Sylvia Stolz - GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany, November 2007 - January 2008
Reported by Günter Deckert Translated by James M Damon
*Days 1-3*
*Days 4-6*
*Days 15-17*
*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 sea needs God’s help, but not even God can help someone
caught in a political trial.
-
Dr.
Siepmann, München
****************
Day 15
7 January 2008
****************
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/politik/20080109_srv0000001996049.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.
_____________________________________
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/ebersberg/Ebersberg-Sylvia-Stolz-Prozess;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
****************
*Days 1-3*
*Judgment*
*