ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                    No 367A


Mannheim, Germany - November 2007 - January 2008


Reported by Günter Deckert     Translated by Prof James Damon 


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 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

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.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:

 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 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

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
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


Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute