ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                   No 367C


         Mannheim, Germany November 2007 - January 2008


                                Sylvia the Proud German Patriot


Day 15 - 7 January 2008


- continued from Newsletter No 367B

Today there is only one police car, a Mercedes Sprinter, in front of the courthouse and four armed police agents on duty, one of which is female. The Court is meeting in the small courtroom again, with light security and no X-ray searches, only the “magnetic archway.” This group of four officers has gone through this many times and now realizes that the trial visitors are not members of a German Jihad or Al Quaida.

The Court is here in its usual composition including Presiding Judge Glenz, his attending judges, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia with her two defense attorneys, one of whom was appointed by the Court and “planted” in the Defense over Sylvia’s objections.  There are two uniformed police agents in our courtroom, including the female agent.  There are no “Staschu” agents in the courtroom today. The crowd is very large, with four media reporters, including the “dpa lady” - Deutsche Presse Agentur. They are expecting that the “BRDDR” government through Grossmann will announce its desired range of punishments for Sylvia, who defended her Revisionist clients much too vigorously. There is a “full house” of visitors, including Horst Mahler and Andreas K. from Berlin. Six visitors have to wait outside, since Judge Glenz has denied Sylvia’s and Attorney Bock’s request to meet in the larger courtroom or at least allow visitors to take the empty front row seats reserved for the press. Scheduled for 9:30, today’s session gets under way at 9:34.


Sylvia and Attorney Bock begin by submitting a motion that the visitors who have no seats be allowed to sit in vacant seats reserved for the press. Judge Glenz denies this motion, as he has denied all the Defense motions. They then demand a ruling by the panel of judges, who of course follow the leader. Glenz gives changes in security procedures as the reason for his rejection. However, he suggests the possibility of moving to the large courtroom after lunch, in view of the anticipated increase in the number of visitors.


Then, in a barely audible voice, Glenz announces that in addition to the charges listed against Sylvia in her indictment, the Court is now adding Sylvia’s “coercion” against 5 persons.


This has to do with Sylvia’s pointing out at beginning of the trial that under international law, the laws of the Reich are still in effect, since no peace treaty was ever signed and no new constitution written and approved by the German Nation in plebiscite.


Under wartime 1944 laws, “anti German activities” are punishable by death. It is clear that the vassal “BRDDR” government is reacting to Sylvia’s pointing out its lack of legitimacy. I’ll ask Horst Mahler more about this tomorrow.


After dictating his announcement to the court historian, Glenz asks the Defense if they have any additional motions or requests that he can deny.

He is referring, not to new motions, but rather to Sylvia’s Gegendarstellungen - responses and objections - to some of the motions he has denied. This official procedure is allowed following the termination of the trial phase of submitting motions and gathering evidence.


At 9:35, Sylvia announces that she wishes to speak concerning her Gegendarstellung to Glenz’s “muzzle” ruling that forbade her to continue questioning Dr. Meinerzhagen - “Judge Nein.” Glenz, acting stressed and irritated, demands that Sylvia submit her response in writing.

Between 9:00 and 9:30 am, Court had conducted a trial of three drug smugglers, two ex–Yugoslavs and a Turk, very exotic, with very large amounts of money involved. The trial had highlighted the present state of German society, which might help explain the judge’s nervousness.

Sylvia assures him that her response has nothing to do with “Holocaust” but Glenz still insists on a written Gegendarstellung and refers to the “muzzle” ruling of the Court. Sylvia now has to give in. She presents her written Gegendarstellung with the comment “now you are even afraid of a little correction.” To this Glenz snaps back, “just give it to me!” Attorney Bock then intervenes in support of Sylvia and observes that the public has the right to hear the correction. 


But Glenz prefers to treat his directive as “expediting the proceedings.” He continues unrelenting and at 9:37 announces a ten-minute recess. He allows the visitors to remain in the courtroom, however. 


After recess Glenz announces “The answer is still NEIN!” Everything must be submitted in written form, with no exceptions, exactly as previously decreed. Sylvia insists on delivering a response to this ruling  and demands another recess. Glenz allows 15 minutes and allows the audience may remain in the courtroom. After that, Attorney Bock then demands a decision by the Court on the empty chairs in the first row. At 10:10 Glenz announces an additional recess of 10 minutes. This interruption does not last long, the ruling is of course NEIN.

At 10:22 there is another recess so the Court can confer on another Gegendarstellung. Attorney Bock is allowed to present this one orally, since the Court has not muzzled him.


The Court’s decision is that it sees no reason to change its ruling.


Next, Sylvia submits another written Gegendarstellung for a ruling on her attempted questioning of the witness Judge Meinerzhagen on 11 December 2007. She wants to read into the record additional documents regarding Judge Meinerzhagen’s “bending” or violating procedural rules during the Zündel trial. Glenz’s immediate reply is “NEIN!” Everything must be submitted in writing! No exceptions!


The Court sees no reason for a new decision!


It is clear to everyone that Glenz is growing more and more surly and despotic, and the other judges are following suit. It is obvious that all they want to do is terminate the trial and ram through their verdict, which they have known from the beginning. Sylvia has done a thorough job of exposing the trial as a travesty, and they are keenly aware that they have “made monkeys of themselves” as Sylvia pointed out to Glenz. There is more busy whispering between Glenz and Dr. Bock the Court Reporter  - not to be confused with Defense Attorney Bock. It is significant that the whispering is always between these two, never including the other judges. During a lull Sylvia is heard to say “This has been a most unusual trial,” which evokes loud laughter from the public. Glenz scowls warningly at the public but takes no action.


Dr. Meinerzhaen, “Judge Nein,” would have hit the ceiling long ago. He would have ordered the police to identify the persons who laughed and either ejected them from the courtroom or fined them for disorderly conduct.


At 10:32 Sylvia submits a written Gegendarstellung regarding Judge Meinerzhagen’s violations of trial procedure, remarking in Glenz’s direction: “You will be held responsible for everything you are doing here.”


Glenz asks: “What do you mean by that?” and Sylvia replies: “Just what I say.”


Next, Sylvia submits another Gegendarstellung, not related to the subject of “Holocaust” but rather to the Court ruling of 29 November 2007, concerning the Court’s disallowing her to continue presenting her defense statement. Glenz says repeatedly “Hand it over.” Sylvia: “This is a correction, because the facts are misrepresented in the official record.” Glenz: “Hand it over right now!” Sylvia:  “You are repeating yourself just like you do when rejecting evidentiary motions,” which evokes more loud laughter from the public. Glenz does not react to this, but Court Reporter Bock is noticeably growing “antsy” and beginning to “boil.” Despite Glenz’s repeated “Hand it over!” Sylvia does not allow herself to be distracted and continues to present her arguments. Then she begins expounding on the illegality of Section 130 of the Penal Code. Glenz counters with “submit it in writing!” and he and Court Reporter Bock begin whispering again. At 10:43 Glenz calls a recess until 12:00 so the Court can “take under advisement” the 100 pages or so of the written motions Sylvia has handed in.


The media reporters immediately crowd around Grossmann and begin asking questions.


Reporter Mack of the Mannheimer Morgen is not present today, and someone else is presumably taking his place. During the last recess I had noticed a reporter whose face was familiar to me from earlier trials, and I now ask him if he is filling in for Mack of the Mannheimer Morgen. His answer is an abrupt “That’s none of your business.” Horst Mahler who happens to be standing nearby, seems surprised and asks, “why don’t you want to tell?” and he answers: “Because I don’t want to get on anybody’s Abschußliste - hit list.” Horst and I, puzzled, ask “What are you talking about?” Then this weird character says “You want to have us all shot.” Horst remarks reflectively, “Apparently you believe those fairy tales you make up and spread.” Unfortunately there is no article in the Mannheimer Morgen on the “Hour of the D. A.,” so I cannot get the name of the reporter. I’ll have to file a complaint against an unknown person. I am curious to see how the Political Section of the Mannheim District Attorney’s Office – Grossmann - will treat this little incident, which lasted about five minutes.


Despite the long recess, we still do not have to leave the courtroom while the judges “take under advisement” Sylvia’s written Gegendarstellungen. Maybe Glenz forgot to order it cleared, in his agitated state. Sylvia and Attorney Bock remain in the courtroom and confer, while Horst and I also stay and “talk shop.” At 12:05 the judges return. Now there are only three reporters present, including the blonde from the dpa. Amost as soon as Glenz sits down, he announces a midday recess until 3:00 pm. The three media reporters again hurl themselves at District Attorney Grossmann, and I also walk up to him and ask if he expects to still “get on board the train” this afternoon. He answers that there is a “fifty-fifty chance” –- quite politely, not diffidently and not harshly. This suggests that, as far as personal bearing and demeanor are concerned, he might not be so bad.


Because of a pressing engagement in Weinheim I have to leave at 3:00 pm. I did not personally experience what happened after that, but Attorney Bock told me about it during a telephone conversation. The proceedings resumed shortly after 3:00 pm, and Glenz announced rejection of two of Sylvia’s Gegenvorstellungen, for the familiar reasons. He said that the Court had not yet finished discussing the others, and would present its rulings tomorrow morning at 9:00 am.
Please note that my reports on the Stolz trial are neither a simultaneous transcription nor a complete account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I ask that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author. Please consider that compiling these reports takes at least four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim takes even longer and in addition, costs considerable money. I can donate my time, but money is very scarce. Every trip to Mannheim including gasoline, parking and a light lunch costs me around 35 Euros. If you are able to make a small contribution to help offset these expenses, I ask that you transfer the amount to: Konto 134345-754/G. Deckert – Postbank KA, BLZ 660 100 75, Vermerk „LG MA/SSt.“

Many thanks to Bill H. in the USA for his contribution to my expenses.

Günter Deckert, Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 7. Januar 2008, 22.15 Uhr.



Day 16 - 8 January 2008


1. “It is impermissible to ask whether such mass murder was technically possible.”

2. “It was possible because it happened.”
3. “This is the obligatory point of departure for every investigation of the subject.”

4. “Keep this truth in mind: There is no debate concerning the existence of gas chambers, nor can there ever be such debate.”

Declaration by mainstream French historians, cited at p. 86 of Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust.

Chemist Germar Rudolf comments on 1-4 points:

This declaration is a classic example of the present assault on the scientific method. 

1. It prohibits open investigation of “Holocaust”; 

2. It presents a circular argument;

3. It proclaims official dogma;

4. It combines the three preceding sentences with the establishment of eternal truth.


“The Hour of District Attorney Grossmann”

There are no police cars in front of the courthouse today; the usual “group of four” including one female, had to march from the nearby police station. Like yesterday, security is again lax in the vestibule of the small courtroom - the courtroom was overfilled yesterday.


The Court is present in its usual composition, including Presiding Judge Glenz and attending judges; District Attorney Grossmann - who has no bodyguard today; and Sylvia Stolz with Defense Attorney Bock. Sylvia’s second attorney is also present, a young female who was appointed by the Court over Sylvia’s objections. How can  Sylvia trust someone whom the Court planted in the Defense? The court appointed lawyer does not return after lunch.


There are two armed uniformed police agents inside the courtroom as well as two “Staschu” - political police-  agents, including our old friend “Spitzmausgesicht” Mouseface, who leaves at noon. No bailiff is present today. All the visitors’ seats are taken again. Late arrivals must wait outside, since we cannot move to the large courtroom until after lunch. Horst Mahler is here of course, as is the delegation from Berlin. There are numerous supporters from Köln, the Kurpfalz and Düsseldorf.


There are two media reporters present as the session begins, the blonde from dpa and a reporter for Mannheimer Morgen. The latter may be reporting for BILD as well.


[NOTE: The following short article, In today’s BILD Rhein-Neckar gives the tone of the coverage by Germany’s “poodle press:”

Nazi Lawyer Rails Against Judge:
More Mischief Caused by Nazi Lawyer Sylvia Stolz (44).

The fiancé of the rightwing extremist Horst Mahler is on trial for incitement of the masses. She submitted numerous evidentiary motions in an effort to delay the trial. In addition, she insulted the judge by insinuating that his verdict had already been handed down to him. Numerous rightwing extremists among the audience howled derisively during the session. Attorney Sylvia Stolz is threatened with disbarment.

