The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court
Day 11, 5 March 2007
Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by J. M. Damon
On 5 March, Day 11 of the trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court ended with a thunderclap!
The following events took place:
1. Defense Attorney Sylvia Stolz was dismissed!
2. Attorney Pauls of the prominent Bossi legal firm in Munich appeared alongside Defense Attorney Bock!
3. Defense Attorney Bock withdrew all pending motions that had been filed by Attorney Stolz!
4. Neither Attorney Bock nor the new attorney filed any new motions!
5. Judge Schwab concluded the presentation of evidence and allowed District Attorney Grossman to plead his summarization (more about this below.)
What was going on?
Today’s proceedings had been scheduled for 9 am but did not begin until 9:54.
There was an atmosphere of expectation in the large courtroom.
For one thing, a new face had appeared on the Defense side.
For another thing, Silvia Stolz repeatedly got up from her seat and walked back and forth in an agitated manner.
In addition, Defense Attorney Bock and the new attorney held a long consultation with Germar in the “catacombs” (the cellar containing windowless holding cells for the defendants.)
Tensions mounted, especially when the Defense attorneys visited the judge’s chambers as well.
Germar entered the courtroom one minute before the Court appeared in its familiar composition.
Germar was not in chains today.
After today’s proceedings, Silvia Stolz informed a large crowd that Germar had dismissed her on Friday without giving a reason.
She said she had learned no more about her dismissal until this morning.
Apparently the Defense has been engaged in plea-bargaining with the District Attorney, and this is very probably connected with the entry of the Bossi law firm into the case.
Apparently Germar agreed to fire Silvia and refrain from submitting additional motions in return for concessions by the government.
Apparently the District Attorney agreed to reduce his demand for a five-year sentence (the sentence imposed on Ernst Zündel by Judge Meinerzhagen) by half if Germar would get rid of Silvia.
(Silvia’s relentless pillorying of the “BRDDR” and her insistence that this “vassal regime” is not the legitimate government of Germany – an argument supported by experts on international law as well many members of Federal Parliament -- is a major source of embarrassment for the government. Silvia had represented Ernst Zündel until Judge Meinerzhagen ordered her to be forcibly removed from his courtroom.)
Apparently Germar and the government have reached an American style “deal” or “horse swap” (Kuhhandel in German).
In keeping with this “deal,” District Attorney Grossmann made a very brief summary.
It was not even ten minutes long.
He stated that National Socialist “genocide against the Jews” is a “historical fact” even though Revisionists continue to deny this “fact.”
He stated that the government had proven all the charges contained in Germar’s indictment by quoting from Germar’s Internet postings as well as his widely read book “Lectures on the Holocaust” (available on the Internet at web site <vho.org>), thus meeting the requirements of Paragraph 130 of BRDDR Basic Law.
The District Attorney reiterated several examples taken from the Rudolf-Verbecke thirty page indictment.
(The Court refused to accept the Verbecke case, however.)
The District Attorney described Germar as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and a “crafty denier” of “Holocaust” and accused him of “trivializing National Socialist crimes.”
He claimed that although Germar denied being a National Socialist and anti Semitic, certain of his remarks as well as certain passages from his personal correspondence painted a different picture.
He said Germar is in fact a “serial evildoer” who “spreads lies around the world.”
He said that Germar (who has a PhD. degree in Chemistry from the Max Planck Institute) pretended to be a scientist and liked to compare himself with great men such as Luther, Gallileo and Karl Popper.
He implied that Germar confused himself with Jesus and remarked that he might even believe he could walk on water.
The District Attorney then noted that the Court had scheduled additional proceedings on 20 and 27 March, 23 and 27 April and 8 May but had now adopted a new procedure.
He observed that Germar had already been separated from his family and penalized by incarceration and that a prison sentence of thirty months would be appropriate for his transgressions of opinion.
Defense Attorney Bock dispensed with a summarization.
Defense Attorney Pauls of the Bossi agency then made a short statement, emphasizing the “change in direction” that had come about through Germar’s changing defense attorneys.
He described this as a positive development for all concerned.
He said that future restraint on Germar’s part regarding revisionist matters, as well as the prospect of a peaceful and fulfilling family life, were sufficient reasons why a sentence of twenty four to thirty months would be appropriate.
Since he was the defendant, Germar had the last opportunity to address the Court.
He announced that he had already said all he had to say in his initial testimony, which was over 100 pages long, and he declined to make further statements.
(Regarding the Nature of the Present German Government, Germar’s Defense had earlier maintained that the present “BRDDR” or “OMF” [Prof. Carlo Schmid’s “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule”] is not a legitimate sovereign government but rather a pseudo democratic dictatorship. He had maintained that the present government is a vassal regime imposed on Germany by the victors of World War II, which illegally imposes taboos on its citizens in violation of Article 19 of the United Nations Charter [Declaration of Human Rights]. http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Mahler/Hennig_engl.htm)
Judge Schwab closed the session at 10:45 and announced that he would pronounce verdict on 4:15 pm on March 15.
Weinheim in Baden, 5 March 2007.
Reporter’s remarks: Germar did not authorize this account of today’s session, nor do I have his power of attorney, nor do I need his power of attorney. He does not desire this report to be made.This is my own report on today’s proceedings and it is all I will write at this time. However, I will also report on the verdict when it is announced.
Top | Home
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute