Attorney Bock makes the motion that proceedings be discontinued and the Court adjourned for the day, since the Defense needs time to consult and reorganize. Judge Glenz totally ignores this motion! At 11:33 he orders a two hour recess for the noonday meal. After that, events move very rapidly. After lunch, Judge Glenz informs Sylvia that compensation for travel expenses is available only for destitute persons. She will have to fill out a written application and provide documentation.

Sylvia then complains about the Court’s “muzzle order” restricting her presentation to two hours. She points out that placing an arbitrary time limit on her argumentation, after having set aside 20 days for her trial, is an unjust and illegal denial of her right to present her case, it is in fact a Talmudic denial of her right to defend herself. She observes that Judge Glenz is living in the Judaic world, whereas she lives in the German world. She observes that in the Mannheim court the District Attorney does not have to lift a finger in order to gain convictions, since the judges conduct the prosecution. It is the same situation that prevailed in the Allied military tribunal in Nuremberg, in which the American Judge Jackson refused to allow Hermann Goering to speak.

She defiantly announces that, since two hours are totally inadequate for the presentation of her defense, she grants these two hours to the Right Honorable Presiding Judge to use as he sees fit! At 1:42 pm the Court again recesses for 5 minutes to confer, then announces the end of proceedings for the day.

Sylvia’s trial will continue on Tuesday, December 4th at 9:00 am, at which time, in accordance with Section 249 of the Penal Code, it will take evidence in Selbstleseverfahren (procedure of reading into the official public court record, since German courts do not keep complete records of proceedings.) These witnesses will be called: Presiding Judge Meinerzhagen, the specialist in “Holocaust Denial” who conducted Ernst Zündel’s trial; also a female judge from Berlin who presided over a case in which Sylvia represented the defense.

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

Some observations by your reporter:

During today’s proceedings it became very clear that Judge Glenz is “pulling out all the stops” in order to terminate this trial as quickly as possible.

The brief mention in the issue of 30 November of Manheimer Morgen, on page 3, is representative of the coverage of Sylvia’s trial in Germany’s “poodle press:”

Stolz Trial to Move Forward

The trial of Sylvia Stolz in Mannheim District Court for Incitement of the Masses will now continue with normal witness testimony. On the fifth trial day, Judge Rolf Glenz repeatedly warned the accused to restrict her testimony to the points of her indictment. Yesterday Stolz, an attorney who has defended several Rightwing Extremists, continued repeating the Holocaust Lie, however. Judge Glenz finally limited her testimony to two hours, which Stolz then refused to accept.

Notice that I wrote this report today based on descriptions by a friend who attended the trial, to whom I am very grateful. As I mentioned previously, I myself was unable to attend this session. I returned last night shortly before 12 pm from the Deutsches Haus in Erzgebirge to find 240 messages in my computer, in addition to this report.

These 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.“
Thanks!

Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene2.htm
 
Old January 31st, 2008 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Re: Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Days 4-6

Readers Disagree With Sentencing of Holocaust Denier

Holocaust denial is against the law in Germany.

Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to three and a half years in prison on charges of inciting hatred for claiming the Holocaust was a lie. Some readers felt the sentence went against her right to freedom of expression.

The following comments reflect the views of DW-WORLD.DE readers. Not all reader comments have been published. DW-WORLD.DE reserves the right to edit for length and appropriateness of content.

It is entirely appropriate for both the lawyer and Zündel to be charged, convicted and sentenced for such behavior. The law about hate crimes is important for the prevention of the adoption of attitudes which might encourage racist attacks. There are limits to free speech and this is a good limit. Just like other free-speech limits, like not calling out "fire" when there is not a fire, this one is appropriate. -- W.J. Arnold, Canada

Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and the freedom to think? Is this the so-called democracy promoted by the EU? If so, one can understand when people turn to alternative forms of government. -- Arden Knapp, United States

How is it "hate" to suggest there is evidence that millions of people were not murdered? That would be good news, not hate. Hate is accusing Germans of being homicidal murderers and denying them a chance to examine the evidence and offer a defence against the charges. If revisionist arguments are wrong they should be subjected to peer review in a public forum, not jail. -- Kurt Bechle, United States

The earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese...no doubt about it. Am I subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment under German law? -- Dexter P. Huntington, United States

I am shocked that in what I always thought to be "liberal" and "open-minded" Europe, anyone could be convicted for voicing an opinion regarding history. Everything else historical is fair game for honest examination, why should this be an exception? Was Gallileo right or wrong to question the official teaching regarding the orbits of the earth and the sun? In the celebrated "Scopes Monkey trial," here in the US, I've always seen John Scopes portrayed as a hero who dared to question the official line. Should he have been tried and imprisoned for doing so? How is this different? People should be either allowed to question everything, or else they should be prohibited from questioning anything. If honest questioning verifies the accepted beliefs, then they'll stand on their own legs. If not, then let them crumble. -- Dominique Amarante, United States

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...059913,00.html
 
Old January 31st, 2008 #8
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Days 7-11

Sylvia Stolz
GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany
November 2007 - January 2008
Days 7 - 11


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

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


There are two police cars parked in front of Mannheim Courthouse with eight police officers, including one female officer, on duty.
Scheduled for 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:07. There are the usual electronic inspections as well as body searches of persons who seem “suspicious.” Court is meeting in the small courtroom again today. Proceedings begin at 9:07. The Court is in its usual composition. District Attorney Grossmann is present with his bodyguard. Sylvia is present with Defense Attorney Bock and the court appointed lawyer, who was planted in her team over her objections. Horst Mahler is among the onlookers. In addition to the police there are 3 “Staschu” (Staatschutz: “State Protection”) agents. Staschu is the updated version of the old Stasi (Staatsicherheit: “State Security”) political police from DDR days. There is only one representative of the “poodle” media: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. (The media are either ignoring the trial or else parroting official views). There are around 30 visitors, including half a dozen legal clerks and law students.

Presiding Judge Glenz begins the day’s proceedings by asking Sylvia if she wishes to provide details of her economic situation, in order to receive reimbursement for travel expenses. She declines, and informs the Court that she wishes to begin by elucidating documents that the Court has read into the record. She points out that she is on trial for a thought crime; and on account of the Court’s restrictive methodology, the public cannot possibly understand the interconnectivity of her thoughts. The public cannot perceive her strategy, and for this reason she demands a formal ruling by the Court. Glenz responds that the Court will get around to it later.

At 9:11 the first witness is introduced. This is Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen, a.k.a. “Judge Nein,” who presided over the Zündel trial. He is famous/infamous for his ruling that "It is irrelevant whether the Holocaust occurred or not. Denying it is a punishable offense.” Accompanied by a police bodyguard, he enters the courtroom and takes a seat at the witness table. From his introduction we learn that he is a 56-year-old bachelor. Judge Glenz explains briefly what the Court wishes to know and then asks him to describe generally the Zündel trial, specifically Sylvia’s role in it.
Judge Meinerzhagen is quite talkative. Speaking in a monotone, he displays very little animation in describing the “ereignisreiche Verhandlung” (“eventful trial”). I refer the reader to my reports on the Zündel trial from its beginning until the bodily ejection of Attorney Stolz, which is available postpaid for 15 Euros postpaid.

The Court recesses for 20 minutes, then resumes.

From Meinerzhagen’s testimony concerning trial days in February and March 2006, we learn for the first time that he had caused extensive passages to be recorded as a security precaution. This has not been normal court procedure since 1975. We now know that Meinerzhagen and his two attending judges themselves added a great deal to the official court record, including his intention to file criminal a complaint against Sylvia, which he carried out. On the invitation of Judge Glenz, he reads several passages aloud. In response to his question as to whether there was legal collaboration between Sylvia and Horst Mahler, who had been debarred at the time of the Zündel trial, Meinerzhagen responds in the affirmative.

Referring to documents before him, Meinerzhagen concludes his testimony at 11:57. Occasionally he needs prompting by Judge Glenz, who has the official trial history before him. Meinerzhagen’s memory is not the best -- what a contrast with the astounding memory feats of a certain group of “Holocaust” witnesses! Attorney Bock asks a few routine questions, and then it is Sylvia’s turn to question the witness. In consideration of the hour (12:05), she moves that the Court now recess for lunch; she also needs time to refine her questions. Judge Glenz wants to allow only 30 minutes for lunch. On Sylvia’s insistence, however, he recesses the Court until 1:00 pm. Proceedings do not resume until 13:20, partly because Sylvia overstays lunch break. A few visitors have left by now. Before allowing Sylvia to begin questioning the witness, Glenz admonishes her to “be objective” and “stick to the subject,” hinting at dire consequences if she fails to do so.

Sylvia asks the following questions:


QUESTION 1: She asks why Dr. Meinerzhagen was so concerned about conflicts between court appointed lawyers and the defendant Zündel?
- In response, Meinerzhagen refers to the brief appearance of an attorney named Schütz from Mainz, whom Zündel dismissed after a short time. [FOOTNOTE A] He says he removed Sylvia following her letter of 18 October 2005 because, in his view, she had proven unreliable for an “orderly trial procedure.” He says he also disapproved of attorneys Rieger, Schaller and Bock. In the case of Bock, the Karlsruhe District Court made a big fuss over his decision. He says he was concerned about proper procedure, since it had become clear to him that the trial was beginning to drag and he was worried about the possible loss of the remaining defending attorneys.

QUESTION 2: Is a defending attorney allowed to express doubt about official depictions of “Holocaust” in the interest of his or her client?
- Judge Meinerzhagen then attempts to explain and defend Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) as the Federal Criminal High Court defines it. He says it is the responsibility of the defense lawyer to impress on the accused what is appropriate trial procedure and to see that he or she understands and observes it.

QUESTION 3: Sylvia asks whether, at the time of the Zündel trial, Meinertshagen was familiar with the article by Spiegel Associate Fritjof Meyer in the Osteuropa issue of May 2002? [FOOTNOTE B]

- Dr. Meinerzhagen answers in the negative, saying he first became aware of the article when it was submitted along with a motion. Judge Glenz interrupts and asks why Sylvia is asking this question. Sylvia explains that if Meinerzhagen was aware of the Meyer article and its relation to Rechtsverletzung (judicial infringement), then her actions would have to be allowed as justified. Glenz then declares her question to be “verfahrensfremd” (foreign to the proceedings). He says it does not pertain to the matter at hand, is not relevant, is a distraction, etc., etc. For experienced visitors at political show trials, such as those who attended the Zündel and Rudolf trials, it is obvious what is coming next. Glenz announces that this court, like the Zündel and Rudolf courts, would prohibit “heikle Fragestellungen,” that is, the posing of tricky questions that relate to the substance of the proceeding itself. Sylvia points out that he cannot yet make such a ruling, since she has not yet asked her question. Attorney Bock supports her in this. Sylvia again starts asking her question and Glenz again butts in. She has to start over again, and a dispute develops between her and Glenz on the subject of “Rechtsbeugung” (bending the law). Is she “perverting the course of justice?” Sylvia points out numerous instances in which judges in political trials have clearly bent the law and acted unlawfully. Such incidents were numerous in the Zündel trial. She asks: isn’t a judge allowed, indeed required to take new evidence into consideration? After all, judges themselves have to determine what is evidence; they cannot forever refer to higher courts. Glenz asks what this matter has to do with the specifics of her case. Sylvia responds that Meinerzhagen thwarted her obligation to defend her client through presenting evidence. At this time (1:50 pm) Glenz recesses the Court and it retires to confer until 2:07. After recess Sylvia again poses her question concerning the Meyer article. If Judge Meinerzhagen had indeed been familiar with the Meyer article during the Zündel trial, then Sylvia’s actions were justified in the framework of “Nothilfe” (emergency measures.) [FOOTNOTE C.]

Judge Glenz interrupts again, saying she is not allowed to ask this question because it does not refer specifically to her indictment, and therefore Judge Meinerzhagen does not have to answer it.
Sylvia remarks that his ruling provides still more proof that “Holocaust” trials are exclusively political in nature and conducted under extraordinary trial procedure.

QUESTION 4: Sylvia asks Meinerzhagen why the Meyer article was not sufficient reason for him to entertain doubts about “Manifest Obviousness.”
-He responds that the Meyer article essentially confirms the extermination thesis.

QUESTION 5: Sylvia asks if it is Meinerzhagen’s belief that the Meyer article confirms the extermination thesis, even though it admits there is no empirical evidence for a crime site or the number of victims.
-Meinerzhagen responds that the site of the alleged extermination is irrelevant and the number of victims is an open question; it cannot be exactly determined. (FOOTNOTE D) Growing agitated, he adds that Auschwitz is nevertheless historical factuality.

QUESTION 6: Sylvia asks whether it occurred to Meinerzhagen during the Zündel trial that the “witnesses to extermination” were extensively contradicting one another? Here Sylvia is referring to contradictions between the official version of “Holocaust” and the conclusions in the Mayer article. Mayer’s conclusions did not result in a criminal complaint. It is now 2:20 pm and Glenz hastily interrupts the proceedings, which do not resume until 2:52. Glenz rules that Sylvia’s question regarding Meinerzhagen’s ‘subjective consciousness” has no relevance for the trial. His legal basis for the ruling is the Federal High Court’s “ständige Rechtsprechung“ (ongoing pronouncement of law.) Glenz further rules that all questions concerning Meinerzhagen’s awareness of “Holocaust” are inadmissible and prohibited.

QUESTION 7: Sylvia asks whether the varying opinions about the location of the Auschwitz “Holocaust” provoked doubts on Meinerzhagen’s part.
-He refuses to answer, invoking Judge Glenz’s most recent ruling.
When Sylvia calls on Glenz to allow Meinerzhagen to respond, Glenz replies that Meinerzhagen need not answer, in view of his most recent ruling. Again Sylvia demands a ruling by the entire Bench.
After brief whispering among the judges, Judge Glenz announces that the Court supports his ruling.

QUESTION 8: Sylvia points out that for years it was assumed to be factual that several million Jews were gassed at Auschwitz and asks if the witness statements are still considered valid, even though Auschwitz Museum Staff has drastically reduced the estimate of victims from around 4 million to around 1 million?

-To this Meinerzhagen replies that Auschwitz is considered the principal site of Jewish extermination. He calls this an “unchallenged historical fact” his answer causes him to wax enthusiastic and his voice grows agitated. Glenz interrupts again and announces that questions pertaining to the subjective perceptions of the witness are not allowed, since they do not pertain specifically to items in Sylvia’s indictment. Sylvia again demands a decision by the entire Bench [FOOTNOTE E]. The jurists recess for conference from 3:15 until 3:20 and Glenz, as expected, announces that the Court supports his ruling.

QUESTION 9: Sylvia then asks Judge Meinerzhagen if he was familiar with the Federal Parliament’s resolution concerning “Manifest Obviousness” at the time of the Zündel trial. [FOOTNOTE F]

-On grounds of the Court’s ruling, Judge Meinerzhagen refuses to answer the question. However, in a sudden burst of animation he says “But it is true!” to which Sylvia remarks that she would like to clarify the matter, but the Court will not allow it. At 3:35 Judge Glenz again orders a recess for conference to consider Sylvia’s question. “MM Mack,” the Reporter from the poodle Mannheimer Morgen newspaper, then leaves the courtroom. (FOOTNOTE G)

Proceedings resume at 3:52. The Court affirms Judge Glenz’s ruling that the question will not be allowed. Furthermore, Glenz threatens to take away Sylvia’s right to question witnesses if the Court suspects that she is abusing the right to question witnesses. Sylvia responds by explaining anew that her actions were justified in the context of Nothilfe (Emergency Measure): Evidence or information that was relevant to her client’s defense was available, and she would have been remiss in her professional duties if she had not made the attempt to introduce them. Furthermore, she adds, justice demands that Judge Meinerzhagen’s subjective feelings must be considered, since he was the presiding judge in the Zündel trial.

The Court remains in the room and whispers a good bit, and then Judge Glenz announces that the other judges support him. Sylvia refuses to give in and declares that she intends to oppose such repressive measures of this Court with all the means at her disposal.

QUESTION 10: Sylvia observes that, according to Judge Meinerzhagen, the “Holocaust” is a historical fact. She now asks him whether, as a jurist, he requires a legal basis for his conclusions. Then she asks what is the basis for his conclusion that “Holocaust” or the alleged extermination of Jews during the Third Reich is historical fact, since the questions of place and number of victims have not been authoritatively established? Judge Glenz immediately interrupts again. At 4:07 the Court retires to confer on the admissibility of the question. At 4:17 Glenz announces that the Court must confer further. He concludes the day’s proceedings and announces the trial will continue on Thursday, 6 December at 9 am. (FOOTNOTE H)

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


FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE A: It was Schütz’s suggested tactic for Ernst Zündel to plead guilty to all charges and submit no evidentiary motions in hopes of receiving a “mild” sentence.

FOOTNOTE B: This article, as well as the initial complaint filed against me and rejected by the Stuttgart District Attorney, is available for 5 Euros from your reporter.

FOOTNOTE C: “Acts of Emergency” and “Self Defense” provide legal justification for an action or tactic that would otherwise be disallowed in trial proceedings. An “Emergency Act” is legal defense that is allowable in order to defray an actual illegal attack from oneself or one’s client (Section 227 of Basic Law and Section 32 of Penal Code.) The necessary precondition for an Emergency Act is an imminent attack (not restricted to an attack on life and limb); and the party attacked can be a third person.

FOOTNOTE D: It is perhaps significant that the Court Reporter in the Zündel trial, Hamm, did not give his name. In my first trial in Mannheim District Court, for acting as interpreter during a lecture given by Fred Leuchter in Weinheim in November 1991, he was an attending judge of the Nussbruch Court. Dr. Nussbruch, a member of SPD who introduced himself as a Jew, read aloud in Court a letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that had been written by Michael Wolfsohn. Wolfsohn is an Israeli born Jew, possessor of a BRDDR passport, and professor of modern history at the Bundeswehr University in Munich. According to his letter 1.1 million persons, primarily Jews, were murdered at Auschwitz.

The District Attorney at that time was represented by “my good friend” Hans-Heiko Klein, who has since enjoyed a distinguished and lucrative career as “Nazi Hunter and Holocaust Prosecutor.” Since that time I at any rate have been a “True Believer” in the magic number of Six Million: “Believe or Go to Jail!”

FOOTNOTE E: this is necessary because otherwise there would be no grounds for appeal to the next higher court, which is the BGH (BundesGerichtsHof).

FOOTNOTE F: this can most certainly be obtained from Sylvia or Horst Mahler.

FOOTNOTE G: In today’s issue of Mannheimer Morgenblatt [<www.morgenweb.de>] as well as the Weinheimer Nachrichten, there is on lower part of Page 3 a rather long article by Steffen Mack with the title “Holocaust Denial: Zündel Judge Testifies Before Mannheim District Court in Trial of Sylvia Stolz” and subtitle “...Witness Meinerzhagen and His Nightmare,” accompanied by a small passport photo of Meinerzhagen.

Then follows the usual inflammatory article so typical of the German poodle press, written in the neoprimitivist style of BILD magazine. Here are a few excerpts:

“Judge Glenz allowed Stolz to bluster for five long days before imposing a time limit on her presentation... Stolz keeps on quacking in her high pitched but penetrating voice, constantly attempting to support her crude theories of world conspiracies with absurd tracts... Her 71-year-old companion Horst Mahler, who spent the morning dozing among the onlookers, brings her a salad in a bag... The 44-year-old Stolz is a vegetarian: just like Hitler! She enjoys telling her audience...

Meinerzhagen sits slumped over in the witness chair... It is now for others to pass judgment on this woman.”

Mack’s reporting is not just slanderous and irrelevant, it is untrue! Mack was sitting directly in front of me today while Horst Mahler was sitting in my row, several seats distant. Since Mack never turned around, he could not possibly have observed Horst dozing.

I glanced at him several times and did not see that he was dozing.

This is yet another example of the Poodle Press’s great reluctance to report the particulars of what is said in this trial. Their idea of reporting consists of personal attacks and parroting official views.

FOOTNOTE H: this evening, 5 December, a little after 10:00 pm a friend relayed a message from Sylvia with the news that tomorrow’s proceedings have been cancelled. The reason given is that the Court needs additional time to confer. In plain language this means that on coming Tuesday 11 December, we can expect a Court ruling forbidding Sylvia to continue questioning Judge Meinerzhagen.

Attorney Bock informed me that the court reporter of the Meinerzhagen Court, Hamm, will also be questioned as a witness.

Thus the Court will not meet on Thursday, 6 December.

Günter Deckert
Weinheim am der Bergstraße, den 5./6. Dezember 2007

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


POST SCRIPTUM
These 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 makeing monthly contributions for the duration of the trial.

It would be a very good thing if, despite the season’s wintry weather, the champions of an objective depiction of contemporary German history could appear in greater numbers.
It would encourage Sylvia in her valiant struggle for her career as well as a balanced historiography.
Not everyone still has to work, and a single day of vacation time would reward the visitor with eye opening revelations about the courts and legal situation in the “freest country that ever existed on German soil.”

*****************
Day Eight
There was no hearing on 8 December2007
*****************


****************
Day Nine
11 December 2007
****************


There are no police cars parked in front of Mannheim Courthouse today. I go through the usual security checks in the main courtroom, where 6 criminal police agents on duty, including one female, all armed; and there are three more policemen in the second courtroom. In addition there are a bailiff and 3 “Staschu” (Staatschutz or political police), including the bodyguard of District Attorney Grossmann. (What’s in a name? “Grossmann” could translate as “Big Shot!”) Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgen is the only representative of the media, which is giving the trial very little coverage except for parroting official statements. There are around 30 visitors today.

Scheduled for 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:10. The court is present in its usual composition, including Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia with her two attorneys. Horst Mahler is seated among the visitors. At 9:12, Witness Meinerzhagen, who presided over the show trial of Ernst Zündel, is dismissed. He goes to wait in another room. Judge Glenz then announces the Court’s ruling on the last question, which had to do with Judge Meinerzhagen and “his subjective impressions and knowledge in the matter of Holocaust.” The Court supports Glenz in his ruling. When Sylvia’s questions had driven Judge Meinerzshagen into an untenable position, Judge Glenz put an end to her questions, ruling that they were “not pertinent to the specific charges” listed in Sylvia’s indictment. The Court backs Glenz in disallowing Sylvia permission to question Meinerzhagen further.

In her Gegendarstellung (response), Sylvia objects to the court’s curtailing her right to question witnesses.
[FOOTNOTE 1: Gegendarstellung (Attorney’s Response
If the Court refuses an evidentiary motion, whether submitted orally or in written form, a response is permitted. Although the motion cannot be submitted in toto, it can be submitted in considerable detail. In this way the “public” (meaning visitors, in this trial) can learn a little about the contents of the refused motion. Since the “mainstream media” report few details of political show trials, the public must rely on alternative reporters for information concerning denied motions and responses.]

Sylvia emphasizes that there is a strong material connection between her indictment and her attempted defense of Ernst Zündel. This defense had to do with establishing her legal right to Notwehr (emergency defense) as provided under Section 32 of the Penal Code. She points out that she is attempting to demonstrate how Judge Meinerzhagen improperly bent the law with his measures against her in the Zündel Trial, while the present indictment against her is misrepresenting her intent as “coercion” and “evasion of punishment.” If the Court had accepted her demonstration of how Judge Meinerzhagen improperly bent the law, and how he also knowingly violated the duty of the Court to investigate and determine empirical truth, then her actions would have been acceptable under the provisions of Section 32 (Emergency Defense.) Sylvia clearly and painstakingly makes her point; her presentation is best described as a short lecture on jurisprudence.

Glenz is visibly growing impatient; he interrupts, then allows her to continue. In support of her legal argument, Sylvia mentions a study by the University of Münster on the subject of “Mythos” that is available on the Internet, at Wikipedia among other places, <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythos>

She explains that under the subheading Zeitgenössische Mythe (Modern Myths) the University of Münster article describes modern and postmodern myths, that is, irrational concepts that exist without empirical foundation. Thus the German nation has been psychologically conditioned by its victorious enemies to despise itself as a nation of evildoers. Within the German Nation, within the German government, even within the German judicial system there are henchmen who willingly commit cultural genocide against their own people and seek to destroy the German national spirit. As an example of this she reads long selections from an article by Milocz Matuschek in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on the subject of “’Holocaust’ Denial” and the “Founding Myth” of the European Union, which is available at <www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/artikel/972/145639/>. (If you have problems downloading this article, contact me and I will email it to you.) Sylvia points out that the author of the article is demanding criminal sanctions against “crimes of remembrance.” This example from a leading German newspaper is clear evidence of how the “Holocausters” are attempting to revoke the Enlightenment concept of free expression. Voltaire’s maxim “I do not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it” has become “I cannot disprove what you say, but I forbid you to say it.” She observes that the judges on this court are even now demonstrating their willingness to obey mandates of the anti Enlightenment. Such obedience is of course a requirement for a career in the present OMF (foreign dominated) judiciary. This explains why the courts are so prompt in referring to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal High Court), which invented the illogical legal concept of Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) in Section 130 of Basic Law. They did this in order to neutralize traditional “body of evidence” argumentation. By doing this, the Federal High Court has created a new jurisprudence armed with a legalistic weapon of mass destruction, making fair trials impossible.

Here Judge Glenz interrupts her with a warning against repeating what she is forbidden to say. Sylvia does not allow herself to be distracted, however. She again describes how Judge Meinerzhagen broke and disregarded clear-cut rules of judicial procedure during the Zündel trial. She repeats that these improper actions are the reasons why her conduct was justified and why it cannot legitimately be prosecuted. Glenz interrupts again and asks whether Sylvia intends to provide the Court with a written version of her presentation. She answers in the affirmative and gives the Court an updated version. The time is now 9:54. Before the Court retires to consider Sylvia’s response, Glenz announces that the “Selbstleseverfahren” ruling will now go into effect. He announces a recess until 11:00 am.

Grossmann walks up to Stefen Mack, the reporter from Mannheimer Morgen, and speaks to him. Then they go into the District Attorney’s office.

[FOOTNOTE 2: In both the Mannheimer Morgen and Weinheimer Nachrichten issues of 12 December there is a short article by Mack.

Under the title “Denial of Holocaust” and subtitle “Court applies brakes to Defendant Stolz in Mannheim” we read the following: “In the incitement trial in Mannheim District Court, Judge Glenz has forbidden defendant Sylvia Stolz to continue questioning witness Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen. Meinerzhagen had testified that when he was presiding over the trial of Holocaust Denier Ernst Zündel, he had to have defending attorney Stolz forcibly removed from court on account of her grotesque disruptions. The Mannheim District Court has decided that the 44-year-old Stolz ‘in stereotypical fashion’ was posing questions about Meinerzhagen’s attitude towards mass murder of Jews, and were therefore irrelevant. On account of repeated procedural abuse, the Court has revoked Stolz’s right to question the witness. In this way, it was possible for the Court to complete questioning of the first witness yesterday. Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz again warned Stolz about using the trial as a “propaganda event for Revisionist viewpoints.”
See <www.morningweb.de/nachrichten/politik/20071212>.]

Around 11:00, shortly before proceedings resume, Judge Meinerzhagen reenters the courtroom, accompanied by police escort. There are now three police officers in the room. Judge Glenz announces the expected Court ruling: Sylvia will not be allowed to continue questioning Judge Meinerzhagen. The reason given is that the Court does not want the trial to serve as a Revisionist forum with further denial of “Holocaust.” Furthermore, according to Judge Glenz, Sylvia persists in asking questions that do not pertain specifically to her indictment. Then he briefly summarizes the course of the trial so far. At 11:15 he concludes by warning Sylvia against “misusing” the trial. Sylvia announces her objections to Glenz’s dismissal of Meinerzhagen without allowing her to finish questioning him and demands that her objections be entered into the court record. Judge Glenz then announces lunch break until 12:45.

After lunch, proceedings move very quickly. “MM-Mack” has left the courtroom, as have 2 “Staschu” of the agents. Grossmann’s bodyguard is still present. The number of visitors has grown smaller.
Glenz prepares to read the Court’s latest ruling and Sylvia interrupts him, complaining that she has not been allowed to state her position on the last ruling and informing the Court that she intends to present a response. Glenz reiterates his intention to prohibit further “abuse of the Court” to which Sylvia responds that he considers everything the Defense does as an “abuse of the Court.” Glenz then announces that under a ruling the Court made on 10 December relating to Hauptakte VIII (?), the following written material will be read aloud and entered as evidence in the main proceedings:

1) Ruling of the 6th Greater Criminal Court, Presiding Judge Meinerzhagen, dated 9 March 2006;
[FOOTNOTE 3: “Documents” 1 through 6 are intended as the basis for Silvia’s sentencing (I assume that this trial will be reported in real time, as it happens.) Interested persons should contact Sylvia or Horst Mahler.]
2) Ruling of Superior District Court of Karlsruhe dated 31 March 2006;
3) Ruling of Federal High Court dated 24 May 2006;
4) Letter from Vögeley, President of Mannheim District Court, dated 15 March 2006;
5) Sylvia’s response dated 11 April 2006;
6) Sylvia’s letter to Potsdam County Court referring to Reineke Trial;
[FOOTNOTE 4: Reineke was the “motor” and instigator of the singing of the Deutschlandlied in the Meinerzhagen Court. “Judge Nein” punished each participant in that sing along with a fine for “Disturbing the Peace;” they could either pay 200 Euros or go to jail for four days. At the urging of Frau H. of Vlotho, the visitors contributed 600 Euros, the total of the fines, during the next recess.]

The three judges then begin taking turns reading these “documents” aloud, which has a powerful soporific effect because of their length and the monotone in which the judges read them. Judge Glenz scolds Horst Mahler for sleeping. The latter replies that he had to drive all night and besides that, the other judges are sleeping too. At 2:24, when the judges finish their reading, there is only one police officer in the room. Judge Glenz announces that the taking of evidence is now concluded, and a ten-minute recess follows. In a rare moment when he is not accompanied by his bodyguard, District Attorney Grossmann converses with others in the vestibule. Proceedings resume at 2:39.

Glenz asks Sylvia whether she has read the documents dated 27 November 2006 and announces that the Court will next consider the application of Section 257a of the Penal Code in order to avoid “misuse of the Court.” He adjourns proceedings at 3:05, to be continued at 9:00 am on 12 December.
[FOOTNOTE 5: According to Section 257a of the Penal Code the Court can (but does not have to) give trial participants the option of submitting motions in written form. This does not hold true for the concluding summarizations or “Plädoyers” delivered by District Attorney, Defense and Accused as described in Section 258. Section 249 (reading aloud of written material) provides for corresponding options. My edition of Strafprozessordnung (Penal Code) is: Becks Texte , TB-Nr. 5011, StPO, 27. Auflage, München 1996. If anyone is interested, I can send the text.]

***************
Day Ten
12 December 2007
****************



No police vehicles are parked in front of the courthouse today. At the security check there are 6 policemen and one bailiff. They are not using the x-ray machine today, only magnetic sensors, and there is no gratuitous harassment. The court is assembled in its usual composition: Judge Glenz with two attending judges, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia with her two attorneys. Horst Mahler is as usual seated among the visitors. There are 3 police officers in the courtroom, one of which is female. In addition there is a “Staschu” (political police) agent, in addition to District Attorney Grossmann’s bodyguard, who is sitting in the last row of the visitors’ section. There is no representative of the mainstream media, which generally boycott show trials except for parroting official comments.
There are only around 15 visitors today, including three persons from Berlin. One of these is Andreas K. who attended all the Zündel, Rudolf and now Stolz trials.

Scheduled to begin at 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:11. Judge Glenz allows Sylvia to speak. She again objects to the court rulings that have curtailed her presentation and denied her right to question the witness. She points out that Section 257a of the Penal Code is the so-called “muzzle provision” used to silence dissenters in show trials. She remarks that “Glenz and Company” trials are providing bountiful fresh new evidence, if such is needed, of Talmudic domination “OMF”, Germany’s present government. There is a short recess at 9:45 and resumption at 9:55, at which time the “Staschu” agents leave. Judge Glenz then announces the newest Court ruling: all legal motions must now be submitted in writing, according to Section 257a of the Penal Code. Then he reads a long list of ostensible reasons for the newest limitations on the Defense. Their gist is that Sylvia has been misusing court procedure. Furthermore her motions themselves have contained indictable offenses and are irrelevant to the specific charges listed in her indictment. He says that the written “Judaism Motions” have been “pre-examined by both the attending judges.”
However, there is a need for additional consultation in view of the possibility of her submitting evidence relating this point. At 10:30 he announces the midday recess until1:30 pm. Since I have several things that require my attention, I ask Horst Mahler what he expects in the afternoon. He says he expects the Court to rush the trial to an end, especially since the indictment mentions that no more witnesses will be called except for Hamm, who was the historian of the Meinerzhagen court.
[See my previous footnote on Hamm. In my first Leuchter/Deckert Trial in the fall of 1992, he was an attendant judge on the Nussbruch Court. At that time I submitted a motion to have the two lay judges summoned.]

Horst says that Sylvia will submit the 12 written motions this afternoon in writing, as is now required. I also spoke to Attorney Bock, whose expectations were the same as Horst’s. We agree that I will telephone in the evening, which I do. Horst reports that Sylvia has submitted the twelve motions, all of which they expect to be rejected. It is doubtful whether the Court will be able to rush through all this through on Friday, since Sylvia has the right of responding to each rejection. The Court will no doubt need a great many recesses to confer. He says the session concluded at 2:45, to be resumed at 9:00 am on Friday, 14 December.

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


POSTSCRIPT

This is the first anniversary of the Teheran Holocaust Conference, which continues to have international after effects. If anyone wants information about this event, please contact me. I have a great deal of documentation, especially in English.

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.

Grüße von Günter Deckert

****************
Day 11
14 December 2007
postponed on account of the court considering Sylvia's twelve motions
****************


Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene3.htm
 
Old February 1st, 2008 #9
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default 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
 
Old February 1st, 2008 #10
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Days 15-17

Sylvia Stolz
GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany
November 2007 - January 2008
Days 15 -17


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

****************
Day Fifeteen
of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4
7 January 2008
************************************************


****************
Day 15
7 January 2007
****************


Today there is only one police car (Mercedes Sprinter) in front of the courthouse and four armed police agents on duty, one of which is female. The Court is meeting in the small courtroom again, with light security and no X-ray searches, only the “magnetic archway.” This group of four officers has gone through this many times and now realizes that the trial visitors are not members of a German Jihad or Al Quaida.

The Court is here in its usual composition including Presiding Judge Glenz, his attending judges, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia with her two defense attorneys, one of whom was appointed by the Court and “planted” in the Defense over Sylvia’s objections. There are two uniformed police agents in our courtroom, including the female agent. There are no “Staschu” (political police) agents in the courtroom today. The crowd is very large, with four media reporters, including the “dpa lady” (Deutsche Presse Agentur). They are expecting that the “BRDDR” government through Grossmann will announce its desired range of punishments for Sylvia, who defended her Revisionist clients much too vigorously. There is a “full house” of visitors, including Horst Mahler and Andreas K. from Berlin. Six visitors have to wait outside, since Judge Glenz has denied Sylvia’s and Attorney Bock’s request to meet in the larger courtroom or at least allow visitors to take the empty front row seats reserved for the press. Scheduled for 9:30, today’s session gets under way at 9:34.

Sylvia and Attorney Bock begin by submitting a motion that the visitors who have no seats be allowed to sit in vacant seats reserved for the press. Judge Glenz denies this motion, as he has denied all the Defense motions. They then demand a ruling by the panel of judges, who of course follow the leader. Glenz gives changes in security procedures as the reason for his rejection. However, he suggests the possibility of moving to the large courtroom after lunch, in view of the anticipated increase in the number of visitors.

Then, in a barely audible voice, Glenz announces that in addition to the charges listed against Sylvia in her indictment, the Court is now adding Sylvia’s “coercion” against 5 persons. {This has to do with Sylvia’s pointing out at beginning of the trial that under international law, the laws of the Reich are still in effect, since no peace treaty was ever signed and no new constitution written and approved by the German Nation in plebiscite. Under wartime 1944 laws, “anti German activities” are punishable by death. It is clear that the vassal “BRDDR” government is reacting to Sylvia’s pointing out its lack of legitimacy. I’ll ask Horst Mahler more about this tomorrow.}
After dictating his announcement to the court historian, Glenz asks
the Defense if they have any additional motions or requests that he can deny. {He is referring, not to new motions, but rather to Sylvia’s Gegendarstellungen (responses and objections) to some of the motions he has denied. This official procedure is allowed following the termination of the trial phase of submitting motions and gathering evidence.}

At 9:35, Sylvia announces that she wishes to speak concerning her Gegendarstellung to Glenz’s “muzzle” ruling that forbade her to continue questioning Dr. Meinerzhagen (“Judge Nein.”) Glenz, acting stressed and irritated, demands that Sylvia submit her response in writing. {Between 9:00 and 9:30 am, Court had conducted a trial of three drug smugglers, two ex–Yugoslavs and a Turk, very exotic, with very large amounts of money involved. The trial had highlighted the present state of German society, which might help explain the judge’s nervousness.} Sylvia assures him that her response has nothing to do with “Holocaust” but Glenz still insists on a written Gegendarstellung and refers to the “muzzle” ruling of the Court. Sylvia now has to give in. She presents her written Gegendarstellung with the comment “now you are even afraid of a little correction.” To this Glenz snaps back, “just give it to me!” Attorney Bock then intervenes in support of Sylvia and observes that the public has the right to hear the correction.
But Glenz prefers to treat his directive as “expediting the proceedings.”
He continues unrelenting and at 9:37 announces a ten-minute recess. He allows the visitors to remain in the courtroom, however. After recess Glenz announces “The answer is still NEIN!” Everything must be submitted in written form, with no exceptions, exactly as previously decreed. Sylvia insists on delivering a response to this ruling and demands another recess. Glenz allows 15 minutes and allows the audience may remain in the courtroom. After that, Attorney Bock then demands a decision by the Court on the empty chairs in the first row. At 10:10 Glenz announces an additional recess of 10 minutes. This interruption does not last long, the ruling is of course NEIN. At 10:22 there is another recess so the Court can confer on an another Gegendarstellung. Attorney Bock is allowed to present this one orally, since the Court has not muzzled him.

The Court’s decision is that it sees no reason to change its ruling.

Next, Sylvia submits another written Gegendarstellung for a ruling on her attempted questioning of the witness Judge Meinerzhagen on 11 December 2007. She wants to read into the record additional documents regarding Judge Meinerzhagen’s “bending” or violating procedural rules during the Zündel trial. Glenz’s immediate reply is “NEIN!” Everything must be submitted in writing! No exceptions!

The Court sees no reason for a new decision!

It is clear to everyone that Glenz is growing more and more surly and despotic, and the other judges are following suit. It is obvious that all they want to do is terminate the trial and ram through their verdict, which they have known from the beginning. Sylvia has done a thorough job of exposing the trial as a travesty, and they are keenly aware that they have “made monkeys of themselves” as Sylvia pointed out to Glenz. There is more busy whispering between Glenz and Dr. Bock the Court Reporter (not to be confused with Defense Attorney Bock.) It is significant that the whispering is always between these two, never including the other judges. During a lull Sylvia is heard to say “This has been a most unusual trial,” which evokes loud laughter from the public. Glenz scowls warningly at the public but takes no action. {Dr. Meinerzhaen, “Judge Nein,” would have hit the ceiling long ago. He would have ordered the police to identify the persons who laughed and either ejected them from the courtroom or fined them for disorderly conduct.}

At 10:32 Sylvia submits a written Gegendarstellung regarding Judge Meinerzhagen’s violations of trial procedure, remarking in Glenz’s direction: “You will be held responsible for everything you are doing here.” Glenz asks: “What do you mean by that?” and Sylvia replies:
“Just what I say.” Next, Sylvia submits another Gegendarstellung, not related to the subject of “Holocaust” but rather to the Court ruling of 29 November 2007, concerning the Court’s disallowing her to continue presenting her defense statement. Glenz says repeatedly “Hand it over.” Sylvia: “This is a correction, because the facts are misrepresented in the official record.” Glenz: “Hand it over right now!” Sylvia: “You are repeating yourself just like you do when rejecting evidentiary motions,” which evokes more loud laughter from the public. Glenz does not react to this, but Court Reporter Bock is noticeably growing “antsy” and beginning to “boil.” Despite Glenz’s repeated “Hand it over!” Sylvia does not allow herself to be distracted and continues to present her arguments. Then she begins expounding on the illegality of Section 130 of the Penal Code. Glenz counters with “submit it in writing!” and he and Court Reporter Bock begin whispering again. At 10:43 Glenz calls a recess until 12:00 so the Court can “take under advisement” the 100 pages or so of the written motions Sylvia has handed in.

The media reporters immediately crowd around Grossmann and begin asking questions. {Reporter Mack of the Mannheimer Morgen is not present today, and someone else is presumably taking his place. During the last recess I had noticed a reporter whose face was familiar to me from earlier trials, and I now ask him if he is filling in for Mack of the Mannheimer Morgen. His answer is an abrupt “That’s none of your busness.” Horst Mahler who happens to be standing nearby, seems surprised and asks, “why don’t you want to tell?” and he answers: “Because I don’t want to get on anybody’s Abschußliste (hit list).” Horst and I, puzzled, ask “What are you talking about?” Then this weird character says “You want to have us all shot.” Horst remarks reflectively, “Apparently you believe those fairy tales you make up and spread.” Unfortunately there is no article in the Mannheimer Morgen on the “Hour of the D. A., ” so I cannot get the name of the reporter. I’ll have to file a complaint against an unknown person. I am curious to see how the Political Section of the Mannheim District Attorney’s Office (Grossmann) will treat this little incident, which lasted about five minutes.}

Despite the long recess, we still do not have to leave the courtroom while the judges “take under advisement” Sylvia’s written Gegendarstellungen. Maybe Glenz forgot to order it cleared, in his agitated state. Sylvia and Attorney Bock remain in the courtroom and confer, while Horst and I also stay and “talk shop.” At 12:05 the judges return. Now there are only three reporters present, including the blonde from the dpa. Amost as soon as Glenz sits down, he announces a midday recess until 3:00 pm. The three media reporters again hurl themselves at District Attorney Grossmann, and
I also walk up to him and ask if he expects to still “get on board the train” this afternoon. He answers that there is a “fifty-fifty chance” –- quite politely, not diffidently and not harshly. This suggests that, as far as personal bearing and demeanor are concerned, he might not be so bad.

Because of a pressing engagement in Weinheim I have to leave at 3:00 pm. I did not personally experience what happened after that, but Attorney Bock told me about it during a telephone conversation. The proceedings resumed shortly after 3:00 pm, and Glenz announced rejection of two of Sylvia’s Gegenvorstellungen, for the familiar reasons. He said that the Court had not yet finished discussing the others, and would present its rulings tomorrow morning at 9:00 am.

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


Please note that 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.“

Many thanks to Bill H. in the USA for his contribution to my expenses.

Günter Deckert
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 7. January 2008, 22.15 hours



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

Day 16
8 January 2008
****************


1. “It is impermissible to ask whether such mass murder was technically possible.”
2. “It was possible because it happened.”
3. “This is the obligatory point of departure for every investigation of the subject.”
4. “Keep this truth in mind: There is no debate concerning the existence of gas chambers, nor can there ever be such debate.”

Declaration by mainstream French historians, cited on page 86 of Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust.

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


This declaration is a classic example of the present assault on the scientific method.

1. The first sentence prohibits open investigation of “Holocaust,”

2. the second sentence presents a circular argument, and

3. the third sentence proclaims official dogma.

4. The fourth sentence combines the three preceding sentences with the establishment of eternal truth.
Diploma Chemist Germar Rudolf

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



“The Hour of District Attorney Grossmann”

There are no police cars in front of the courthouse today; the usual “group of four” including one female, had to march from the nearby police station. Like yesterday, security is again lax in the vestibule of the small courtroom - the courtroom was overfilled yesterday.

The Court is present in its usual composition, including Presiding Judge Glenz and attending judges; District Attorney Grossmann - who has no bodyguard today; and Sylvia Stolz with Defense Attorney Bock. Sylvia’s second attorney is also present, a young female who was appointed by the Court over Sylvia’s objections. How can Sylvia trust someone whom the Court planted in the Defense? The court appointed lawyer does not return after lunch.
There are two armed uniformed police agents inside the courtroom as well as two “Staschu” - political police- agents, including our old friend “Spitzmausgesicht” Mouseface, who leaves at noon. No bailiff is present today. All the visitors’ seats are taken again. Late arrivals must wait outside, since we cannot move to the large courtroom until after lunch. Horst Mahler is here of course, as is the delegation from Berlin. There are numerous supporters from Köln, the Kurpfalz and Düsseldorf.

There are two media reporters present as the session begins, the blonde from dpa and a reporter for Mannheimer Morgen. The latter may be reporting for BILD as well.
[NOTE: The following short article, In today’s BILD Rhein-Neckar gives the tone of the coverage by Germany’s “poodle press:”
Nazi Lawyer Rails Against Judge:
More Mischief Caused by Nazi Lawyer Sylvia Stolz (44)
The fiancé of the rightwing extremist Horst Mahler is on trial for incitement of the masses. She submitted numerous evidentiary motions in an effort to delay the trial. In addition, she insulted the judge by insinuating that his verdict had already been handed down to him. Numerous rightwing extremists among the audience howled derisively during the session. Attorney Sylvia Stolz is threatened with disbarment.
There is no hint as to the authorship of this neo German intellectual claptrap. The same holds true for today’s edition of the Wormserzeitung. How could Worms sink so low -- Worms on the Rhein, the old Kaiser cathedral, the city of the Niebelungen, just 30 kilometers northwest of Mannheim! There is no mention of the trial whatsoever in the Mannheimer Morgen.]

Scheduled for 9:00, the session begins at 9:08. Judge Glenz begins by announcing that the Court has taken Sylvia’s Gegendarstellungen - responses and corrections - made yesterday “under advisement” through Selbstleseverfahren. This means that the judges may or may not have read it individually and it does not become part of the official trial record. District Attorney Grossmann also says that he has “taken it under cognizance.” The judge’s ruling is his inevitable NEIN. He denies all of Sylvia’s Gegenvorstellungen, like all her evidentiary motions, on the grounds that they are “irrelevant” to “Holocaust” and/or as this particular trial; or they are “abuse of the Court;” or else they “provide a forum for Holocaust Denial,” etc. Glenz recites his litany of old familiar phrases. The surprise is his announcement that all additional motions and Gegendarstellungen must be submitted by 11 O’clock. Anything submitted later than that will be dealt with in the Urteilsbegründung - Basis of Verdict.

His recitation of reasons for rejection until 9:29. He does not neglect to mention, with a perfectly straight face, that even though he is rejecting everything, this does not mean the Court is neglecting its duty to uncover all the facts. Sylvia confers briefly with Attorney Bock. A little later Glenz announces that in the view of the Court, the hearing of evidence is now definitely concluded. At 9:30 he allows District Attorney Grossmann to speak.

By way of introduction, Grossmann announces that “Holocaust” is a “historical fact” and that there are “libraries filled with literature,” including verdicts of German and foreign courts, that are backed by “serious historiography.”

[NOTE: Needless to say, he does not tell us where these “libraries full of literature from German and foreign trial verdicts” are to be found. How could they have “libraries full of literature from German and foreign trial verdicts” when “Holocaust” courts do not accept evidentiary motions? I intend to ask Grossmann about that, because I want to KNOW and not just BELIEVE, and I encourage others to ask him as well.

His address:

StA GL A. Grossmann

Postfach

D 68149 / Mannheim.

Germany

Telephone and FAX 0049 (0) 621 – 292 7524 / ... 292 7530.

His phrase “serious historiography” is obviously an empty slogan tossed into the courtroom. He makes no references to scientifically verifiable studies or to authentic researchers.]

Grossmann says that the “Holocaust” dispensation by the German High Court in Karlsruhe, the doctrine of Offenkundigkeit - Manifest Obviousness, meaning “everybody knows it is true, therefore it need not be proven - is the result of “decades of research.” Grossmann says Saul Friedlander’s book Die Jahre der Vernichtung, published in Munich in 2006, explains Offenkundigkeit in detail.

[NOTE: Friedländer’s “exhaustive” work, published in 2007 and awarded the “Friedenspreis” by the GermanBook Fair in Frankfurt, consists entirely of excerpts from other “exterminationist” books.
Friedländer published two works beforehand, both of which include very little original research. They are The Jews and the Third Reich: Years of Persecution - first edition New York 1997, German edition Munich 1998; and The Jews and the Third Reich: Years of Extermination - 2006.]

Attorney Bock is allowed to speak and he asks Glenz about his announced imposition of a deadline. Glenz acts as though he does not understand. Then follows a short “exchange of opinions.” Bock wins his point, and Glenz announces an initial recess of 15 minutes. This is then extended to 11 O’clock, since both Sylvia and Bock insist on using their mandated 75 minutes for additional motions and Gegendarstellungen.

After the recess Sylvia submits three motions and asks to be allowed to briefly explain them, but Glenz again denies this and haughtily demands that they be submitted in writing. Attorney Bock also submits a motion and when Glenz points out that he has already said he will not accept any more motions, Bock quotes Adenauer’s famous quip, “Was schert mich mein saudummes Gerede von gestern!“ - “What do I care about the stupid remarks I made yesterday!”

[NOTE: Konrad Adenauer was a Rhenic Separatist after 1918 and former First Mayor of Cologne. During the National Socialist period the National Socialists removed him from office, but did not revoke his pension - as the BRDDR revoked mine in 1988. Adenauer spent the war years peacefully at a monastery in the Eifel region and became first “chancellor” of the Federal Republic. In 1955 he tried to sell the Saar region to the French through the Saarstatut, but the Saarlanders dealt him and his separatist friend “JoHo” - Johannes Hoffmann - a sound thrashing by voting overwhelmingly “Ja” to Germany and “Nein” to France. Adenauer is also remembered as the father of “Westbindung” - unquestioning collaboration with the Western Allies - and worked out the abject Wiedergutmachung - endless reparations - with Ben Gurion in a New York hotel room.]

When Glenz tries to make him submit his motion in writing, Bock makes very clear that the prohibition against submitting motions orally applies to Sylvia but not to him. Glenz has to accept this and does not interrupt Bock gain. Bock’s evidentiary motion calls for an expert in contemporary history to help clarify the problem of wildly overstated estimates of number of victims of “Holocaust,” since in recent years the official numbers have been constantly reduced, even by “mainstream” historians.


NOTE: on the reduction in numbers: An example of this is Claude Pressac’s The Crematories of Auschwitz, published by Piper in Munich. This French mainstream researcher, originally a student of Prof. Faurisson, later changed sides and went to work for the Klarsfeld Foundation of New York and Paris. He disappointed them by reducing the estimated number of victims from four million to below one million. Serge Klarsfeld was a French Jew married to a German woman named Beate who achieved notoriety by publicly boxing the ears of Chancellor Kurt Kiesinger alias “Silver Tongue” who, as she proved, was NOT a member of the Resistance during the Third Reich. Kiesinger is not to be confused with Henry Kissinger, who also achieved a certain notoriety in the USA... .

NOTE: regarding Tateinheiten - the commission of two or more offenses in a single act: According to Horst Mahler, the Court still has the option of combining several groupings of complaints into Tateinheiten with result that there would be fewer counts in the indictment. This would mean that the total number of individual sentences would be fewer so that the final sentence could also be less. For this reason we are very curious to see what the “final verdict” of the Glenz Curt will be. It is an open question whether the verdict will be pronounced on Thursday, even though the sentencing range and guidelines have long been known.]

Glenz again orders Selbstleseverfahren for Sylvia’s remaining Gegendarstellungen - responses and corrections, one of which has to do with the Friedländer book. The Court may or may not deign to look over them. After renewed whispering with his “right hand,” Court Reporter Judge Bock, Judge Glenz announces the midday recess until 1:00 pm.

After lunch we are in the large courtroom, where there is room for everyone, and the proceedings move along briskly. Now there are only two uniformed police agents present, with no “Staschu,” and there are three media reporters. Glenz gets things moving by saying “...The Court has taken cognizance of the Defendant’s documents and the Court’s ruling is NEIN. Motions denied!” Obviously it is impossible for him to say anything else. Then he chants his litany of reasons for denial. When he is finished Silvia remarks “I really feel sorry for you – nothing but the same old sameold.” Then comes another exchange between Glenz, Silvia and Attorney Bock with two more Gegendarstellungen followed by automatic rejections.

Then comes Grossmann’s second assault, the real “Hour of the District Attorney.” Judge Glenz asks him to repeat his remarks about “Holocaust” that he had made in the morning session. He adds the embellishment of the phrase “state organized and executed mass murder.” Count by count he goes through “his” indictment, actually the masterpiece of the entire political section of the Office of the District Attorney. He comes up with a total of 11 individual points or counts. In agreement with the Court, he combines Counts 2 and 3 as well as Counts 10 and 11 as “committed in Tateinheit” - two or more offenses combined in one act.

Grossmann specifically mentions Sylvia’s employment of Horst Mahler as her assistant - which he says was unlawful because of Mahler’s disbarment; her disparagement of the BRDDR government; her repeated use of the term “OMF” - Prof. Carlo Schmid’s 1948 formulation “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Domination” to describe the vassal Federal Republic); her “obstruction of trial procedure” during the Zündel Trial; her insulting and “coercing” the Court - by referring to Reichsgesetz 90a/b, still lawful under international law since no peace was signed; her repeated interruptions of Court proceedings; her refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of “BRDDR”; certain of her expressions in her Rechtsmittel; [NOTE: this was connected with her appeal of Meinerzhagen’s ejecting her from the Zündel trial, directed to the Superior District Court of Karlsruhe as well as BGH -- Grossmann includes extensive quotes from the 67 page complaint - plus sending these expressions to the office of Judge Meinerzhagen;] her conduct before Potsdam County Court in the Reineke Trial and others - more “Denial of Holocaust”; and attaching Mahler’s text on “Jewish Thought vs. German Thought” to the Rechtsmittel.

According to Grossmann, the German public is standing with mouth agape in amazement at Sylvia’s conduct and utterances. Imagine such opinions coming from an attorney at law, an organ of the Court in its quest for justice! He says she has a skewed concept of Germany and skewed concept of humanity. He calls her a “fanatical anti Semite” who rejects “Holocaust” trials as “illusionary.” However, it is she herself who is living in an “World of Illusion,” he says. He accuses Sylvia of “perpetuating Germany’s shame” by “standing history on its head” and “depicting victims as culprits.”

He accuses Sylvia of alleging that Jews invented “Holocaust,” as well as denying that the National Socialists attempted to murder all the Jews. Here the public’s murmur of disapproval grows quite loud. Turning to face the visitors’ section, he calls Sylvia a “self proclaimed little Master Racist...” and is drowned out by “boos.” Judge Glenz demands “Order in the Court -- or else!” Giving full vent to his demagoguery, Grossmann turns toward Sylvia and says that she wants “ein Deutschland der brennenden Synagogen!“ - a Germany of burning synagogues.

[On account of this open demagoguery, we intend to register a collective complaint against Grossmann.]

The court is again filled with boos, shouts of outrage and cries of “shameless scoundrel!” Grossmann says that what Sylvia wants is a genocidal Germany, but unfortunately for her, National Socialism is “dead as a mouse” on account of “Holocaust” and this is the reason why she is trying to whitewash National Socialism. Grossmann has worked himself into a frenzy, but he still cannot hold a candle to Judge Meinerzhagen when it comes to rationalizing the basis of a verdict.

Grossmann then tries to quote the Bible but it comes out rather garbled. “Am Anfang jedes Krieges steht das Wort!” - At the beginning of every war is the word - he exclaims. (??) Rather surprisingly, he admits that “different countries deal with the subject of ‘Holocaust’ in different ways.” Presumably he is referring to the recent decision of the Spanish High - Constitutional -Court of 9 November 2007 that declared laws against “Holocaust Denial” to be unconstitutional.

Grossmann then defends Germany’s laws against “Holocaust” Denial, saying “Germany owes a debt to History.” Then he takes up his recommendations for Sylvia’s sentence.

For Count 1 of Sylvia’s indictment he demands 4 months;

for Counts 2 and 3, 18 months; for Count 4, 15 months;

for Count 5, 9 months; for Count 6, 12 months;

for Count 7, 9 months; for Count 8, 8 months;

for Count 9, 9 months, and f

or Counts 10 and 11, 12 months:

Total 96 months! For total sentences running concurrently this comes to 4 years.

In addition, Glenz asks for 5 years disbarment, effective immediately because of the likelihood of repetitions of “Holocaust Denial.” He concludes at 2:33 to a crescendo of outrage at the severity of his proposed sentence. The publics’ remarks are not at all flattering. Even I could not resist remarking in his direction that I expected more decency and substance and less demogoguery.

Glenz then glances in Attorney Bock’s direction, inquiring as to whether he wishes to speak now. Bock declines, saying that he wants to address the matter substantially and consider the closing remarks of the District Attorney’s pleading. Judge Glenz whispers a bit more with Court Reporter Judge Bock and declares today’s session concluded. He announces that the trial will continue on Thursday, 10 January at 9:00 am. The media reporters storm out and the blonde from dpa is soon gesticulating and talking loudly into her cell phone in front of the courthouse, presumably reporting to her bureau.

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


Please note that 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.“

Many thanks to Bill H. in the USA for his contribution to my expenses.
Günter Deckert
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 8. January 2008

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


Mannheimer Morgen, 09. Januar 2008

Stolz-Prozeß: Anklage fordert vier Jahre Haft für ehemalige Zündel-Verteidigerin wegen Volksverhetzung

Staatsanwalt spricht von "Hirnwäsche"

Von unserer Mitarbeiterin Panja Schollbach

Mannheim. Ein ungewohnt flammendes Plädoyer hat der Staatsanwalt gestern im Prozeß gegen die ehemalige Zündel-Verteidigerin Sylvia Stolz gehalten. "Sie vertreten ein Deutschland der Demütigung, Unterdrückung, des Rassismus, der brennenden Synagogen, der Unkultur, der Spitzel, der Denunzianten und der Konzentrationslager", warf Andreas Grossmann der 44 Jahre alten Angeklagten vor. "Das wollen 80 Millionen Deutsche nicht mehr". Seine Strafforderung für die Anwältin: vier Jahre Haft und ein sofortiges, auf fünf Jahre befristetes Berufsverbot.

Es sei ein Irrtum zu glauben, Stolz vertrete eine "schweigende Mehrheit", hieß es in dem rund 30-minütigen Schlußvortrag vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht. Scharf attackierte der Staatsanwalt auch die versammelte Anhängerschaft der Angeklagten als "selbsternannte Herrenmenschen". Für den verbalen Angriff erntete Grossmann empörte "Pfui-Rufe" aus dem mäßig besetzten Zuschauerraum.

Laut Anklage hat Sylvia Stolz als Verteidigerin im Prozeß gegen den Holocaust-Leugner Ernst Zündel den millionenfachen Massenmord an den Juden geleugnet. Zündel war im Februar 2007 vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht zur Höchststrafe von fünf Jahren wegen Volksverhetzung verurteilt worden.

Holocaust-Leugnerin

Die 44-Jährige habe den Holocaust als "die größte Lüge der Weltgeschichte" dargestellt, das Gericht als "Organ der Fremdherrschaft" und Adolf Hitler als "Erlöser" bezeichnet, wie Grossmann ausführlich schilderte. Ein Schreiben an das Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe hatte Stolz außerdem mit dem verbotenen Hitlergruß unterzeichnet. Die Juristin beschwerte sich darin über ihren Ausschluß vom Zündel-Prozeß. Auch in einem Prozeß vor dem Amtsgericht Potsdam soll sich die Anwältin volksverhetzend geäußert haben. "Man steht fassungslos vor den Äußerungen, die die Angeklagte als Organ der Rechtspflege in zwei Prozessen begangen hat", erklärte der Staatsanwalt. Der Lebensgefährte Stolz', der bekannte Rechtsextremist, Anwalt und frühere RAF-Anhänger Horst Mahler habe die Angeklagte vermutlich einer "Hirnwäsche" unterzogen, so Grossmann.

Gestern hatte die Strafkammer sieben weitere Beweisanträge der Verteidigung abgelehnt. "Es geht Ihnen nur noch darum, den Prozeß zu verschleppen", warf der Vorsitzende Richter Rolf Glenz der Verteidigung vor und setzte eine Antragsfrist. In den kommenden Verhandlungstagen gestellte Anträge würden im Urteil beschieden, kündigte Glenz an. Die Plädoyers der Verteidigung werden morgen (9 Uhr) erwartet.

http://www.morgenweb.de/nachrichten/...001996049.html
________________________________

NAZI-ANWÄLTIN / Staatsanwalt fordert vier Jahre Haft

Berufsverbot droht

ULRICH WILLENBERG

Für die frühere Verteidigerin des verurteilten Holocaust-Leugners Ernst Zündel fordert der Staatsanwalt wegen Volksverhetzung vier Jahre Haft und ein Berufsverbot.

Die Staatsanwaltschaft hat für die Nazi-Anwältin Sylvia Stolz gestern eine Haftstrafe von vier Jahren und ein Berufsverbot gefordert. Die 44-Jährige, die Hitler für einen "Erlöser" hält, hatte den Holocaust als "gigantische Propagandalüge" bezeichnet. Stolz hatte 2006 den Revisionisten Ernst Zündel vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht verteidigt und sich dessen wirre Thesen zu eigen gemacht.

Vor Gericht beschimpfte sie Juden als "Feindvolk", das andere Völker "versklave". Schließlich wurde sie wegen wiederholter Störungen von dem Prozeß ausgeschlossen. Einen Beschwerdebrief an die Justiz unterzeichnete sie mit "Heil Hitler". "Sie haben Opfer zu Tätern gemacht", sagte Staatsanwalt Andreas Grossmann gestern vor dem Landgericht Mannheim. Stolz habe sich der Volksverhetzung, der Nötigung, der Beleidigung von Richtern, versuchter Strafvereitelung und Verunglimpfung des Staates schuldig gemacht. Gleichwohl setzte Stolz gestern ihre Hetze fort.

Den Richtern warf sie "talmudische Barbarei" vor. Im Prozeß gegen Zündel hatte sie Schöffen bereits mit "Todesstrafe" gedroht - wegen "Feindbegünstigung und Volksverleumdung". Gegen Stolz laufen weitere Verfahren. "Sie haben ihren Berufsstand in Mißkredit gebracht", sagte der Staatsanwalt. Ein Berufsverbot sei daher "zwingend" anzuordnen.

http://www.hz-online.de/index.php?mo...7e4f3ab2f4c25#
_____________________________________

10.01.2008 14:42 Uhr | aktualisiert: 10.01.2008 14:51 Uhr
"Anwältin von Mahler gesteuert"

Ebersberg – Im Prozeß gegen die frühere Verteidigerin des verurteilten Holocaust-Leugners Ernst Zündel, Sylvia Stolz aus Ebersberg, hat ihr Anwalt gestern auf Freispruch plädiert. Die Angeklagte sei eine tragische Figur, die von ihrem Lebensgefährten *- dem Rechtextremisten Horst Mahler *- gesteuert sei.


Die Staatsanwaltschaft hat für die angeklagte 44-Jährige vier Jahre Haft wegen Volksverhetzung und ein fünfjähriges Berufsverbot gefordert (wir berichteten gestern). Wann ein Urteil ergeht, war zunächst offen. Für kommenden Montag war ein weiterer Termin anberaumt.

Die Juristin Sylvia Stolz hatte den millionenfachen Mord an den Juden in der NS-Zeit im Prozeß gegen Zündel bestritten. Zündel war nach jahrelanger antijüdischer Hetze im Februar 2007 zu fünf Jahren Haft verurteilt worden * die Höchststrafe für Volksverhetzung. Der Staatsanwalt hatte der Rechtsanwältin ,,fanatischen Antisemitismus" vorgeworfen. Auch in einem Verfahren vor dem Amtsgericht Potsdam soll sie als Anwältin den millionenfachen Mord an den Juden währen der NS-Diktatur bestritten haben.

http://www.merkur-online.de/regionen...art8852,877805

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

Day 17
10 January 2008
*****************


In case the Court is unwilling to suspend proceedings, Attorney Bock moves
that he be released from his professional duty to defend Sylvia,
saying that he does not want to serve as a fig leaf for
such a disgraceful and dishonorable show trial.

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


Today there is just one police car, a new Benz Vito, in front of the courthouse.

There are 10 uniformed police agents on duty including two females, one of whom is a Turk with a BRDDR passport. We are back in the large courtroom, where we have to go through X-ray in addition to the other inspections. Is this supposed to create the impression of danger of violent attack by someone? No matter -- it was all quite brisk and routine except for one little problem: I forgot to remove my penknife from my pocket and put it in the storage locker. The Intrepid X-ray Machine discovered my “weapon,“ but fortunately the police did not get overly excited. All I had to do was leave it at the inspection site, and I got it back after today’s session.

In Courtroom Nr. 2, the smallest courtroom, there are two “Staschu“ agents, both familiar faces. After noon they are reinforced with a novice Staschu as well as 5 and sometimes 7 armed police agents, at least one of whom is always female. Their job is presumably to identify onlookers who laugh or clap so that they can be fittingly chastised. There are two representatives of the media, one of whom I previously thought to be reporter for Mannheimer Morgen and replacement for Mack. His name is Ulrich Willenberg and he writes for several newspapers, including the Wormser Zeitung. It turns out that Ms Punja Schollbuch, whom I until now knew only as “the blonde from dpa” was answerable for the two most recent MM articles. Soon another reporter arrives, whom I have never seen, but the “dpa/MM blonde” seems well acquainted with him. Before today’s session begins, there is lively and relaxed chitchat between District Attorney Grossmann and the “poodle media.”

There are at least 60 visitors today, including Horst Mahler and the faithful Berliner member of the Zündel Brigade. The elder lady member of the Jewish Community is also here again. We get into a conversation and she tells me she is a member of SPD and attended my second Mannheim trial - the “Scandal Trial” - in the court that consisted of Dr. Müller - SPD, Dr. Orlet - former CDU and Frau Folkerts in 1993!

[NOTE: This was the second verdict of Mannheim District Court in conjunction /with the Weinheim lecture given by the American researcher Fred Leuchter in November 1991. My “crime” was serving as interpreter for Fred, and this was NOT an NPD event. I was again sentenced to one year probation and 10,000 DM fine. In addition, the original volume was supposed to be burned, but it was never found. Thanks to the judge’s good opinion of me there was a world wide reaction, which however led to BRDDR’s toughening of Section 130 of Penal Code and increasing the maximum penalty to 5 years.]

I had begun speaking to the lady in the assumption that she is Patricia Bauer, who in the most recent edition of “bnr” - Blick nach Rechts, The View on the Right, which is an informational publication of the SPD published by the Socialist Regional Chairman of Bad Württemberg. Ute Vogt, Member of SPD steering committee, had published a very one-sided report with erroneous content.

Scheduled for 9:00, today’s session finally gets underway at 9:22, with no explanation for the delay. Then comes the “Grand March of the Gladiators” of the 6. Großen Strafkammer - 6th Superior Criminal Court, which really should be accompanied by music from Aida. The Court is present in its usual composition: Presiding Judge Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann - without his bodyguard today - and Sylvia Stolz with her two attorneys. After the Court’s entrance, Sylvia and Attorney Bock announce that they wish to submit three more motions -- in other words, reopen the taking of evidence.

The motions are

1. An article on Judaism;

2. Sylvia’s relationship to National Socialism;

3. An article on the Zündel trial that appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung entitled “Der lange, kurze Weg...” by V. Zastrow.

[As those know who have my reports on the Zündel trial, l include the Zastrow article; it is available for 15 euros, including domestic postage.]

Sylvia resumes her discussion of the District Attorney’s omissions and misrepresentations in his closing argument. For the sake of the visitors, she is trying to introduce honesty and openness into these proceedings and to describe for them the evidentiary motions that Glenz will not allow her to read into the record. This kicks off the familiar game between her and Glenz, known as “submit that in writing!” -- “give it to me!” Sylvia remains calm and does not allow herself to be distracted, even when Glenz turns off her microphone. She continues talking until Glenz again threatens to officially forbid her to speak. She suddenly hands the motion to Glenz while continuing to speak. Judge Glenz then orders that photocopies be made and distributed to the Court.

At 9:30 Attorney Bock begins his closing statement. He begins by recalling the Andersen fairy tale about the Emperor’s New Clothes and explains that this is a story that in former times, when German families were still intact, parents used to read to their children... Bock says this Court is playing the role of the Emperor while those who profess to believe in “Holocaust” are playing the role of the imperial retinue, conducting themselves in a “politically correct” manner. Sylvia is of course the child who calls out loud and clear: “The Emperor has no clothes!”

Bock points out that according to Grossmann, Sylvia in guilty on all counts. He addresses the counts as follows:

COUNT 1: Concerning Horst Mahler as Sylvia’s assistant.
According to Section 145c, this is not a crime. Bock says that he himself often confers with Horst concerning legal problems and that on occasion, he utilizes Mahler’s suggestions in his practice. It is not a punishable act and consequently not a valid indictment count.

COUNT 2: Concerning Sylvia’s use of the phrase “Heil Hitler”. Bock points out that the Court has introduced no evidence to support the allegation that Sylvia posted this expression on the Internet. He says that a great many people could have posted that phrase, including himself. He says that Sylvia did not publicize the message and did not send it to the Meinerzhagen court. The criminal element of having acted publicly is simply not there. Everyone is free to say “Heil Hitler!” in the privacy of his home and some people hang Hitler’s picture on the wall. Consequently this is not a valid indictment count.

COUNT 3: Bock points out that this Court needs to take a close look at Section 130 of the Penal Code! He says that Section 130 exudes repression and despotism and that it is a constant reminder of Germany’s political and moral destitution. We are all familiar with the ancient saying, “Wes Brot ich eß, des Lied ich sing” - I sing the song of him whose bread I eat, and District Attorney Grossmann sings a very loud song indeed!

COUNT 4: The Lüneburger Proceedings. This was the trial of Dr. R. Hennig for disparaging the government. He received a sentence of 9 months and was paroled after 6 months. Bock says he made inquiries in December of 2007 and the presiding judge of the district court informed him that 18 months later, an indictment against Sylvia had still not been submitted. It appears that they are in no hurry! If what the judge said is true, this cannot be used as a count in Sylvia’s indictment.

COUNT 5: The District Attorney charges that Sylvia has been subjected to “brainwashing” by Horst Mahler. If this is true, it obviously serves not only to lessen Sylvia’s culpability, but to absolve her altogether.

COUNT 6: The District Attorney is charging Sylvia with “representing aggressive anti Semitism.” Bock points out that this may or may not be true and even if true, is not a punishable offense. Consequently it is not a valid indictment count.

COUNT 7: Attorney Bock observes that, according to the District Attorney, Sylvia’s culpability is increased by the fact that her opinions and remarks have reached foreign countries. He says that the District Attorney is demonstrating inadequate familiarity with the law when he includes such a count in an indictment. It is precisely the task of an attorney to avoid having a flawed verdict imposed to the disadvantage of his client. How does an attorney avoid such a verdict? By introducing evidentiary motions in order to offset the alleged underlying Offenkundigkeit - Manifest Obviousness. The attorney does this is by presenting new research and new findings such as the article by Fritjof Meyer. Under present BRDDR law, however, the attorney is punished for introducing evidentiary motions and empirical evidence. He says this Court’s basis for rejecting the article by Fritjof Meyer in conjunction with an evidentiary motion is typical of the Court’s procedure. Although the mainstream historian Meyer arrives at a figure of less than a half million victims, both Jewish and non Jewish, the Court still insists on a figure of several million Jews. He calls such a basis for rejecting motions “sloppy and unacceptable.” Such stubborn and unreasoning insistence on numbers contained in an outmoded “Manifest Obviousness” deprives the accused of any and all defense!

Under the provisions of Section 260 Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, Attorney Bock then moves the suspension of proceedings, since exoneration is not possible and the proceedings cannot be called a fair trial. In case the Court is unwilling to suspend proceedings, he requests and moves that he be released from his professional duty to defend Sylvia, saying that he does not want to serve as a fig leaf for such a disgraceful and dishonorable show trial. He points out that his release would not endanger the trial, since the Court has appointed another defense attorney in anticipation of just such a situation. He demands an immediate ruling by the Court and ends his pleading at 9:55, to well deserved applause for his presentation.

Judge Glenz stares menacingly at the public and warns them to desist from expressing approval. He orders no repressive measures, however, which leaves all those police agents with nothing to do. Then he orders a recess until 10:30.
During the recess, Sylvia’s court appointed lawyer joins her friends the “System Lawyers” in their spirited group conversation.

At 10:49 proceedings resume and Judge Glenz asks all members of the Court if they have “taken cognizance” of Silvia’s and Attorney Bock’s motions and explanations, and they all say yes. Then comes Glenz’s inevitable, expected, malicious and long drawn out “NEINNNNNN!!” As always, everything is rejected. Glenz tells Attorney Bock that the Court is not willing to relieve him of his duties because there is no real reason to do so. He says the High Court makes distinctions between Section 130 trials and the actions of defending attorneys.

At 10:51 it is the turn of the court appointed defending attorney to speak. Planted in the Defense over Sylvia’s objections, she begins by saying that she is several years older than Sylvia. She says that she has served merely as an observer during the trial because Sylvia could not or would not confide in her. She says that she nevertheless made an effort to defend Sylvia “since it is her duty to defend everyone?!? She is careful to make it very clear that she “belongs to the community of those who believe in ‘Holocaust.’” She is in fact a “High Holocauster” since she subscribes specifically the “classical, official” and politically correct version of that faith.

She accuses Sylvia of having a deep and basic misunderstanding of the nature of the legal profession. She says that Sylvia conceives of legal defense as though it were “struggle on behalf of her client to the bitter end.” She recites a series of legalistic platitudes and quotations before returning to the subject of “the Stolz Case.” She says that in the Zündel trial, Sylvia behaved like an “Irre” - insane person. Then she corrects this to say Irrende - mistaken person), referring to Sylvia’s argument concerning Nothilfe/Notwehr - emergency assistance / emergency defense. She announces that Sylvia is caught in a Verbotsirrtum - mistake about what is not allowed, which was easily avoidable since Sylvia is very knowledgeable concerning the law. She calls Sylvia an Überzeugungstäterin - evildoer acting from conviction - who is influenced and manipulated by Horst Mahler. She says that during the whole trial the conduct of the Defense was guided from the visitors’ section, where Mahler was sitting: guidance actually came from the rear of the courtroom to the table where Sylvia was sitting. At 11:07 this court appointed lawyer ends her presentation by saying that she regards Sylvia as a tragic figure and hopes she has given the Court grounds for “lightening her sentence.” With court appointed defenders like this, who needs prosecutors? Judge Glenz now asks if all members of the Court have copies of the motions that Sylvia and Attorney Bock submitted this morning. When they all affirm this, he announces midday recess until 1:00.

The afternoon session begins at 1:10 and there are as many visitors as there were in the morning, maybe even more. Even the Staschu brigade has been reinforced. There are now 7 uniformed police in the courtroom, two of which are female, including the Turk with the BRDDR passport. Glenz begins by asking if all members of the Court have “taken cognizance” of Sylvia’s documents and they all say yes. Then he again announces that the submitting of motions has ended. At 1:12 he allows Sylvia to address the Court.

Sylvia begins by discussing remarks made by her court appointed attorney, who was “planted” in the Defense over her - Sylvia’s - objections. She calls this a “swindle in court etiquette” and compares it to “party treachery” in which members of one political party pose as members of a rival party in order to infiltrate and sabotage its deliberations. Sylvia describes collaboration between the prosecutorial Bench, the District Attorney and her so-called defending attorney. She says that her appointed attorney acted as a “second prosecutor,” playing the role assigned to her. She demands an investigation and moves that court proceedings be suspended until Monday. Glenz calls recess until 1:30. At 1:33 he rejects her motion as always, saying her “conspiracy theory” is “eccentric and groundless.” Sylvia demands a photocopy of this ruling and Glenz agrees to provide one “later.”

Then Sylvia explains that she has not seen herself as a defendant in this trial, but rather an accuser -- a kind of prosecutor on behalf of the legitimate government of Germany.

[Numerous experts on state and international law, including Prof. Carlo Schmid, have agreed that the “Federal Republic” is not a legitimate government with a legitimate constitution, but rather an “OMF” or “Organization Form of a Mode of Foreign Domination.” Under international law the government of the Reich did not simply disappear with the unconditional surrender of the German armed forces.]


Acting as “prosecutor on behalf of the Reich” she accuses the Fourth Superior Criminal Court of Seelenmord am deutschen Volk - Cultural Genocide Against the German Nation. She says the Court is perverting and repressing the truth with the cudgel of “Holocaust,” making a mockery of justice. Her trial has made clear the criminal absurdity of prosecuting “Holocaust Denial.” How can one deny something that never existed? She says these entire proceedings began as a show trial in a kangaroo court and never progressed beyond that point. The main proceedings were projected with smoke and mirrors and the official fairy tale of “Holocaust” was enforced by undisguised force. She observes that the political intent of the Court is the ultimate eradication of the German Nation and its replacement by a mongrelized and deculturated population of mindless consumers.

Sylvia says she is confident that she has succeeded in exposing this Court to the whole world as an agent that is hostile to the German Nation. By openly and flagrantly violating the law, this Court flees before the truth. Incessantly, like turning a prayer wheel, it has rejected her every evidentiary motion with the cynical pretext of “abuse of court procedure.” It is undeniable that the Court allowed the Defense to introduce no evidence whatsoever! She demonstrates how Subjektiver Tatbestand - subjective allegations) were cynically accepted as though they were Objektive Indizien - objective indicators. Just as she pointed at the beginning, her indictment already contained the entire trial. She has hope and faith that the German Nation will some day bring this treacherous Court to justice.

Sylvia describes how the Defense was forced to accept the contents of the indictment, and this caused the Court’s desired verdict to be the inevitable consequence. In the absence of material evidence, the Court relied on its infantile rulings that “Abuse of Procedure = Criminal Act.” Thanks to this judicial sleight of hand, there was no assumption of innocence and the Court did not have to prove guilt. Throughout the trial the Court pretended that there was no time for discovery. She says that for Judge Glenz, “Discovery” consists of nothing more than gathering personal data, compiling a curriculum vitae and determining whether allegations were actually said or written. That is all there was! The Court made no attempt to even keep up appearances. She points out that all of this is an obvious violation of legal procedure and total disregard of the law. In addition to this the Defense was forced to comply and obey immediately. The Court used the doctrine of “Manifest Obviousness” constantly and ruthlessly, and the Defense was never allowed to point out that there STILL has been no Grundsatzentschedung (- decision on basic principle - by the Bundesverfassungsgericht - High Court - concerning the constitutionality of Section 130!

Sylvia asks: to what is Grossmann referring when he mentions “domestic and foreign” court verdicts? Could he be referring to the Nuremberg show trials? The Allied Military Tribunal was nothing but a postwar Talmudic Inquisition conducted by Germany’s enemies. It featured witnesses with “built-in credibility” and Jewish testimony that could never be questioned or authenticated.

Sylvia points out that the constantly mentioned “historical consensus” can be achieved only by persecuting nonconformists and excluding dissenting points of view, both in Germany and abroad. She observes that Grossmann claims National Socialism is “dead as a mouse” because the stigma of “Holocaust” attaches to it. But this stigma is no wonder since National Socialism continues to be depicted only negatively, as something satanic and criminal, while Germans are stigmatized as a nation of evildoers. She asks: what would people like Grossmann do without the official obligatory fairy tale of “Holocaust?” Her trial has again demonstrated that world political powers are players in the “Holocaust” game - or “Holocaust Industry” as Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls it – he should know, since both of his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the War. This explains why objective historical research is still suppressed, sixty-three years after the end of the War. As an example of ongoing intellectual repression in Germany Sylvia refers to the “Hermann Case” in which a popular commentator was fired for referring to such positive aspects of National Socialism as its family policy and the construction of Autobahns.

Sylvia demonstrates that the Court’s procedural system is very, very simple. It consists of disallowing all evidentiary motions as “abuse of Court procedure,” which is a criminal act. She says that the District Attorney’s closing tirade was beneath all legal criticism, nothing but purest slander and abuse.

[At 2:45, Reporter Willenberg leaves the courtroom.]

Then Sylvia shows how powerful interests profit greatly by inculcating a negative self-image into German society, with their incessant propaganda and brainwashing. If Germans were as evil as Grossmann depicts them, they would long ago have skinned him alive. Here Glenz interrupts and dictates her words to the Court Reporter for inclusion in the court record for future prosecutions, warning Sylvia against further criminal remarks.

[NOTE: Glenz is attempting to convert a theoretical assumption into a criminal act here. He needs to review the grammar of conditional linguistic constructions. Sylvia was obviously creating an unreal condition as shown by her use of the subjunctive mode. Of course, Grossmann would like nothing better than for Sylvia to say “Murdering Jews is a good thing!” However, approval must be also be imputed, in order for an expression be punishable.]


She points out that under the present Talmudic Inquisition, anyone who calls attention to the destructive nature of Judaism can be punished. Glenz tells the Court Reporter to write that remark down as well. Sylvia observes that today, no one is allowed to say anything the least bit derogatory about Jews, and yet the necessary first step toward changing and improving conditions in Germany is recognizing the cause of our malaise. She says that Horst Mahler’s writings provide the proof for this, and she will stand by this assertion. Glenz orders the Reporter: “Put that in too!”



Not to be deterred, Sylvia continues and remarks that Germany now stands under the yoke of world Judaism. Glenz threatens: “We are going to cut off your final address if...” But Sylvia ignores him and says that following World War II, the real criminals took over the world. Glenz growls “I’m warning you!” but Sylvia again urges the public to consider the causes of Germany’s plight and continue gathering and considering the material evidence. She tells the Court that National Socialism is not dead, regardless of how much Grossmann and his ilk wish it were dead. She says that National Socialism represents what is good and enduring in the German spirit. Idealism and patriotism are rigidly suppressed at this time but they cannot be suppressed forever.

Turning toward Grossmann and the Court, she asks: “Is he German?” Or is he perhaps related to that Moshe Grossmann who for four years following the end of World War II continued torturing and murdering German slaves in the East, as the Jewish author John Sack reports in his book An Eye for an Eye?



Then she turns to the Bench and asks: “What about you -- are you Germans?” “German” stands for honor and steadfastness! Think of Deutsche Treue! Nobody can call what is going on in this court as “honorable.” In this court, the only “justice” is inspired by the Talmud!



Addressing the lay judges, Sylvia calls on them to exercise their rights and even now, at this late hour, dare to demand that evidence be heard. She says there is still time to introduce some element of truth into this show trial conducted by this kangaroo court! They should dare to intervene for the sake of the Truth, the German nation and a better world, because what the Court is doing is a crime against Western civilization. Sylvia expresses her faith that history will take its inevitable course and “the truth will win out.” She says that since the trial began she has been prepared for her preordained conviction -- she told them at the beginning that she knew her verdict was handed down, even before her indictment.



To the Bench she says “And you, my high-and-mighty judges, will never again experience inner peace... Your depiction of National Socialism as a criminal system will see to that. You are willing accomplices to the brainwashing and degradation of the German people... Adolf Hitler accurately recognized the Jewish problem, the malevolent power of the Jews in certain respects... Yes, I share the values of National Socialism!”

Glenz blurts out, “I remind you of Section 130! The Court will remember all this!”
Again he threatens to take away her right to speak. Sylvia replies, “If my actions bring a little more light into this dark hour for Germany, then I will gladly go to prison!... It does not bother me that I am officially ridiculed and insulted by this despicable court and atrocious government... My high and mighty judges, you are convicting yourselves, not me.”

At 2:45 Sylvia suddenly hands three additional documents to the Court and announces that Attorney Bock will speak the last word. Glenz looks inquiringly in his direction. However, Bock lets it be known that he does not wish to speak any more today. Glenz announces the end of today’s session with resumption on Monday, 14 January at 9:30. Bock informs the Court that he cannot be present before 1:00 pm, and Judge Glenz announces the final session will take place Monday at 1:00 pm.

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


POSTSCRIPT

I needed over four hours to write up this report, in addition to travel and time spent in court. It is been my experience that within our ranks, the great majority are unfortunately “heroes of the word.” This increases our debt of gratitude to “heroes of the deed” whether they are male or female, large or small, strong or weak, because these are indeed the “salt in our soup.” I refer you to my requests stated in my report of the first day:

Please note that 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.“

Günter Deckert
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 11. Januar 2008

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


Media Reports on Internet

Several newspapers as well as ARD are now reporting on the Stolz trial -- the most comprehensive reports are in Mannheimer Morgen and its subsidiaries. They are available on this website: www.paperball.de

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


Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene5.htm
 
Old February 1st, 2008 #11
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Day 18

Sylvia Stolz
GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany
November 2007 - January 2008
Days 18


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


JUDGEMENT


_______________________________

Day 18 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
In Mannheim Kangaroo Court, 14 January 2008
Sylvia’s Verdict, Sentencing and Arrest


Hail Sylvia!


In case the Court is unwilling to suspend proceedings, Attorney Bock moves that he be released from his duty to defend Sylvia, saying he does not want to serve as a fig leaf for such a disgraceful and dishonorable show trial.

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


“In the Name of the People!” - Yes, But Which People?

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

Introduction: Several hours have now passed, but I still cannot believe what I witnessed between 1 and 2 O’clock this afternoon. Perhaps I am a bit slow to catch on; but I could never have anticipated, even in my wildest dreams, what those three BRDDR judges did to Sylvia. When I arrived in Mannheim before 9 am I did notice that there was a larger than usual number of police vehicles - 3 paddy wagons - parked in front of the courthouse. However, I assumed this was because of the larger than usual crowd of visitors and reporters. As it turned out, the reason for the massive show of force was something quite different. It was the spectacular arrest of Attorney Sylvia Stolz immediately upon the reading of the verdict, which was staged as a “photo op” for maximum coverage by the “poodle media.”

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

THE DAY’S EVENTS: Today the usual “security” fun and games begins early on account of the crowd and is carried out without incident. Courtroom Number One, the big one, is filled to overflowing with some visitors having to wait outside. Horst Mahler is in he audience as well as Andreas from Berlin and a large number from far away, including Claude from Paris, our French translator. There are at least a dozen representatives of the mainstream media who have ignored Sylvia’s trial, except for publicizing government commentary. Rhein-Nekar TV is among those present today. The only familiar faces are “Gorilla” of BILD, the blonde from dpa - Deutsche Presse Agentur, Mack from Mannheim Morgen and someone named Willenberg, an independent journalist who covered the last week of the trial. There are 6 “Staschu” [Staatschutz = political police: the updated equivalent of the old “Stasi” - Staatsicherheit - of DDR days] as well as 3 armed bailiffs and 8 uniformed police agents in the courtroom, more armed agents and more intimidation than usual. Several apprentice jurists or interns are also present. They are students preparing for their second state exam, sitting in the section reserved for official reporters. Sylvia is here with her two attorneys, as is District Attorney Grossmannn.

Scheduled to begin at 1:00, the session gets underway at 1:04 as judges Glenz, Bock and Lindeman come marching in. Glenz immediately blurts out “In the Name of the People...”

[Which “people” does he have in mind? I doubt very seriously that these BRDDR functionaries would get away with sending Attorney Sylvia Stolz to prison and disbar her from practicing law if the German people had anything to say about it! Incidentally, I read on Friday that Judge Schwab, who presided over the trial of Germar Rudolf, sentenced a REAL criminal to three years in prison for raping a seven-year-old child!]

Sylvia protests against Judge Glenz’s bullying and makes one last attempt to submit an evidentiary motion. Glenz, who did not allow a single evidentiary motion during the whole trial, responds with his inevitable NEIN! For some time Sylvia continues protesting while Glenz continues threatening, both speaking at the same time. Sylvia’s attorney Bock does not give the final address, as was agreed last session. Everyone has to stand up as Glenz reads the verdict and the sentence. Sylvia is found guilty of coercion, disparagement of the state, and illegally consulting with Attorney Horst Mahler. The Court sits down and everyone else is allowed to sit as well.

Glenz reads through his Begründung - grounds or basis, reason for judgment - for the sentencing, beginning with Sylvia’s disbarment. For the regular visitors there is nothing new in this. The verdict and sentence have been obvious from the beginning, from Glenz’s rejecting all of Sylvia’s motions. Glenz recites his official fairy tale about “historically proven state organized genocide of Jews,” which was “proven” by the victors of World War II during the Nuremberg show trials. Next, he devotes considerable time to condemning “false and unsubstantiated Revisionist historiography,” the “Revisionist conception of mankind,” and Revisionists themselves. Glenz says that Revisionists hide, omit, lie and even deny “Holocaust.” He says they call it a lie made up by Jews.

Then he takes shelter under the umbrella of Section 130 of the BRDDR Penal Code, the source of his despotic powers. Section 130 reads as follows:

[Section 130 Incitement of the Masses

Any person who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace, assails the human dignity of others in that he

1. provokes hatred against sections of the population;

2. calls for the commission of acts of violence or the taking of arbitrary measures against the; or

3. vilifies, maliciously disparages or defames them;

shall be liable to imprisonment of not less than three months or more than five years.]

Glenz charges that Revisionists are not willing to accept and acknowledge official Offenkundigkeit - Manifest Obviousness. Then he says their “perverted picture of mankind” ultimately leads even to questioning the legitimacy of the BRDDR!

[Here we have it – “Das ist des Pudels Kern!” as Faust would say -- the question of the legitimacy of the present regime. The political elite has always known the BRDDR lacks legitimacy, and now this realization is spreading throughout the general population.]

Then Glenz tries to compare Auschwitz and Dresden, saying there is no more rubble and the Frauenkirche has been rebuilt, but he apparently loses his train of thought. He proudly emphasizes that he has consistently forbidden the introduction of documentary, empirical, or forensic evidence in Sylvia’s trial. He says that Sylvia, a defender of Revisionists, deliberately acted in a disruptive manner. In fact, she continues to do so, and to deny “Holocaust” as well.

Glenz says there is a danger she will continue her criminal activities. He says that German society can be protected only if she is immediately disbarred.

Then Judge Glenz talks about the legal bases for his verdict. Several counts of her indictment did not come under Section 130, such as collaborating with Horst Mahler, disparaging state organizations and functions with expressions such “Show Trial” and “Talmudic Inquisition,” and by comparing this trial to the Nuremberg Military Tribunal. “Coercion,” another of the counts that did not come under Section 130, refers to Sylvia’s admonition that under international law the BRDDR is not a legitimate government, since the victors of World War II never signed a peace treaty with Germany. The puppet governments they imposed were never approved by plebiscite, therefore the laws of the Reich are still the legitimate government, even though the Reich in unable to enforce its laws at present. Sylvia’s reference to Feindbegünstigung - Aid and Comfort to the Enemy - presumably refers to Laws 90a and b of Reichsgrundgesetz - Basic Laws of the Reich.

Glenz announces that Sylvia is exonerated on the count of filing an illegal complaint following her forcible ejection from the Zündel trial, since “culpability” could not be confirmed. Again, there is nothing new here. Glenz says the Court has taken into consideration Sylvia’s “deficient sense of legal accountability” that resulted from Fremdsteuerung - manipulation - by Horst Mahler. He opines that she does indeed evince Sektiererverhalten - sectarian conduct, but says that this conduct is not delusional since she is able to go about her daily tasks unassisted. He says the Court considered the Sylvia has no previous convictions, but then calls her stubborn willful. He says that in the Zündel and Reinecke trials she deliberately exceeded limitations placed on the Defense by the High Court, as was demonstrated in the Reinecke trial before Potsdam County Court. He says the total composite sentence, derived from a basis of two years incarceration plus corresponding fines, amounts to a total of three and a half years incarceration. Glenz accompanies this announcement with customary legalistic obfuscation. He says that no comprehensive appeal is possible to the High Court. The only possibility is consideration of possible procedural errors, and the appeal must be submitted within a week. After preparation of the written verdict, one month will be allowed for the grounds of appeal.

Then comes the shocker: Glenz reads a warrant for Sylvia’s immediate Untersuchungshaft - investigatory arrest - and the police haul her off! Suddenly it becomes clear why there are so many unformed police at the courthouse today. While the media were present, the government wants to intimidate the public with the spectacle of another wrong thinking Revisionist being hauled off to prison. It’s like having Germar Rudolf hauled in and out of court in chains, during his trial.

The Glenz’s ostensible reasons for “busting” Sylvia in court are as follows.

1. Her disbarment leaves her without a source of income. Perhaps our benevolent BRDDR is afraid Sylvia would have to walk the streets, and this is its newest version of guaranteeing her existenzielle Grundsicherung - social welfare. The government takes away her livelihood and locks her up and the taxpayer can support her in one of its ‘prison shelters” rather than a homeless shelter. When I was in Bruchsal Prison ten years ago, each prisoner was costing the taxpayer over 2500 Euros, around $5000, per month, and that amount has increased considerably. It would easily provide for four individual households.



2. Glenz rules that there is continuing danger to “Society” that Sylvia will continue her revisionist agitation. She herself has said she would do so.

For many years Sylvia has agitated for freedom of speech, open investigations of “Holocaust,” demand for a peace treaty with the victors of WWII, a convention to draw up a real German Constitution, etc. This must be avoided at all costs, because it would put the BRDDR out of business!



3. Glenz says that there is a real danger of Sylvia’s absconding, since she has no firm domestic ties. He says that Horst is just a companion, and he, too, is going back to jail for saying “Heil Hitler.” Furthermore there are still foreign countries that have not yet outlawed freedom of speech, whose citizens might assist Sylvia in continuing Revisionist activities. He specifically mentions Mrs. Ingrid Rimland Zündel in the US and Dr. Fredrick Töben in Australia.
________________________

We assume that Sylvia will be taken to Heidelberg Prison, where her address will be: Oberer Fauler Pelz (JVA), (D) 69117 Heidelberg. Horst Mahler says he will keep us posted concerning new developments and Sylvia’s visiting privileges. As far as I know, Attorney Ludwig Bock will continue as her attorney.
___________________________

ACHTUNG! - Warning to German Readers!

Do not allow your outrage to make you “pour your heart out” in expressing your indignation to the Glenz court. These high and mighty BRDDR judges have a very thin skin! They are easily offended, and they have draconian powers under the provisions of Section 130. An example of this is another upcoming trial in Mannheim Kangaroo Court. In addition to the trial of Attorney Jürgen Rieger of Hamburg, Mannheim KC is preparing to stage a “lesser trial” against a former airplane pilot who wrote an indignant letter to Judge Meinerzhagen a.k.a. “Doctor Nein.” Doctor Nein himself filed the complaint, and he wants to fine the indignant airplane pilot 5,000 Euros, US$8500.

The pilot is contesting Dr. Nein’s charges, so there is going to be another “Section 130” trial in April or May. This one will be in Mannheim County Kangaroo Court rather than Mannheim District Kangaroo Court. County courts have just one judge, and this one will presumably be Judge Nein. This time it will be possible for the pilot to appeal to District Kangaroo Court as well as other courts, which promises great fun for BRDDR judges and great expenses for BRDDR taxpayers. The rationale seems to be that, since the Deckert-Leuchter Trials of 1991–95, Mannheim has to maintain its pre-eminent position among kangaroo courts.

Günter Deckert - Weinheim an der Bergstraße den 14. January 2008

__________________________

About Günter Deckert

Günter, born in Heidelberg in 1940, is a former secondary school instructor in English and French. In 1989, on basis of Berufsverbotsgesets - law forbidding employment of ex-convicts - he was denied his retirement benefits after being fired by Baden Württemberg School District. This was in clear violation of state pension guarantees. Consequently his retirement income is less than 1/3 of what his pension would be if it had not been illegally revoked. Günter was a member of Weinheim City Council affiliated with the NPD - National Party - from 1976 – 99 and a member of Weinheim County Council 1989 – 99.

On account of his conviction under Section 130 he was not allowed to run for political office until 2005. In 1976 he was declared an Honorary Citizen of Michigan City in the USA for his contributions to German American Friendship Committee, specifically in connection with student and youth exchanges. He was a participant on the Olympia trip of German Youth Athletics in Rome 1960 as Region Champion from North Baden. There is more information about Günter in Wikipedia, much of it unfortunately incorrect. A detailed curriculum vitae is available on request, in either German or English.

__________________________

I wish to express my thanks to translators J. M. Damon in Austin, Texas and Claude Virieu in Paris for their generous contributions of time and effort. They have helped to break the “Conspiracy of Silence” of the mainstream German media, who either ignore “Holocaust” trials or restrict their reporting to politically correct commentary approved by the BRDDR. I wish to thank all those who, each in his own way, have contributed to the effort of publicizing the Stolz trial by posting my reports on their homepages and websites and printing them in newsletters and newspapers, so that the world can learn of the injustices performed on the stage of Mannheim Kangaroo Court.

Thanks to all my friends and sponsors, without whose encouragement and economic assistance I could not have reported on this trial!

________________________

Hail Sylvia!

A Personal Note about BRDDR Prisons: I am personally familiar, from the inside, with the prisons in Mannheim, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Tübingen, Heimsheim bei Pforzheim, Asperg Prison Hospital near Ludwigsburg and especially Bruchsal. My familiarity with the System allows me to appreciate the ordeal and the predicament of Sylvia Stolz. I am speaking on behalf of many German patriots when I express my highest regards and sincere appreciation for Sylvia’s efforts. I hope and pray that she may continue to persevere, because the “System” will leave no stone unturned in its attempt to break her. I hope and pray that she will be able to return to our patriotic Revisionist community healthy and undaunted in body and spirit.

_________________________

A Final Note

Please note that my reports 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.“

G.D.

_______________________________________

Holocaust revisionist's lawyer jailed
Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:18:35

A German court has sentenced the former lawyer of Ernst Zündel to three and a half years in prison for denying the Holocaust herself.
In addition to 3 1/2 years in prison, Sylvia Stolz has also been banned by the court from practicing law for five years.
During the trial of the Holocaust revisionist scholar, Ernst Zündel , Stolz called the Holocaust "the biggest lie in world history".
Stolz has reportedly read a newspaper article to the court about the appearance of world renowned Israeli artist, Gilad Atzmon in Bochum.
In a public statement, Atzmon is quoted as having said that the written history of the Second World War and the Holocaust are a "complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists".
Stolz represented 67-year-old Zündel in his first trial in Germany and was banned from the court for allegedly trying to sabotage the proceedings.
Zündel's second trial ended in February, 2007 with his conviction for denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to the maximum five years in prison.
MT/BGH http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020604

Holocaust-Leugnung: Sylvia Stolz noch im Gerichtssaal festgenommen und abgeführt

Ein letzter Hitlergruß

Von unserem Redaktionsmitglied Steffen Mack

http://www.morgenweb.de/nachrichten/...002020752.html

Mannheim. Es sollte ihr letzter großer Auftritt sein. In blauem Kostüm und hohen Stiefeln sitzt Sylvia Stolz vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht. Rund 100 Zuschauer sind zur Urteilsverkündung gekommen, die meisten offenkundig rechtsextremistischer Gesinnung. Eine dreiviertel Stunde später wird sich Stolz per Hitlergruß von ihnen verabschieden. Aber bis dahin ist ihr selbstgefälliges Lächeln verschwunden.

Dieser letzte Verhandlungstag beginnt so, wie die meisten davor verlaufen sind. Als der Vorsitzende Richter Rolf Glenz das Wort ergreift, quakt die Angeklagte dazwischen, will wieder Anträge stellen. Eine Weile reden beide gleichzeitig. Stolz schweigt erst, als Glenz ihr droht, sie aus dem Saal entfernen zu lassen.

Nicht zurechnungsfähig?

Dabei dürfte Stolz auch das Urteil die Sprache verschlagen haben: dreieinhalb Jahre Haft plus fünfjähriges Berufsverbot als Rechtsanwältin. Stolz zeige "fanatischen Hass gegen alles Jüdische", bestreite den millionenfachen Mord während der NS-Zeit wider besseres Wissen, volksverhetzende Äußerungen seien ihr "ein wesensbestimmender Grundreflex", so Glenz. Als Verteidigerin des Holocaust-Leugners Ernst Zündel habe sie Richtern und Schöffen am Mannheimer Landgericht mit der Todesstrafe gedroht - wegen "Feindbegünstigung" gemäß den laut Stolz nach wie vor gültigen Gesetzen des Dritten Reiches.

Glenz erinnert an Stolz' Schlußwort, in dem sie Adolf Hitler einen "Erlöser" nannte und mit Jesus Christus verglich. Wer so rede, gelte im landläufigen Sinne als "nicht zurechnungsfähig". Das Gericht interessierten indes nur strafrechtliche Kategorien. Ansatzpunkte für psychische Störungen oder "krankhafte seelische Abartigkeit" oder Ähnliches habe man nicht gefunden.

Mit gefalteten Händen lauscht Stolz zurückgelehnt der Urteilsverkündung. Ab und an ruft sie etwas dazwischen. Glenz verhaspelt sich ein paar Mal. Seine ruhige, bedächtige Art der Prozeßführung wurde von dieser Angeklagten äußerst strapaziert. Obwohl Stolz die Vorwürfe gegen sie im Prinzip nie bestritt, waren 15 Verhandlungstage nötig. Das sei "allein ihre Schuld", betont Glenz. Die 44-Jährige habe alles getan, das Verfahren zu sabotieren.

Überraschend Untersuchungshaft

Das Strafmaß bleibt sechs Monate unter den von der Anklage geforderten vier Jahren. Doch verhängt der Vorsitzende Richter - von Staatsanwalt Andreas Grossmann gar nicht beantragt - sofortige Untersuchungshaft wegen Fluchtgefahr. Zwar habe Stolz wiederholt erklärt, für ihre Überzeugung bereitwillig ins Gefängnis zu gehen. Sie verfüge aber offensichtlich weder über "tragfähige familiäre Verbindungen" noch über berufliche Perspektiven. Überdies sei ja auch ihr Lebensgefährte Horst Mahler nach mehrfachem Hitlergruß zu einer (noch nicht rechtskräftigen Haftstrafe) verurteilt worden. Und bei der internationalen Vernetzung der Rechtsextremen nennt Glenz die Gefahr groß, daß sich das Paar ins Ausland absetze.

Einige jener "Netzwerker" zeigen sich vom Urteil ähnlich geschockt wie die umgehend abgeführte Stolz. Sie beschimpfen beim Hinausgehen Journalisten und andere Prozeßbeobachter. Polizisten drängen dazwischen, ein Mann wird vorläufig festgenommen und zurück in den Saal geschoben. Seine Frau hämmert von außen gegen Tür: "Ich hab' doch nicht einmal den Autoschlüssel . . ."

Eine ältere Dame fragt Grossmann empathisch: "Wo bringen Sie denn die Frau Stolz hin?" "Nach Heidelberg ins Untersuchungsgefängnis", antwortet der Staatsanwalt. Als die Rentnerin verlangt, er möge gefälligst Briefe von ihr an Stolz weiterleiten, schüttelt er den Kopf.

Es dürfte nicht lange dauern, bis Grossmann den nächsten Rechtsextremisten vor Gericht bringt. Das wird wohl der Hamburger NPD-Anwalt Jürgen Rieger sein. Den darf Stolz nicht verteidigen. Vielleicht grüßt sie ihn ja im Geiste mit dem rechten Arm durchs Gitterfenster.

Mannheim / Baden-Württemberg: 15.01.2008

Die ehemalige Zündel-Anwältin Sylvia Stolz soll laut Prozessbeobachter Günter Deckert gestern verhaftet und in die JVA Heidelberg verbracht worden sein.

Stolz wurde gestern im Landgericht Mannheim verhaftet, nachdem sie wegen Volksverhetzung, Verwenden von Kennzeichen u.a. zu einer Haftstrafe von dreieinhalb Jahren verurteilt worden ist. Der gegen die Dissidentin erlassene Haftbefehl umfaßt sieben Seiten und begründet die Untersuchungshaft aufgrund angeblicher Fluchtgefahr.

Unter Vertrauten erklärte Lebensgefährte Horst Mahler, daß man mit so einer Maßnahme gerechnet hätte und die Verurteilte daher auch schon alles Notwenige bei sich gehabt hätte.

Rechtsanwältin Sylvia Stolz wurde zu 3 1/2 Jahren Haft - mit fünfjährigem vorläufigen Berufsverbot - verurteilt und wurde noch im Gerichtssaal nach Verlesung des 7-seitigen Haftbefehls festgenommen.

Die Anzahl der Polizeifahrzeuge (3 Mannschaftswagen) vor dem Gerichtsgebäude gegenüber dem Mannheimer kurfürstlichen Schloß, heute Universität und Amtsgericht, erklärte ich mir mit dem größeren Andrang an Zuhörern wie Medienvertretern, denn es wurde ja das Urteil erwartet. Der Hauptgrund für den Polizeiaufmarsch war jedoch die geplante Verhaftung von Frau Stolz nach der Urteilsverkündung. (...)

Weitere Texte und ein Video von Sylvia Stolz unter:

http://de.altermedia.info/general/sy...107_12574.html

Google Blogs Alert for: Horst Mahler

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Jailed -haigmedia.blogspot.com/2008/01/holocaust-deniers-lawyer-jailed.html

By Jeff(Jeff)
Stolz, the girlfriend of jailed right-wing extremist Horst Mahler, also was banned from working as an attorney for five years. The Mannheim court, explaining its sentence, said Stolz "lives in a make-believe world and wants to restore ...
Media News - http://haigmedia.blogspot.com/

Holocaust-Leugnung: Staatsanwaltschaft Cottbus prüft Verfahren

Stolz legt Revision vor dem Bundesgerichtshof ein

Mannheim. Die Cottbuser Staatsanwaltschaft prüft auch nach der Verurteilung der früheren Verteidigerin des Holocaust-Leugners Ernst Zündel weiterhin ein Ermittlungsverfahren gegen die Juristin Sylvia Stolz. Es gebe Hinweise darauf, daß sich die Anwältin in dem Cottbuser Verfahren gegen den Rechtsextremisten Horst Mahler 2007 der Volksverhetzung schuldig gemacht hat, sagte Oberstaatsanwalt Horst Nothbaum.

Nach antijüdischer Hetze hatte das Mannheimer Landgericht die bayerische Anwältin und Lebensgefährtin Mahlers am Montag für dreieinhalb Jahre ins Gefängnis geschickt. Es verurteilte die 44-Jährige wegen Volksverhetzung und sprach zudem ein fünfjähriges Berufsverbot aus. Die Juristin wurde noch im Gerichtssaal verhaftet. Das Urteil gegen die Anwältin habe keinen Einfluß auf die Prüfung des Ermittlungsverfahrens, sagte Nothbaum.

Die Juristin wird auch den Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) in Karlsruhe beschäftigen. Die Verteidigung der 44-Jährigen habe fristgerecht Revision gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Mannheim eingelegt, sagte eine Gerichtssprecherin.

Zündel war im Februar 2007 zu fünf Jahren Haft verurteilt worden, die Höchststrafe für Volksverhetzung. In Cottbus verurteilte das Amtsgericht den 71 Jahre alten Mahler im November 2007 zu einer Haftstrafe von sechs Monaten ohne Bewährung. Mahler und die Staatsanwaltschaft legten dagegen Berufung ein, die nun geprüft wird. dpa

http://www.morgenweb.de/nachrichten/...002032414.html

Google News Alert for: Sylvia Stolz

Readers Disagree With Sentencing of Holocaust Denier
Deutsche Welle - Germany
Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to three and a half years in prison on charges of inciting hatred for claiming the Holocaust was a lie. ...
See all stories on this topic

Google Blogs Alert for: Sylvia Stolz

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Gets Prison
By CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD...(CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD...)
Sylvia Stolz, who represented Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel at his trial, also was banned from practicing law for five years. During Zundel's trial, Stolz repeatedly disputed the Nazis' mass murder of Jews, called for hatred of the ...
CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE... - http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/

German lawyer get 3.5 year jail time for denying Holohoax
Attorney receives 3 1/2 years Fire-ball attorney Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in jail and banned from the practice of law for 5 years.
World War II - http://boards.historychannel.com/forum.jspa?forumID=101

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Gets Prison
By Judy Cross
Sylvia Stolz, who represented Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel at his trial in Germany was convicted for denying the genocide herself and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison. She also may not practice law for 5 years. ...
Care2 News Network - Newly Submitted - http://www.care2.com/news/submitted/

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Gets Prison
Sylvia Stolz, who represented Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel at his trial, also was banned from practicing law for five years.
WhatReallyHappened.com - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Kaminski: Control of your mind
By Stophypocrisy
The lawyer Sylvia Stolz, asks: ?Is it even possible to indict a defense attorney for taking his or her professional obligation seriously and doing everything possible to meet those obligations? If the answer to ...
- http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog

Google Web Alert for: Sylvia Stolz

Sylvia Stolz — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress
Blogs about: Sylvia Stolz ... Find other items tagged with “sylvia-stolz”:. Technorati Del.icio.us IceRocket · Terms of Service · Privacy · Support · Stats ...

Sylvia Stolz, German Lawyer of Ernst Zundel Sentenced To 3-1/2 ...
German lawyer of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel sentenced to 3 1/2 years (http://canadianpress.google.com/arti..._pimgT9HAXPcIA ) Jan 14 ...

Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene6.htm
 
Old February 1st, 2008 #12
Robert Bandanza
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: JUDEAware, originally MassaJEWsetts
Posts: 8,901
Default Re: Sylvia Stolz

Quote:
The following comments reflect the views of DW-WORLD.DE readers. Not all reader comments have been published. DW-WORLD.DE reserves the right to edit for length and appropriateness of content.

It is entirely appropriate for both the lawyer and Zündel to be charged, convicted and sentenced for such behavior. The law about hate crimes is important for the prevention of the adoption of attitudes which might encourage racist attacks. There are limits to free speech and this is a good limit. Just like other free-speech limits, like not calling out "fire" when there is not a fire, this one is appropriate. -- W.J. Arnold, Canada

Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and the freedom to think? Is this the so-called democracy promoted by the EU? If so, one can understand when people turn to alternative forms of government. -- Arden Knapp, United States

How is it "hate" to suggest there is evidence that millions of people were not murdered? That would be good news, not hate. Hate is accusing Germans of being homicidal murderers and denying them a chance to examine the evidence and offer a defence against the charges. If revisionist arguments are wrong they should be subjected to peer review in a public forum, not jail. -- Kurt Bechle, United States

The earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese...no doubt about it. Am I subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment under German law? -- Dexter P. Huntington, United States

I am shocked that in what I always thought to be "liberal" and "open-minded" Europe, anyone could be convicted for voicing an opinion regarding history. Everything else historical is fair game for honest examination, why should this be an exception? Was Gallileo right or wrong to question the official teaching regarding the orbits of the earth and the sun? In the celebrated "Scopes Monkey trial," here in the US, I've always seen John Scopes portrayed as a hero who dared to question the official line. Should he have been tried and imprisoned for doing so? How is this different? People should be either allowed to question everything, or else they should be prohibited from questioning anything. If honest questioning verifies the accepted beliefs, then they'll stand on their own legs. If not, then let them crumble. -- Dominique Amarante, United States
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...059913,00.html
 
Old February 2nd, 2008 #13
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Sylvia Stolz - Last Words In Court

Sylvia Stolz's Last Words in Court


Posted by Freedom One on Sunday,
January 27th at 12:04 PM


Freedom in 'democratic' Germany!?


Sylvia Stolz's Last Words in Court

German Patriot Defence Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 3 and-a-half years in prison and disbarred for 5 years - such is freedom in 'democratic' Germany.

Below Sylvia's comments to the court.

She says the Court is perverting and repressing the truth with the cudgel of "Holocaust," making a mockery of justice. Her trial has made clear the criminal absurdity of prosecuting "Holocaust Denial." How can one deny something that never existed? She says these entire proceedings began as a show trial in a kangaroo court and never progressed beyond that point. The main proceedings were projected with smoke and mirrors and the official fairy tale of "Holocaust" was enforced by undisguised force. She observes that the political intent of the Court is the ultimate eradication of the German Nation and its replacement by a mongrelized and deculturated population of mindless consumers.

Sylvia says she is confident that she has succeeded in exposing this Court to the whole world as an agent that is hostile to the German Nation. By openly and flagrantly violating the law, this Court flees before the truth. Incessantly, like turning a prayer wheel, it has rejected her every evidentiary motion with the cynical pretext of "abuse of court procedure.".....She has hope and faith that the German Nation will some day bring this treacherous Court to justice.

Sylvia describes how the Defense was forced to accept the contents of the indictment, and this caused the Court's desired verdict to be the inevitable consequence. In the absence of material evidence, the Court relied on its infantile rulings that "Abuse of Procedure = Criminal Act." Thanks to this judicial sleight of hand, there was no assumption of innocence and the Court did not have to prove guilt.

Sylvia asks: to what is Grossmann referring when he mentions "domestic and foreign" court verdicts? Could he be referring to the Nuremberg show trials? The Allied Military Tribunal was nothing but a postwar Talmudic Inquisition conducted by Germany's enemies. It featured witnesses with "built-in credibility" and Jewish testimony that could never be questioned or authenticated.

She asks: what would people like Grossmann do without the official obligatory fairy tale of "Holocaust?" Her trial has again demonstrated that world political powers are players in the "Holocaust" game (or "Holocaust Industry" as Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls it * he should know, since both of his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the War.) This explains why objective historical research is still suppressed, sixty-three years after the end of the War. As an example of ongoing intellectual repression in Germany Sylvia refers to the "Hermann Case" in which a popular commentator was fired for referring to such positive aspects of National Socialism as its family policy and the construction of Autobahns.

Sylvia demonstrates that the Court's procedural system is very, very simple. It consists of disallowing all evidentiary motions as "abuse of Court procedure," which is a criminal act. She says that the District Attorney's closing tirade was beneath all legal criticism, nothing but purest slander and abuse.....Then Sylvia shows how powerful interests profit greatly by inculcating a negative self-image into German society, with their incessant propaganda and brainwashing. If Germans were as evil as Grossmann depicts them, they would long ago have skinned him alive.

She points out that under the present Talmudic Inquisition, anyone who calls attention to the destructive nature of Judaism can be punished. Glenz tells the Court Reporter to write that remark down as well. Sylvia observes that today, no one is allowed to say anything the least bit derogatory about Jews, and yet the necessary first step toward changing and improving conditions in Germany is recognizing the cause of our malaise. She says that Horst Mahler's writings provide the proof for this, and she will stand by this assertion. Glenz orders the Reporter: "Put that in too!"

Sylvia continues and remarks that Germany now stands under the yoke of world Judaism. Glenz threatens: "We are going to cut off your final address if..." But Sylvia ignores him and says that following World War II, the real criminals took over the world. Glenz growls "I'm warning you!" but Sylvia again urges the public to consider the causes of Germany's plight and continue gathering and considering the material evidence. She tells the Court that National Socialism is not dead, regardless of how much Grossmann and his ilk wish it were dead. She says that National Socialism represents what is good and enduring in the German spirit. Idealism and patriotism are rigidly suppressed at this time but they cannot be suppressed forever.

Turning toward Grossmann and the Court, she asks: "Is he German?" Or is he perhaps related to that Moshe Grossmann who for four years following the end of World War II continued torturing and murdering German slaves in the East, as the Jewish author John Sack reports in his book An Eye for an Eye? Then she turns to the Bench and asks: "What about you -- are you Germans?" "German" stands for honor and steadfastness! Think of Deutsche Treue! Nobody can call what is going on in this court as "honorable." In this court, the only "justice" is inspired by the Talmud!

Sylvia expresses her faith that history will take its inevitable course and "the truth will win out." She says that since the trial began she has been prepared for her preordained conviction -- she told them at the beginning that she knew her verdict was handed down, even before her indictment. To the Bench she says "And you, my high-and-mighty judges, will never again experience inner peace... Your depiction of National Socialism as a criminal system will see to that. You are willing accomplices to the brainwashing and degradation of the German people.... Adolf Hitler accurately recognized the Jewish problem, the malevolent power of the Jews in certain respects... Yes, I share the values of National Socialism!"

Sylvia replies, "If my actions bring a little more light into this dark hour for Germany, then I will gladly go to prison! It does not bother me that I am officially ridiculed and insulted by this despicable court and atrocious government... My high and mighty judges, you are convicting yourselves, not me."
Source:
http://winnipeg.indymedia.org/item.php?10578S
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...7d148088d9ceea
http://twincities.indymedia.org/news...2751/index.php
 
Old March 18th, 2008 #14
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Write Sylvia Stolz

The Civic Platform

My New Heroine: Sylvia Stolz
by Friedrich Braun
January 21, 2008

The valorous Sylvia Stolz has been incarcerated in the prison in Heidelberg, the same one that Germar Rudolf experienced before being transfered, in May 2007, to Ulm, then to Mannheim, and the same prison that held the Flemish revisionist Siegfried Verbeke in 2006. Here is her current address:

Maître - Avvocato - Rechtsanwalt - Lawyer - Abogado Sylvia Stolz
JVA
Oberer Fauler Pelz 1
D - 69117 Heidelberg
(Deutschland)

Correspondents who wish to express their sympathy to Sylvia Stolz should be sure to not make any comments on her trial or her political opinions, or the letters may not be delivered to her. Thank in her name.

Source:
http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008...-sylvia-stolz/
 
Old July 25th, 2008 #15
JohninBasel
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 190
Post Sylvia Stolz Speaks Shortly Before her Trial

This is an older video clip I uploaded with Sylvia Stolz's spoken word translated on the YouTube page (see below)


Quote:
"Hitler and the National Socialists are considered as bad, as the devil.
They have done a few good things, but, in principle they are to be looked on as criminal." Many youngsters think this way and naturally many adults as well.
This question arises, how did all this begin?
For many one of the startings point is Nuremberg!
The Nuremberg Trials were organised by the victorious powers; i.e. the Americans, the English, the French and the Russians.
The rules and regulations adopted for carrying out the war-crime proceedings had been worked out primarily by the Americans in collaboration with the Jewish World Congress under the leadership of the Robinson brothers.
This has been acknowledged; among others Nathan Goldberg wrote about it in detail.
Absolutely new principles were formulated, so-called legal principles which, however, have nothing to do with jurisprudence.
In these legal proceedings the victors were the judges and the accusers.
The defence was basically bogus only - there for appearances sake.
They had virtually no rights and hardly any possibility to fulfil their task.
The defence did not have, for example, access to all court documents.
In the run-up to the case the prosecutors had already excluded certain subjects and facts of the case which were not even permitted to be admitted into evidence. And the defence were explicitly told this.
The submittals, which the defence wanted to introduce in the Nuremberg Trials, were rejected by the so-called judges on the grounds that the evidence had no significance.
In addition, many witnesses were not admitted at all.
One can therefore conclude that decisive, exonerating circumstances and witnesses were not even allowed in the Nuremberg Trials.
Accordingly, the verdict passed corresponded to this, that is as decided from the very start by the victors.
The chief prosecutor, Jackson had made it known prior to the case - and this is recorded in the protocols of the Nuremberg Trials - that these trials were a continuation of the war effort.
That had also been noted, indeed it was clearly noticed!
Moreover, this has also been noticed abroad: many French, Americans, and English have noticed that the Nuremberg Trials were a sham.
Hard judgements were imposed.
For example, Senator McCarthy said it was impossibly to distinguish between the results of the Nuremberg Trials as well as the hanging in the German leaders and an assassination.
A bishop said that with these trials the age of barbarity had begun.
And in truth this has been verified, it is confirmed.
A new era began with these Trials.
The era of sham justice!
The era, in which measures seized by the victorious powers, such as exercising unconditional authority, are dressed up in a legal framework, as though these measures had some sort of legal standing.
And accordingly, one sees this in various so-called war-crime trials conducted in recent years, such as the "trial" of Saddam Hussein.
And also here in Germany we are beginning to experience such trial methods.
Anyone here in Germany who speaks out seriously for the truth, for Germany or for the German people is accused of, and also condemned for, Holocaust denial and incitement. It is simply called agitation against Jews or agitation against foreigners. For example, if someone observes that Jewish witness reports regarding the Holocaust are contradictory in terms or scientifically completely impossible.
Such things apparently may not be asserted.
Within the scope of the Nuremberg Trials everything that would have facilitated clarification was excluded................................ ................

[The talk was cut off at this point and part two quickly removed by YouTube before I could record it]
 
Old July 25th, 2008 #16
JohninBasel
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 190
Post "Sylvia Stolz" (with English Text)

This is a video clip that replaced the video that YouTube removed. The only part to be heard are her parting words...

Quote:
„Das hat mit Recht nicht mehr zu tun...und wir werden uns diesem Unrecht nicht beugen!"
"This has nothing to do with justice ... and we will not yield to this injustice!"
 
Old April 26th, 2009 #17
akkiraj23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
akkiraj23
Default General discussion

Where USENET has fallen tragically short is element 5: "Means of excluding burdensome people." Most USENET clients include "bozo filters" that enable an individual user to filter out messages from a persistently troublesome poster. But there is no collective way for a group to exclude a person who consistently starts irrelevant threads, spams the group, abuses others, or otherwise becomes unwelcome.

With regard to element 6, software extension by community members themselves, USENET has done remarkably well. USENET servers and clients tend to be monolithic C programs where small modifications can have catastrophic consequences. On the other hand, the average user of the early Internet was a skilled software developer. So if not every USENET user was a programmer of USENET tools, it was at least safe to say that every programmer of USENET tools was a user of USENET.
==============================

akhil

==============================

Lawyer Directory-
 
Old February 2nd, 2013 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[fromm]

Free Speech Lawyer Sylvia Stolz Threatened With Prosecution in Switzerland

A great woman. Miss Stolz was sentenced to three years and three months in prison for her spirited defence of political prisoner Ernst Zundel in 2005.

On November 24, she was a guest speaker at the 8th Anti-Censorship Conference held in Chur, Switzerland. She spoke of the difficulties lawyers have in defending Europe's new heretics -- those who express doubts about the so-called holocaust. One can deny God, even deny science, believe in creatures from outer space, but to question Europe's new state religion of holocaust is to invite persecution, heavy fines or prison. She reflected on the fact that "holocaust" is not clearly defined and that many of the tenets of this new religion have not actually been proven in court.

Well, all hell broke loose. The organizers of the Civic Hall at which the meeting was held have been told they cannot rent it again. An investigation is under way to see whether any "far right" literature was distributed. In this video Sylvia Stolz explains that "far right" is widely used by the politically correct to label any nationalist who stands up for his "volk" or people. Now, there are calls for criminal charges of "casting doubt on the holocaust" to be laid against Miss Stolz and conference organizer Ivo Sasek. Already, a Swiss lawyer has filed a complaint against Miss Stolz.

A politically correct Inquisition holds sway over much of Europe, where a new secular religion -- another group's tribal history, is imposed upon the populace. Anyone who suggests that some of the religion's claims seem exaggerated or impossible is not argued with but prosecuted and jailed. Further, any lawyer too vigorous in the heretic's defence faces jail or disbarment. A new Dark Age has descended over a Europe that grins like the village idiot (or, perhaps, more politically correctly 'mentally challenged person') and considers itself a champion of democracy and human rights.

In this video (English sub-titles) German lawyer Sylvia Stolz replies to her critics as rumours swirl that she will be charged (again) with 'Holocaust Denial' for a speech she gave at an anti-censorship conference in November 2012.

 
Reply

Tags
sylvia stolz, white heroine

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.
Page generated in 0.46253 seconds.