There is no hint as to the authorship of this neo German intellectual claptrap. The same holds true for today’s edition of the Wormserzeitung. How could Worms sink so low -- Worms on the Rhein, the old Kaiser cathedral, the city of the Niebelungen, just 30 kilometers northwest of Mannheim! There is no mention of the trial whatsoever in the Mannheimer Morgen.]


Scheduled for 9:00, the session begins at 9:08. Judge Glenz begins by announcing that the Court has taken Sylvia’s Gegendarstellungen - responses and corrections - made yesterday “under advisement” through Selbstleseverfahren. This means that the judges may or may not have read it individually and it does not become part of the official trial record. District Attorney Grossmann also says that he has “taken it under cognizance.” The judge’s ruling is his inevitable NEIN.


He denies all of Sylvia’s Gegenvorstellungen, like all her evidentiary motions, on the grounds that they are “irrelevant” to “Holocaust” and/or as this particular trial; or they are “abuse of the Court;” or else they “provide a forum for Holocaust Denial,” etc. Glenz recites his litany of old familiar phrases. The surprise is his announcement that all additional motions and Gegendarstellungen must be submitted by 11 O’clock. Anything submitted later than that will be dealt with in the Urteilsbegründung - Basis of Verdict.


His recitation of reasons for rejection until 9:29. He does not neglect to mention, with a perfectly straight face, that even though he is rejecting everything, this does not mean the Court is neglecting its duty to uncover all the facts. Sylvia confers briefly with Attorney Bock. A little later Glenz announces that in the view of the Court, the hearing of evidence is now definitely concluded. At 9:30 he allows District Attorney Grossmann to speak.

By way of introduction, Grossmann announces that “Holocaust” is a “historical fact” and that there are “libraries filled with literature,” including verdicts of German and foreign courts, that are backed by “serious historiography.”


[NOTE: Needless to say, he does not tell us where these “libraries full of literature from German and foreign trial verdicts” are to be found. How could they have “libraries full of literature from German and foreign trial verdicts” when “Holocaust” courts do not accept evidentiary motions? I intend to ask Grossmann about that, because I want to KNOW and not just BELIEVE, and I encourage others to ask him as well. 

His address: 


StA GL A. Grossmann


D 68149  Mannheim


Telephone and FAX 0049 (0) 621 – 292 7524 /  ... 292 7530. 


His phrase “serious historiography” is obviously an empty slogan tossed into the courtroom. He makes no references to scientifically verifiable studies or to authentic researchers.]


Grossmann says that the “Holocaust” dispensation by the German High Court in Karlsruhe, the doctrine of Offenkundigkeit - Manifest Obviousness, meaning “everybody knows it is true, therefore it need not be proven - is the result of “decades of research.” Grossmann says Saul Friedlander’s book Die Jahre der Vernichtung, published in Munich in 2006, explains Offenkundigkeit in detail.


[NOTE: Friedländer’s “exhaustive” work, published in 2007 and awarded the “Friedenspreis” by the GermanBook Fair in Frankfurt, consists entirely of excerpts from other “exterminationist” books.


Friedländer published two works beforehand, both of which include very little original research. They are The Jews and the Third Reich: Years of Persecution - first edition New York 1997, German edition Munich 1998; and The Jews and the Third Reich: Years of Extermination - 2006.]


Attorney Bock is allowed to speak and he asks Glenz about his announced imposition of a deadline. Glenz acts as though he does not understand. Then follows a short “exchange of opinions.” Bock wins his point, and Glenz announces an initial recess of 15 minutes. This is then extended to 11 O’clock, since both Sylvia and Bock insist on using their mandated 75 minutes for additional motions and Gegendarstellungen. 


After the recess Sylvia submits three motions and asks to be allowed to briefly explain them, but Glenz again denies this and haughtily demands that they be submitted in writing. Attorney Bock also submits a motion and  when Glenz points out that he has already said he will not accept any more motions, Bock quotes Adenauer’s famous quip, “Was schert mich mein saudummes Gerede von gestern!“ - “What do I care about the stupid remarks I made yesterday!”


[NOTE: Konrad Adenauer was a Rhenic Separatist after 1918 and former First Mayor of Cologne. During the National Socialist period the National Socialists removed him from office, but did not revoke his pension - as the BRDDR revoked mine in 1988. Adenauer spent the war years peacefully at a monastery in the Eifel region and became first “chancellor” of the Federal Republic. In 1955 he tried to sell the Saar region to the French through the Saarstatut, but the Saarlanders dealt him and his separatist friend “JoHo” - Johannes Hoffmann - a sound thrashing by voting overwhelmingly “Ja” to Germany and “Nein” to France. Adenauer is also remembered as the father of “Westbindung” - unquestioning collaboration with the Western Allies - and worked out the abject Wiedergutmachung - endless reparations - with Ben Gurion in a New York hotel room.]

When Glenz tries to make him submit his motion in writing, Bock makes very clear that the prohibition against submitting motions orally applies to Sylvia but not to him. Glenz has to accept this and does not interrupt Bock gain. Bock’s evidentiary motion calls for an expert in contemporary history to help clarify the problem of wildly overstated estimates of number of victims of “Holocaust,” since in recent years the official numbers have been constantly reduced, even by “mainstream” historians.


NOTE: on the reduction in numbers: An example of this is Claude Pressac’s The Crematories of  Auschwitz, published by Piper in Munich. This French mainstream researcher, originally a student of Prof. Faurisson, later changed sides and went to work for the Klarsfeld Foundation of New York and Paris. He disappointed them by reducing the estimated number of victims from four million to below one million. Serge Klarsfeld was a French Jew married to a German woman named Beate who achieved notoriety by publicly boxing the ears of Chancellor Kurt Kiesinger alias “Silver Tongue” who, as she proved, was NOT a member of the Resistance during the Third Reich. Kiesinger is not to be confused with Henry Kissinger, who also achieved a certain notoriety in the USA... .


NOTE: regarding Tateinheiten - the commission of two or more offenses in a single act: According to Horst Mahler, the Court still has the option of combining several groupings of complaints into Tateinheiten with result that there would be fewer counts in the indictment. This would mean that the total number of individual sentences would be fewer so that the  final sentence could also be less. For this reason we are very curious to see what the “final verdict” of the Glenz Curt will be. It is an open question whether the verdict will be pronounced on Thursday, even though the sentencing range and guidelines have long been known.]

Glenz again orders Selbstleseverfahren for Sylvia’s remaining Gegendarstellungen - responses and corrections, one of which has to do with the Friedländer book. The Court may or may not deign to look over them. After renewed whispering with his “right hand,” Court Reporter Judge Bock, Judge Glenz announces the midday recess until 1:00 pm.


After lunch we are in the large courtroom, where there is room for everyone, and the proceedings move along briskly. Now there are only two uniformed police agents present, with no “Staschu,” and there are three media reporters. Glenz gets things moving by saying “...The Court has taken cognizance of the Defendant’s documents and the Court’s ruling is NEIN.  Motions denied!” Obviously it is impossible for him to say anything else. Then he chants his litany of reasons for denial. When he is finished Silvia remarks “I really feel sorry for you – nothing but the same old same-old.” Then comes another exchange between Glenz, Silvia and Attorney Bock with two more Gegendarstellungen followed by automatic rejections.


Then comes Grossmann’s second assault, the real “Hour of the District Attorney.” Judge Glenz asks him to repeat his remarks about “Holocaust” that he had made in the morning session. He adds the embellishment of the phrase “state organized and executed mass murder.” Count by count he goes through “his” indictment, actually the masterpiece of the entire political section of the Office of the District Attorney. He comes up with a total of 11 individual points or counts.  In agreement with the Court, he combines Counts 2 and 3 as well as Counts 10 and 11 as “committed in Tateinheit” - two or more offenses combined in one act.


Grossmann specifically mentions Sylvia’s employment of Horst Mahler as her assistant - which he says was unlawful because of Mahler’s disbarment; her disparagement of the BRDDR government; her repeated use of the term “OMF” - Prof. Carlo Schmid’s 1948 formulation “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Domination” to describe the vassal Federal Republic); her “obstruction of trial procedure” during the Zündel Trial; her insulting and “coercing” the Court - by referring to Reichsgesetz 90a/b, still lawful under international law since no peace was signed; her repeated interruptions of Court proceedings; her refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of “BRDDR”; certain of her expressions in her Rechtsmittel; 


[NOTE: this was connected with her appeal of Meinerzhagen’s ejecting her from the Zündel trial, directed to the Superior District Court of Karlsruhe as well as BGH -- Grossmann includes extensive quotes from the 67 page complaint - plus sending these expressions to the office of Judge Meinerzhagen;] 


her conduct before Potsdam County Court in the Reineke Trial and others - more “Denial of Holocaust”; and attaching Mahler’s text on “Jewish Thought vs. German Thought” to the Rechtsmittel.


According to Grossmann, the German public is standing with mouth agape in amazement at Sylvia’s conduct and utterances. Imagine such opinions coming from an attorney at law, an organ of the Court in its quest for justice! He says she has a skewed concept of Germany and skewed concept of humanity. He calls her a “fanatical anti Semite” who rejects “Holocaust” trials as “illusionary.” However, it is she herself who is living in an “World of Illusion,” he says. He accuses Sylvia of “perpetuating Germany’s shame” by “standing history on its head”  and “depicting victims as culprits.” 


He accuses Sylvia of alleging that Jews invented “Holocaust,”  as well as denying that the National Socialists attempted to murder all the Jews. Here the public’s murmur of disapproval grows quite loud. Turning to face the visitors’ section, he calls Sylvia a “self proclaimed little Master Racist...” and is drowned out by “boos.” Judge Glenz demands “Order in the Court  -- or else!”  Giving full vent to his demagoguery, Grossmann turns toward Sylvia and says that she wants “ein Deutschland der brennenden Synagogen!“  - a Germany of burning synagogues.


[On account of this open demagoguery, we intend to register a collective complaint against Grossmann.]

The court is again filled with boos, shouts of outrage and cries of “shameless scoundrel!” Grossmann says that what Sylvia wants is a genocidal Germany, but unfortunately for her, National Socialism is “dead as a mouse” on account of “Holocaust” and this is the reason why she is trying to whitewash National Socialism. Grossmann has worked himself into a frenzy, but he still cannot hold a candle to Judge Meinerzhagen when it comes to rationalizing the basis of a verdict.


Grossmann then tries to quote the Bible but it comes out rather garbled. “Am Anfang jedes Krieges steht das Wort!” - At the beginning of every war is the word - he exclaims. (??) Rather surprisingly, he admits that “different countries deal with the subject of ‘Holocaust’ in different ways.” Presumably he is referring to the recent decision of the Spanish High - Constitutional -Court of 9 November 2007 that declared laws against “Holocaust Denial” to be unconstitutional.

Grossmann then defends Germany’s laws against “Holocaust” Denial, saying “Germany owes a debt to History.” Then he takes up his recommendations for Sylvia’s sentence:


For Count 1 of Sylvia’s indictment he demands 4 months; 


for Counts 2 and 3, 18 months; for Count 4, 15 months; 


for Count 5, 9 months; for Count 6, 12 months; 


for Count 7, 9 months; for Count 8, 8 months;


for Count 9, 9 months, and


for Counts 10 and 11, 12 months: 


Total 96 months! For total sentences running concurrently this comes to 4 years.


In addition, Glenz asks for 5 years disbarment, effective immediately because of the likelihood of repetitions of “Holocaust Denial.” He concludes at 2:33 to a crescendo of outrage at the severity of his proposed sentence. The publics’ remarks are not at all flattering. Even I could not resist remarking in his direction that I expected more decency and substance and less demagoguery.

Glenz then glances in Attorney Bock’s direction, inquiring as to whether he wishes to speak now. Bock declines, saying that he wants to address the matter substantially and consider the closing remarks of the District Attorney’s pleading. Judge Glenz whispers a bit more with Court Reporter Judge Bock and declares today’s session concluded. He announces that the trial will continue on Thursday, 10 January at 9:00 am. The media reporters storm out and the blonde from dpa is soon gesticulating and talking loudly into her cell phone in front of the courthouse, presumably reporting to her bureau.


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

Many thanks to Bill H. in the USA for his contribution to my expenses.
Günter Deckert, Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 8. January 2008.


Day 17 - 10 January 2008

In case the Court is unwilling to suspend proceedings, Attorney Bock moves
 that he be released from his professional duty to defend Sylvia, saying that he does not want to serve as a fig leaf for such a disgraceful and dishonorable show trial.

Today there is just one police car, a new Benz Vito, in front of the courthouse. There are 10 uniformed police agents on duty including two females, one of whom is a Turk with a BRDDR passport. We are back in the large courtroom, where we have to go through X-ray in addition to the other inspections. Is this supposed to create the impression of danger of violent attack by someone? No matter -- it was all quite brisk and routine except for one little problem: I forgot to remove my penknife from my pocket and put it in the storage locker. The Intrepid X-ray Machine discovered my “weapon,“ but fortunately the police did not get overly excited. All I had to do was leave it at the inspection site, and I got it back after today’s session.

In Courtroom Nr. 2, the smallest courtroom, there are two “Staschu“ agents, both familiar faces. After noon they are reinforced with a novice Staschu as well as 5 and sometimes 7 armed police agents, at least one of whom is always female. Their job is presumably to identify onlookers who laugh or clap so that they can be fittingly chastised. There are two representatives of the media, one of whom I previously thought to be reporter for Mannheimer Morgen and replacement for Mack. His name is Ulrich Willenberg and he writes for several newspapers, including the Wormser Zeitung. It turns out that Ms Punja Schollbuch, whom I until now knew only as “the blonde from dpa”  was answerable for the two most recent MM articles. Soon another reporter arrives, whom I have never seen, but the “dpa/MM blonde” seems well acquainted with him. Before today’s session begins, there is lively and relaxed chitchat between District Attorney Grossmann and the “poodle media.”

There are at least 60 visitors today, including Horst Mahler and the faithful Berliner member of the Zündel Brigade. The elder lady member of the Jewish Community is also here again. We get into a conversation and she tells me she is a member of SPD and attended my second Mannheim trial - the “Scandal Trial” - in the court that consisted of Dr. Müller - SPD, Dr. Orlet - former CDU and Frau Folkerts in 1993!

[NOTE: This was the second verdict of Mannheim District Court in conjunction /with the Weinheim lecture given by the American researcher Fred Leuchter in November 1991. My “crime” was serving as interpreter for Fred, and this was NOT an NPD event. I was again sentenced to one year probation and 10,000 DM fine. In addition, the original volume was supposed to be burned, but it was never found. Thanks to the judge’s good opinion of me there was a world wide reaction,  which however led to BRDDR’s toughening of Section 130 of Penal Code and increasing the maximum penalty to 5 years.]

I had begun speaking to the lady in the assumption that she is Patricia Bauer, who in the most recent edition of “bnr” - Blick nach Rechts, The View on the Right, which is an informational publication of the SPD published by the Socialist Regional Chairman of Bad Württemberg. Ute Vogt, Member of SPD steering committee, had published a very one-sided report with erroneous content.

Scheduled for 9:00, today’s session finally gets underway at 9:22, with no explanation for the delay. Then comes the “Grand March of the Gladiators” of the 6. Großen Strafkammer - 6th Superior Criminal Court, which really should be accompanied by music from Aida. The Court is present in its usual composition: Presiding Judge Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann - without his bodyguard today - and Sylvia Stolz with her two attorneys. After the Court’s entrance, Sylvia and Attorney Bock announce that they wish to submit three more motions -- in other words, reopen the taking of evidence. 

The motions are 

1. An article on Judaism; 

2. Sylvia’s relationship to National Socialism; 

3. An article on the Zündel trial that appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung entitled “Der lange, kurze Weg...” by V. Zastrow.

[As those know who have my reports on the Zündel trial, l include the Zastrow article; it is available for 15 euros, including domestic postage.]
Sylvia resumes her discussion of the District Attorney’s omissions and misrepresentations in his closing argument. For the sake of the visitors, she is trying to introduce honesty and openness into these proceedings and to describe for them the evidentiary motions that Glenz will not allow her to read into the record. This kicks off the familiar game between her and Glenz, known as “submit that in writing!” -- “give it to me!” Sylvia remains calm and does not allow herself to be distracted, even when Glenz turns off her microphone. She continues talking until Glenz again threatens to officially forbid her to speak. She suddenly hands the motion to Glenz while continuing to speak. Judge Glenz then orders that photocopies be made and distributed to the Court.

At 9:30 Attorney Bock begins his closing statement. He begins by recalling the Andersen fairy tale about the Emperor’s New Clothes and explains that this is a story that in former times, when German families were still intact, parents used to read to their children... Bock says this Court is playing the role of the Emperor while those who profess to believe in “Holocaust” are playing the role of the imperial retinue, conducting themselves in a “politically correct” manner. Sylvia is of course the child who calls out loud and clear: “The Emperor has no clothes!”
Bock points out that according to Grossmann, Sylvia in guilty on all counts. He addresses the counts as follows:

COUNT 1: Concerning Horst Mahler as Sylvia’s assistant.

According to Section 145c, this is not a crime. Bock says that he himself often confers with Horst concerning legal problems and that on occasion, he utilizes Mahler’s suggestions in his practice. It is not a punishable act and consequently not a valid indictment count.

COUNT 2: Concerning Sylvia’s use of the phrase “Heil Hitler”. Bock points out that the Court has introduced no evidence to support the allegation that Sylvia posted this expression on the Internet. He says that a great many people could have posted that phrase, including himself. He says that Sylvia did not publicize the message and did not send it to the Meinerzhagen court. The criminal element of having acted publicly is simply not there. Everyone is free to say “Heil Hitler!” in the privacy of his home and some people hang Hitler’s picture on the wall. Consequently this is not a valid indictment count.

COUNT 3: Bock points out that this Court needs to take a close look at Section 130 of the Penal Code! He says that Section 130 exudes repression and despotism and that it is a constant reminder of Germany’s political and moral destitution. We are all familiar with the ancient saying, “Wes Brot ich eß, des Lied ich sing” - I sing the song of him whose bread I eat, and District Attorney Grossmann sings a very loud song indeed!

COUNT 4: The Lüneburger Proceedings. This was the trial of Dr. R. Hennig for disparaging the government. He received a sentence of 9 months and was paroled after 6 months. Bock says he made inquiries in December of 2007 and the presiding judge of the district court informed him that 18 months later, an indictment against Sylvia had still not been submitted. It appears that they are in no hurry! If what the judge said is true, this cannot be used as a count in Sylvia’s indictment.

COUNT 5: The District Attorney charges that Sylvia has been subjected to “brainwashing” by Horst Mahler. If this is true, it obviously serves not only to lessen Sylvia’s culpability, but to absolve her altogether.

COUNT 6: The District Attorney is charging Sylvia with “representing aggressive anti Semitism.” Bock points out that this may or may not be true and even if true, is not a punishable offense. Consequently it is not a valid indictment count.

COUNT 7: Attorney Bock observes that, according to the District Attorney, Sylvia’s culpability is increased by the fact that her opinions and remarks have reached foreign countries. He says that the District Attorney is demonstrating inadequate familiarity with the law when he includes such a count in an indictment. It is precisely the task of an attorney to avoid having a flawed verdict imposed to the disadvantage of his client. How does an attorney avoid such a verdict? By introducing evidentiary motions to offset the alleged underlying Offenkundigkeit - Manifest Obviousness.

The attorney does this is by presenting new research and new findings such as the article by Fritjof Meyer. Under present BRDDR law, however, the attorney is punished for introducing evidentiary motions and empirical evidence. He says this Court’s basis for rejecting the article by Fritjof Meyer in conjunction with  an evidentiary motion is typical of the Court’s procedure. Although the mainstream historian Meyer arrives at a figure of less than a half million victims, both Jewish and non Jewish, the Court still insists on a figure of several million Jews. He calls such a basis for rejecting motions “sloppy and unacceptable.” Such stubborn and unreasoning insistence on numbers contained in an outmoded “Manifest Obviousness” deprives the accused of any and all defense!

Under the provisions of Section 260 Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, Attorney Bock then moves the suspension of proceedings, since exoneration is not possible and the proceedings cannot be called a fair trial. In case the Court is unwilling to suspend proceedings, he requests and moves that he be released from his professional duty to defend Sylvia, saying that he does not want to serve as a fig leaf for such a disgraceful and dishonorable show trial. He points out that his release would not endanger the trial, since the Court has appointed another defense attorney in anticipation of just such a situation. He demands an immediate ruling by the Court and ends his pleading at 9:55, to well deserved applause for his presentation.

Judge Glenz stares menacingly at the public and warns them to desist from expressing approval. He orders no repressive measures, however, which leaves all those police agents with nothing to do. Then he orders a recess until 10:30.

During the recess, Sylvia’s court appointed lawyer joins her friends the “System Lawyers” in their spirited group conversation.

At 10:49 proceedings resume and Judge Glenz asks all members of the Court if they have “taken cognizance” of Silvia’s and Attorney Bock’s motions and explanations, and they all say yes. Then comes Glenz’s inevitable, expected, malicious and long drawn out “NEINNNNNN!!” As always, everything is rejected. Glenz tells Attorney Bock that the Court is not willing to relieve him of his duties because there is no real reason to do so. He says the High Court makes distinctions between Section 130 trials and the actions of defending attorneys.
At 10:51 it is the turn of the court appointed defending attorney to speak. Planted in the Defense over Sylvia’s objections, she begins by saying that she is several years older than Sylvia. She says that she has served merely as an observer during the trial because Sylvia could not or would not confide in her. She says that she nevertheless made an effort to defend Sylvia “since it is her duty to defend everyone?!? She is careful to make it very clear that she “belongs to the community of those who believe in ‘Holocaust.’” She is in fact a “High Holocauster” since she subscribes specifically the “classical, official” and politically correct version of that faith.

She accuses Sylvia of having a deep and basic misunderstanding of the nature of the legal profession. She says that Sylvia conceives of legal defense as though it were “struggle on behalf of her client to the bitter end.” She recites a series of legalistic platitudes and quotations before returning to the subject of  “the Stolz Case.” She says that in the Zündel trial, Sylvia behaved like an “Irre” - insane person.  Then she corrects this to say Irrende - mistaken person), referring to Sylvia’s argument concerning Nothilfe/Notwehr - emergency assistance / emergency defense. She announces that Sylvia is caught in a Verbotsirrtum - mistake about what is not allowed, which was easily avoidable since Sylvia is very knowledgeable concerning the law.

 She calls Sylvia an Überzeugungstäterin - evildoer acting from conviction - who is influenced and manipulated by Horst Mahler. She says that during the whole trial the conduct of the Defense was guided from the visitors’ section, where Mahler was sitting: guidance actually came from the rear of the courtroom to the table where Sylvia was sitting. At 11:07 this court appointed lawyer ends her presentation by saying that she regards Sylvia as a tragic figure and hopes she has given the Court grounds for “lightening her sentence.” With court appointed defenders like this, who needs prosecutors? Judge Glenz now asks if all members of the Court have copies of the motions that Sylvia and Attorney Bock submitted this morning. When they all affirm this, he announces midday recess until 1 p.m.

The afternoon session begins at 1:10 and there are as many visitors as there were in the morning, maybe even more. Even the Staschu brigade has been reinforced. There are now 7 uniformed police in the courtroom, two of which are female, including the Turk with the BRDDR passport. Glenz begins by asking if all members of the Court have “taken cognizance” of Sylvia’s documents and they all say yes. Then he again announces that the submitting of motions has ended. At 1:12 he allows Sylvia to address the Court.

Sylvia begins by discussing remarks made by her court appointed attorney, who was “planted” in the Defense over her - Sylvia’s - objections. She calls this a “swindle in court etiquette” and compares it to “party treachery” in which members of one political party pose as members of a rival party in order to infiltrate and sabotage its deliberations. Sylvia describes collaboration between the prosecutorial Bench, the District Attorney and her so-called defending attorney. She says that her appointed attorney acted as  a “second prosecutor,” playing the role assigned to  her. She demands an investigation and moves that court proceedings be suspended until Monday. Glenz calls recess until 1:30. At 1:33 he rejects her motion as always, saying her “conspiracy theory” is “eccentric and groundless.” Sylvia demands a photocopy of this ruling and Glenz agrees to provide one “later.”

Then Sylvia explains that she has not seen herself as a defendant in this trial, but rather an accuser -- a kind of prosecutor on behalf of the legitimate government of Germany.

[Numerous experts on state and international law, including Prof. Carlo Schmid, have agreed that the “Federal Republic” is not a legitimate government with a legitimate constitution, but rather an “OMF” or “Organization Form of a Mode of Foreign Domination.” Under international law the government of the Reich did not simply disappear with the unconditional surrender of the German armed forces.]

Acting as “prosecutor on behalf of the Reich” she accuses the Fourth Superior Criminal Court of Seelenmord am deutschen Volk - Cultural Genocide Against the German Nation. She says the Court is perverting and repressing the truth with the cudgel of “Holocaust,” making a mockery of justice. Her trial has made clear the criminal absurdity of prosecuting “Holocaust Denial.” How can one deny something that never existed? She says these entire proceedings began as a show trial in a kangaroo court and never progressed beyond that point. The main proceedings were projected with smoke and mirrors and the official fairy tale of “Holocaust” was enforced by undisguised force. She observes that the political intent of the Court is the ultimate eradication of the German Nation and its replacement by a mongrelized and deculturated population of mindless consumers.
Sylvia says she is confident that she has succeeded in exposing this Court to the whole world as an agent that is hostile to the German Nation. By openly and flagrantly violating the law, this Court flees before the truth. Incessantly, like turning a prayer wheel, it has rejected her every evidentiary motion with the cynical pretext of “abuse of court procedure.” It is undeniable that the Court allowed the Defense to introduce no evidence whatsoever! She demonstrates how Subjektiver Tatbestand - subjective  allegations) were cynically accepted as though they were Objektive Indizien - objective indicators. Just as she pointed at the beginning, her indictment already contained the entire trial. She has hope and faith that the German Nation will some day bring this treacherous Court to justice.

 Sylvia describes how the Defense was forced to accept the contents of the indictment, and this caused the Court’s desired verdict to be the inevitable consequence. In the absence of material evidence, the Court relied on its infantile rulings that “Abuse of Procedure = Criminal Act.” Thanks to this judicial sleight of hand, there was no assumption of innocence and the Court did not have to prove guilt. Throughout the trial the Court pretended that there was no time for discovery.  She says that for Judge Glenz, “Discovery” consists of nothing more than gathering personal data, compiling a curriculum vitae and determining whether allegations were actually said or written. That is all there was! The Court made no attempt to even keep up appearances. She points out that all of this is an obvious violation of legal procedure and total disregard of the law. In addition to this the Defense was forced to comply and obey immediately. The Court used the doctrine of “Manifest Obviousness” constantly and ruthlessly, and the Defense was never allowed to point out that there STILL has been no Grundsatzentschedung (- decision on basic principle - by the Bundesverfassungsgericht - High Court - concerning the constitutionality of Section 130!

Sylvia asks: to what is Grossmann referring when he mentions “domestic and foreign” court verdicts? Could he be referring to the Nuremberg show trials? The Allied Military Tribunal was nothing but a postwar Talmudic Inquisition conducted by Germany’s enemies. It featured witnesses with “built-in credibility” and Jewish testimony that could never be questioned or authenticated. 

Sylvia points out that the constantly mentioned “historical consensus” can be achieved only by persecuting nonconformists and excluding dissenting points of view, both in Germany and abroad. She observes that Grossmann claims National Socialism is “dead as a mouse” because the stigma of “Holocaust” attaches to it. But this stigma is no wonder since National Socialism continues to be depicted only negatively, as something satanic and criminal, while Germans are stigmatized as a nation of evildoers. She asks: what would people like Grossmann do without the official obligatory fairy tale of “Holocaust?” Her trial has again demonstrated that world political powers are players in the “Holocaust” game - or “Holocaust Industry” as Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls it – he should know, since both of his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the War. This explains why objective historical research is still suppressed, sixty-three years after the end of the War. As an example of ongoing intellectual repression in Germany Sylvia refers to the “Hermann Case” in which a popular commentator was fired for referring to such positive aspects of  National Socialism as its family policy and the construction of Autobahns.
Sylvia demonstrates that the Court’s procedural system is very, very simple. It consists of disallowing all evidentiary motions as “abuse of Court procedure,” which is a criminal act. She says that the District Attorney’s closing tirade was beneath all legal criticism, nothing but purest slander and abuse. 

 [At 2:45, Reporter Willenberg leaves the courtroom.] 

 Then Sylvia shows how powerful interests profit greatly by inculcating a negative self-image into German society, with their incessant propaganda and brainwashing. If Germans were as evil as Grossmann depicts them, they would long ago have skinned him alive. Here Glenz interrupts and dictates her words to the Court Reporter for inclusion in the court record for future prosecutions, warning Sylvia against further criminal remarks.

[NOTE: Glenz is attempting to convert a theoretical assumption  into a criminal act here. He needs to review the grammar of conditional linguistic constructions. Sylvia was obviously creating an unreal condition as shown by her use of the subjunctive mode. Of course, Grossmann would like nothing better than for Sylvia to say “Murdering  Jews is a good thing!”  However, approval must be also be imputed, in order for an expression be punishable.]

She points out that under the present Talmudic Inquisition, anyone who calls attention to the destructive nature of Judaism can be punished. Glenz tells the Court Reporter to write that remark down as well. Sylvia observes that today, no one is allowed to say anything the least bit derogatory about Jews, and yet the necessary first step toward changing and improving conditions in Germany is recognizing the cause of our malaise. She says that Horst Mahler’s writings provide the proof for this, and she will stand by this assertion. Glenz orders the Reporter: “Put that in too!” 

 Not to be deterred, Sylvia continues and remarks that Germany now stands under the yoke of world Judaism. Glenz threatens: “We are going to cut off your final address if...” But Sylvia ignores him and says that following World War II, the real criminals took over the world. Glenz growls “I’m warning you!” but Sylvia again urges the public to consider the causes of Germany’s plight and continue gathering and considering the material evidence. She tells the Court that National Socialism is not dead, regardless of how much Grossmann and his ilk wish it were dead. She says that National Socialism represents what is good and enduring in the German spirit. Idealism and patriotism are rigidly suppressed at this time but they cannot be suppressed forever.
Turning toward Grossmann and the Court, she asks: “Is he German?” Or is he perhaps related to that Moshe Grossmann who for four years following the end of World War II continued torturing and murdering German slaves in the East, as the Jewish author John Sack reports in his book An Eye for an Eye

 Then she turns to the Bench and asks: “What about you -- are you Germans?” “German” stands for honor and steadfastness! Think of Deutsche Treue! Nobody can call what is going on in this court as “honorable.” In this court, the only “justice” is inspired by the Talmud! 

 Addressing the lay judges, Sylvia calls on them to exercise their rights and even now, at this late hour, dare to demand that evidence be heard. She says there is still time to introduce some element of truth into this show trial conducted by this kangaroo court! They should dare to intervene for the sake of the Truth, the German nation and a better world, because what the Court is doing is a crime against Western civilization. Sylvia expresses her faith that history will take its inevitable course and “the truth will win out.” She says that since the trial began she has been prepared for her preordained conviction -- she told them at the beginning that she knew her verdict was handed down, even before her indictment. 

To the Bench she says “And you, my high-and-mighty judges, will never again experience inner peace... Your depiction of National Socialism as a criminal system will see to that. You are willing accomplices to the brainwashing and degradation of the German people... Adolf Hitler accurately recognized the Jewish problem, the malevolent power of the Jews in certain respects... Yes, I share the values of National Socialism!”
Glenz blurts out, “I remind you of Section 130! The Court will remember all this!” Again he threatens to take away her right to speak. Sylvia replies, “If my actions bring a little more light into this dark hour for Germany, then I will gladly go to prison!... It does not bother me that I am officially ridiculed and insulted by this despicable court and atrocious government... My high and mighty judges, you are convicting yourselves, not me.”

At 2:45 Sylvia suddenly hands three additional documents to the Court and announces that Attorney Bock will speak the last word. Glenz looks inquiringly in his direction. However, Bock lets it be known that he does not wish to speak any more today. Glenz announces the end of today’s session with resumption on Monday, 14 January at 9:30. Bock informs the Court that he cannot be present before 1:00 pm, and Judge Glenz announces the final session will take place Monday at 1:00 pm.

I needed over four hours to write up this report, in addition to travel and time spent in court. It is been my experience that within our ranks, the great majority are unfortunately “heroes of the word.” This increases our debt of gratitude to “heroes of the deed” whether they are male or female, large or small, strong or weak, because these are indeed the “salt in our soup.” I refer you to my requests stated in my report of the first day:

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

Günter Deckert, Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 11 January 2008.

Media Reports on Internet
Several newspapers as well as ARD are now reporting on the Stolz trial, the most comprehensive reports are in Mannheimer Morgen and its subsidiaries. They are available on this website:


Mannheimer Morgen, 09. Januar 2008. Stolz-Prozeß: Anklage fordert vier Jahre Haft für ehemalige Zündel-Verteidigerin wegen Volksverhetzung. Staatsanwalt spricht von "Hirnwäsche". Von unserer Mitarbeiterin Panja Schollbach

Mannheim. Ein ungewohnt flammendes Plädoyer hat der Staatsanwalt gestern im Prozeß gegen die ehemalige Zündel-Verteidigerin Sylvia Stolz gehalten. "Sie vertreten ein Deutschland der Demütigung, Unterdrückung, des Rassismus, der brennenden Synagogen, der Unkultur, der Spitzel, der Denunzianten und der Konzentrationslager", warf Andreas Grossmann der 44 Jahre alten Angeklagten vor. "Das wollen 80 Millionen Deutsche nicht mehr". Seine Strafforderung für die Anwältin: vier Jahre Haft und ein sofortiges, auf fünf Jahre befristetes Berufsverbot.

Es sei ein Irrtum zu glauben, Stolz vertrete eine "schweigende Mehrheit", hieß es in dem rund 30-minütigen Schlußvortrag vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht. Scharf attackierte der Staatsanwalt auch die versammelte Anhängerschaft der Angeklagten als "selbsternannte Herrenmenschen". Für den verbalen Angriff erntete Grossmann empörte "Pfui-Rufe" aus dem mäßig besetzten Zuschauerraum.

Laut Anklage hat Sylvia Stolz als Verteidigerin im Prozeß gegen den Holocaust-Leugner Ernst Zündel den millionenfachen Massenmord an den Juden geleugnet. Zündel war im Februar 2007 vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht zur Höchststrafe von fünf Jahren wegen Volksverhetzung verurteilt worden.


Die 44-Jährige habe den Holocaust als "die größte Lüge der Weltgeschichte" dargestellt, das Gericht als "Organ der Fremdherrschaft" und Adolf Hitler als "Erlöser" bezeichnet, wie Grossmann ausführlich schilderte. Ein Schreiben an das Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe hatte Stolz außerdem mit dem verbotenen Hitlergruß unterzeichnet. Die Juristin beschwerte sich darin über ihren Ausschluß vom Zündel-Prozeß. Auch in einem Prozeß vor dem Amtsgericht Potsdam soll sich die Anwältin volksverhetzend geäußert haben. "Man steht fassungslos vor den Äußerungen, die die Angeklagte als Organ der Rechtspflege in zwei Prozessen begangen hat", erklärte der Staatsanwalt. Der Lebensgefährte Stolz', der bekannte Rechtsextremist, Anwalt und frühere RAF-Anhänger Horst Mahler habe die Angeklagte vermutlich einer "Hirnwäsche" unterzogen, so Grossmann.

Gestern hatte die Strafkammer sieben weitere Beweisanträge der Verteidigung abgelehnt. "Es geht Ihnen nur noch darum, den Prozeß zu verschleppen", warf der Vorsitzende Richter Rolf Glenz der Verteidigung vor und setzte eine Antragsfrist. In den kommenden Verhandlungstagen gestellte Anträge würden im Urteil beschieden, kündigte Glenz an. Die Plädoyers der Verteidigung werden morgen (9 Uhr) erwartet.


Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute