Sylvia Stolz - GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany, November 2007 - January 2008
Reported by Günter Deckert Translated by Prof James M Damon
*Days 1-3*
*Judgment*
_____________________________________________
"Wer
vor Gericht zieht und zur See fährt, braucht Gottes Hilfe.
Wer in einen politischen Prozeß hineingerät, dem kann auch Gott nicht helfen."
“He who goes to Court or to sea needs God’s help,
but
not even God can help someone caught up in a political showtrial.”
- Dr. Siepmann, München
****************
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: www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Mahler/Hennig_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
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
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 www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/fritjof-meyer/meyer-osteuropa.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.
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!
*Days
1-3*
*Judgment*
