Germar Rudolf Prison Update

 

17 January 2006

 

 

Fredrick Töben Comments on Germar Rudolf’s Imprisonment at Stammheim

 

1. It has to be remembered that the German judiciary is not aloof and apart from the public, as is often the case within Common Law countries. In Common Law countries the judges’ role is to arbitrate between two competing counsels, one for the prosecution and one for the defence. This is the adversarial system of justice, and the prime example of how such system works at its worse was shown to the world when O J Simpson was put on trial for murder – and won because he could afford to pay millions to mount an elaborate defence.

 

2. I am reminded how Professor Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, mounted a multi-million dollar defence against David Irving’s libel action against Lipstadt. Irving had no chance of successfully running such a prosecution case on his own. Justice Gray had to weigh up each argument presented to him and then make a decision as to who was best at presenting his case. Judges are loathe to find in favour of legally unrepresented litigants because usually from such presentations no firm case law can emerge.  I personally once ran my own appeal in a court and won - but then that case remained an unreported appeal case.

 

3. The German-European system of justice is known as the inquisitorial system whereby judges actively engage in the process of finding the truth of a matter. This means that when an individual is on remand the judge assigned to the case is responsible for censoring all in- and outgoing mail.

 

4. High profile prisoners on remand such as Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf - and David Irving in Austria – who receive dozens of pieces of mail a week present a work-problem for judges.

 

5. It does not help in any way to protest at the long delay in mail delivery because often the judge has only one assistant who personally has to take a prisoner’s mail to the post office. When I was in Mannheim prison in 1999 I initially sulked when my judge, Klaus Kern, advised me that he was imposing a limit upon my outgoing mail. He explained to me that he simply did not have the time to post all my outgoing letters, nor did he have the time to censor all incoming letters. A couple of times I was handed unopened letters wherein individuals had enclosed money. I used such notes as birthday presents for fellow prisoners. Though I was never advised formally it was not permitted to have actual physical money in prison. Going shopping at the prison supermarket was a mere signature affair – the total sum being deducted from your prison account.

 

6. Once an accused becomes a sentenced prisoner the situation eases and incoming mail is generally uncensored and always handed out immediately. Although Germar Rudolf is a sentenced prisoner at Stammheim, Stuttgart, his situation is more involved than Ernst Zündel’s case which is set down to begin again at Mannheim on February 2006.

 

7. In addition to being a sentenced prisoner, Germar is also on remand for a forthcoming trial at Mannheim. His current 14-month imprisonment stems from a sentence imposed on him by a Stuttgart court during the 1990s.

 

8. Once he has served this sentence, he is faced with further charges stemming from his having operated his Internet website in the USA, and thereon spreading the Revisionist message. Again, the 2000 appeal in my own case created world legal history when the Karlsruhe court ruled that German law does grip overseas and can pursue anyone anywhere in the world for spreading the Revisionist message via the Internet. The argument that German law should limit itself to Germany only was rejected on grounds that the ‘crime’ is committed wherever the Internet is accessed. Such mindset refused to accept the more logical personal volition argument that Internet access is an activity that an individual engages in voluntarily – the pull-downloading argument.

 

9. Internet traffic is not ‘pushing’ material into an individual’s mind because an individual must actively look for material. Spam emails seem to water down this argument somewhat whereby unsolicited material is received. But this is certainly not the case with websites, though there is that flimsy excuse used in the Federal Court of Australia case against me where it was stated that students browsing or Googling accidentally stumble on to Adelaide Institute’s website and are then ‘upset and offended’ by the material they find there.

 

10. This reminds me of the elderly lady who rushes into the local police station to complain about a man doing ‘dirty things’. When asked where, she replied that it was in her home. An officer accompanied her to her home and found no-one there. She then beckoned him to accompany her to the bathroom, asked him to stand on a chair, then to look out the small window, across the road and into the neighbour’s home where “a man was doing dirty things”.

 

Germar’s constraints

 

11. State Public Prosecutor, Andreas Großmann, with whom I spoke per telephone today to confirm some of the matters mentioned herein - Germany 49 + 6212922334 - advised that Germar’s mail is being censored by Amtsgericht Judge Reemer at Mannheim. This means that any mail sent to Germar at Stammheim is re-directed to Mannheim, and then forwarded on to him at Stammheim, Stuttgart.

 

12. Germar is also not permitted to receive or to make any telephone calls, though I think he can communicate with his lawyer per phone.

 

13. He can receive only two half-hour visits per month, and these are controlled by the State Prosecutor’s Office - Staatsanwaltschaft - at Stuttgart.

 

14. Germar is permitted to receive unlimited mail, and stamps or international postal coupons can be enclosed in letters.

 

15. Within one 12-month period Germar is permitted to receive only three packets – one of choice, one for Easter and one for Christmas. Any other packets are returned to the sender. This imposed limitation makes it imperative that his family has precedent over anyone else sending packets to Germar.

 

16. Germar can receive any number of books, periodicals, newspapers, CDs, etc – but they have to be sent directly to him from the publishers.

 

17. He can play CDs, and they can be sent to him per two firms in Stuttgart, Germany:
Buch& Musik, Häberlinstr. 1-3, 70563 Stuttgart

Weltbild Verlag, Steinerne Furt 70, 86131 Augsburg

 

18. As a prisoner on remand he is permitted to spend 150 Euro per month in the prison supermarket.

 

19. Note: Germar Rudolf does not wish any money to be transferred to his prison account - and he does not wish anyone to collect money on his behalf, nor does he wish anyone to send him money per mail in prison. Any donations - cheques or cash - should be sent to

G. Rudolf,

Po Box 257768

Chicago, IL 60625

USA.

 

20. The above matter is controlled by the prison administration - JVA-Zentrale Stuttgart: Germany 49+711 8022.

 

 

Concluding remark

 

Germar is coping as well as can be expected and he sends his regards to all those who have sent him letters of encouragement.

 

It is still best to write to Germar at the following address:

 

Herrn Germar Rudolf

JVA Stammheim

Asperger-Str. 60

D-70439 Stuttgart

Germany

 

NB: Information also supplied by Günter Deckert

Top | Home

©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute