ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                   No 367B


Mannheim, Germany November 2007 - January 2008  


Sylvia the Proud German Patriot 


Continued from Newsletter No 367A


She has to start over again, and a dispute develops between her and Glenz on the subject of “Rechtsbeugung” - bending the law. Is she “perverting the course of justice?” Sylvia points out numerous instances in which judges in political trials have clearly bent the law and acted unlawfully. Such incidents were numerous in the Zündel trial. She asks: isn’t a judge allowed, indeed required to take new evidence into consideration? After all, judges themselves have to determine what is evidence; they cannot forever refer to higher courts. Glenz asks what this matter has to do with the specifics of her case. Sylvia responds that Meinerzhagen thwarted her obligation to defend her client through presenting evidence. At this time (1:50 pm) Glenz recesses the Court and it retires to confer until 2:07. After recess Sylvia again poses her question concerning the Meyer article. If Judge Meinerzhagen had indeed been familiar with the Meyer article during the Zündel trial, then Sylvia’s actions were justified in the framework of “Nothilfe” - emergency measures. - C.

Judge Glenz interrupts again, saying she is not allowed to ask this question because it does not refer specifically to her indictment, and therefore Judge Meinerzhagen does not have to answer it.

Sylvia remarks that his ruling provides still more proof that “Holocaust” trials are exclusively political in nature and conducted under extraordinary trial procedure.

QUESTION 4: Sylvia asks Meinerzhagen why the Meyer article was not sufficient reason for him to entertain doubts about “Manifest Obviousness.”
-He responds that the Meyer article essentially confirms the extermination thesis.

QUESTION 5: Sylvia asks if it is Meinerzhagen’s belief that the Meyer article confirms the extermination thesis, even though it admits there is no empirical evidence for a crime site or the number of victims.
-Meinerzhagen responds that the site of the alleged extermination is irrelevant and the number of victims is an open question; it cannot be exactly determined. - D. Growing agitated, he adds that Auschwitz is nevertheless historical factuality.

QUESTION 6: Sylvia asks whether it occurred to Meinerzhagen during the Zündel trial that the “witnesses to extermination” were extensively contradicting one another? Here Sylvia is referring to contradictions between the official version of “Holocaust” and the conclusions in the Mayer article. Mayer’s conclusions did not result in a criminal complaint. It is now 2:20 pm and Glenz hastily interrupts the proceedings, which do not resume until 2:52. Glenz rules that Sylvia’s question regarding Meinerzhagen’s ‘subjective consciousness” has no relevance for the trial. His legal basis for the ruling is the Federal High Court’s “ständige Rechtsprechung“ - ongoing pronouncement of law. Glenz further rules that all questions concerning Meinerzhagen’s awareness of “Holocaust” are inadmissible and prohibited.

QUESTION 7: Sylvia asks whether the varying opinions about the location of the Auschwitz “Holocaust” provoked doubts on Meinerzhagen’s part.
-He refuses to answer, invoking Judge Glenz’s most recent ruling.
When Sylvia calls on Glenz to allow Meinerzhagen to respond, Glenz replies that Meinerzhagen need not answer, in view of his most recent ruling. Again Sylvia demands a ruling by the entire Bench.

After brief whispering among the judges, Judge Glenz announces that the Court supports his ruling.

QUESTION 8: Sylvia points out that for years it was assumed to be factual that several million Jews were gassed at Auschwitz and asks
If the witness statements are still considered valid, even though Auschwitz Museum Staff has drastically reduced the estimate of victims from around 4 million to around 1 million?

 -To this Meinerzhagen replies that Auschwitz is considered the principal site of Jewish extermination. He calls this an “unchallenged historical fact” his answer causes him to wax enthusiastic and his voice grows agitated. Glenz interrupts again and announces that questions pertaining to the subjective perceptions of the witness are not allowed, since they do not pertain specifically to items in Sylvia’s indictment. Sylvia again demands a decision by the entire Bench - E. The jurists recess for conference from 3:15 until 3:20 and Glenz, as expected, announces that the Court supports his ruling.

QUESTION 9: Sylvia then asks Judge Meinerzhagen if he was familiar with the Federal Parliament’s resolution concerning “Manifest Obviousness” at the time of the Zündel trial. - F.

-On grounds of the Court’s ruling, Judge Meinerzhagen refuses to answer the question. However, in a sudden burst of animation he says “But it is true!” to which Sylvia remarks that she would like to clarify the matter, but the Court will not allow it. At 3:35 Judge Glenz again orders a recess for conference to consider Sylvia’s question. “MM Mack,” the Reporter from the poodle Mannheimer Morgen newspaper, then leaves the courtroom. -G.
Proceedings resume at 3:52. The Court affirms Judge Glenz’s ruling that the question will not be allowed. Furthermore, Glenz threatens to take away Sylvia’s right to question witnesses if the Court suspects that she is abusing the right to question witnesses. Sylvia responds by explaining anew that her actions were justified in the context of Nothilfe - Emergency Measure: Evidence or information that was relevant to her client’s defense was available, and she would have been remiss in her professional duties if she had not made the attempt to introduce them. Furthermore, she adds, justice demands that Judge Meinerzhagen’s subjective feelings must be considered, since he was the presiding judge in the Zündel trial.
The Court remains in the room and whispers a good bit, and then Judge Glenz announces that the other judges support him. Sylvia refuses to give in and declares that she intends to oppose such repressive measures of this Court with all the means at her disposal.

QUESTION 10: Sylvia observes that, according to Judge Meinerzhagen, the “Holocaust” is a historical fact. She now asks him whether, as a jurist, he requires a legal basis for his conclusions. Then she asks what is the basis for his conclusion that “Holocaust” or the alleged extermination of Jews during the Third Reich is historical fact, since the questions of place and number of victims have not been authoritatively established?  Judge Glenz immediately interrupts again. At 4:07 the Court retires to confer on the admissibility of the question. At 4:17 Glenz announces that the Court must confer further. He concludes the day’s proceedings and announces the trial will continue on Thursday, 6 December at 9 am.  - H.

A: It was Schütz’s suggested tactic for Ernst Zündel to plead guilty to all charges and submit no evidentiary motions in hopes of receiving a “mild” sentence.
B: This article, as well as the initial complaint filed against me and rejected by the Stuttgart District Attorney, is available for 5 Euros from your reporter.

C: “Acts of Emergency” and “Self Defense” provide legal justification for an action or tactic that would otherwise be disallowed in trial proceedings. An “Emergency Act” is legal defense that is allowable in order to defray an actual illegal attack from oneself or one’s client (Section 227 of Basic Law and Section 32 of Penal Code.) The necessary precondition for an Emergency Act is an imminent attack (not restricted to an attack on life and limb); and the party attacked can be a third person.

D: It is perhaps significant that the Court Reporter in the Zündel trial, Hamm, did not give his name. In my first trial in Mannheim District Court, for acting as interpreter during a lecture given by Fred Leuchter in Weinheim in November 1991, he was an attending judge of the Nussbruch Court. Dr. Nussbruch, a member of SPD who introduced himself as a Jew, read aloud in Court a letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that had been written by Michael Wolfsohn. Wolfsohn is an Israeli born Jew, possessor of a BRDDR passport, and professor of modern history at the Bundeswehr University in Munich. According to his letter 1.1 million persons, primarily Jews, were murdered at Auschwitz.
The District Attorney at that time was represented by “my good friend” Hans-Heiko Klein, who has since enjoyed a distinguished and lucrative career as “Nazi Hunter and Holocaust Prosecutor.” Since that time I at any rate have been a “True Believer” in the magic number of Six Million: “Believe or Go to Jail!”

E: this is necessary because otherwise there would be no grounds for appeal to the next higher court, which is the BGH - BundesGerichtsHof.

F: this can most certainly be obtained from Sylvia or Horst Mahler.

G: In today’s issue of Mannheimer Morgenblatt as well as the Weinheimer Nachrichten, there is on lower part of Page 3 a rather long article by Steffen Mack with the title “Holocaust Denial: Zündel Judge Testifies Before Mannheim District Court in Trial of Sylvia Stolz” and subtitle
 “...Witness Meinerzhagen and His Nightmare,” accompanied by a small passport photo of Meinerzhagen.
Then follows the usual inflammatory article so typical of the German poodle press, written in the neoprimitivist style of BILD magazine. Here are a few excerpts:

 “Judge Glenz allowed Stolz to bluster for five long days before imposing a time limit on her presentation... Stolz keeps on quacking in her high pitched but penetrating voice, constantly attempting to support her crude theories of world conspiracies with absurd tracts... Her 71-year-old companion Horst Mahler, who spent the morning dozing among the onlookers, brings her a salad in a bag... The 44-year-old Stolz is a vegetarian: just like Hitler! She enjoys telling her audience... Meinerzhagen sits slumped over in the witness chair... It is now for others to pass judgment on this woman.”

Mack’s reporting is not just slanderous and irrelevant, it is untrue! Mack was sitting directly in front of me today while Horst Mahler was sitting in my row, several seats distant. Since Mack never turned around, he could not possibly have observed Horst dozing.
I glanced at him several times and did not see that he was dozing.
This is yet another example of the Poodle Press’s great reluctance to report the particulars of what is said in this trial. Their idea of reporting consists of personal attacks and parroting official views.

H: this evening, 5 December, a little after 10:00 pm a friend relayed a message from Sylvia with the news that tomorrow’s proceedings have been cancelled. The reason given is that the Court needs additional time to confer. In plain language this means that on coming Tuesday 11 December, we can expect a Court ruling forbidding Sylvia to continue questioning Judge Meinerzhagen.
Attorney Bock informed me that the court reporter of the Meinerzhagen Court, Hamm, will also be questioned as a witness.

Thus the Court will not meet on Thursday, 6 December.

Günter Deckert, Weinheim am der Bergstraße, den 5./6. Dezember 2007


These reports on the Stolz trial are neither a simultaneous transcription nor a complete account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I ask that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author.

Please consider that compiling these reports takes at least four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim takes even longer and in addition, costs considerable money. I can donate my time but money is very scarce. Every trip to Mannheim including gasoline, parking and a light lunch costs me around 35 Euros. If you are able to make a small contribution to help offset these expenses, I ask that you transfer the amount to: Konto 134345-754/G. Deckert – Postbank KA, BLZ 660 100 75, Vermerk „LG MA/SSt.“

I wish to thank our sympathizers Lother E., Klaus f., and Dieter G., as well as Frau Ilona O. for their contributions to my expenses, as well as Giovanni G. in Sweden who is makeing monthly contributions for the duration of the trial.

It would be a very good thing if, despite the season’s wintry weather, the champions of an objective depiction of contemporary German history could appear in greater numbers.
It would encourage Sylvia in her valiant struggle for her career as well as a balanced historiography.

Not everyone still has to work, and a single day of vacation time would reward the visitor with eye opening revelations about the courts and legal situation in the “freest country that ever existed on German soil.”


Day Eight - There was no hearing on 8 December2007



Day Nine - 11 December 2007


There are no police cars parked in front of Mannheim Courthouse today. I go through the usual security checks in the main courtroom, where 6 criminal police agents on duty, including one female, all armed; and there are three more policemen in the second courtroom. In addition there are a bailiff and 3 “Staschu” - Staatschutz or political police, including the bodyguard of District Attorney Grossmann. (What’s in a name? “Grossmann” could translate as “Big Shot!”) Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgen is the only representative of the media, which is giving the trial very little coverage except for parroting official statements. There are around 30 visitors today.

Scheduled for 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:10. The court is present in its usual composition, including Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia with her two attorneys. Horst Mahler is seated among the visitors. At 9:12, Witness Meinerzhagen, who presided over the show trial of Ernst Zündel, is dismissed. He goes to wait in another room. Judge Glenz then announces the Court’s ruling on the last question, which had to do with Judge Meinerzhagen and “his subjective impressions and knowledge in the matter of Holocaust.” The Court supports Glenz in his ruling. When Sylvia’s questions had driven Judge Meinerzshagen into an untenable position, Judge Glenz put an end to her questions, ruling that they were “not pertinent to the specific charges” listed in Sylvia’s indictment. The Court backs Glenz in disallowing Sylvia permission to question Meinerzhagen further.
In her Gegendarstellung - response, Sylvia objects to the court’s curtailing her right to question witnesses. 1: Gegendarstellung - Attorney’s Response:

If the Court refuses an evidentiary motion, whether submitted orally or in written form, a response is permitted. Although the motion cannot be submitted in toto, it can be submitted in considerable detail. In this way the “public” - meaning visitors, in this trial - can learn a little about the contents of the refused motion. Since the “mainstream media” report few details of political show trials, the public must rely on alternative reporters for information concerning denied motions and responses.

Sylvia emphasizes that there is a strong material connection between her indictment and her attempted defense of Ernst Zündel. This defense had to do with establishing her legal right to Notwehr  - emergency defense - as provided under Section 32 of the Penal Code. She points out that she is attempting to demonstrate how Judge  Meinerzhagen improperly bent the law with his measures against her in the Zündel Trial, while the present indictment against her is misrepresenting her intent as “coercion” and “evasion of punishment.” If the Court had accepted her demonstration of how Judge Meinerzhagen improperly bent the law, and how he also knowingly violated the duty of the Court to investigate and determine empirical truth, then her actions would have been acceptable under the provisions of Section 32 - Emergency Defense.

Sylvia clearly and painstakingly makes her point; her presentation is best described as a short lecture on jurisprudence.
Glenz is visibly growing impatient; he interrupts, then allows her to continue. In support of her legal argument, Sylvia mentions a study by the University of Münster on the subject of “Mythos” that is available on the Internet, at Wikipedia among other places,
She explains that under the subheading Zeitgenössische Mythe - Modern Myths - the University of Münster article describes modern and postmodern myths, that is, irrational concepts that exist without empirical foundation. Thus the German nation has been psychologically conditioned by its victorious enemies to despise itself as a nation of evildoers. Within the German Nation, within the German government, even within the German judicial system there are henchmen who willingly commit cultural genocide against their own people and seek to destroy the German national spirit. As an example of this she reads long selections from an article by Milocz Matuschek in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on the subject of “’Holocaust’ Denial” and the “Founding Myth” of the European Union, which is available at If you have problems downloading this article, contact me and I will email it to you.

Sylvia points out that the author of the article is demanding criminal sanctions against “crimes of remembrance.” This example from a leading German newspaper is clear evidence of how the “Holocausters” are attempting to revoke the Enlightenment concept of free expression. Voltaire’s maxim “I do not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it” has become “I cannot disprove what you say, but I forbid you to say it.” She observes that the judges on this court are even now demonstrating their willingness to obey mandates of the anti Enlightenment. Such obedience is of course a requirement for a career in the present OMF (foreign dominated) judiciary. This explains why the courts are so prompt in referring to the Bundesgerichtshof - Federal High Court, which invented the illogical legal concept of Offenkundigkeit - Manifest Obviousness -  in Section 130 of Basic Law. They did this in order to neutralize traditional “body of evidence” argumentation. By doing this, the Federal High Court has created a new jurisprudence armed with a  legalistic weapon of mass destruction, making fair trials impossible.
Here Judge Glenz interrupts her with a warning against repeating what she is forbidden to say. Sylvia does not allow herself to be distracted, however. She again describes how Judge Meinerzhagen broke and disregarded clear-cut rules of judicial procedure during the Zündel trial. She repeats that these improper actions are the reasons why her conduct was justified and why it cannot legitimately be prosecuted. Glenz interrupts again and asks whether Sylvia intends to provide the Court with a written version of her presentation. She answers in the affirmative and gives the Court an updated version. The time is now 9:54. Before the Court retires to consider Sylvia’s response, Glenz announces that the “Selbstleseverfahren” ruling will now go into effect. He announces a recess until 11:00 am.

Grossmann walks up to Stefen Mack, the reporter from Mannheimer Morgen, and speaks to him. Then they go into the District Attorney’s office 2. In both the Mannheimer Morgen and Weinheimer Nachrichten issues of 12 December there is a short article by Mack.

Under the title “Denial of Holocaust” and subtitle “Court applies brakes to Defendant Stolz in Mannheim” we read the following: “In the incitement trial in Mannheim District Court, Judge Glenz has forbidden defendant Sylvia Stolz to continue questioning witness Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen.

Meinerzhagen had testified that when he was presiding over the trial of Holocaust Denier Ernst Zündel, he had to have defending attorney Stolz forcibly removed from court on account of her grotesque disruptions. The Mannheim District Court has decided that the 44-year-old Stolz ‘in stereotypical fashion’ was posing questions about Meinerzhagen’s attitude towards mass murder of Jews, and were therefore irrelevant. On account of repeated procedural abuse, the Court has revoked Stolz’s right to question the witness. In this way, it was possible for the Court to complete questioning of the first witness yesterday. Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz again warned Stolz about using the trial as a “propaganda event for Revisionist viewpoints.”

Around 11:00, shortly before proceedings resume, Judge Meinerzhagen re-enters the courtroom, accompanied by police escort. There are now three police officers in the room. Judge Glenz announces the expected Court ruling: Sylvia will not be allowed to continue questioning Judge Meinerzhagen. The reason given is that the Court does not want the trial to serve as a Revisionist forum with further denial of “Holocaust.” Furthermore, according to Judge Glenz, Sylvia persists in asking questions that do not pertain specifically to her indictment. Then he briefly summarizes the course of the trial so far. At 11:15 he concludes by warning Sylvia against “misusing” the trial. Sylvia  announces her objections to Glenz’s dismissal of Meinerzhagen without allowing her to finish questioning him and demands that her objections be entered into the court record. Judge Glenz then announces lunch break until 12:45.
After lunch, proceedings move very quickly. “MM-Mack” has left the courtroom, as have 2 “Staschu” of the agents. Grossmann’s bodyguard is still present. The number of visitors has grown smaller.

Glenz prepares to read the Court’s latest ruling and Sylvia interrupts him, complaining that she has not been allowed to state her position on the last ruling and informing the Court that she intends to present a response. Glenz reiterates his intention to prohibit further “abuse of the Court” to which Sylvia responds that he considers everything the Defense does as an “abuse of the Court.” Glenz then announces that under a ruling the Court made on 10 December relating to Hauptakte VIII (?), the following written material will be read aloud and entered as evidence in the main proceedings:
1. Ruling of the 6th Greater Criminal Court, Presiding Judge Meinerzhagen, dated 9 March 2006 - 3: “Documents” 1 through 6 are intended as the basis for Silvia’s sentencing - I assume that this trial will be reported in real time, as it happens. Interested persons should contact Sylvia or Horst Mahler.
2. Ruling of Superior District Court of Karlsruhe dated 31 March 2006;
3. Ruling of Federal High Court dated 24 May 2006;

4. Letter from Vögeley, President of Mannheim District Court, dated 15 March 2006;

5. Sylvia’s response dated 11 April 2006;
6. Sylvia’s letter to Potsdam County Court referring to Reineke Trial – 4.

Reineke was the “motor” and instigator of the singing of the Deutschlandlied in the Meinerzhagen Court. “Judge Nein” punished each participant in that sing along with a fine for “Disturbing the Peace;” they could either pay 200 Euros or go to jail for four days. At the urging of Frau H. of Vlotho, the visitors contributed 600 Euros, the total of the fines, during the next recess.

The three judges then begin taking turns reading these “documents” aloud, which has a powerful soporific effect because of their length and the monotone in which the judges read them. Judge Glenz scolds Horst Mahler for sleeping. The latter replies that he had to drive all night and besides that, the other judges are sleeping too. At 2:24, when the judges finish their reading, there is only one police officer in the room. Judge Glenz announces that the taking of evidence is now concluded, and a ten-minute recess follows. In a rare moment when he is not accompanied by his bodyguard, District Attorney Grossmann converses with others in the vestibule. Proceedings resume at 2:39.

Glenz asks Sylvia whether she has read the documents dated 27 November 2006 and announces that the Court will next consider the application of Section 257a of the Penal Code in order to avoid “misuse of the Court.” He adjourns proceedings at 3:05, to be continued at 9:00 am on 12 December – 5.

According to Section 257a of the Penal Code the Court can - but does not have to - give trial participants the option of submitting motions in written form. This does not hold true for the concluding summarizations or “Plädoyers” delivered by District Attorney, Defense and Accused as described in Section 258. Section 249  - reading aloud of written material - provides for corresponding options. My edition of Strafprozessordnung -  Penal Code is: Becks Texte , TB-Nr. 5011, StPO, 27. Auflage, München 1996. If anyone is interested, I can send the text.


Day Ten - 12 December 2007


No police vehicles are parked in front of the courthouse today. At the security check there are 6 policemen and one bailiff. They are not using the x-ray machine today, only magnetic sensors, and there is no gratuitous harassment. The court is assembled in its usual composition: Judge Glenz with two attending judges, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia with her two attorneys. Horst Mahler is as usual seated among the visitors. There are 3 police officers in the courtroom, one of which is female. In addition there is a “Staschu” - political police - agent, in addition to District Attorney Grossmann’s bodyguard, who is sitting in the last row of the visitors’ section. There is no representative of the mainstream media, which generally boycott show trials except for parroting official comments.
There are only around 15 visitors today, including three persons from Berlin. One of these is Andreas K. who attended all the Zündel, Rudolf and now Stolz trials.

Scheduled to begin at 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:11. Judge Glenz allows Sylvia to speak. She again objects to the court rulings that have curtailed her presentation and denied her right to question the witness. She points out that Section 257a of the Penal Code is the so-called “muzzle provision” used to silence dissenters in show trials. She remarks that “Glenz and Company” trials are providing bountiful fresh new evidence, if such is needed, of Talmudic domination “OMF”, Germany’s present government. There is a short recess at 9:45 and resumption at 9:55, at which time the “Staschu” agents leave. Judge Glenz then announces the newest Court ruling: all legal motions must now be submitted in writing, according to Section 257a of the Penal Code. Then he reads a long list of ostensible reasons for the newest limitations on the Defense. Their gist is that Sylvia has been misusing court procedure. Furthermore her motions themselves have contained indictable offenses and are irrelevant to the specific charges listed in her indictment. He says that the written “Judaism Motions” have been “pre-examined by both the attending judges.”
However, there is a need for additional consultation in view of the possibility of her submitting evidence relating this point. At 10:30 he announces the midday recess until1:30 pm. Since I have several things that require my attention, I ask Horst Mahler what he expects in the afternoon. He says he expects the Court to rush the trial to an end,  especially since the indictment mentions that no more witnesses will be called except for Hamm, who was the historian of the Meinerzhagen court.
 See my previous footnote on Hamm. In my first Leuchter/Deckert Trial in the fall of 1992, he was an attendant judge on the Nussbruch Court. At that time I submitted a motion to have the two lay judges summoned.

Horst says that Sylvia will submit the 12 written motions this afternoon in writing, as is now required. I also spoke to Attorney Bock, whose expectations were the same as Horst’s. We agree that I will telephone in the evening, which I do. Horst reports that Sylvia has submitted the twelve motions, all of which they expect to be rejected. It is doubtful whether the Court will be able to rush through all this through on Friday, since Sylvia has the right of responding to each rejection. The Court will no doubt need a great many recesses to confer. He says the session concluded at 2:45, to be resumed at 9:00 am on Friday, 14 December.



Day 12 - 18 December 2007



Two police cars parked in front of the courthouse today, with four officers on duty. We are in the small courtroom again where there is no Xray inspection of purses etc., just the electronic “archway.”

Enter the Matadors: District Attorney Grossmann accompanied by his faithful bodyguard and two armed police officers who take their seats on the last bench next to the door. There is no bailiff in the room. Sylvia is present with her two attorneys. Again, the only media representative is “Mack the Knife” from the Mannheim Morgenblatt.

Mack has filed charges against me for alleged “threats and insults.” In response, I filed a complaint against him for harassment and false charges. Three days ago, however, I received a letter from the political section of the District Attorney’s office saying that Mack had not filed a complaint. Instead, the complaint was traced to an announcement by the President of Mannheim District Court. Also, the alleged “threat” has now been changed to alleged “attempted coercion.” Without a complaint by Mack, the “charges” cannot be investigated, since he is an employee of the local newspaper. Furthermore a president of a district court cannot file a complaint on behalf of a subordinate. This suggests that Mack might be an Informeller Mitarbeiter  - informal collaborator - of the Verfassungsschutz.

Verfassungsschutz means “Protector of the Constitution,” but Germany has no real constitution under international law. “Informal collaborator” was a favorite expression of the old “Staatssicherheit” or “Stasi” of the former DDR, now resurrected as “Staatschutz” or “Staschu” – the political police of the present BRDDR.

There are around 20 visitors today, among them Horst Mahler and Andreas K. from the Reich Capitol Berlin. Scheduled to begin at 9:00, the session get under way at 9:35. In my earlier reports I neglected to mention that, as in the Zündel and Rudolf trials, there is a manditory “all rise” when the gladiators enter the arena of the courtroom. Thanks to the Court’s countless recesses, this gives the visitors plenty of exercise... It now appears that Judge Rolf Glenz, who has abandoned his fatherly and good-natured demeanor, is annoyed by the colors black-white-red. He now loves “aesthetic orderliness.” 

Visitors are no longer allowed to lay articles of clothing on the empty chairs in the front row, which are reserved for official representatives of the media, who are ignoring the trial. The judge has not yet admonished me for my black-white-red sweater, but I note his disapproving glances. Glenz has not yet adopted the new house rules of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern District Court in Schwerin, where I would not be allowed to enter the courtroom wearing this article of clothing. “Ils sont fous, ces Romains!” - ‘They are crazy, these Romans” - is a constant exclamation in the Asterix comics. Like the ancient Romans in Gaul, today’s BRDDR bullies are “sick in the head.” 


Glenz opens today’s session with the announcement that the Court has taken cognizance of the “wording” of all twelve evidentiary motions that Sylvia submitted on 14 December. Then come his inevitable “inadmissible” rulings.

Here are the motions that Sylvia submitted:
Motion to call the Viennese historian Jagschütz as expert witness;
Motion to read into the court record page 103 of Germar Rudolf’s book “Lectures on the Holocaust,” which deals with the scientific nature of court evidence;

3. Motion to call an expert on contemporary history to describe the memoirs of Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower, specifically to determine whether they mention “Holocaust,” “Shoa” or “Exterminations of Jews.”
Motion to call an expert witness to explain and define scientific and empirical evidence for the Court;
Motion to have the Court explain what it means by the concept of “OFFENKUNDIGKEIT” - usually translated as “Manifest Obviousness” or “Common Knowledge” -- in effect, hearsay evidence.

6. Motion to have the Court explicate Section 130 of the Penal Code.

7. Motion to call an expert on International Law to explain what is meant by the term OMF, “Ordnungsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft” - Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.

8. Motion to call on an expert witness to explicate the 1948 speech by Prof. Carlo Schmid explaining the concept of OMF, which is available on the Internet at:

Sylvia argued that German law was not being applied in the Hennig trial, but rather the dictates of an occupying enemy power. Presiding Judge Knaag acknowledged that his court had taken cognizance of Prof. Schmid’s speech before the Parliamentary Council on 8 September 1948.  He acknowledged that according to Prof. Schmid, the leading German attorney for state and international law, the Reich has never ceased to exist. Neither the capitulation of the Wehrmacht in 1945 nor any subsequent event dissolved the government, and the victors refused to sign a peace treaty with Germany.  Under international law, the Reich continues to exist even though it has been rendered incapable of acting in its legitimate capacity. See also the recent article “Die Verteilte Macht” - Divided Power in Spiegel, vol. 50, 12 Dec 05, pp. 56-. Carlo Schmid effectively demonstrated that the Bundesrepublik is not a sovereign state.  It continues to be a vassal state under foreign rule.
Schmid also demonstrated that the Basic Law of the BRDDR is not a constitution, but rather a statute of the enemy Occupation.

9. Motion to read selections from the work of the highly esteemed Jewish writer Martin Buber on “The Nature of Judaism.”
Motion to read in the record an evidentiary motion by Horst Mahler concerning the philosophy and worldview of Judaism.

Judge Glenz gives the following reasons for denying the motions:

1. Sylvia’s generalized abuse of the Court;
Sylvia’s deceitful purpose, namely of promoting Revisionism without speaking to the subjects specified in her indictment;

3. Sylvia’s contradicting the official version of history;

4. Sylvia’s conduct amounts to “attempting to justify the conduct of a liar”;
If Sylvia’s evidentiary motions were accepted, they would “re-enforce judicial validation of her overall conduct” which serves not the official Truth as expressed in her indictment, but rather the dissemination of her political convictions relating to Jewish  “Holocaust,” Jewish conspiracies and Jewish world supremacy.

Glenz then refers to his admonitions regarding Sylvia’s ‘abuse of defense procedure” on 19 and 27 November.

He says that this was particularly evident in her questioning of Judge Meinerzhagen when he was on the witness stand. He says that Sylvia has disregarded decisions of the German High Courts - Bundesgerichtshof and Bundesverfassungsgericht; in fact, she characterizes them as Talmudic, Jewish dominated and anti German. He says the facts she wants to introduce into the record are not specifically relevant to her defense and furthermore her motions are “polemically conceived.” He admits that the Court has not even considered some of her motions,  especially those concerning Allgemeinkundigkeit - Common Knowledge or Offenkundigkeit /Manifest Obviousness.

He says it is obvious that Sylvia is disseminating Revisionist theories; and doubts about the official “Holocaust” are unacceptable. He says that Germany’s predicament under international law since 1945 is irrelevant to the specifics of her indictment. He ends his pronouncements at 10:00. Sylvia’s court appointed lawyer, who was “planted” in the Defense over her objections, now leaves the courtroom, saying she has other things to do.
In her response, Sylvia congratulates the Court for acknowledging the basic underlying problem. She expresses regret that the Court is not interested in moving on to the next phase of a real trial, which would be Sachaufklärung - Discovery. She says that “Manifest Obviousness” is not a holy cow and has no place in a real court of law. She says the Court’s ruling has nothing to do with justice: all her factually oriented evidentiary motions are automatically stamped “abuse of the Court” regardless of how relevant they may be. She calls the conduct of the Court shameless, contemptible and coldly calculating.

This is best evinced by the Court’s disallowing the Discovery phase in her trial. She says it is clear to everyone who has the least familiarity with the law that the Court is acting illegally and irrationally.

The theatrical expressions on Judge Glenz’s face show growing impatience and indignation. Sylvia points out that the infantile doctrine of “Manifest Obviousness” is logically untenable and can be maintained only by despotic violence. The truth would have no need of repression and violence, and no system of justice that is worthy of the name denies and rejects empirical evidence. Justice does not reject empirical truth, but empirical truth rejects injustice.

By disallowing the submission of empirical evidence, the Glenz court has made its proceedings incompatible with justice and the rule of law. She says this is most clearly demonstrated by Glenz’s rulings designating evidentiary motions as “abuse of the Court”, which obviously makes any defense impossible.

At 10:10, Glenz orders a ten-minute recess. Proceedings resume at 10:38.

After recess Judge Glenz announces that as far as the Court is concerned, the taking of evidence is now terminated. Sylvia disputes this and announces her intention to submit additional evidentiary motions. She introduces another motion regarding “Manifest Obviousness” with reference to rulings and verdicts by the German High Courts. Glenz perceives this as another “insult to the Court” and immediately disallows it. He says the Court has not insulted Sylvia, so why is Sylvia insulting the Court? Undeterred, Sylvia points out the Court’s duty to gather evidence and expert testimony. This consists of gathering  personal data in order to determine whether what is quoted was really spoken or written in the manner depicted. Under present conditions, such determinations are enough for a summary verdict of “go straight to jail!” It reminds us of GULAG methods. She remarks that these “Holocaust” show trials could be expedited by simply making preprinted forms and filling in blank spaces with the victim’s name and verdict.
Referring to the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust,” she poses three questions:

a. Has “Holocaust” been adequately researched? In an interview with the Viennese Standard in summer of 2006, Raul Hilberg, since deceased, states that, despite more than sixty years of financial expenditure, countless investigations and numerous research institutes, “Holocaust” has been at most 20 percent investigated!

b. Are the results of “Holocaust” research available everywhere, to everyone?
Are there significant scientific, forensic or documentary reservations concerning official depictions of “Holocaust?”
Sylvia points out that her motion to submit evidence contains well documented scientific, forensic and documentary reservations pertaining to the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust.” Because of this documentation, the results of Revisionist research must be acknowledged as serious reservations. She says that the testimony of expert scientific witnesses would help answer questions about the authenticity of “Manifest Obviousness” and “Holocaust.” She repeats that her procedure represents an attempt to give the Court a chance to return to authentic justice. In support of her motion, she is submitting the following documents:

1. Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust, which are posted on the Internet.        
Germar Rudolf’s expert The Rudolf Report on the alleged “Gas Chambers” at Auschwitz, which he prepared for the trial of Wehrmacht Gen. Otto-Ernst Remer in 1993.
Serge Thion’s Vérité historique ou vérité politique – Affaire Faurisson - Political or Historical Correctness: the Faurisson Case, Paris, 1980.

4. Jürgen Graf’s The Giant with Feet of Clay, Hastings, England, 1999.
Sylvia points out that under the rule of law, there can be no legal enforcement of dogma, which is defined as legal or religious tenets put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. She repeats that, in defiance of the demands of justice, it is the clear intent of this Court to reject every evidentiary motion made by the accused and to imprison the accused without allowing her to submit evidence in support of her arguments. Judge Glenz then asks Sylvia whether she has additional motions to submit and she answers “No more for today.” At 11:02 he announces a noonday recess until 1:30.
After lunch, Grossmann returns without his bodyguard. The
Court returns protected by two armed policemen to protect them from Revisionist desperados. Judge Glenz announces that the Court has considered the wording of Sylvia’s motion to submit evidence and its ruling is NEIN! Again the Court rejects her evidentiary motion because it constitutes “abuse of the Court.” Attorney Bock then suggests that the Court include in these proceedings a German translation of the verdict of the Spanish High Court of 9 November 2007. 

In conjunction with a trial that had resulted in the conviction of Pedro Varela of Barcelona, the Spanish Constitutional Court recently ruled that punishment of “Holocaust Denial” is unconstitutional. Only punishment of advocating or justifying such “Holocaust Denial” can now be construed as constitutional, which effectively abolishes the criminalization of “Holocaust Denial” in Spain.

Glenz rejects Bock’s suggestion. He says that the Spanish case may be superficially similar in some respects but is not comparable to the present case. Then he announces that the Court has dealt with the question of whether the commission of two or more offenses in one act is involved in Sylvia’s case, or two or more separate acts. Because of the proximity of dates - February and March of 2006 -  as well as contextual co-incidence, the Court is inclined toward the “single act” option. 

This means that the Court has decided on one punishment instead of three, since the indictment stipulates three crimes. This is a tactical concession by the Court, since the sentence can be lighter. Glenz again tries to terminate the taking of evidence. Bock objects to this and makes an evidentiary motion to include the verdict of the Spanish High Court into the proceedings. Glenz calls a recess to confer. Shortly before two o’clock he returns to conclude today’s session, announcing that the trial will continue on 19 December.


Day 13 - 19 December 2007  


Legal Counsel for Stolz Ludwig Bock

>An awareness of such contradictions and incongruities can obviously introduce  considerable doubt into the Court’s hand-me-down conception of the obviousness  of “Holocaust,” and such obvious doubt is obviously capable of causing this ostensibly  obvious “Manifest Obviousness” to appear as anything but obvious.<


Today there is only one police vehicle in front of the courthouse, a Mercedes “Sprinter” squad car. There are four policemen in the vestibule of Courtroom 5. Security is rather lax today, with no Xray device, only the electronic “archway” and wand.

The government is gradually dropping its pretensions that Revisionists are violent desperados scheming to assault the judges and district attorney. Scheduled for 9:00, the session begins at 9:11. The usual members of the Court are here except that a female colleague has replaced District Attorney Grossmann today. There are two armed police officers but no bailiff and no “Staschu” agent. Sylvia has both attorneys. Again there are no representatives of the media; they tend to either ignore the trial or parrot government statements. There are around 20 visitors, including Horst Mahler and Andreas K. of Berlin.

Bock begins by explicating Sylvia’s evidentiary motion made yesterday. He also moves to introduce Chapter 7 of the Rudolf Report, as well as call a professional chemist as expert witness. Perhaps with tongue in cheek, he adds that for the sake of “neutrality” and “objectivity,” the expert witness should come from Israel!

Next, Sylvia moves that she be allowed to include an article on the subject of disbarring attorneys who represent defendants in political trials. After considerable hemming and hawing Glenz agrees, after Sylvia and Attorney Bock assure him that the article has nothing to do with Auschwitz or “Holocaust.” Sylvia’s extensively documented treatment comes as a complete surprise to most observers. It deals with the extent to which Horst Mahler’s collaboration should be prosecuted, in view of his provisional disbarment as pronounced by Tiergarten County Court and confirmed by Berlin District Court. Sylvia’s motion includes calling the President of the German Association of Attorneys as well as the Chairman of the Munich Association as expert witnesses. Glenz asks his usual “any more motions?” and Sylvia responds “Not today.” The time is 9:30. Glenz calls a recess until 11:35. His ruling is the inevitable “NEIN.” He says the judges of this Court have all the knowledge they need without testimony by expert witnesses.

Anyone interested in the article should contact Horst Mahler through  Attorney Bock then presents his own motion on the subject of Manifest Obviousness, which is in two parts.


In Part 1 he moves that the Court read chapters 7 and 8 of Germar Rudolf’s Expert Report (submitted yesterday) into the main proceedings. Since there is no chemist among the judges, Bock moves that the Court call an expert witness in order to assure that Germar’s evaluations of chemical analyses contain no errors, from the scientific standpoint. In order to protect the expert witness from criminal prosecution in Germany’s courts, in the event he or she should utter something that is politically incorrect, Brock suggests calling an expert from Israel. He adds that in a telephone interview with Germar’s supervising professor for his PhD dissertation, the professor assured him that Rudolf’s Expert Report contains no errors whatsoever -- it is 100% correct. Under present censorship and taboos, Germar’s professor would be risking criminal prosecution if he testified before this Court. Only citizens of Israel are immune from prosecution. Bock points out that acknowledging this Expert Report and having it verified by an Israeli expert with no criminal record would prove to the Court beyond all reasonable doubt, that eyewitness accounts supporting the “Manifest Obviousness” of “Holocaust,” which are accepted uncritically and in a politically correct fashion by the German High Courts, are objectively and forensically false. Whether such an acknowledgement would enable the Court in its “intense striving for justice” to “remove the keystone of the ‘Holocaust’” structure is of course a matter for the Court itself to decide. He points out that the opportunity to do so still exists.


In Part 2, Bock reminds the Court that yesterday his client submitted an article by Herbert Pitlick entitled “Auschwitz – Behauptungen und Sachbeweise“ - Auschwitz: Allegations and Empirical Evidence. He says that this article can be of great assistance to the Court in ascertaining the truth if it is entered into the record. In the article, the author enumerates a large number of contradictions and incongruities associated with “Holocaust.” Somewhat sarcastically, Bock observes that in the Court’s obvious strivings to achieve justice in this criminal trial, an obvious awareness of such contradictions and incongruities can obviously introduce considerable doubt into the Court’s hand-me-down conception of the obvious obviousness of “Holocaust,” and such obvious doubt is obviously capable of causing this obvious “Manifest Obviousness” to appear as anything but obvious. Bock points out that it is possible that the Court, after taking the Pitlik article into consideration, will reject “Manifest Obviousness” on rational grounds, because of its contradictions and incongruities. The exposition of “obvious obviousness” will not be sufficient unless the Court feels the need to protect itself from accusations from on high for the sake of “domestic tranquility.” He adds that the  “multiplicity of incongruities” in the Court’s reading of the article might not be adequate. If this should be the case, he requests appropriate notification so that specific details can be provided -- they are not lacking!

His motion too is of course denied. Glenz says it is lacking in seriousness since it subjects the concept of “Manifest Obviousness” to disparagement. Glenz asks if there are any more evidentiary motions for him to reject and Bock says no. Glenz announces “That’s all then” but Sylvia corrects him. She insists on her right of response to Glenz’s previously disallowed motion concerning Horst Mahler.

 At 12:10, Glenz appears to have had enough. He ends today’s session and announces that the trial will resume at 9:00 am on Thursday, 20 December. Before he and his troops leave the courtroom, he decrees that in future, he does not want to see coats and purses draped across the chairs or backs of chairs in the empty first row. Apparently Judge Glenz does have some sense of decorum – at least, where items of apparel are concerned!


Day 14 - 20 December 2007


Wovor haben Sie Angst? Sie machen sich doch zum Affen!  - What are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself!

- Sylvia Stolz to Judge Rolf Glenz  



Today there is only one police vehicle in front of the courthouse.

The usual five armed police agents are on duty at the security checks. Security is rather lax, the same as last time. Scheduled to begin at 9:30, proceedings get under way at 10:24. The reasons given for the delay are that the judges needed to confer and Attorney Bock’s train from the Pfalz was delayed. The usual members of the Court are present. Grossmann has no bodyguard today. At 10:20 three armed police officers enter the room. A disheveled person sitting in the front row, who looks like a tramp, engages in a long, serious conversation with the ranking police officer. He could be an informer or undercover agent disguised as someone from the “street scene.” Only one representative of the media is present. This is the lady from the dpa - Deutsche Presse Agentur -  in her late ‘30s, whom we remember from the Zündel and Rudolf trials. She is wearing jeans so tight that she looks as though she had been melted and poured into them, displaying her “chassis,” especially her “po,” to great advantage. The lady is obviously on good terms with the District Attorney. There are about 20 visitors today including Horst Mahler and the Andreas K. from Berlin.
Sylvia enters with her attorneys.

Sylvia, Horst Mahler and I often eat in the “Mensa” the inexpensive student restaurant at nearby Mannheim University. Recently, a vigilant member of ASTA  - Allgemeiner Studentenausschuß, an official student organization) recognized us and was inspired to call attention to the “evil Nazi guests” who go around “denying Holocaust.” The fearless “Antifa” printed up flyers containing pictures of Sylvia, Horst and myself, along with trial dates and schedules. This could explain the presence of the undercover “tramp” and his conversation with the police in the courtroom.
University students hardly ever visit the trial. One could count them on one hand, and “Chaoists” likewise have not showed up for this trial, although the presence of a few police officers would not have discouraged them. The “Flugi” (flyer) was apparently part of a planned “unofficial” documentary done in collaboration with the District Attorney’s office. ASTA activists welcome acknowledgment of their heroic “antifascist” and “anti-antisemitic” actions. Visit their website at
Sylvia begins with her response to the rejected evidentiary motion concerning cooperation with Horst Mahler. Glenz tries to interrupt her but she does allow herself to be distracted. Throughout her detailed presentation, Judge Glenz is busily whispering to the bailiff, who is sitting at his right hand. After completing her response to the rejection of the Horst Mahler motion, Sylvia begins her response to the evidentiary motions that Glenz denied on 18th and 19th December. Glenz now goes into action and demands that Sylvia submit her response in writing.
Sylvia asks: “Wovor haben Sie Angst? Sie machen sich doch zum Affen!“ - Now what are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself! Losing his “cool,” Glenz yells “I forbid you to speak!” and growls to the Court Reporter, “Write that down in the court record!” Grossmann chimes in as well and says in Sylvia’s direction: “Geben Sie doch auch eine Abschrift an das Jüngste Gericht!“ - Why not make a copy for the Final Judgment as well!

Glenz insists that Sylvia hand over her response, which she does at 10:40. Glenz then orders Selbstleseverfahren - which means the members of the Court read it for themselves, which means they may or may not read it -  and announces a conference recess. Session resumes at 10:55.

Glenz announces that the Court has taken the document in consideration and the defending attorneys say they have done likewise. Then comes the automatic rejection of Sylvia’s response on the grounds he gave in his rejection of the evidentiary motion.

Again Glenz has a long whispering session with the court historian.

He asks his perfunctory question about further evidentiary motions and Sylvia answers “none today.”

Glenz then announces in a loud voice and with an expression of immense satisfaction: “Beweiserhebung abschlossen!” - The gathering of evidence is now concluded!

This means that on 7 January, District Attorney Grossmann will present his pleading, as will Attorney Bock. It is unlikely that Sylvia’s court appointed defender will say anything. Sylvia is allowed the final word, and we do not know how long she will speak. It also means that additional trial sessions can still take place on
8 January as well as 10 January.

At 10:58 Glenz ends today’s session with the announcement that the next session will begin at 9:00 am 7 January 2008.

Postscript: Since I am not a skilled typist, I needed nearly six hours to prepare these reports. As far as assessments are concerned,  I refer to my remarks in the first reports. I can say only that so far, Sylvia and Horst Mahler have made no complaints, although my reports are certainly not an exact transcription of what was said. I wish to thank Frau Ursula H., Werner W. and Ray G. in Texas for their financial support. If readers’ donations should exceed my expenses, then any excess amounts will most certainly go to Sylvia's trial expenses.


Was auf Erden geschieht, geschieht durch Ehre und Treue.
Wer heute die alte Pflicht verrät, verrät auch morgen die neue.
The good in this world occurs through honor and steadfastness.
He who betrays the ancient duties today will betray the new ones tomorrow.

- Adalbert Stifter, German poet from the Böhmerwald.


My reports on the Stolz trial are neither a simultaneous transcription nor a complete account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I ask that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author. Please consider that compiling these reports takes at least four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim takes even longer and in addition, costs considerable money. I can donate my time, but money is very scarce. Every trip to Mannheim including gasoline, parking and a light lunch costs me around 35 Euros. If you are able to make a small contribution to help offset these expenses, I ask that you transfer the amount to: Konto 134345-754/G. Deckert – Postbank KA, BLZ 660 100 75, Vermerk „LG MA/SSt.“
I wish to thank our sympathizers Lother E., Klaus F., and Dieter G., as well as Frau Ilona O. for their contributions to my expenses, as well as Giovanni G. in Sweden who is making monthly contributions for the duration of the trial.

On this note I wish all the readers of my reports, whether in German, English, French or Spanish a happy and healthy New Year.  May 2008 bring us the fortitude we need as patriots in our respective countries so that we can continue the struggle for Folk and Fatherland!

Best regards from Günter Deckert
From your translator James Damon -

Happy New Year Everybody! If you appreciate Günter’s strenuous efforts in providing us with particulars of the German show trials, our only alternative to the politically correct claptrap in the Poodle Press, then let him know at
Maybe things will get a little better in 2008. As Tiny Tim says: God bless us each and every one! - That goes even for mean old Judge Grinch who stole Christmas!

- Continued in Newsletter No 367C


Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute