15 March 2007 - Deckert Report- English

-----Original Message-----
From: W.G. MUELLER - wilger@rogers.com

Sent: Saturday, 17 March 2007 1:24 AM
Subject: translationDeckertRptonGRuFINALACT
Dear Friends,

Another Victory for Revisionism. The enemy has revealed its face and it is not pretty, but ignorant, arrogant and brutal. All submissions for Proof of Facts were rejected and Hearing of all Experts denied. At least one of his books "Vorlesungen.." will be burned in the most "democratic" Germany that ever existed. The income from it will be stolen from him by the State - to send to Israel ?

His dignity was violated by applying handcuffs when presenting him to the court. Boy, are they ever afraid of the TRUTH in Germany.

A few more policemen than normal (are present), (performing) the usual controls, which were handled generously throughout. - The interest of the media, as well as that of the audience, was limited. – In front of the Great Hall (there were) two camera teams, among them one from the Berlin Bureau of the Arab Broadcaster “ Al Jasira (?), no inside photographs. No Press Photographers outside or inside the Hall. From the scribbling Guild there were seven persons present, among them the scribbler from the “Mannheimer Morgen” (MM).

Start was scheduled for 16:15 hrs., actual start was already at 16:19 hrs. Only a few (members of the) audience rose, when G. Rudolf (GRu) appeared in the Hall shortly before the Court came out of the “Catacombs”.

Present, besides State prosecutor Grossmann were (defense) lawyer Bock and the man from the Bossi-Bureau, seven policemen and a court clerk – all armed. Further, one of the known “stachu” (State Security Police) people.

Others present were about 50, among them Three female beings from the Antifa-/Jewish (?) corner, including the well known Hunchback. – A few (people) had traveled a long way, among others from the Greater Paris area (Claude Marc), from Berlin, from the Greater Stuttgart area, from Hamburg. For the first time in a Mannheim Trial, Frank Rennicke with his wife, were seen. – Lawyer Stolz did not come (anymore), nor Dr. Kosiek (Grabert Publisher).

As the Court, in its known configuration, entered the Hall, everyone had to rise, obeying “good manners”, since remaining seated would be interpreted as Contempt of Court (T1), who after all is (supposedly) dispensing Justice in the “Name of the People”. As a Rule, (disobedience) will normally be punished with an appropriate penalty.

1. 30 months incarceration – the same measure as demanded by the State prosecution;

2. a fine of Euro 21,600 ( for the sale of 720 copies of “Vorlesungen ueber den Holo…” (“Readings on the Holo…”);

3. confiscation of Vorlesungen über den Holocaust... , which means their destruction, (T 13); it makes it difficult to obtain any copies. –

- GRu is a recidivist (Judgment of 1995, County Court Stuttgart, 14 months for the “Rudolf-Expert Report”)

- All criteria of paragraph 130 were fully met; - against the truth, he is denying the holo…and has thereby insulted the memory of the dead. He continues in the known style of the Holo… promoters.

- Freedom of Speech does not apply, since according to the Basic Law, it can be restricted for the protection of Third Persons (T14), and the “bddr” (German Bundes Democratic Republic) is going this route, since it cannot be argued with.

- Also, section 5 of the Basic Law re Freedom of Sciences is not applicable, since he is not and has not worked in a scientific (T2) manner. He has only evaluated (the work of) others (T3) and pretended that he alone has “eaten all wisdom by the spoonful” (T4). “Don’t take yourself as being important!” (T5). The State prosecutor has already told him that and this is correct.

- Schwab defends the interpretation of the term “Science” by the Constitutional Court (T6) in Karlsruhe, which GRU had attacked very forcefully. The formulation of the Constitutional Court was very successful. (T7). In a general sense he said: “…. Scientific is that whatever serves the uncovering of the Truth in Form and Content.” (T8). Only Courts alone are in a position to evaluate the question of proper scientific rigour (T9).

- For further supporting (arguments) Schwab cites from several places in “Vorlesungen...” and tears them apart and hits them, without getting too excited, around GHRu.’s ears. - Out of mercy, one has taken into account, that (GRu.) has avoided to be putl before someone else’s cart, as well as his declared intention, via the (Bossi-) lawyer, that he wishes to withdraw and lead a normal family life. He can do this, as long as he observes the norms of the German Penalty Code.

- For the penalty finding it was taken into consideration, that he has confessed to the deeds when viewed objectively and subjectively (T10). In order to reduce the penalty, it was further weighted that he is sensitive to incarceration and is missing his family (in the USA).

- Increasing this penalty is the relevant previous penalty (County Court Stuttgart), that he earned his living from Revisionism (T11) and that he used the possibilities of the Internet (T12).

- For the Deed # 1 (Internet) 20 months were “forgiven” for “Vorlesungen...” 22 months. Out of this, a total penalty of 36 months was fashioned, which was appropriate as a penalty for the guilt.

1) The “Arrest of Things” (because of the sold copies of “ Vorlesungen ...”) is limited to Euro 21,600, the arresting resolution will be cancelled.

Shortly thereafter the lawyer from the Bossi Bureau asked for the floor, after a brief exchange of glances with GRu and declares that one will refrain from the use of further legal means in this matter. Schwab turns to Grossmann. Then he declares after “thinking about it briefly” (?), that the State Prosecution agrees.

Therefore, the Chamber president can now announce the legal validity (2) of this judgment

(1) This means Ueberhaft, which implies that certain limitations will be included during incarceration(it may mean that early release will not be granted and/or additional incarceration will also have to be served).

(2) The following rights are thereby relinquished: a). revision, b) appeal to the Constitutional Court and c) appeal to the European Court for Human Rights in Strasburg/Alsace.

1) This is MY report of today, as I have been able to catch (events) and lived through them. - GRu has not ordered me or empowered me, to compose a report.

2) I do not exclude that I may or may not have caught one or the other thing completely correctly. In the main, I hardly made any error.

3) Whoever uses this report, in any form, in part or as a whole, should mention the source. - Thank you !

4) I do not intend to make a Docu about this Gru-Trial. The way this process went and how GRu behaved, do not warrant such an effort.

5) However, in the next few days, I will record, particularly because of the reaction of Gru., a personal evaluation of this Trial and its actors. Naturally, I already know that one or the other (person) may not like this.- However, every regular visitor to these proceedings is free, even that Lady from the Hannover area, to distribute their own points of view.

6) I am personally very interested, i.e. not me alone, whether GRu.includes and comments in his planned Defense Writ, the Statement by BKA (Federal Crime Bureau) man, Brockmueller, which can be found in the (Court) records. This refers to his Explanations, for which he took several days.

T1. Since Judgment is made in the Name of the People, then, if the people remain seated, the judges would get some idea, how well their judgment is accepted by the people. If these Nellies feel that the people are expressing contempt, they should just live with it. After all, respect by the people has to be earned from them and is without value, if it is imposed.

The idea of being disobedient, when not rising, seems to contradict the idea of saying that judgment is pronounced in the “Name of the People”. Which People ?

T2. All Applications to determine whether or not GRu has worked scientifically were rejected by the Judge. How is the Judge qualified to determine this without any scientific training?

T4. Isn’t this guy witty ? For that he went to law school ? Rudolf never claimed to be “wise”. This “wisdom” is being ascribed to him as yet another smear. “Wisdom” was not at issue at all: Facts were. But it is much more difficult to argue about facts. But this is the typically Jewish way: when unable to refute the facts, ignore, or smear the messenger. Or best beat him up and throw him in Jail.

T5. How and When has GRu claimed to be important ? Never, anywhere. He is enough of a scientist to know that only his qualified peers can make this kind of judgment. And plenty of them have done just that. If he is NOT important, why is he getting penalized ? .

T6. Germany does not have a Constitution. The German People were never asked (e.g. in a Referendum) to approve any Constitution, to this day.

T8. In what sense does GRu.’s work not serve the finding of the truth ? Where and when did he lie, distort, omit, add, overlook, falsify, fake etc any of his evidence ?

T9. Again all Applications to have qualified experts address this question, were rejected by this judge. Judges do not have scientific or historical training and knowledge to be equipped to make such evaluation. How would he like it, if scientists or historians made juridical judgments? This statement alone provides proof for the arrogance, ignorance and madness induced by power, of this judge.

T10. An interesting statement. Does anyone know how one views a confession objectively or subjectively ? If the people do not understand the judge, is it still a valid judgment ?

T11. What is wrong with that ? Lots of Jews are writing books, making movies, hold speaking tours, act as lawyers, journalists etc. etc. on the “Holo....”, so that it has bloomed to a whole industry, as for example Norman Finkelstein, has documented; But a German must not do this ? Different Laws apply to Germans

The Jews urgently need them. ( I can hear the whole Internet world laughing).

T13. What ? Book Burnings in the most democratic State, which ever existed on German soil ?

It is incomprehensible to me, why there were armed policemen in the court room when the Final Verdict was pronounced. What is the State afraid of ? That the TRUTH might inspire some Lovers of the Truth to take some action ? The state reveals it’s true face by this action, which looks ignorant, arrogant, stupid and brutal to me.

Armed police: To protect whom ? the Judge ? Against whom ? He deserved to have at least a few eggs thrown at him for violating Germar’s dignity, when presenting him to the Court in chains !!. This is a violation of the Basic Law which prescribes that a person’s dignity is inviolable !!! Should this not be the case particularly before he is found guilty of anything and/or before he has been sentenced ?

To protect Germar ? Against whom ? maybe he is an important person after all ? in what sense would he be a dangerous man ? He, who never even killed a fly !!!!

In light of the above points, it is too bad, that he is not appealing the verdict. It would have been a great opportunity to give the HIGHER levels of jurisdiction also a chance to reveal themselves as arrogant, ignorant and unjust, assuming that they would most likely not have changed Schwab’s interpretations.

It also becomes apparent, that the pressure on GRu, not to appeal, must have come most likely from the highest judicial and political quarters (see also G.Deckert’s # 2 above), so as to avoid further embarrassing exposition of these (insert a suitable name according to your feelings here; mine would be “fearful cowards and servants of the Bubisrepublik” or even of the European Judicial system).

However, GRu., as a minimum, should have recognized this situation as being in his favour since the same pressure was likely brought to bear on the Judges, including certain consequences for their career, if the Process was not stopped here. But he is not a politician, after all. If he were, he would not have fired Stolz.