Sylvia
Stolz -
GERMAN
REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim,
Germany - November 2007 - January 2008
Reported by Günter Deckert Translated by
Prof James Damon
guenter.deckert@gmx.de
jamesmdamon@yahoo.com
Sylvia
the Proud German Patriot
________________________________________________
What’s
in a name? Quite a lot if you are a Bavarian attorney named Sylvia Stolz.
“Stolz” means “proud” in German, and that describes Sylvia very
well. The struggle of Germany and of Europe to liberate themselves from
global occupiers, colonizers, predators and parasites has resulted in
unprecedented repression of opinion, especially in Germany. Although Sylvia
is faced with disbarment and imprisonment for defending Revisionist
historians in numerous show trials, her head is bloody but unbowed. Her
defiant attitude has earned her the sobriquet “The German Joan of Arc.”
***
"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 show trial.”
- 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 abducted - 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 Attorney is 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 the same is of course true of her present trial as well. She
anticipates that her evidentiary motions will again be routinely denied as
part of the same hollow legalistic ritual. They will be dismissed as “not
pertinent, irrelevant, not part of these proceedings,” etc. In political
trials, the verdict is decided before the trial begins. Sylvia says
that in her In her presentation she wants to cover four pertinent areas:
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 World War II
and the Third Reich; and
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/fritjofmeyer/meyerosteuropa.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 - Bertram 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. In comparison to the
agitated nervousness of Dr. Meinerzhagen in the Zündel trial or slick and
polished Schwab in the Rudolf trial, he cuts a better figure.
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.
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
****
Day
Four - 26
November 2007
****
Scheduled
for 9:00 am, today’s proceedings begin at 9:10.
Eight
policemen are present as well one bailiff, but there are no police vehicles
parked in front of the courthouse today. The usual members of the court are
present including District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz, who is
accompanied by Horst Mahler and her two attorneys. At first there are two
armed policemen in the courtroom, then six more are added along with three
Staschu – Staatsschutz - agents - these are the new German political
police patterned on the old Stasi from DDR days. There is one representative
of the “poodle press”: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. There
are about 30 visitors, although the most prominent Revisionists are not here
today.
Sylvia
begins with her response to the Court ruling of 19 November.
She
objects to the misrepresentations and false depictions regarding her
testimony on “Holocaust” and OMF (Organizational Form of a Modality of
Foreign Rule). [OMF is a term formulated in 1948 by Carlo Schmid, the
“Father of the Basic Law” and expert on international law. Schmid, a
member of the parliamentary council that compiled Germany’s Basic Law, had
the task of formulating an objective term for the legal basis of the new
regime. The term had to describe the regime’s compliant nature
without using derogatory phrases such as “vassal state” or “puppet
government.” Since the Bundesrepublik with its Basic Law was never
approved by plebiscite, it could not accurately be called a
“constitution” under international law. For a more detailed description
of OMF visit this website:
www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Mahler/Hennig_engl.htm
Sylvia
announces that as part of her testimony she intends to introduce Horst
Mahler’s Heilsgeschichtliche Lage
des Deutschen Reiches - Salvation History and the religious position of
the Reich.
She
also intends to read pertinent portions of other texts. In order to
establish the extent of Jewish influence and the Jewish worldview
and self-image, she then quotes a great deal from the Talmud and
Torah as well as Schul-chan-aruch. This is a catechism of the Genara Mischna
Talmud, a worldwide connecting link of Jewish culture. Sylvia observes that
today one can also read about the “special Jewish world view” in an
article written by the Israeli ambassador in Berlin that is available on the
Internet. She points out that the threats of punishment in her indictment,
as well as the shameful conduct of the Court in accepting the indictment,
are evidence of foreign domination by the Jews, which is based primarily on
the imposed “Holocaust” myth. On the basis of quotations, Sylvia points
out numerous significant differences between German and Jewish Volksgeist
(national genius.) This is followed by a short lecture on Jewish religion
past and present.
Mack
the Reporter leaves at 9:45, after just half an hour, but still writes a
report on of the entire day’s proceedings. You can read it in the Mannheimer
Morgenblatt, at www.morningweb.de.
Sylvia repeatedly asks the question: what is an attorney supposed to do when
he or she is constantly discovering evidence that would help his or her
client? Should the attorney just keep quiet and ignore it? Should the
attorney ask whether he or she is going to be threatened, indicted and
convicted for introducing of evidence that would help his or her client? The
Staschu leave at 10:10 am and the visitors breathe more easily. Around
10:25, Judge Glenz interrupts Sylvia and reminds her of his judicial
admonition that what she is reading in court has nothing to do with her
indictment, which is for expressing doubt about “Holocaust,” and
defaming the “BRDDR” - the
present government of Germany, which combines the worst elements of the old
“BRD” and “DDR”.
Sylvia
does not allow herself to be intimidated. She firmly responds that on the
contrary, her presentations are very pertinent to the matter at hand, since
it is necessary for her to establish the influence of the Talmud on Jewish
court witnesses. Because of the influence of the Talmud, Jews have no
inhibitions about bearing false witness against non Jews. Sylvia’s
presentations go much too far for Glenz. He announces that he wants the
Court instructions to be understood as an official admonition, specifically
dictating this to the Court Recorder. Undeterred, Sylvia goes on to state
that world Jewry now possesses the means, technique and influence to project
and enforce their views worldwide. Sylvia observes that the Bench in this
trial is attempting to hinder insight into Jewish thought and to present
relevant and significant Jewish quotations as though such quotations were
disconnected and taken out of context. She says that is the reason why, when
introducing evidence, she intends to introduce Mahler’s testimony from his
Berlin trial.
Sylvia then remarks on the obvious discomfort on the judges, who have firm
instructions to avoid “providing a forum for Revisionism.”
She
points out that this is additional evidence that the Court is not concerned
with establishing the truth: it does not allow material evidence. She says
that Revisionists, by contrast, are truth seekers who have devoted
themselves to researching the “Holocaust” in great detail for many
years. She warns the Bench that it is in the process of crossing the
“Rubicon of public shame and humiliation” and observes that authentic
German law proceeds from a presumption of honesty, from the quest for
truth and justice. She asks about the conscience of the jurists in this
case: what do they want? Do they just want to be left in peace? Which do
they prefer – to be heroes of the German nation and seek the truth, or to
be despicable traitors who lack the will to pursue the truth? She observes
that whatever choice they make, they will not be the same at the end of this
trial as they were at the beginning. She admonishes the judges that if they
convict her they will lose all sense of honor, because they are not
conducting a real trial, but a show trial. If they convict her they will be
acting in the capacity of henchmen of the “OMF.” Legally, ethically,
historically and philosophically, they will be contributing to the
assassination of the German character. They will be collaborating in the
imposition of “Holocaust” religion on Germany.
Sylvia’s
pronouncements cannot really be called a defense, but rather a kind of
counter indictment. She points out that all her arguments are objective and
directly relevant to points mentioned in her indictment. She explains that
her actions, and her reasons for acting thus, are part of a political trial;
and she declares that she intends to defend herself with all means at her
disposal against a possible muzzle order. She asks: doesn’t an attorney
have the professional obligation to demand, pursue and facilitate evidence
that will help discover the truth? She reminds the Court that in conjunction
with the trial of songwriter Frank Rennicke over three years ago, Horst
Mahler submitted a detailed Verfassungsbeschwerde - constitutional complaint
- that still has not been
decided by the Constitutional Court. She insists that as an attorney, she
has always acted in accordance with Section 193 of the Penal Code, which
requires the attorney to take all llegitimate interests into consideration.
She asks: is it even possible to indict a defense attorney for taking his or
her professional obligation seriously and doing everything possible to meet
these obligations?
If
the answer to this question is “yes” then the answer is further proof of
Talmudic supremacy in the “BRDDR.” However, it is obvious to all that
such tyranny can no longer be called “justice.”
Sylvia then demonstrates that the only thing obvious about official
Offenkundigkeit - Manifest Obviousness/Judicial Notice is that it is not a
fact but rather an opinion and an evaluation; and such opinions do not
remain unchanged forever. New knowledge logically and inevitably leads to a
new Offenkundigkeit. When the old Offenkundigkeit collapses, as the Manifest
Obviousness of geocentricity collapsed in the 17th Century, then it becomes
necessary to seek empirical evidence. Furthermore, in our present dispute,
there is no legally binding definition of “Holocaust.” She points out
that official Offenkundigkeit results in the de facto proscription of
legally defending one’s client, which violates the first principle of
justice in the Western world. She said that this again illustrates the
“OMF” character of the vassal “BRDDR” regime, whose
administrators are puppets of the victorious Allies.
At
11:05 Judge Glenz again interrupts her with remarks about her
“circumlocutions.” Stolz responds that her presentation is quite
relevant because she is also charged with criticizing the government. The
Judge then calls a ten minute recess. There are now only two policemen in
the courtroom and no bailiff. After the break Sylvia continues with her
presentation, pointing out that an occupying power cannot expect loyalty
from the nation it occupies.
Therefore:
why should any attorney express a high regard for a branch of the “OMF?”
How can Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag - representing a client without
commission, as Sylvia represents the Reich, which under international law
still exists as the legitimate German government, be construed as a criminal
offense? This was one of the charges leveled against her in Karlsruhe
Superior District Court. She points out that this is in fact a legal
question, and attorneys are hired to advise on legal questions. Are
attorneys now required to accept the opinion of the prosecutor? If so, what
is the use of attorneys in the “BRDDR”? Are attorneys required to defer
to a system that is clearly illegal under international law, and must they
obey the functionaries of a system that is clearly illegal? She points out
that German judges allow only one view of contemporary history; and they
proscribe and punish contradictory views.
Since the 8th of May 1945 the National Socialist world-view has been
proscribed and repressed.
At 11:33 Judge Glenz interrupts her once again and announces that she is
again repeating herself and engaging in circumlocutions.
Sylvia
disputes this and states that, on the contrary, what she is presenting
pertains very much to the point. Glenz admonishes her again and when Sylvia
attempts to read a portion of the acceptance speech of the Jewish author and
Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter, Judge Glenz becomes agitated. He says he
does not want to hear it and he forbids her to quote it. Sylvia then
requests a ruling on the matter by the Court, which withdraws to confer at
11:50 and returns at 12:00. Judge Glenz then announces that the Court
supports his decision: Pinter’s opinion is not relevant to Sylvia’s
indictment. He calls a noonday recess until 1 o’clock and the Court
reconvenes at 1:10 pm.
As
expected, Sylvia counters the Court’s ruling with a reply in which she
makes clear that the Pinter quotation is highly pertinent to the problem of
“OMF” and “pax americana.” She explains that the Pinter quotation
should not be considered as evidence, but rather the exposition of a thesis,
and she again asks for another ruling by the Court. The court recesses until
1:38. As expected, the Court abides by Judge Glenz’s decision: the Pinter
quotation may not be read into the record. When Sylvia attempts to summarize
its contents, Glenz again interrupts and says he does not want to hear it,
which prompts Sylvia to demand yet another ruling. At 1:50 the court again
recesses and again resumes at 2:00 and Glenz again announces that the Court
again upholds his decision that the Pinter quotation has absolutely no
relevance to Sylvia’s trial.
Those
who are curious to know why Judge Glenz is so determined to keep the Pinter
speech out of the court record, can read it at www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
Sylvia
then moves for a recess in order to confer with Attorney Bock and Horst
Mahler. The proceedings resume at 2:50, at which time Sylvia explains that
she is attempting to break the judges’ blockade of an alternative world
view that is not familiar to them. She points out that they are acting as
henchmen for a worldwide system of repression, terror and injustice that the
USA... Glenz interrupts her in mid sentence with the announcement that the
Court is seriously considering imposing a time limitation on her
testimony. Glenz asks whether she would give the Court a written version of
what she has presented so that they would be able to better deal with it.
Sylvia replies that she will provide the Court with her written text at the
end of her presentation. At 3:00 pm the Court once again recesses to confer.
It resumes at 3:20 with the announcement that it has not concluded its
discussion; there is need for further deliberation. It announces that it
will resume tomorrow morning at 11:00 and so terminates today’s session. A
visitor does not understand and asks about the exact time, whereupon Glenz
repeats “11 O’clock” in an extremely loud and agitated voice.
Today’s proceedings show that Glenz is becoming quite agitated.
They suggest that we can now expect a course of events similar to those of
the Zündel trial.
*****
Day
Five - 27
November 2007
*****
What
was evident to the knowledgeable observer yesterday occurred today in part:
the proceedings were cancelled. The only notice of this was a sign placed at
the entrance to the courtroom: “Today’s Session Has Been Cancelled.”
The Court did not give a reason or explanation. Since neither Sylvia nor
Horst nor the two attorneys appeared, we can assume that they were notified.
The cancelled session suggests that we can expect a judicial thunderbolt on
Thursday. At the very least, the Court will impose a time limit on
Sylvia’s presentation.
As
I mentioned in my first report, I will not be able to cover the Thursday
session. However, I hope that two friends of mine, with whom I discussed the
matter, will share their accounts with me, so that I will be able to include
them in my reports for the coming week.
Günter
Deckert Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 27.11.2007
PS:
I repeat my remarks from my first report, which hold true also for partial
selections, reproductions and summarizations in languages other than German
as well.
Many
thanks to Frau Ilona O. as well as Josef K. and Manfred Kr. for their
contributions to offset my travel expenses to Mannheim and preparing
these reports.
Horst
Mahler has also thanked me for my reports, which are the only alternative to
official coverage of Sylvia’s trial.
******
Day
Six - 29
November 2007
******
Scheduled
for 9 am, proceedings begin at 9:05 in a smaller courtroom.
There are the usual security checks with x-ray equipment, etc. but no
incidents. The other courtrooms in Mannheim Court House do not carry out
such security checks, but this one is used to conduct trials for violent
crimes, grievous bodily harm, drugs, etc. Eight policemen are present along
with three Staschu - political police, today’s counterpart of the old
Stasi from DDR days - and one bailiff. Two police vehicles are parked
in front of the courthouse. The court is present in its usual composition:
Judge Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz with Attorney Bock
as well as her court appointed lawyer. Horst Mahler is present as visitor.
There is one very young female reporter from the dpa - Deutsche
Presse-Agentur. The media are boycotting the trial except for passing on
politically correct clichés such as “Rightwing Extremist,” “Holocaust
Denier,” “Neo-Nazi,” etc. There are also several very young female
observers, perhaps students or apprentices. In addition there are around 30
visitors who come and go throughout the day. They are exasperated because
the sound system is either out of order or turned off for the day, making it
nearly impossible to hear what is said. In addition, Judge Glenz is speaking
unusually softly, apparently on purpose. The visitors have to listen very
attentively to hear anything at all, and for that reason the courtroom is
remarkably quiet.
The
proceedings begin with a brief dispute between Sylvia and Judge Glenz over
his most recent ruling. He tells her that he sees no reason to change his
decision. Attorney Bock contradicts him, pointing out in detail that he is
constantly interrupting Sylvia and refusing to allow her to speak, which is
unworthy of a court in a lawful society. At 9:10 the Court recesses to
confer and resumes at 9:40. Previous to this, Sylvia made a motion that she
be reimbursed for travel expenses, since she no longer has a source of
income. The Court’s decision: Nein!
Sylvia
then points out that the Court is doing everything it can to shut her up.
She remarks that harboring doubts about “Holocaust” has become a thought
crime in Germany. She again alludes to the never-ending foreign occupation
and domination and observes that today the Jews rule all nations everywhere
through their vassals. Racial mixing, which they promote for everyone except
themselves, means the extinction of European ethnicity, while phony Jewish
“democracy” and their perverted version of “human rights” - except
for freedom of speech and opinion - result in bondage and Jewish rule: they
are in fact Jewish inventions.
Sylvia points out that in every nation, the Jews have created a state within
a state, with non Jews serving as Nutzvieh (useful animals), as is well
demonstrated in Jewish laws and writings. She again quotes extensively from
Jewish writings in support of Jewish supremacism, then she reminds the Court
that it would not allow her to read from the speech of Harold Pinter,
a Jewish winner of the Nobel Prize and an outspoken critic of Zionist
American imperialism. Perhaps the following is the passage that Sylvia
wished to quote in order to illustrate the nature of Zionist American
hegemony:
I
have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting
its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is
now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs.
'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all
attendant resources. The United States now occupies 702 military
installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honorable
exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but
they are there all right.
The
United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two
thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes
warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker
busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own
nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin
Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that
this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear
weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must
remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing
and shows no sign of relaxing it. Many thousands, if not millions, of people
in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by
their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent
political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear, which we can
see growing daily in the United States, is unlikely to diminish.
Sylvia then moves on to ask a question that also puzzles her supporters: if
the Court is so intent on expediting proceedings and avoiding her
“circumlocutions”, why did it set aside 20 days on the court calendar
for this show trial? Judge Glenz then reprimands Sylvia, saying that her
presentation does not respond to the disapproval expressed by the Court. She
denies this and reminds the Court that this is the 3rd day of her defense
presentation, therefore she cannot be interrupted and her testimony cannot
be shortened or abrogated.
She
says it has become obvious that the honorable presiding judge is not
concerned about the length of her presentation, but rather its contents.
Judge Glenz allows her to continue. She points out that people have a right
to know what the expression “human rights” means to the Jews: namely the
total plundering of non Jews and the imposition of Talmudic supremacism.
At 9:46 Judge Glenz again interrupts Sylvia and announces that he is now
imposing a time limit on her presentations: he definitively and conclusively
forbids her to continue speaking. She ignores his ultimatum and continues
introducing exhibits regarding the recent decision of the Spanish High Court
that decriminalizes dissenting opinions on “Holocaust.” She points out
that the Spanish decision is posted on the Internet for all to read, and
suggests that her exhibits will help the Mannheim District Court reach a
proper verdict. Sylvia and Attorney Bock both rebuke the court for
constantly retreating to chambers. It does not have to recess for a
conference; the judges can discuss the matter in the courtroom. They demand
an open and proper ruling by the judges.
Since
Sylvia is no longer allowed to give oral testimony, but only to submit
written documents, the attendant judge on the right of Judge Glenz asks
Sylvia what sort of supporting – individual - documents she wishes to
submit. Sylvia then hands over two large files of copies as well as two
packets containing copies of Germar Rudolf’s Lectures
on the Holocaust - posted on the Internet at www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/#download.
The Court then recesses from 10:30 until 11.07. After recess the Court
announces that Sylvia will be limited in her defense to two hours, which may
be extended at the pleasure of the Court. Judge Glenz then gives an oral
summarization of Sylvia’s testimony, mentioning Jewish domination of
Germany; “Holocaust” and the reasons why she doubts its authenticity;
forensic evidence that “Holocaust” could not have occurred as officially
promulgated; “OMF” and the foundation of Germany’s present Basic Law;
the Talmudic assumption that only Jews are human and non Jews are mere
animals; and the function of the United Nations in eliminating national
characteristics, with the result that today’s young Germans have been
brainwashed into no longer wanting to be German. At 11:26 Judge Glenz finishes
reading the Court’s “muzzle” ruling and has copies distributed to the
individual members. Concerning Sylvia’s motion for compensation for travel
expenses now that she has no source of income, the judge remarks that she
must fill out applications and submit documentations for expenses.
Sylvia now points out to the Court that she is faced with an entirely new
situation, since she has been limited to two hours in which to present her
case. This is an impossible task, as the Court well knows. Attorney Bock
makes the motion that proceedings be discontinued and the Court adjourned
for the day, since the Defense needs time to consult and reorganize. Judge
Glenz totally ignores this motion! At 11:33 he orders a two hour recess for
the noonday meal. After that, events move very rapidly. After lunch, Judge
Glenz informs Sylvia that compensation for travel expenses is available only
for destitute persons. She will have to fill out a written application and
provide documentation.
Sylvia then complains about the Court’s “muzzle order” restricting her
presentation to two hours. She points out that placing an arbitrary time
limit on her argumentation, after having set aside 20 days for her trial, is
an unjust and illegal denial of her right to present her case, it is in fact
a Talmudic denial of her right to defend herself. She observes that Judge
Glenz is living in the Judaic world, whereas she lives in the German world.
She observes that in the Mannheim court the District Attorney does not have
to lift a finger in order to gain convictions, since the judges conduct the
prosecution. It is the same situation that prevailed in the Allied military
tribunal in Nuremberg, in which the American Judge Jackson refused to allow
Hermann Goering to speak.
She defiantly announces that, since two hours are totally inadequate for the
presentation of her defense, she grants these two hours to the Right
Honorable Presiding Judge to use as he sees fit! At 1:42 pm the Court again
recesses for 5 minutes to confer, then announces the end of proceedings for
the day.
Sylvia’s trial will continue on Tuesday, December 4th at 9:00 am, at which
time, in accordance with Section 249 of the Penal Code, it will take
evidence in Selbstleseverfahren (procedure of reading into the official
public court record, since German courts do not keep complete records of
proceedings.) These witnesses will be called: Presiding Judge Meinerzhagen,
the specialist in “Holocaust Denial” who conducted Ernst Zündel’s
trial; also a female judge from Berlin who presided over a case in which
Sylvia represented the defense.
______________
Some observations by your reporter:
During today’s proceedings it became very clear that Judge Glenz is
“pulling out all the stops” in order to terminate this trial as quickly
as possible.
The
brief mention in the issue of 30 November of Manheimer Morgen, on
page 3, is representative of the coverage of Sylvia’s trial in
Germany’s “poodle press:”
Stolz
Trial to Move Forward
The
trial of Sylvia Stolz in Mannheim District Court for Incitement of the
Masses will now continue with normal witness testimony. On the fifth trial
day, Judge Rolf Glenz repeatedly warned the accused to restrict her
testimony to the points of her indictment. Yesterday Stolz, an attorney who
has defended several Rightwing Extremists, continued repeating the Holocaust
Lie, however. Judge Glenz finally limited her testimony to two hours, which
Stolz then refused to accept.
*******
Day
Seven - 6
December 2007
There
are two police cars parked in front of Mannheim Courthouse with eight police
officers, including one female officer, on duty.
Scheduled for 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:07. There are the usual
electronic inspections as well as body searches of persons who seem
“suspicious.” Court is meeting in the small courtroom again today.
Proceedings begin at 9:07. The Court is in its usual composition. District
Attorney Grossmann is present with his bodyguard. Sylvia is present with
Defense Attorney Bock and the court appointed lawyer, who was planted in her
team over her objections. Horst Mahler is among the onlookers. In addition to
the police there are 3 “Staschu” - Staatschutz: “State Protection” -
agents. Staschu is the updated version of the old Stasi - Staatsicherheit:
“State Security” - political police from DDR days. There is only one
representative of the “poodle” media: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer
Morgenblatt.
The
media are either ignoring the trial or else parroting official views. There
are around 30 visitors, including half a dozen legal clerks and law students.
Presiding Judge Glenz begins the day’s proceedings by asking Sylvia if she
wishes to provide details of her economic situation, in order to receive
reimbursement for travel expenses. She declines, and informs the Court that
she wishes to begin by elucidating documents that the Court has read into the
record. She points out that she is on trial for a thought crime; and on
account of the Court’s restrictive methodology, the public cannot possibly
understand the interconnectivity of her thoughts. The public cannot perceive
her strategy, and for this reason she demands a formal ruling by the Court.
Glenz responds that the Court will get around to it later.
At
9:11 the first witness is introduced. This is Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen,
a.k.a. “Judge Nein,” who presided over the Zündel trial. He is
famous/infamous for his ruling that "It
is irrelevant whether the Holocaust occurred or not. Denying it is a
punishable offense.”
Accompanied
by a police bodyguard, he enters the courtroom and takes a seat at the witness
table. From his introduction we learn that he is a 56-year-old bachelor. Judge
Glenz explains briefly what the Court wishes to know and then asks him to
describe generally the Zündel trial, specifically Sylvia’s role in it.
Judge Meinerzhagen is quite talkative. Speaking in a monotone, he displays
very little animation in describing the “ereignisreiche Verhandlung” -
“eventful trial”. I refer the reader to my reports on the Zündel trial
from its beginning until the bodily ejection of Attorney Stolz, which is
available postpaid for 15 Euros postpaid.
The Court recesses for 20 minutes, then resumes.
From
Meinerzhagen’s testimony concerning trial days in February and March 2006,
we learn for the first time that he had caused extensive passages to be
recorded as a security precaution. This has not been normal court procedure
since 1975. We now know that Meinerzhagen and his two attending judges
themselves added a great deal to the official court record, including his
intention to file criminal a complaint against Sylvia, which he carried out.
On the invitation of Judge Glenz, he reads several passages aloud. In response
to his question as to whether there was legal collaboration between Sylvia and
Horst Mahler, who had been debarred at the time of the Zündel trial,
Meinerzhagen responds in the affirmative.
Referring to documents before him, Meinerzhagen concludes his testimony at
11:57. Occasionally he needs prompting by Judge Glenz, who has the official
trial history before him. Meinerzhagen’s memory is not the best -- what a
contrast with the astounding memory feats of a certain group of
“Holocaust” witnesses! Attorney Bock asks a few routine questions, and
then it is Sylvia’s turn to question the witness. In consideration of the
hour (12:05), she moves that the Court now recess for lunch; she also needs
time to refine her questions. Judge Glenz wants to allow only 30 minutes for
lunch. On Sylvia’s insistence, however, he recesses the Court until 1:00 pm.
Proceedings do not resume until 13:20, partly because Sylvia overstays lunch
break. A few visitors have left by now. Before allowing Sylvia to begin
questioning the witness, Glenz admonishes her to “be objective” and
“stick to the subject,” hinting at dire consequences if she fails to do
so.
Sylvia
asks the following questions:
QUESTION
1:
She asks why Dr. Meinerzhagen was so concerned about conflicts between court
appointed lawyers and the defendant Zündel?
- In response, Meinerzhagen refers to the brief appearance of an attorney
named Schütz from Mainz, whom Zündel dismissed after a short time. - A.
He says he removed Sylvia following her letter of 18 October 2005 because, in
his view, she had proven unreliable for an “orderly trial procedure.” He
says he also disapproved of attorneys Rieger, Schaller and Bock. In the case
of Bock, the Karlsruhe District Court made a big fuss over his decision. He
says he was concerned about proper procedure, since it had become clear to him
that the trial was beginning to drag and he was worried about the possible
loss of the remaining defending attorneys.
QUESTION
2: Is
a defending attorney allowed to express doubt about official depictions of
“Holocaust” in the interest of his or her client?
- Judge Meinerzhagen then attempts to explain and defend Offenkundigkeit -
Manifest Obviousness - as the Federal Criminal High Court defines it. He says
it is the responsibility of the defense lawyer to impress on the accused what
is appropriate trial procedure and to see that he or she understands and
observes it.
QUESTION
3:
Sylvia asks whether, at the time of the Zündel trial, Meinertshagen was
familiar with the article by Spiegel Associate Fritjof Meyer in the Osteuropa
issue of May 2002.
B
-
Dr. Meinerzhagen answers in the negative, saying he first became aware of the
article when it was submitted along with a motion. Judge Glenz interrupts and
asks why Sylvia is asking this question. Sylvia explains that if Meinerzhagen
was aware of the Meyer article and its relation to Rechtsverletzung - judicial
infringement, then her actions would have to be allowed as justified. Glenz
then declares her question to be “verfahrensfremd” - foreign to the
proceedings. He says it does not pertain to the matter at hand, is not
relevant, is a distraction, etc. For experienced visitors at political show
trials, such as those who attended the Zündel and Rudolf trials, it is
obvious what is coming next. Glenz announces that this court, like the Zündel
and Rudolf courts, would prohibit “heikle
Fragestellungen,” that is, the posing of tricky questions that relate to
the substance of the proceeding itself. Sylvia points out that he cannot yet
make such a ruling, since she has not yet asked her question. Attorney Bock
supports her in this. Sylvia again starts asking her question and Glenz again
butts in.
-
continued in Newsletter No 367-B
